[gnasher]

 mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:38, said:

Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points.

Where does it say that? There is a part that (very sensibly) reads "The practice of doubling an opening 1NT for penalties (especially in the direct seat) on balanced hands which have fewer than 15 HCP must be shown on the convention card.", but I can find nothing about running suits. If such a requirement did exist, it would rather strange - every bridge book that discusses a penalty double of 1NT is likely to give one example of a balanced hand and one example with a solid suit.

And, more pertinently IMO, which piece of information do you think is of more interest to an opponent looking at the card: the fact that a double by an unpassed hand might be based on a running suit, or the meaning of an artificial double by a passed hand?

[bluejak]

 mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:38, said:

Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points. I've already also filled all the supplementary notes.

If you play an artificial defence to 1NT and do not put it on your SC I really am amazed and disappointed. This is a clear breach of regulation. The OB is at pains to point out that defences to 1NT and two-suited defences must be described in full.

 gnasher, on 2011-January-01, 18:35, said:

It had occurred to me before I read this thread. I don't think I possess any special insight into this sort of situation.

It's no different from a player failing to announce his opening notrump range, causing an interested opponent to ask the range, thereby creating UI for the other opponent. There was a thread about that in this forum a few weeks ago.

I think it completely different. When someone forgets to announce it is normal to check, thus such a question provides no UI.

[dburn]

 bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:30, said:

I think it completely different. When someone forgets to announce it is normal to check, thus such a question provides no UI.

Yes, but failure to ask such a question does provide UI. Or do you mean to assert that when a 1NT opening is not announced, the next player is obliged to ask a question?

[campboy]

 bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:30, said:

If you play an artificial defence to 1NT and do not put it on your SC I really am amazed and disappointed. This is a clear breach of regulation. The OB is at pains to point out that defences to 1NT and two-suited defences must be described in full.

Despite which the sample CC in the OB does not say how Messrs Smith and Jones play a passed-hand double of a weak 1NT.

(My CCs for partnerships where I've discussed the meaning of a passed-hand double do have it on, FWIW.)

[gnasher]

 campboy, on 2011-January-02, 09:54, said:

Despite which the sample CC in the OB does not say how Messrs Smith and Jones play a passed-hand double of a weak 1NT.

From which we can infer that Smith and Jones haven't discussed it, or have agreed that it doesn't exist.

[jallerton]

 mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:38, said:

Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points. I've already also filled all the supplementary notes.

It depends on the size of your writing/font size. On the EBU cards, because I play the same defence to strong and weak NTs, by combining these boxes and writing small, I just have room to explain the meanings of initial actions by non-passed and passed hands. However, there is not room for me to show the responses to these initial actions. I show these responses on my WBF card, which has rather more room. Unfortunately, the EBU does not encourage full written disclosures of agreements; in most EBU events (including the Year End Congress) it expressly bans the use of WBF convention cards.

[jallerton]

 gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 10:31, said:

From which we can infer that Smith and Jones haven't discussed it, or have agreed that it doesn't exist.

On that basis, it would be inferred that Smith and Jones don't have many agreements at all.

At a practical level, I suspect that most EBU members who look at the Orange Book would assume that if their own convention card is filled in with the same level of detail as the Smith & Jones example, then it is sufficiently complete.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-01, 14:27, said:

Assuming that West is not an "always ask" person, the problem was caused by West. If West is not going to double 2♣ on being given the actual explanation, I can't see what different meaning of double would have persuaded him to act. In that case, passing in tempo without asking would have avoided giving partner any ethical problem.

If double was majors/minors/diamonds, which is a common method, then double of 2C should be penalties or takeout. Partner judges. From West's point of view, it seems that North might have the minors, and I would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16. No, the problem is 100% caused by North and I agree entirely with gnasher and bluejak that there was a clear breach of regulation. Knowing that you take great care to fill in the CC in detail, I was suprised that you consider West to blame in any way.

If double is 4M, 5m, then West will not act, and I would not defend 2C at MPs on the East hand either. But the other question is how did the TD establish that the explanation was correct? Certainly not from the CC, and if North-South had a system file with them, then there is no excuse for an incomplete CC. Otherwise the TD should assume misexplanation, and again award an adjusted score.

[gnasher]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 12:21, said:

On that basis, it would be inferred that Smith and Jones don't have many agreements at all.

At a practical level, I suspect that most EBU members who look at the Orange Book would assume that if their own convention card is filled in with the same level of detail as the Smith & Jones example, then it is sufficiently complete.

Most EBU members don't have many conventional agreements, so they would be right to assume this. In particular, I doubt if many EBU members have agreed upon a conventional meaning for a passed-hand double of 1NT.

[campboy]

 gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 12:32, said:

Most EBU members don't have many conventional agreements, so they would be right to assume this. In particular, I doubt if many EBU members have agreed upon a conventional meaning for a passed-hand double of 1NT.

I doubt if many EBU members have agreed upon a conventional meaning for a double of a strong 1NT either. Smith and Jones have.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-January-02, 12:30, said:

If double was majors/minors/diamonds, which is a common method, then double of 2C should be penalties or takeout. Partner judges. From West's point of view, it seems that North might have the minors, and I would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16. No, the problem is 100% caused by North and I agree entirely with gnasher and bluejak that there was a clear breach of regulation. Knowing that you take great care to fill in the CC in detail, I was suprised that you consider West to blame in any way.

If double is 4M, 5m, then West will not act, and I would not defend 2C at MPs on the East hand either. But the other question is how did the TD establish that the explanation was correct? Certainly not from the CC, and if North-South had a system file with them, then there is no excuse for an incomplete CC. Otherwise the TD should assume misexplanation, and again award an adjusted score.

I understand why as West you " would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16" but that argument is equally true given the actual explanation. It is far more attractive to double on the West hand than on the East hand, in my opinion.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 12:42, said:

I understand why as West you " would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16" but that argument is equally true given the actual explanation. It is far more attractive to double on the West hand than on the East hand, in my opinion.

I cannot agree. Double of 2C would, I suspect with most pairs, either be takeout or undiscussed and West's diamond holding no doubt deterred her. Fine if partner has four of the major North does not have, but not otherwise. Let us say that double shows, as I met recently, clubs, diamonds or both majors, then double and pull 2D to 2H will be safe, as North will not pass unless he has clubs. It is quite unreasonable to expect West to consider all possible meanings of an artificial double, not on the CC, before acting or asking.

I just asked someone whether they thought your "attractive" double of 2C on the advised auction was sensible. She wasn't able to reply owing to fits of laughter.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-01, 14:27, said:

It's also interesting to note that another way to avoid this situation is for East (the 1NT opener) to ask about the double of 1NT. It's hard to accuse East of conveying UI of significant extra values or any particular suit holdings in this position.

Well, if he is following the EBU recommendation of only asking if he is considering bidding, then his enquiry does convey UI that there is a meaning of double that he will bid over. He might be 4-4 in the majors and want to bid if double shows both minors for example. He clearly won't have a 3-3-3-4 11 count when he asks. And to ask to prevent partner conveying UI is too subtle for me. But an interesting idea!

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-January-02, 13:48, said:

Well, if he is following the EBU recommendation of only asking if he is considering bidding, then his enquiry does convey UI that there is a meaning of double that he will bid over. He might be 4-4 in the majors and want to bid if double shows both minors for example. He clearly won't have a 3-3-3-4 11 count when he asks. And to ask to prevent partner conveying UI is too subtle for me. But an interesting idea!

So you really think that a 1NT opener would pull 1NTx holding 4-4 in the majors? At least that explains why the person you asked about something else was already in fits of laughter!

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 14:36, said:

So you really think that a 1NT opener would pull 1NTx holding 4-4 in the majors? At least that explains why the person you asked about something else was already in fits of laughter!

If double promised a solid 7-card club suit, the person holding it would be in fits of laughter when you passed holding AKxx AKxx Q10x xx. But then he might pull the wrong card and not beat you. In fact, if the double showed clubs, I would ALWAYS bid on this hand. Surely you only want to find out what it means if you are considering bidding, and the first thing to find out is whether it is likely to be passed. Likewise if you had both minors and the double, showing the majors, might be passed.

Asking and then passing will convey UI unless you always do so, and can show that you always do so.

[bluejak]

 dburn, on 2011-January-02, 08:21, said:

Yes, but failure to ask such a question does provide UI. Or do you mean to assert that when a 1NT opening is not announced, the next player is obliged to ask a question?

No, though I think they should. The Laws are somewhat hazy over what is required when opponents do not follow the rules.

 jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 12:13, said:

Unfortunately, the EBU does not encourage full written disclosures of agreements; in most EBU events (including the Year End Congress) it expressly bans the use of WBF convention cards.

They certainly do encourage full disclosure. Banning the use of WBF SCs is a different matter, which should perhaps be taken up with the relevant authority.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-January-02, 12:30, said:

If double was majors/minors/diamonds, which is a common method, then double of 2C should be penalties or takeout. Partner judges. From West's point of view, it seems that North might have the minors, and I would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16. No, the problem is 100% caused by North and I agree entirely with gnasher and bluejak that there was a clear breach of regulation. Knowing that you take great care to fill in the CC in detail, I was suprised that you consider West to blame in any way.

Of course, the failure to include this convention on the convention card was a breach of regulation. Bluejak suggests awarding a procedural penalty for it (which I don't mind, as long as consistent penalties are given to other contestants with equally incomplete descriptions of agreements on their convention cards). But as Bluejak states that "it looks like disallowing the double is correct" it would appear that Bluejak agrees with my contention that the E/W UI was not "caused" by N/S.

Maybe I have different standards than other people, but on the facts given:

(i) If I had been (a non-always asking) West, I would have either passed over 2♣ in tempo without asking, or if I decided to ask, I would have taken the ethical pressure off partner by doubling 2♣.

(ii) If I had been East and my partner had implicitly shown values in an unauthorised manner, I would have passed out 2♣ even if I thought that there was a reasonable case for doubling in the absence of UI.

[MickyB]

The TD ruled that the result stood, saying that if dbl had been on the N/S convention card, West would have been able to read it inconspicuously. There was no mention of a PP for N/S. The possibility of bidding 2D to show both majors if dbl showed the minors was mentioned, I do not know if this suggestion came from West but I believe not. The result was not appealed as it did not have any bearing on the result of the competition.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 14:59, said:

Maybe I have different standards than other people, but on the facts given:

(i) If I had been (a non-always asking) West, I would have either passed over 2♣ in tempo without asking, or if I decided to ask, I would have taken the ethical pressure off partner by doubling 2♣.

(ii) If I had been East and my partner had implicitly shown values in an unauthorised manner, I would have passed out 2♣ even if I thought that there was a reasonable case for doubling in the absence of UI.

I certainly would not be doubling 2C, if I had been told that North had 4M and 5+m (You are aware that you can click on the alerted bid and it displays the meaning, I presume?). What are you going to do if partner bids 2D, and why cannot partner be 3-2-5-3 with North having four spades? Poor old West had no choice but to find out if he could bid, and was then forced to pass. I am surprised you continue to advocate this ludicrous action.

But I agree that East has UI and I would also pass, carefully avoiding taking advantage of it.

However we must then adjust back as gnasher does. It is absolutely clear that North-South could have known that the infraction would work to their benefit. Incomplete convention cards always can. It is not stretching logic at all and the TD did an excellent job, IMHO.

[gnasher]

Yes, let's not let East off the hook entirely - he did make an illegal call. This is what should have happened:
- East passes out 2♣
- At the end of the hand, West asks East whether he would have acted differently without the UI
- East says he would (if that is true)
- West asks for a ruling
- The director adjusts the score under Law 23