gordontd

It doesn't seem grammatically incorrect to me, even though its intended meaning is not very clear.

This clearly demonstrates that five years of IE use makes you more stupid (especially using the older versions), while five years of Opera use makes you more intelligent :lol: We've used Opera to display the results at the bridge club for more than five years, so hopefully all the members have got the benefit of that.

Yes :)

So, what does he suggest is the meaning of the WBF minute?

And yet you have claimed above that the card has been played.

The point is that a card placed in the played position by dummy is not a played card if declarer did not name or otherwise designate it.

EBU WB40.9:

Did West say why he thought North wasn't allowed to look?

You can't do it perfectly, because a draw in the WBF scale is 15-15, so can't be halved. The simple method recommended by the WBF CTD is to add together their IMPs for the two half-matches and convert it to VPs using the 12-board scale. You'll find the VPs won't balance exactly, but any extra effort to improve this still won't get you a perfect solution.

It sounds like we would need to get a bit more information from the pair in question :)

If you are using EBU VP scales, they are in the White Book. Otherwise, let us know what the basic VP scale is that you are using. Edit: sorry I see now that you put WBF in the sub-title.

Good point. The full text says:

I read Helene's post as saying the double shows a 5-card major (not necessarily takeout shape). Mine was saying takeout shape, but including a 5-card major.

Yes. So if the meaning is "please bid partner, on the assumption that I have something like an opening hand with tolerance for all the unbid suits", then it's not alertable. If the meaning is "please feel free to pass on the assumption that I'll have a hand that's useful in defence", then it's not a takeout double, so it's alertable. Note that a number of hands that would fit into the first meaning would also fit into the second meaning. Did the original post specify IJOs? I would have thought that hands that can make a simple overcall are also excluded from the double. This seems to me to make the double into what I believe the ACBL describes as a "minimum off-shape takeout double", and I'm not sure that they are alertable under our current regulations, though as of tomorrow they probably will be in certain fields. Note that playing takeout doubles like this has a long history among the strongest Italian players, and more recently among the strongest Norwegian players - as well as among many ordinary players who aren't aware that they are doing anything strange. This is why I don't think it's necessarily a "potentially unexpected meaning". That's correct: if it's not a takeout double you alert it. However, you could play a takeout double as promising a five-card major (not that I recommend it!) Then it would be a takeout double, and I don't think would currently be alertable, but as from tomorrow it would be alertable because I think that is a "potentially unexpected meaning".

It's probably not quite that simple, since in addition to that admirably straightforward basic principle there are five more pages of further explanation and special cases.

I agree with this.

The first one is not a takeout double, so it's alertable. As has been pointed out by Jeffrey, under the current regulations the unexpectedness of the meaning of a double does not affect its alertability. So, if the second one is described as a takeout double (but may be off-shape) then I don't think it's currently alertable. If they don't claim it's a takeout double though, and the original post suggests that to be the case, then it is alertable. However, next month when the regulation changes, it would seem to me to become alertable, even if it's a takeout double, because its meaning is unexpected. Since it's a new regulation, there may yet be discussion about precisely how it's enforced in practice.

In standard or Acol, which is what the original post asked for, 3♦ would be NF.

And not the second one? Surely 3♦ is NF here after the negative double.

This is the point that matters.

So I can name an opponent's card at the one I propose to play, and he has to play it? I don't think so.

Indeed. They were set for a great board until he did that.

My suggestion was intended to be that it was the lead that was the Serious Error - in this case with serious consequences for the rest of the defence. Looking back on my posts I wasn't very clear about that.

Less likely to double if they had forced to game via two-way Stayman than when they forced to game via a cue-bid? I didn't class it as SEWoG. It was the defence that I thought might be.

The second ruling, presumably. This all depends on accepting that West would not have bid 2♠ with the correct information. I'm not yet convinced enough to give 100% of 2♦ as the final table result. Do you have weighted rulings where this took place? West would not have known there had been a misunderstanding, so wouldn't necessarily know to pass, but might be able to convince me. I don't really think the double is affected by the misinformation (and even if it were, I think this defence might be a candidate for a "serious errror, unrelated to the infraction", which would deny EW redress).