[Zoe Mackay]

I guess the thing that I still find confusing is it being commented on during the auction rather than at the end of the auction before the play – I completely see that at the end of the hand is a long while after. Unless the player _always_ notes breaks in tempo immediately, it seems fraught.

[Zoe Mackay]

Any diamond would have done – here’s the layout:

North
♠ Q 4 2
♥ 5
♦ Q
♣ A K Q 8 7 6 5 2

West
♠ 873
♥ J84
♦ AJ98
♣ T94

East
♠ J 9 6
♥ Q 9 7 6 3 2
♦ K T 5 4

South
♠ A K T 5
♥ A K T
♦ 7 6 3 2
♣ J 3

Given 6C is cold, North’s taken a huge risk. Partner thought that he would have lead the AD, I think any diamond is more likely to give away the contract, even though in this case…
I did wonder, though, if at MPS scoring it might be better to led the A to remove the overtrick possibility, whereas at IMPS that doesn’t matter and the chance of taking off the contract is more important.

[Zoe Mackay]

Well, here’s some terrible directoring. Why have they wandered off rather than deal with the call?

Until your partner made their 2H call, you could have corrected the bid (it’s a mechanical error rather than one of concentration – a misclick rather than a mis-think, if you like), however once partner has bid you can’t change it.

1. Your comment was fine, but you should be told that you can’t change your bid, and that the fact you misclicked is unauthorised information to your partner. That doesn’t mean you can’t say it! It means that partner should not pick between logical actions the one suggested by the unauthorised information.  Given you had called the director, were I director I would ask Opps to keep their comments to themselves as politely as I felt able to.

2. Yes and no. Yes, you should have bid 2s if you think it’s likely to result in the best outcome for you – you’re allowed to know the wheels have fallen off. No, the result should not necessarily have stood. From partner’s perspective, what does your 2S show? It’s got to be 5-4 or better, hearts and spades, and game interest. It’s forcing, absent the UI. I’d correct to one of 3H, 3S, 4H, 4S (whichever partner would have bid given that information) and depending on the exact nature of board give an appropriate score. (Or some mix of contracts and results) Passing is, I think, clearly suggested by the UI.

[Zoe Mackay]

This is Law 20, F1 –
During the auction and before the final pass any player may request (7) , at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

 

You were allowed to ask (it was your turn to call). You were entitled to receive an explanation of the bid. However, you should be aware of Law 16, and the possibility of providing Unauthorised Information, and I’d suggest that if you had no intention of bidding, you might have been better off waiting for the end of the auction and asking for an explanation then. It is, though, not the place of your opponent to attempt to enforce that. If there was a tournament director, I would expect them to warn the opponent for a first incident, and then apply a procedural penalty for further incidences.

[Zoe Mackay]

Opponents have no reason to be incensed, unless you have an agreement that you will do this in particular circumstances or with particular holdings, in which case you might need to highlight that on your convention card.

Partner’s reaction, on the other hand, is likely to be dependent on outcome, but may tend towards a more understandable level of incensure.

[Zoe Mackay]

Outside of Unauthorised Information situations, bids aren’t illegal, agreements may be.  Typically, I think we’d expect doubler to have 6+ points in this sequence (most people would call this a “balancing” double or something similar), so 4 is rather light, but that doesn’t make it “illegal”.

If your agreement – either explicit (“We’ve discussed it and we agreed that the double here might be very light indeed”) or implicit (“five times in the past six months partner’s done this with 4 points”) – is that this is a take-out double and that it can be this weak, then opps are entitled to that information, it should be on a fully-completed convention card (as per Blue Book 3D2) , and depending on jurisdiction may be alertable.

3D2 – ” … the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be marked on the front of the card.””

3H3 – Take-out doubles A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete and invites partner to describe his hand. Partner is expected to bid, though a pass may be made on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

Doubles usually fall into one of six categories:

Take-Out doubles – Doubler has not bid, bidder has not bid, opponents have bid a suit. Partner is expected to “take out” the double.

Negative doubles – Doubler’s partner has opened, opponents have overcalled. It means “Partner, I cannot support your suit, and I cannot bid NT over opponent’s suit, but I have the other two suits and enough points that I want to respond”

Protective doubles – Doubler’s Partner has passed after a pre-emptive opening, pre-empter’s partner has passed, doubler is last to act. Partner is expected to treat as take-out, but may pass to “convert” to a penalty double if they have an appropriate hand.

Re-opening doubles – Doubler has opened, opponents have overcalled, we have passed. Broadly treated as the same as a protective – expectation is take out, but you may sometimes pass if you have a penalty double of opponent’s suit.

Lead directing doubles, including lightner doubles: By partnership agreement,  doubles of artificial, conventional, bids may request a lead of that suit. Doubles of suit slams request an unusual lead, typically dummy’s suit, or declarer’s side suit, or any suit not one bid by defenders. Not recommended for pickup partnerships or without discussion.

Penalty doubles. A double is probably a penalty double if it’s not any of the other sort of double.

It’s rare that there’s a strict “ceiling” to these. Some pairs play “negative doubles to 2S” – meaning that they stop being negative doubles if the doubled bid is over 2S. Some partnerships have agreements about how to handle 4-level pre-empts. Key things to ask if confronted with a double of uncertain intent: “has the doubler had a chance to act before? Have I already indicated my suit? Is there actually any possibility that they want to know about my suit? Does a penalty double seem plausible given everything else I know?”

 

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I got a bit too creative, alas. I felt that declarer most likely had a solid spade stop, and so there was a danger that a spade lead would promote the Q in either declarer or dummy’s hand, and that there was a good chance that dummy would not have solid hearts, and that maybe removing an entry would work in our favour, so I led a small heart. Spade was the right lead, as partner had 4 to the QJ. No other lead set the contract.

[Zoe Mackay]

Opponents are entitled to an accurate description of your methods and agreements, not a guarantee that every hand will precisely match the bid made.

However: Is your partner going to  start treating flat, fairly average, 10-counts as if they were 11 point hands? If the answer is “yes”, then there’s a problem. (Or if you start “allowing for the possibility” any other way). If the answer is “No”, then I think it’s fine.

[Zoe Mackay]

So, a wise man once suggested –
“Dangerous” holdings like Axx
When you have a more appealing lead, e.g. a singleton or a solid suit
When you should lead a trump.

https://mrbridge.co.uk/assets/docs/library/articles/play/Opening_Leads_2.pdf

[Author]

Posts