Takeout or penalties?
#1
Posted 2014-September-13, 01:29
1H-X-XX-P
P-1S-X-AP
The double is described as penalties, but turns out to be 2065. Opener is 4513. Declarer believes he may have taken more tricks if told the double was for takeout.
Potentially relevant facts -
They are a regular partnership
Their convention card is silent on the meaning of the double, but explains the redouble as "9+, penalty interest"
They don't play pass/double inversion anywhere
Opener - the more experienced player in the partnership - is certain that double was for penalties; responder is unsure.
Do you rule misbid or misexplanation?
#3
Posted 2014-September-13, 02:02
FrancesHinden, on 2014-September-13, 01:58, said:
I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation, do you not agree? I was just unsure whether it was *sufficiently* more likely...
#4
Posted 2014-September-13, 02:43
MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:
I don't see why. And I'm not sure about the "general bridge knowledge", because a lot of people play this double as takeout
#5
Posted 2014-September-13, 03:09
MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:
I don't agree. Even some of the Scottish players who have the mantra of "first double values, second double takeout, third double penalty" play this as penalties, as I've discovered afterwards in irregular partnerships with them. I think lack of precise agreement is pretty common so would rule MI.
#6
Posted 2014-September-13, 04:01
MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 02:02, said:
I think Frances is right. The Law says: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." "is to presume" means that the director does not weigh up the likelihood. He just rules Mistaken Explanation. If you think there is evidence to the contrary, then you rule according to that evidence.
#7
Posted 2014-September-13, 05:20
lamford, on 2014-September-13, 04:01, said:
So do I. Agree with the rest of what you said, too.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#8
Posted 2014-September-13, 06:34
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.
#9
Posted 2014-September-13, 06:58
wanoff, on 2014-September-13, 06:34, said:
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.
"Penalty interest" does not mean "I wish to penalise whatever they bid next". Well, maybe for some partnerships it does, but clearly not this partnership, sine the agreement was unclear.
Presumably pass of 1♠ is forcing, so you can wait for partner to double (when you have a penalty double of spades there is a good chance he has a takeout double) if you really think you are going to get rich doubling them at the 1-level.
#10
Posted 2014-September-13, 09:13
MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 01:29, said:
Would he have taken more tricks if he'd been told "no agreement"?
#11
Posted 2014-September-13, 09:47
MickyB, on 2014-September-13, 01:29, said:
gnasher, on 2014-September-13, 09:13, said:
IMHO it doesn't matter.
Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".
I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.
It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".
#12
Posted 2014-September-13, 13:21
lamford, on 2014-September-13, 04:01, said:
This leads to the following question: where one meaning is far more common than the other, does that constitute "evidence" for this purpose?
I suspect that Gnasher may be right in that the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement". But before reaching any conclusion the TD needs to investigate, by asking Responder privately why he thought it was take-out and asking Opener privately why he thought it was penalties.
#13
Posted 2014-September-13, 13:22
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#14
Posted 2014-September-14, 17:53
jallerton, on 2014-September-13, 13:21, said:
I suspect that Gnasher may be right in that the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement". But before reaching any conclusion the TD needs to investigate, by asking Responder privately why he thought it was take-out and asking Opener privately why he thought it was penalties.
I agree with that approach; 85A says: 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
#15
Posted 2014-September-15, 09:17
wanoff, on 2014-September-13, 06:34, said:
I'd just pass 1♠ and bid something later on.
I agree.
As it is a forcing pass, double show penalty interest.
This method is standard in France :
double : 4+ spades
pass : 2-3 spades or GF if bidding after partner's double
bid : no penalty interest ; invitationnal
I think it's just bridge logic as the same system is used at high level (when a pass is forcing)
Misbid in my opinion.
#16
Posted 2014-September-15, 17:50
pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:
Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".
I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.
It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".
How can you ever prove that a sequence is undiscussed?
You seem to be applying a rule that says 'I rule you always have an agreement'. I struggle to see the legal basis for this.
#17
Posted 2014-September-16, 00:59
pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:
Unless they can show evidence to the contrary (e.g. "No agreement") I shall still rule "Misinformation" rather than "Misbid".
I am not sure if we have formalized this, but I believe we have a general practice in Norway that when a partnership claims "No agreement", "Undiscussed" or similar (and is unable to prove such assertion) then we protect their opponents by considering their agreement to conform with the cards actually held by the caller who's call is questioned.
It seems too easy for players to get away from misinformation consequences by simply claiming "undiscussed".
FrancesHinden, on 2014-September-15, 17:50, said:
You seem to be applying a rule that says 'I rule you always have an agreement'. I struggle to see the legal basis for this.
Law 85 A 1 said:
I find the probability extremely low that a player has deliberately made a call without some expectation that his partner will understand it correctly (i.e. that an understanding in fact exists).
(The only exception is when the call is a psyche, in which case he will be able to prove it by showing some agreements from which the deviation is convincing.)
#18
Posted 2014-September-16, 01:30
pran, on 2014-September-13, 09:47, said:
The point is, though, that deciding the correct explanation was "no agreement" is still a misinformation ruling. And when deciding between two misinformation rulings, you do so based on the balance of probabilities.
#19
Posted 2014-September-16, 03:04
pran, on 2014-September-16, 00:59, said:
I trust that this probability is zero. Surely every player hopes that his partner will understand his call, even when their agreements do not specifically cover it.
pran, on 2014-September-16, 00:59, said:
But this is not the logical conclusion. Hoping, or even expecting, that an understanding exists is not the same as an understanding existing.
In this case, which is quite common at club level although often fixed by tempo and flag waving, it is clear that both partners have a high expectation about the meaning of the double. I don't think it's clear that they had an agreement.