[lamford]

---

Table Result 7HXX-1. EW+400. IMP pairs

The above wild board occurred at a North London club this week, and SB was South. He decided to gamble on his partner having the right cards for a grand, but West's double suggested that he had guessed wrong. West, one of the club's stronger members, waited patiently for his partner, RR, who thought about removing the double for quite some time, but eventually passed, and West led the ace of hearts, commenting. "Thank god for that, pard! I had better cash the ace of hearts before you revoke." RR, East, was not sure if he was being complimented or ridiculed, but SB was unusually quiet and the other players wondered what he was up to. "I think we need the director, please," he asked politely, "as the auction is not over as I have not yet passed". "Well, you can redouble if you like, or bid 7NT", replied the Chimp, West, and even RR found this amusing. "Let us leave it to the TD, please", replied SB, and the TD arrived. "There was an opening lead during the auction", stated SB. The TD looked up the Law and ruled: "The auction will continue and the ace of hearts is AI to South and UI to East and if South does not pass, then East must pass at his next turn to call". "You are missing one small but significant point which I need to clarify", continued SB, clearly warming to his task. "Law 24B concludes:(see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side)." "That is correct," replied the TD, "so please conclude the auction". SB redoubled and three passes followed, the last of them forced.

West, perforce, led the ace of hearts, and declarer soon claimed down 1. "Score and move please", continued the TD. "There's just one more thing, sir", continued SB, adopting his Columbo guise. "I think we were damaged by the enforced pass". "RR considered for some time whether to remove the double of 7H", he pressed on; "there were two reasons why he did not remove the redouble, but both damaged the non-offenders." One was that he was forced to pass, and the other was that the pass would have used the UI of seeing the ace of trumps opposite." "Saving in 7S was an action that might have been taken, and the score should, I submit, be adjusted to 7Sx-3." The TD saw the point quickly, but decided he would need to consult with one or two county directors. I understand that one, Vampyr, wants to ask SB to leave the club for this latest ruse, but how would you rule?

[ahydra]

Redoubling is a serious error surely, now that South knows the ace of trumps is offside? Of course, that doesn't excuse EW - I think I have to agree with SB here about 7S being an LA.

ahydra

[manudude03]

The main question seems to be if there was no infraction and the auction had proceeded XX-P-P, what would East do? I think in this auction, even thinking of pulling it is a mistake. When your cheap sacrifice is very likely to score reasonably well, you don't ever double their grand unless you "know" it's off (i.e pretty much a guaranteed trump trick, or an ace in a suit they have bid naturally). I would have a lot more sympathy for adjusting if it was a level lower when double may have been a bit more speculative.

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2016-January-19, 12:29, said:

Redoubling is a serious error surely, now that South knows the ace of trumps is offside? Of course, that doesn't excuse EW - I think I have to agree with SB here about 7S being an LA.

ahydra

That would indeed be a serious error, classifying something as a serious error that you know for certain will turn -200 into something like +300 or +500. Manudude's comment that an RR will never pull the redouble, in view of his thought over the initial double, and in view of his Law 16B or Law 73 obligations (were he not silenced), when looking at the ace of hearts, is also a candidate for the "most hopeless or clueless comment" section of these fora, except that you beat him to it.

[helene_t]

Agree with SB this time. E's BIT on the previous round suggests that he might have pulled after the redouble.

[campboy]

Logical alternatives are not relevant here. A silenced player does not have any alternatives, and if East had not been silenced he wouldn't have had UI either.

The question is: if there had been no infraction and the auction continued rdbl pass pass, how likely would East be to pull? It seems plausible (taking account of his earlier huddle), but not certain, to me, so I would be inclined to give a weighted score on that basis.

Redoubling in the hope that a silenced player will pull is crazy, of course, and so I'd deny N/S some portion of redress for that reason. South should just pass; he would still get redress on the basis that he would have redoubled were it not for the infraction.

[axman]

helene_t, on 2016-January-20, 04:03, said:

Agree with SB this time. E's BIT on the previous round suggests that he might have pulled after the redouble.

XX is the expression that the contract will make and thus breaks the connection to 'damage'.

[helene_t]

axman, on 2016-January-20, 09:34, said:

XX is the expression that the contract will make and thus breaks the connection to 'damage'.

Not necesarilly. XX could be a tactic to scare opps into a phantom sac.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2016-January-20, 04:20, said:

Redoubling in the hope that a silenced player will pull is crazy, of course, and so I'd deny N/S some portion of redress for that reason.

The "serious error" of redoubling is not unrelated to the infraction, so you would be wrong to deny redress. Also, without the redouble, there would be no adjustment, as there would be no pass that damaged the non-offending side, a pre-requisite for a Law 23 adjustment under Law 24B. Without the redouble, there is no further auction, so no "pass" can damage the non-offenders.

SB did not redouble in the hope that a silenced player would pull. He redoubled in order to make his enforced pass damage the non-offenders.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2016-January-20, 10:05, said:

The "serious error" of redoubling is not unrelated to the infraction, so you would be wrong to deny redress. Also, without the redouble, there would be no adjustment, as there would be no pass that damaged the non-offending side, a pre-requisite for a Law 23 adjustment under Law 24B. Without the redouble, there is no further auction, so no "pass" can damage the non-offenders.

I did not say redoubling was a serious error. I don't even think it was an error, because it sounds deliberate. I'm ruling it wild.

While it is true that 24B only tells the TD to see law 23 when a pass damages the NOS, he can (and should) still apply law 23 whenever its conditions are met, even when not explicitly referred to it by another law. Law 23 talks about the irregularity damaging NOS, not specifically the enforced pass.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2016-January-20, 10:22, said:

I did not say redoubling was a serious error. I don't even think it was an error, because it sounds deliberate. I'm ruling it wild.

If South had redoubled because he thought that there would be play for 7Hxx, then it would indeed be wild. It would not be gambling, as the chance of making 7Hxx with the ace of hearts on lead was exactly zero, so it could not be said to be a gamble. If the ace of hearts had been exposed with East, then it would indeed be a gamble, as 7Hxx might now make, with a revoke before the major penalty card had to be played, and redouble would be a (very poor) gamble. However, it was not wild at all. It's intention was to get a Law 24 adjustment, and it has exactly the same effect (in your view) as Pass. It was one of the two solid ways of getting +500 at this point, so it could not be described as wild. Far from it. It would always achieve the weighted score which the TD would award based on whether East would pull the redouble, when he considered pulling the double. As would pass.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-January-20, 11:46, said:

If South had redoubled because he thought that there would be play for 7Hxx, then it would indeed be wild. It would not be gambling, as the chance of making 7Hxx with the ace of hearts on lead was exactly zero, so it could not be said to be a gamble.

Seems to me that he's gambling that East will pull the redouble, or that the TD will adjust as if he had because of the UI.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-January-20, 12:06, said:

Seems to me that he's gambling that East will pull the redouble, or that the TD will adjust as if he had because of the UI.

Any call is a gamble. But this one is not much of one. The TD has little choice but to adjust because of a clear Law 24 requirement in that the subsequent Pass damages the non-offending side. SB is gambling that 7H will not make, but he is certain of that. He is also gambling that 7Sx will not be cold, but he is pretty certain of that too.

If West had led the ace of hearts before East had passed, then there would be no requirement to redouble, because South would now get his +500 anyway as East's forced pass would damage the non-offending side.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-January-20, 12:19, said:

Any call is a gamble.

Let's not start that terminology debate again. When "gamble" is used in this context, it generally means something with little expectation of success, like buying a lottery ticket. Bidding game when you have a combined 30 HCP is not considered a gamble, even though it's not a sure thing.

[sanst]

Praise to SB for behaving like a civilized person. It makes life so much easier for all concerned.
SB certainly has a point: RR was thinking for quite some time, and that must have been about raising to 7♠. The Chimp's action made sure that he couldn't do that and it's also clear that W wasn't considering raising himself. It'snot unlikely that E, after a redouble would have bid 7♠, and that would certainly have been doubled. So EW get a score of --500.
But redoubling knowing that W has the ace of trumps and also knowing that E has to pass and W can't go to 7♠, even if he is so inclined, is idiotic, so NS will keep their score.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2016-January-20, 12:43, said:

But redoubling knowing that W has the ace of trumps and also knowing that E has to pass and W can't go to 7♠, even if he is so inclined, is idiotic, so NS will keep their score.

If he passes, then campboy will adjust on the basis that he could have redoubled without the infraction and East would go to 7S. But I am not sure that this is legal. The TD is only entitled to adjust when the forced pass damages the non-offending side. Otherwise the Law would say something like "See Law 23 when the premature lead damages the non-offending side, for example by a forced pass". It actually says "see Law 23 when the forced pass damages the non-offending side." The only way that SB can generate a forced pass is to redouble. I actually think it is a serious error not to redouble, as pass guarantees -200, while I think redouble all but guarantees +500. I would not give very much, if any, of RR passing out the redouble. He is of timid disposition, and was clearly unhappy about passing out 7Hx. So, rather than rule that Redouble is idiotic, I would rule that it is normal, and shows an excellent appreciation of the minutiae of the Laws.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-January-20, 12:24, said:

Let's not start that terminology debate again. When "gamble" is used in this context, it generally means something with little expectation of success, like buying a lottery ticket. Bidding game when you have a combined 30 HCP is not considered a gamble, even though it's not a sure thing.

In which case redoubling, which converts -200 into +500, is not a gamble and is certainly not wild.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-January-20, 10:05, said:

The "serious error" of redoubling is not unrelated to the infraction, so you would be wrong to deny redress. Also, without the redouble, there would be no adjustment, as there would be no pass that damaged the non-offending side, a pre-requisite for a Law 23 adjustment under Law 24B. Without the redouble, there is no further auction, so no "pass" can damage the non-offenders.

SB did not redouble in the hope that a silenced player would pull. He redoubled in order to make his enforced pass damaged the non-offenders.

Your first sentence is incomplete. One would be wrong to deny redress in the instant case on the basis that the redouble is a serious error.

[shyams]

IMHO, this is a beautiful construct that definitely deserves full attention.

I find myself agreeing with helene_t's and lamford's points. And that West's premature words and action prohibited South from setting up a beautiful trap for Rueful Rabbit is wholly legitimate.

I fail to see how the (prematurely led)♥Ace is relevant to a discussion of SEWOG during the auction phase. The redouble can be called gambling, but it has a very legitimate purpose of trying to con the weaker player at the table to take a rash course of action. In theory, one could say that if East fits the Victor Mollo description of Rueful Rabbit, South has great odds on the redouble.

[axman]

lamford, on 2016-January-20, 13:35, said:

If he passes, then campboy will adjust on the basis that he could have redoubled without the infraction and East would go to 7S. But I am not sure that this is legal. The TD is only entitled to adjust when the forced pass damages the non-offending side. Otherwise the Law would say something like "See Law 23 when the premature lead damages the non-offending side, for example by a forced pass". It actually says "see Law 23 when the forced pass damages the non-offending side." The only way that SB can generate a forced pass is to redouble. I actually think it is a serious error not to redouble, as pass guarantees -200, while I think redouble all but guarantees +500. I would not give very much, if any, of RR passing out the redouble. He is of timid disposition, and was clearly unhappy about passing out 7Hx. So, rather than rule that Redouble is idiotic, I would rule that it is normal, and shows an excellent appreciation of the minutiae of the Laws.

Vancouver #5 lives!