[Jan_L]

Hello!

Pulling a slow penalty double, is this ever allowed if PASS is a logical alternative? If it is, when?

If the (slow) doubled contract is 100% sure to go down, or almost sure to go down (you have the tricks or almost have the tricks to beat it in your own hand) and the slow double does not increase the chances of making the new contract, is the pull then allowed?

Ex

Qxxx
AKQ
xxx
xxx

Pass (Pass) 1Sp (DBL)
2NT* (4H) DBL** (Pass) *spade support invitational **slow, not a forcing situation for the opening side
?


1Sp was 4cM, 2NT was invitational support raise and openers double was for penalties.
If responder now bids 4Sp making (620 vs 300) will that call be ruled against if EW call for the TD?

EDIT: Question send in from Sweden// Jan

[TylerE]

I tend to think on this auction, since 2NT was invitational, responder is NOT restricted by UI. As it isn't clear what opener might be thinking about. Passing 4♥? Bidding 4♠ himself? Trying for slam?

[barmar]

From looking at your hand, you know what partner's problem probably was: "should I double even though I have few (or no) trumps?". I don't think the hesitation suggests anything else.

[aguahombre]

Welcome aboard, Jan_L. IMO, Tyler and Barry are correct. Also, a break in tempo is to be expected here ---other threads have addressed high-level competitive auctions where players will usually need a bit of extra time to decide what they think is best without the Secretary Birds bouncing into action.

Edit: Are you giving the slow doubler's hand or the other one? I assumed it was opener's, but this merely underlines that we don't have a clue why the break in tempo occurred.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-May-23, 09:54

[iviehoff]

Aguahombre is right that there is only UI when there is a break in expected tempo, but a very slow double can be a break in tempo even in this auction.

Barry is also right that it looks like you can see the reason for your partner's uncertainty right in front of you, and claim that it is authorised information. But it can also be the case that a hand with weak trumps has an evident penalty double, so you can still be in possession of UI that your partner was uncertain about the double.

There is a generic argument in this situation which runs: "A slow double suggests uncertainty about the double. Therefore it suggests that pulling it is likely to be more profitable than on average on this occasion. Therefore if passing is a Logical Alternative, it is the only legal call." You can in principle try to argue that you have no UI in a particular case, but if there is a clear break in tempo and pass looks like a LA, then I wouldn't fancy my chances trying to fly it.

[mycroft]

There's always three things to think about:

- there has to be UI (Unauthorized Information) transmitted
- there has to be reasonable (even if inferior) alternative actions (technically: Logical Alternatives, LAs), and
- the UI must demonstrably suggest something that makes one LA or group of LAs more favourable than another or others.

If all three cases are set, then those LAs suggested by the UI are not allowed to be taken, and if taken, will result in an adjusted score when the TD is called. "When" == "significantly after", usually; as you can probably see, this frequently takes time to work out, and by best practise requires consultation of some sort.

You can't force a pass on anyone after some action in general; for one thing that means if I want to make a "don't pull this" double, for instance, I then think about it for a while and pass, knowing partner "must" pass. But also, there are situations where it doesn't matter how long it takes to do the action, the action is forcing and can't be passed - so passing is not an alternative. Obviously that almost never applies to a double.

All three of those legs can be attacked in defending oneself from a use of UI ruling; *usually*, however, it's actually screamingly obvious. The ones where there is doubt get appealed or posted here (or both).

[Jan_L]

mycroft, on 2013-May-23, 12:30, said:

- there has to be UI (Unauthorized Information) transmitted
- there has to be reasonable (even if inferior) alternative actions (technically: Logical Alternatives, LAs), and
- the UI must demonstrably suggest something that makes one LA or group of LAs more favourable than another or others.

All three of those legs can be attacked in defending oneself from a use of UI ruling; *usually*, however, it's actually screamingly obvious. The ones where there is doubt get appealed or posted here (or both).

The posted hand was responders hand. Not openers.

Here mycrofts first two are obvious IMO. There was UI (slow double) and there are LAs (pass and 4Sp).
How about the third?

Also, does the fact that the doubled contract will go down (you have AKQ of trumps when partner penalty doubles) affect the decision in any way?
(Normally a pulled X is because of fear that the doubled contract will make, but not so here.)

Jan

[campboy]

It seems to me like pulling is demonstrably suggested. How does the speed of the double affect how far down 4♥x is likely to go? It is likely to go down less with a slower double, IMO. How does the speed of the double affect the chances of 4♠ making? It's not clear, probably not very much. So the chance that it's right to pull seems to go up as the speed of the double goes down.

[ggwhiz]

Hmmm, Majority of the opps strength on my right (and not in the heart suit), my petunias in the minors and I think a slow double means I should pass.

If pards non accept of the game try includes short(ish) hearts I expect a flaw over there that puts 4♠ at serious risk so I allow that bid. Nobody can prove that a hesitation double like this was an unethical attempt to shut me up (just thinking) but since I can't be shut up it avoids that ugly scenario.