[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 03:25, said:

I remember, in an IMP pairs at an American national, being on lead against 6NT with an AK to cash. I didn't double. The next day I saw the same hand in the bulletin: somebody had made 7 of a suit after being doubled in 6NT. I felt very smug.

This is an inevitable and common consequence of IMP pairs (an action being potentially right in that format but wrong in another, not you feeling smug). IMP pairs is a slightly different game from BAM. Most people think that it's a better game overall, but that doesn't mean that it's better in every respect.

If Mr Smug is partnering Futile Willie in the other room, that makes double a huge winner here at BAM. Mr Smug will not double because he will fear Futile Willie will find the wrong lead against 7x. You will collect your +200 against +100 and win the board at least 90% of the time. The stories that people dine out on are the other 10%. Am I bovvered?

Finally, you should have the agreement that if you double 6NT and then double 7x, you want a spade lead. If you double 6NT and pass 7x you want a heart lead, and you don't double 6NT in the unlikely event you want a minor suit lead against 7x, if you fear them running. Doesn't everyone have this agreement?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-September-19, 04:41, said:

Most people think that it's a better game overall, but that doesn't mean that it's better in every respect.

I loathe IMP pairs.

[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2013-September-19, 02:47, said:

If the goal of posting in the expert forum was to get mainly experts to participate in the poll, this has been a miserable failure.

The players involved are experts. Hence this is the appropriate forum.

The poll is public, so you can see who votes for what. Many of those who have voted are experts, even if they don't meet Mgoetze's standards. Super-experts like Mgoetze can help redress any imbalance by voting too

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-18, 14:35, said:

Serious error doesn't begin to describe double. How about Homer Simpson, DOH!

ggwhiz said:

Teaching 10 year olds bridge has the Benjamin Button effect. Mentally I'm down to my early 20's and sinking fast.

Be careful! Benjamin Button showed early signs of dementia when he became a preteen. No doubt he would have thought doubling 6NT at BAM was a serious error too.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-19, 04:41, said:

IMP pairs is a slightly different game from BAM. Most people think that it's a better game overall, but that doesn't mean that it's better in every respect.

I don't think it's a better game in any respect.

Quote

If Mr Smug is partnering Futile Willie in the other room, that makes double a huge winner here at BAM. Mr Smug will not double because he will fear Futile Willie will find the wrong lead against 7x. You will collect your +100 against +50 and win the board at least 90% of the time. The stories that people dine out on are the other 10%. Am I bovvered?

I think you mean "If Mr Smug is partnering Futile Willie in the other room and their opponents also bid to 6NT."

The relevant question is not how often you'll win the board, but how often you'll convert a tie to a win or a loss to a tie, compared with how often you'll convert a tie to a loss or (counted double) a win to a loss.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 06:16, said:

I think you mean "If Mr Smug is partnering Futile Willie in the other room and their opponents also bid to 6NT."

The relevant question is not how often you'll win the board, but how often you'll convert a tie to a win or a loss to a tie, compared with how often you'll convert a tie to a loss or (counted double) a win to a loss.

The relevant question is indeed the expected number of points on a scale of -2 to +2 (or -1 to +1, it does not matter). The other room might also be 6C-1 or 6D-1 as well when double will gain. It is surely far more likely that the score in the other room will be +100 than the opponents would run to 7 of a suit and make it, the relevant comparison. If South can transfer, they are about twice as likely to successfully run, but I think double is still the winner. I would estimate the score from doubling to average +1.5 and from not doubling to average +0.25. What is your estimate?

[billw55]

I would not double. Although, the subtleties of BAM are not something I understand well; there may be valid reasons to double, some presented here.

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-September-19, 06:49, said:

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

Well spotted. The comparison is indeed between +100 and +200. I have corrected the ones I could.

[jogs]

Only if the other table is also in 6NTS, is it necessary to double. BAM: you don't get extra points by winning the board by more.

[aguahombre]

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years and, against an expert pair, doubling with AK in a Major has risks which have been acknowledged by experts for at least that long.

Back in the 70's, the District 23 Final of the Grand Natl. Teams attracted 30-40 contenders. In the RR phase our mediocre squad faced one of the elites. Partner doubled 6N holding something like JXX QX QJX XXXXX, producing a 14-IMP swing when we defended 7D undoubled.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-September-19, 06:49, said:

I would not double. Although, the subtleties of BAM are not something I understand well; there may be valid reasons to double, some presented here.

One question, why do people keep talking about +50, or double changing that to +100? The diagram in the OP shows both sides vulnerable, as does the one in the linked thread. I guess it makes no difference at BAM, but it was throwing me off a bit.

It makes no difference in any form of scoring, unless you are assuming that the other table(s) will be in 6N as well.

At imps, there is no gain for doubling a slam for a 1 trick set, if your teammates are in, say, 3 or 4N, and this is true regardless of vulnerability.

At mps or BAM, it obviously makes zero difference, again assuming that your teammates have avoided this spot.

[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2013-September-19, 05:38, said:

The players involved are experts. Hence this is the appropriate forum.

The poll is public, so you can see who votes for what. Many of those who have voted are experts, even if they don't meet Mgoetze's standards. Super-experts like Mgoetze can help redress any imbalance by voting too

The fact that you consider me a "super-expert" only calls into question your qualification to judge that the players in the original hand were experts, since I myself am not an expert at all.

[lamford]

jogs, on 2013-September-19, 08:37, said:

Only if the other table is also in 6NTS, is it necessary to double. BAM: you don't get extra points by winning the board by more.

If the other table is in 6 of anything going 1 off, double will win the board (assuming they do not run). You do get extra points by winning the board instead of tieing it.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-19, 09:52, said:

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years

So the convention is both "silly" and "old", clearly. I must say that I have seen the run-out, but cannot find a hand where transfers were used. No doubt you have a better library than me, and can point me to an example hand.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-19, 09:52, said:

The runout/rightsiding agreements date back at least 40 years and, against an expert pair, doubling with AK in a Major has risks which have been acknowledged by experts for at least that long.

I can also see that you voted in favour of "serious error". Clearly the US definition is much more draconian than the British one. In the UK, a serious error is covered by the White Book:

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

[aguahombre]

Well, my opinion about the runouts is based on what I already said about two aces and going down more at 7 than at six, plus my opinion that the AK hands shouldn't double ---making the two aces or psyche double infinitely more likely in a strong game.

My vote for serious error would not apply to a SEWog ruling, because there is no offense for which it is related or unrelated. So, I don't need to apply any jurisdiction's standards..it is just an opinion. If I were called upon in some other instance to decide if that double were SEWog, I would say no.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2013-September-19, 10:57, said:

I can also see that you voted in favour of "serious error". Clearly the US definition is much more draconian than the British one. In the UK, a serious error is covered by the White Book:

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

We are discussing bidding judgment, not anything having to do with procedural matters or, as you refer to them, "blatantly ridiculous calls or plays." The question is how one judges the double of 6NT on this auction. Comparing the double of 6NT to "ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count" is totally inappropriate under these circumstances. A very narrow question was posed, and the poster asks for a judgment of the double in the context of expert play.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2013-September-19, 11:21, said:

We are discussing bidding judgment, not anything having to do with procedural matters or, as you refer to them, "blatantly ridiculous calls or plays." The question is how one judges the double of 6NT on this auction. Comparing the double of 6NT to "ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count" is totally inappropriate under these circumstances. A very narrow question was posed, and the poster asks for a judgment of the double in the context of expert play.

The thread was cross-referenced at the start to the Laws and Rulings section, and in that gnasher speculated that doubling was a serious error unrelated to the putative infraction, clearly the legal use of the phrase. I agree that there are two ways to interpret "serious error", the general bridge one and the legal one. It would have been clearer if the intention was only to get an opinion on the merits of the bid to use an unambiguous phrase. "Bad call" comes to mind.

But even if we use the more general use of serious error, my opinion is that even thinking about classing double as a serious error at BAM is a mistake. It will gain most of the time, and lose rarely. It would be good if we had a few more opinions from top players, as the current poll is indecisive.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-19, 11:57, said:

The thread was cross-referenced at the start to the Laws and Rulings section, and in that gnasher speculated that doubling was a serious error unrelated to the putative infraction ...

It was an assertion, not mere speculation, but you've persuaded me that I was wrong.

Edit: Having said that, I think this:

Quote

It will gain most of the time

is an overstatement. Teammates may not be in slam, or they may be in a suit slam making on the wrong lead, or they may be in a suit slam with LHO having a singleton spade. Still, as you point out, all it has to do is gain more than it loses, and you're right that it will do that.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-September-19, 12:15

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 12:10, said:

Teammates may not be in slam, or they may be in a suit slam making on the wrong lead, or they may be in a suit slam with LHO having a singleton spade. Still, as you point out, all it has to do is gain more than it loses, and you're right that it will do that.

I am happy to accept your more balanced view; I am usually too dogmatic in my opinions. One further thought I had was that passing may lose the board whenever the auction is the same and West doubles in the other room.