[zimiaris]

---

I am South. Before doubling I ask opponents if 2D and 3S bids are strong or weak. I get the answer that they are both weak. Thinking that opponents have less than 20 points, I decide to double.
1. Am I allowed to double with the cards I hold? I'm not asking if it's good play, I want to know if it's somehow forbidden.

After the end of the hand I see that in fact East has 16 points.
2. Has there a rule violation been committed in this hand? If so, am I allowed of some compensation because of it?

Thank you.

[sanst]

Some, maybe unwanted, advice: ask about the agreements of calls, not merely 'weak or strong'. The question is what the agreements are, did you get the right explanation and made E a mistake, or were you misinformed. If the last is true, then there was an infraction, even two because E obviously didn't correct the explanation.
But then there is your double, which I consider a serious error. You have only one HCP, which is worth nothing, and I don't see how you can make a trick at all. You're doubling on the assumed strength of your partner's hand. You should leave that to your partner. So, you're not entitled to any compensation. If there was MI, the TD might consider to award EW a score based on their 4♠ not doubled. If there wasn't a misexplanation, the score stands anyway and you might be advised to abstain from such gambles.

[zimiaris]

sanst, on 2017-June-20, 03:46, said:

Some, maybe unwanted, advice: ask about the agreements of calls, not merely 'weak or strong'. The question is what the agreements are, did you get the right explanation and made E a mistake, or were you misinformed. If the last is true, then there was an infraction, even two because E obviously didn't correct the explanation.
But then there is your double, which I consider a serious error. You have only one HCP, which is worth nothing, and I don't see how you can make a trick at all. You're doubling on the assumed strength of your partner's hand. You should leave that to your partner. So, you're not entitled to any compensation. If there was MI, the TD might consider to award EW a score based on their 4♠ not doubled. If there wasn't a misexplanation, the score stands anyway and you might be advised to abstain from such gambles.

After the explanation, E told me that he and his partner hadn't played many times together and that he might not know what the meaning of his bid was. I told him that in that case he should explain his bid but he refused to do so. On the other hand he didn't state that the explanation was wrong either. After all that I said that I take the explanation as correct and continued with my play. Taking all that into account, what do you think should have been done after the hand was played?

[lamford]

zimiaris, on 2017-June-20, 04:58, said:

After the explanation, E told me that he and his partner hadn't played many times together and that he might not know what the meaning of his bid was. I told him that in that case he should explain his bid but he refused to do so. On the other hand he didn't state that the explanation was wrong either. After all that I said that I take the explanation as correct and continued with my play. Taking all that into account, what do you think should have been done after the hand was played?

East only has to explain what his agreement is for 3S. Most play that it is pre-emptive, with 2NT asking. East should correct the explanation of "weak" to "no agreement", and the TD might remove the double for E/W, but you are stuck with it as it seems truly wild!

[weejonnie]

Wild or Gambling - but not a 'Serious Error - unrelated to the infraction' within the meaning of the 2007 laws. Under the 2017 laws you are probably even more protected as it is "an extremely serious error - unrelated to the infraction" and a 'Gambling Action' is defined as one which is taken in the anticipation that if the action isn't successful then a ruling will be made anyway in your favour. There is now no 'Wild' option.

[barmar]

Are you allowed to double? You're allowed to bid whatever you want, as long as it's not based on unauthorized information or an undisclosed agreement.

But your logic about whether it's a good idea was wrong. Even if the opponents do have the agreement that 3♠ is weak, their agreement is not necessarily a promise to you -- players are allowed to deviate from their agreements, as long as they don't do it so often that they come to expect it (the deviation becomes an "implicit agreement"). You should believe your partner. If the opponents have less than 20 HCP between them, he must have at least 19 HCP. With such a strong hand he would have doubled or jumped, not simply bid 2♥ -- that shows around 13-16 HCP.

[zimiaris]

barmar, on 2017-June-20, 08:41, said:

Are you allowed to double? You're allowed to bid whatever you want, as long as it's not based on unauthorized information or an undisclosed agreement.

But your logic about whether it's a good idea was wrong. Even if the opponents do have the agreement that 3♠ is weak, their agreement is not necessarily a promise to you -- players are allowed to deviate from their agreements, as long as they don't do it so often that they come to expect it (the deviation becomes an "implicit agreement"). You should believe your partner. If the opponents have less than 20 HCP between them, he must have at least 19 HCP. With such a strong hand he would have doubled or jumped, not simply bid 2♥ -- that shows around 13-16 HCP.

This may be correct, but I would like to know, all of the above taken into account, what the TD's verdict should have been about the incident.

[zimiaris]

weejonnie, on 2017-June-20, 08:28, said:

Wild or Gambling - but not a 'Serious Error - unrelated to the infraction' within the meaning of the 2007 laws. Under the 2017 laws you are probably even more protected as it is "an extremely serious error - unrelated to the infraction" and a 'Gambling Action' is defined as one which is taken in the anticipation that if the action isn't successful then a ruling will be made anyway in your favour. There is now no 'Wild' option.

In that case what do you think the TD's verdict should have been?

[weejonnie]

zimiaris, on 2017-June-20, 10:03, said:

In that case what do you think the TD's verdict should have been?

1) There is no reason for you not to double legally, you have no UI or anything like that.
2) You are fully entitled to know what the opponents' agreements are (including any relevant calls that were not made). You are not entitled to know that they are having a bidding misunderstanding (you can deduce this at your own risk).
3) Opponents do not have to explain to you what their own bids mean. I assume East explains West's call as weak and West explains East's call as weak.
4) You are fully entitled to know that East and West have no partnership agreement as to the strength of the calls. (i.e. West should have said "I don't know' when asked about East's hand)
5) Based on that, it seems unlikely that you would double. The problem is whether we could find a suitable sample of players who would double on your hand, given that you are told that EW are both weak, to ascertain what would happen with them when given the correct information.
6) I don't think that your bid is Wild or Gambling - but you should be prepared to explain that you expected partner to have a very strong overcall and were doubling to confuse the opponents, hoping that they might misplay the hand as a result. (Other TDs may disagree - TDs are always encouraged to consult - and you have the right to appeal (which you should have been told, if the ruling is against you))
7) I am therefore predisposed to remove the double, and score the contract as 4♠

[ggwhiz]

result stands. If it was going down your partner would have doubled already and your hand contributes nothing but negative values to the defense, ie. partners ♥AKQ may be worth 1 or even zero tricks and your side is limited to 1 diamond trick at best (and a minimum of 5 winners for them) when you have 4 small and zero hope of ever owning the lead past trick 1.

Sorry but that double is a classic double shot, either they go down or I call for an adjustment. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but that's what it is.

[Zelandakh]

zimiaris, on 2017-June-20, 09:42, said:

This may be correct, but I would like to know, all of the above taken into account, what the TD's verdict should have been about the incident.

Hi zimiaris and welcome to the BBO forums. As others have mentioned, you are not allowed to explain your own calls during the auction as that passes (unauthorised) information to partner. That apparently did happen (through the comment about the call perhaps not having been understood) but the opponents do not appear to have benefited from this so there should not be a correction from that.

Where you do have a case is in the play itself. AFter the auction finished, East should have corrected the explanation more directly, perhaps to "No agreements", perhaps something else depending on what they had discussed previously. Presumably East felt they had done this with the earlier comment but we would need to know just what had been said to judge this point.

In any case, if your side went wrong during the play of the hand from misinterpreting the situation then you might well be entitled to some compensation. However my guess is that this was not the source of your bad score and therefore you do not get to erase it just because the opps had a misunderstanding along the way.