[VixTD]

This was from the Seniors Pairs. I wasn't the TD called to the table.

---

Both pairs play natural systems (Acol), so 1♦ showed at least four.
Before his second pass, South asked about the 4♦ bid and was told it was "a normal raise". An implication of this (understood by all players) was that the meaning was not affected by the double.

Result: 4♦(W)-1, NS+100.

NS called the director when the dummy did not match what they understood by the explanation. I didn't get to question the players, so I'm not sure what EW's expectations are of a 4♦ bid in this situation, either with or without the intervening double.

Would you consider adjusting the score if
(a) this would be a normal 4♦ raise for EW with or without the double, or
(b) this is a considerably weaker and more distributional hand than EW would normally have without North's double?

[TylerE]

Are the players any good? My gut instinct is to deny redress to N/S whatever I decide for E/W. Surely after getting an answer like "normal raise" if S cares he should take some action to protect himself.

[ahydra]

Quote

NS called the director when the dummy did not match what they understood by the explanation.

That is not a valid reason to call the TD! They can call for MI, psyche or CPU, but not simply because the hand doesn't match.

So:

(a) there's no MI, I don't see any reason to raise with West, so no adjustment. [This is of course assuming that "a normal raise" doesn't constitute MI in itself, which it might well do - as any fule know you shouldn't say "normal" or "natural" but spell it out]

(b) it depends on what South thinks he would have done given the correct information. He may well make a responsive X and then NS get to play 4S+2. I'd like NS to give a convincing auction to 6C or 6S before I weight it into my ruling.

ahydra

[pran]

VixTD, on 2013-September-16, 07:17, said:

Before his second pass, South asked about the 4♦ bid and was told it was "a normal raise". An implication of this (understood by all players) was that the meaning was not affected by the double.

Unaffected by the double? Come on - when is a "normal" raise in this position unaffected by an intervening double (for takeout)?

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2013-September-16, 08:21, said:

Unaffected by the double? Come on - when is a "normal" raise in this position unaffected by an intervening double (for takeout)?

Frequently, particularly if you play inverted minors, 4♦ is a weak distributional raise in both cases, you are almost never going past 3N with values.

[billw55]

"Normal raise" is inadequate disclosure. It does not contain enough information to determine whether there has been MI. Not sure if this constitutes an infraction or not.

[ggwhiz]

I guess I would caution west to be more forthcoming in the explanation but find the question itself to be pretty weak. In my own partnership all I could tell them is 13 cards a lot of which are diamonds and more diamonds = less points. I don't know any more than that and am not obliged to tell south if I'm going to raise or not.

The damage here looks to be self inflicted. What on earth did south think norths double showed?

[barmar]

West opened the bidding, his partner made a takeout double, and he holds 11 HCP. How strong did South think East could be? It pretty much has to be a weak raise.

Although I admit that bidding 4 at unfavorable vulnerability with that hand is pretty agressive. And congrats to West for guessing hearts right to only go down 1 (unless North led them and gave it away). Not that it matters when the opponents can make a grand and you're not even doubled.

[VixTD]

ahydra, on 2013-September-16, 07:36, said:

That is not a valid reason to call the TD! They can call for MI, psyche or CPU, but not simply because the hand doesn't match.

That sounds to me like a very good reason to call the TD. If the hand doesn't match the description there's a fair possibility that a misexplanation has been given, or that an opponent has misbid / psyched and partner has possibly fielded it. How is the director supposed to investigate this if he isn't called?

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-16, 08:59, said:

Frequently, particularly if you play inverted minors, 4♦ is a weak distributional raise in both cases, you are almost never going past 3N with values.

I agree - I can't see that the double changes the meaning of the bid.

[VixTD]

ahydra, on 2013-September-16, 07:36, said:

(b) it depends on what South thinks he would have done given the correct information. He may well make a responsive X and then NS get to play 4S+2. I'd like NS to give a convincing auction to 6C or 6S before I weight it into my ruling.

I'm not sure what case NS made for how they were damaged. I don't think many partnerships would play responsive doubles at this level, and South has an awkward choice of call. I think North felt that he was inhibited from taking further action (a second double, presumably) after South's questions.

[barmar]

Even if they don't play responsive doubles at this level, South should double to show values (if they play this as pure penalty, requiring a trump stack, that's their own problem). NS probably won't find their ♣ slam, but they should at least be in 4♠.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-16, 07:17, said:

This was from the Seniors Pairs. I wasn't the TD called to the table. Both pairs play natural systems (Acol), so 1♦ showed at least four. Before his second pass, South asked about the 4♦ bid and was told it was "a normal raise". An implication of this (understood by all players) was that the meaning was not affected by the double. Result: 4♦(W)-1, NS+100. NS called the director when the dummy did not match what they understood by the explanation. I didn't get to question the players, so I'm not sure what EW's expectations are of a 4♦ bid in this situation, either with or without the intervening double. Would you consider adjusting the score if
(a) this would be a normal 4♦ raise for EW with or without the double, or
(b) this is a considerably weaker and more distributional hand than EW would normally have without North's double?

---

(a) Some are happy to interpret "Normal" using arcane "Bridge knowledge" but to ordinary players it seems like prevarication and obfuscation.
(b) If EW conceal their understandings, what they really are doesn't seem to matter so much.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-September-16, 10:44, said:

(a) Some are happy to interpret "Normal" using arcane "Bridge knowledge" but to ordinary players it seems like prevarication and obfuscation.
(b) If EW conceal their understandings, what they really are doesn't seem to matter so much.

This comes up frequently. You're required to explain your special partnership understandings, you're not required to teach the opponents how to bid. If you don't think there's anything special about the way you interpret 4♦ in this sequence, are you really required to go into extensive detail?

[FrancesHinden]

The description 'normal' shouldn't be used.
But South was pretty silly not to ask what 'normal' means. I think the normal meaning is pre-emptive, with or without the double, but obviously that's not what South thought it meant.
Here's a question: how to N/S play 1D P 4D?

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2013-September-16, 08:21, said:

Unaffected by the double? Come on - when is a "normal" raise in this position unaffected by an intervening double (for takeout)?

ummm.... on this auction?
1any pass/double 4any are played much the same way by many pairs

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-September-16, 15:06, said:

This comes up frequently. You're required to explain your special partnership understandings, you're not required to teach the opponents how to bid. If you don't think there's anything special about the way you interpret 4♦ in this sequence, are you really required to go into extensive detail?

This argument will run and run. And nobody seems to change their mind. Barmar and others judge that "Normal" is an adequate explanation. But we're often surprised about what is locally acceptable as "Normal" or "Just Bridge" (at the table and here on BBO). I think the rules should mandate that you explicitly provide some idea of probable shape and strength -- even if that would take longer.

[mycroft]

I don't have to teach the opponents how to bid. But I *do* have to explain to the opponents what we've decided this bid means.

For example: My 1♠-3♠ preemptive raise could be 9 high. If I explain that as "spades, preemptive" is that sufficient? Is it "teaching the opponents to bid" that 15+9 != game? Similarly with 1♠-4♠.

Okay, you say "well, you play Precision, and they don't know that." But what makes your "2010-era 2/1" special to the pair from HK who's never played anything but Precision? Why does the Precision pair have to explain that 26 points is game and you don't?

I had one "don't have to teach them how to play bridge" moment years ago. The question was "how much for a game forcing response in your methods?" The question really was "how light do you cater for partner opening?" which is a *very valid question*.

Similarly, I think many would take it amiss if I were to explain 2♠(EHAA)-3♠ as "invitational, 3+ spades" with no further comment. Definitely, I'd bet a bunch of TD calls when dummy came down with "not what [the opponents] expected from the explanation", even if it's entirely consistent from a "know how to play bridge" point of view - *if* you have sufficient grounding in what is an EHAA 2-opener. We do - we can't guarantee the opponents do - so further explanation is expected.

Avoiding "weird systems", and getting back to "bog-standard 2/1", assuming people think "well, if you don't play normal, you have to be careful" - I now have an inventory of which players in my area play 1M-4M "the right way", which play it the Precision way (not playing a limited 1M opener), and which play it as "enough for game on power, bid 4NT if you have extras". I'm sure *all* of them would describe their raise as "normal", and have their snide thoughts about "why should I have to teach the opponents how to play bridge?" And they would all be wrong...

[TylerE]

barmar, on 2013-September-16, 15:06, said:

This comes up frequently. You're required to explain your special partnership understandings, you're not required to teach the opponents how to bid. If you don't think there's anything special about the way you interpret 4♦ in this sequence, are you really required to go into extensive detail?

How is there NOT something special about this sequence by definition? What system defines minor suit raises beyond 3N?

[1eyedjack]

I think that the construction of the description was calculated to deceive and E/W should be spanked for it. Adjust, and maybe they will learn