[jillybean]

---

Matchpoints

You are called to the table by N/S who claim East's second double was after a Break In Tempo, E/W agree there was a BIT
West has already put the 3♣ card on the table before you got here.

[Cyberyeti]

He's thinking whether the double is T/O or pens, and also possibly what it would mean if partner bid 2N, 3♣ I don't think has an alternative unless 2N fulfils the same function for this partnership

[mycroft]

Agree with the Yeti. My line is "a takeout double does not become a penalty double at the next level."

If you had 4531 with the same cards, you might convert this.

Sure, partner still likely has 19 balanced from my hand and the auction (and the tank kind of confirms it), but it's still not a penalty double. North may be incredibly conservative and not raise without 6 high even with 5 card support (and even when forced, just bids 2 because nobody plays "don't let them play 2 of a fit" in your club; and +110 still beats -50), but it's likely that partner has the "stronger-than-1NT" overcall.

I still remember an auction many years ago - it might have been the NAP Flight C district championships, it almost certainly was that week - where I doubled 1♦, they bid and partner passed. I then doubled 2♦; they passed and partner bid. I then doubled 3♦; they asked and partner said "I think this time he thinks you can't make it."

Spoiler

Heh, looked at the other thread. Guess I'm not universal. So, am I a peer of E-W, or is Winston?

[jillybean]

good story. Good question, A players, very experienced.
I can often pick the penalty doubles but drawing attention to it won’t change anything and will only create bad feelings at the table.

[shyams]

I don't understand the premature Director call.

Did E/W initially dispute the BIT and later (in presence of TD) agree to it? Or maybe there is no mechanism to allow players to agree BIT without calling a TD.

If such a situation arises in England, N or S would point out the BIT. If opps agreed, the bidding would continue unhindered. N/S might call TD later if they feel West's action (or a subsequent action by East) was influenced by UI arising from the BIT.

After the 3♣ bid, IMO ther is "nothing to see here".

[Huibertus]

jillybean, on 2025-September-23, 09:02, said:

---

Matchpoints

You are called to the table by N/S who claim East's second double was after a Break In Tempo, E/W agree there was a BIT
West has already put the 3♣ card on the table before you got here.

What's the problem?

East has a take out double over 1♠ that means the double over 2♠ has to be take out, a hand doesn't suddenly change into a penalty double. Of course West bids the 5 card minor rather then rebidding a 4 card major or something else...

[jillybean]

shyams, on 2025-September-23, 22:29, said:

I don't understand the premature Director call.

Did E/W initially dispute the BIT and later (in presence of TD) agree to it? Or maybe there is no mechanism to allow players to agree BIT without calling a TD.

If such a situation arises in England, N or S would point out the BIT. If opps agreed, the bidding would continue unhindered. N/S might call TD later if they feel West's action (or a subsequent action by East) was influenced by UI arising from the BIT.

After the 3♣ bid, IMO another is "nothing to see here".

East/West did not dispute the BIT, they then called the Director

[barmar]

shyams, on 2025-September-23, 22:29, said:

I don't understand the premature Director call.

I don't think there's any such thing as a "premature" Director call. If you're not sure how a situation should be handled, it's always appropriate to call the TD. While you're allowed to reserve your right to call the TD until the end of the hand, and this is normal if there's no dispute over the BIT, you're not required to wait.

On the other hand, if you can't agree on the BIT in the first place, the TD should be called immediately to resolve it.

It's nearly always better to err on the side of calling the TD.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2025-September-24, 10:29, said:

On the other hand, if you can't agree on the BIT in the first place, the TD should be called immediately to resolve it.

By the side which disputes the BIT - which is rarely what actually happens.

I've had good club level directors tell me (when they're playing, not directing) "you want the director, you call him". :-(

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-September-24, 16:17, said:

By the side which disputes the BIT - which is rarely what actually happens.

I've had good club level directors tell me (when they're playing, not directing) "you want the director, you call him". :-(

To which you reply, "yes, we'd do best to get a real one"

[mycroft]

Long Law Semantic argument shortened: "You want to be a Bridge Lawyer? Go Right Ahead. Of course, people who would rather win the game with the cards rather than the game of being Technically Correct (the best kind of correct) in the bar afterwards just CTFD and don't worry about 'who should'."

"When attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the director should be summoned." With one exception (which never happens IRL, for bridge values of "never"), I don't care who does it. You want a ruling, you call the Director. The opponents are being stroppy about something, you call the Director. People don't know what to do when the scoring machine keeps going to the score page, you call the Director.

If someone claims a BIT and the other side disputes it, attention has been drawn (I know, there's no irregularity yet, but we do have contested facts). Get the Director over.

The Law quote is:

16B2 said:

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result this player may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), their intention to reserve the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

There is nothing in that Law that says it's solely the disputer's responsibility to call the Director, just that they should. Because the only way this dispute will be resolved, or at least put on notice, is if the Director is at the table. But especially if the nature of the information has not been clearly stated, double especially if the lovely legal "R" words have been used, it is not their sole responsibility, and I as the director eventually called will not penalize them for not - hmm, what have I said before about other statements from the opponents that use only the legal words, knowing they are not understood? - knowing exactly how the Law reads.

And as for "should" - "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights..." And yeah, it might. It certainly will bias the eventual director call. But it doesn't *deny them* their rights, just put them in jeopardy - it will be harder to argue the dispute later.

If there is a dispute, somebody should call the Director. Sure the opponents should, but if they don't, if you want a clear path at least, you do. Or, you know, continue to argue about it (or whine about "we could call the director here and get your score taken away, but we'll be nice") until the next table calls the Director, or deal with "they disagreed with us initially, but they didn't call the director, so they must have been okay with our statement" being treated with the respect it deserves.

Frankly I wish the ACBL still took the "require the Director be called" path. Even if it never happened. Even if most of the time it did happen, there wasn't in fact any UI of note, and it really was just Yet Another Flight A Intimidation Tactic. But it certainly shut down *this* Flight A Intimidation Tactic.

I mean, if you really want to argue bridge Law semantics, since the opponents disputed the UI conveyance and didn't call the Director, an infraction has occurred; the Director "should" be summoned. If you don't, what about your rights? Or are you just going to not draw attention to it - in which case, need the Director help you?

[mycroft]

...and yet again, I reference the hand where I *didn't* reserve my rights, didn't even mention anything, until the had was over and the contract didn't go down. And then gave the director a fancy BS story about "this call being slow, and this call being fast, and somehow partner realized he didn't want to play in the slow suit".

I mean, I did *everything* I could to jeopardize my rights on the hand. But the auction as perpetrated so clearly couldn't have happened without UI that I was believed, and the score was adjusted.

[jillybean]

Ok, so 3♣ was not suggested by the BIT. The poll was unanimous over on the other site, and almost unanimous with bbfers.

Some players/pairs have difficulty maintaining tempo. A takeout double is made after a BIT whereas a penalty double is made lightening fast.
How do you manage this so that the OS do not gain advantage?

---

[akwoo]

Let's put it this way - if West passes the double of 2♠ on this hand with any hint of irregular tempo or mannerism from East (including doubling quickly), I am calling the director. Fast tempo is also a break in tempo.

I've posted my simple rules for when a double is penalty (and all others are takeout-ish) a few times. I might not have told you why I wrote them. They came about because my local club partner(*) slapped down a double in a manner that suggested he meant penalty. It was subtle enough that he might not have realized he was passing UI. I came up with the rules over the next week and gave them to him.

(*) former - he moved away - would be happy to have kept playing with him, at least at the club and local tournaments.