Re: Ruling question (Re: Describe the second double)

On Jul 31, 10:43 am, Jeff Ford <jefff...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:40 pm, Jeff Ford <jefff...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MPs, V vs. NV, 4th seat

S KJxx
H 10
D Axxx
C KJ9x

(1D) P (1H) X;
(2H) P (P) X;
...

Normal? Pushy? Insane?

It's a club game, your opponents are reasonable, and your partner is
average.

Thanks for the comments. At the table there was actually a pause over
2H. Now obviously passing instead of doubling is something many
people are doing. How much does style matter in determining peer
groups for assessing whether to adjust the score? I know that the
double was automatic for the player without the hesitation for the
reasons given by the "normal" responders. Do the "insane" responders
count as peers? (Just to be clear, this wasn't me at the table.)

Jeff

Passing is a "logical alternative" if a "substantial minority" of your
peers would choose that action. Even though I think doubling again is
completely normal, I think passing is a logical alternative, so and
adjustment would be in order if there was an agreed break in tempo.

Note that the balancer has done nothing wrong in doubling again after
the hesitation -- he is just making his normal bridge call. It's not
the doubler's responsibility to guess whether his peers would find
other bids to be logical alternative; the director is there to handle
that.

Bill Campbell
.

Relevant Pages