[gombo121]

Another Xmas tournament.

---

In his turn North asks about Wests bid "is it natural?" and doubles after positive reply. EW summoned TD after the deal (down three; very bad result for EW, because field mainly preempted at the third level and the only game on NS line is 3NT) and stated that the question virtually confirmed that the double is for penalties. NS says that their doubles at fourth levels are always for penalties, that they would double "whenever they see four [defensive] tricks".

Double for penalties on preempts below 4♠ level is virtually unknown around here.

EW is good and experienced pair, but NS are novices, rarely seen in the club and are probably self-taught. Of course, there is no CC (otherwise, there would be no question).

How would you approach the problem? Do you think the task would be any easier if TD was summoned before the end of the bidding?

[ArtK78]

I don't see the problem. I don't see how the question implies that the double is for penalties. Suppose NS play negative doubles over natural calls but some other meaning over artificial calls. Then the positive answer to the question would make North's double a negative double.

[gwnn]

"Is it natural?" is not the way to advertise a penalty double. It is a much better and more common way to modify your mannerisms (confident, quick motion with the bidding card - it is even easier in spoken bidding).

[campboy]

Under what circumstances is an opening 4♥ alerted in this jurisdiction? I would ask North why he asked. If N/S really are novices, though, it is not unexpected that they think this double is penalties. Novices also do often ask about pre-emptive openings.

Whatever else I did I would certainly advise North to say "what does that mean?" rather than "is it natural?" in future.

[iviehoff]

"Is it natural" is just the kind of unfortunate question a novice asks upon looking at a stack of cards in the other side's advertised long suit. Good players should, in the long run, be pleased to hear an opponent announce what he has in his hand so clearly, though in the present case he has no escape from his unfortunate bid which is suffering its deserved fate. As in immediately preceding thread case I, there is no evidence of any infraction, so no case to answer: the opponents are apparently clear that they bid it for penalties and understood it as such.

If the complainers here are the same complainers as on the other hand, I would definitely be advising them not to make complaints that amount to accusing their opponents of cheating or near-cheating.

[Hanoi5]

I'd keep the results but talk to N/S about the problems with UI and questions asked at the table.

[gombo121]

Thank you for your opinions.

No, cases I and II are completely unrelated, they just have arisen and have been published in the Russian law forum within a very short time period.

4♥ bid is definitely alertable if it would not be natural (as in does not promise hearts or promise another suit).

[olegru]

I am a little confused here. Description:
"doubles at fourth levels are always for penalties, that they would double "whenever they see four [defensive] tricks".

sounds for me like South will double with both:
1. Hand like he actually hold; and
2. Hand like:
s. AKx
h. Ax
d. AQxx
c. xxxx
and everything in between.

How they are going to investigate slams if North expected to pass the double with his actual holding?

If NS are novices who are happy to accept 300 instead of vulnerable Grand I would accept with description of agreement without additional proof but otherwise would ask some questions to make sure actual agreement exists.

I mean:
1. Unfortunate question was deviation;
2. It passed information about high probability of stack of hearts in the South hand;
3. This UI suggested Pass over slam investigation.
4. Opponents were damaged.

If (according the NS system) pass was not the only possible bid for North (LA exist) bridge law dictates us to ajust the result, isn't it?

And given description of agreement (without CC or system notes) looks to much self serving for me.

[gombo121]

hi, Oleg

I actually agree with most of your points but one: "It passed information about high probability of stack of hearts in the South hand". It is used to be stated as clear fact and I don't see it as such. Do you expect anybody double preempt without asking any questions? Form of the question was unfortunate, of course.

And I challenge you to suggest a way to investigate grand (or even slam for that matter) for South hand even if the double is known to be for take-out.


P.S.: I've linked back this topic from Russian forum, expect more dissenting opinions in next couple of days.

[jh51]

olegru, on 2012-January-11, 11:08, said:

2. It passed information about high probability of stack of hearts in the South hand;

Do you perhaps mean North?

olegru, on 2012-January-11, 11:08, said:

If (according the NS system) pass was not the only possible bid for North (LA exist) bridge law dictates us to ajust the result, isn't it?

Do you perhaps mean South? North has no UI (he asked the question), so he is free to bid as he pleases without regard to LA.