[campboy]

---

Swiss pairs. 2♣ showed hearts and another, at least an opening hand but less than a 16-count. The first double was not alerted. South asked before doubling himself, and was told that it was for takeout. North and South both thought the second double was for penalty (presumably it was alerted, although I didn't check). The final double was for penalty. 3♥x went 2 off.

The E-W convention card says they play Rubensohl after interference of 1NT, except after a natural 2♣ overcall where they play system on (dbl=Stayman). It says nothing further about the meaning of doubles after 1NT is overcalled. East said that he thought the double showed values. South said he would not have doubled 2♠ with that explanation. North said she pulled the double because she felt she didn't have a good enough hand for her 2♣ bid.

How would you rule?

[iviehoff]

I would first ask S how he might have bid differently if told the meaning of E's first double was "no clear agreement".

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-22, 02:07, said:

I would first ask S how he might have bid differently if told the meaning of E's first double was "no clear agreement".

I think I did ask that and he said he would have passed.

[Quartic]

If North thought the second double was for penalty why did he pull to 3♣? I'm wondering if that should be ruled a serious error.

[ArtK78]

If the double of 2♠ by South is for penalty, then North's pull is a serious error. I am certainly not going to award any compensation to North-South.

Also, if the double of 2♠ by South is for penalty, I don't believe South's statement that he would not have doubled 2♠ if given a "proper" explanation of the double of 2♥. How can South not double 2♠? Partner has an opening bid, you have a near opening bid and a trump stack, and it seems unlikely that the opponents have a playable spot to run to. South's statement that he would not have doubled 2♠ given a "proper" explanation of the double of 2♥ is self-serving, and, quite frankly, is unbelievable.

[barmar]

North explained why she pulled: she thought she was light for her original overcall, and presumably partner was expecting more from her for the double. This does seem to be a misjudgement (she's at most a point light), but is it enough to be considered a "serious error"?

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2012-May-22, 02:17, said:

I think I did ask that and he said he would have passed.

I'm sorry, I failed to distinguish between which round S might change his call.

I was thinking S could a plausible case he never would have bid 3H if he had any hint that E's double was not of the takeout variety. Yet he actually claims he wouldn't have doubled 2S. I'm not sure why a different understanding of E's call makes doubling 2S for penalties less attractive: if E has a takeout double they are more likely to have a better fit S. So I'm sceptical of S's claim that he would not make his penalty double of 2S. N's explanation of why he ran doesn't look likely to depend on E's explanation, so he's stuck with that.

So I'd adjust to some percentage (rather less than 100%) of them playing in 3C, and since it looks less likely to be doubled, some percentage of it not being doubled. At a glance, looks like only one off.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2012-May-22, 07:50, said:

North explained why she pulled: she thought she was light for her original overcall, and presumably partner was expecting more from her for the double. This does seem to be a misjudgement (she's at most a point light), but is it enough to be considered a "serious error"?

In my opinion, yes, it is a serious error.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2012-May-22, 01:59, said:

East said that he thought the double showed values. South said he would not have doubled 2♠ with that explanation. North said she pulled the double because she felt she didn't have a good enough hand for her 2♣ bid.

How would you rule?

Before ruling, I'll ask South to explain why the explanation of the double made a difference to his decision.

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2012-May-24, 13:02, said:

Before ruling, I'll ask South to explain why the explanation of the double made a difference to his decision.

Sorry, have been away for several days. He said something about expecting to get a good score undoubled with the correct explanation.