PeterAlan

Well, yes. It's quite an important distinction in an unclear situation. In a simplistic nutshell, my view is that this is "just bridge" and I think there's been an OTT reaction from those who contend that it's "not bridge". But I agree with aguahombre, and the sun's shining outside.

Mycroft, I don't suppose that I'm really very far apart from you on the question of whether the double has from N's viewpoint a competitive flavour, but instead of a starting point of trying to find a regulatory reason to hang S, I'm an ordinary punter trying to put myself in his shoes. I think that he's in what is, let's face it, a non-standard auction - look what happened at my table - which, I'm pretty sure, he and his partner have not discussed in detail and where he's just as (OK, I'll bend a bit, very nearly as) unsure as his opponents just what his partner has in his hand. And let's not forget that we're only here because W, vulnerable at pairs, is bidding like an idiot, with the result that S is wondering just who has the extra points / other values that appear to be in this pack, and is trying to decide whether to believe his partner or the opposition. Yes, they are. It's a characteristic of regulation the world over, and area of regulation over, that the regulators see problem areas as being the fault of the regulated, and the regulated see the problem areas as arising from a poor fit of regulation to the real world. Try the other side's viewpoint (then I might too). Where? I may be wrong, but as far as I know it says no more on this than what I quoted: the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Hence the supplementary questions I posed. This is just the sort of area where you and I differ: I'd be very surprised if he has, because I don't suppose that this kind of auction / holding combination occurs more than once in a fairly blue moon. Even if it had with this pair, my money would be on them not remembering it. Neither I nor you know N/S's methods in detail, but a common treatment would be that the first negative double distinguishes a 4-card ♥ holding from 5, which would rule out 2=5=5=1. And I don't know about you, but by the time my partner had bid ♣ twice, and shown no interest in anything else, especially my ♥, I might have raised him on 3 (or suggested NT by whatever methods we have) rather than doubled again, which suggests that 1=4=5=3 might not be there either. [Actually, my partner and I would have opened 1 weak NT on the S hand, from which all roads seem to lead to 3NT and a peaceful life.] And I'm suggesting that condoning a comment about opponents "cheating" without any evidence to back it is not good judgment.

You weren't - that was bluejak on page 1, in what I thought was an astonishingly judgmental, if not prejudiced, post that appeared to infer all kinds of iniquity on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. My various posts have largely been in reaction to that stance - always assuming, of course, that there's no evidence of any UI, since there's been no suggestion of any such evidence. There ain't no such thing, in my view, for the reasons previously given. Indeed, in an earlier post you accepted that the OB definitions of "competitive" and "takeout" overlap. The assumption that there is then leads you to a dichotomy that for this reason now fails. Actually, OB defines 10 (!) categories of double, namely "penalty", "co-operative", "optional" [or "card/value-showing"], "competitive" [or "action"], "take-out", "protective or re-opening", "lead-directing", "doubles that show specific hands or specific features", "doubles of artificial bids", and the catch-all "other doubles". Later on, "negative" and "responsive" doubles make an appearance, but fortunately they are subsets of take-out doubles. This taxonomic detail is important: players must be careful that "The meaning of a double should be on the convention card, a post facto account of it being insufficient. The convention card should also be clear as to the circumstances in which the double is used with the meaning described." So when one has considered the full range of sequences (and holdings) in which the meaning of a double must be clarified - and the case in point highlights just how important it is to have decided every such sequence in advance - one then has to summarise the results on the card in rather less than the few hundred pages that at first blush might seem to be needed. Then one has to consider just what the alerting rules require one to do. For the case in point - a double of a suit bid that shows the suit bid - the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Does "not alertable" mean "must not be alerted", the stern command that applies to negative doubles "since these are examples of take-out doubles"? Does one extrapolate from this remark that all take-out doubles "must not" be alerted, and if not in what circumstances should one alert a "not alertable" double? Does a double "for take-out" mean the same as the defined term "take-out double", and if not what are the differences? Finally, I note that no-one's yet mentioned OB 5B10: "A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement". It's some measure of the regulatory mish-mash we have that we're now at page 5 of the thread before this has even been raised, but of course even this doesn't have the straightforward application that it might appear to have. For example, at the time N doubles for the second occasion, S doesn't know how he is going to act on it, since that is likely to depend on whether E bids or not. You have a few seconds to sort all this out within the auction of a hand that you're expected to play in 7 minutes. Woe betide you if your judgment differs from the TD's, or you'll get a fielded misbid ruling from someone who, instead of resorting to Law 74A, "would find it difficult to blame [your table opposition] if I got a very unfortunate reply like 'I don't know, I just don't like cheating opponents.'" This is hardly satisfactory, is it? Let's please bring some common sense to bear, and not rush to prejudicial judgment.

Yep, never got beyond Negative Double 101, me: 1♣ (1♠) X shows 4 hearts 1♣ (1♠) 2♥ shows 5+ In fact, I'd bid both N's and S's hands exactly the way they did, but I'm just an ordinary Portland Pairs punter. I'm taking the 5th on my alerts / explanations. Just as well we had the E/W cards.

Fair enough, but when you persist in merely making assertions and never addressing their arguments to the contrary this is the impression you leave with me at least. I thought that this metaphor might provide a useful lead in to my next paragraph, but clearly not. You say so, I would probably agree with you on a practical, everyday basis, but my point is and always has been that this is not what OB says. I have said why I think the original double ticks all the boxes for the OB's definition of a takeout double, and all you ever say by way of response is "it's competitive so can't be takeout". I respond that, like it or not, it seems to me that in OB's terms it can apparently be both. But I don't want to waste more of your time - or mine - on it. May I just close by assuring you that I do understand where you're coming from, even if I don't actually agree with you in purely regulatory terms.

I agree - the more general point only matters because in certain places (eg 5G5) the OB uses "must not" in relation to alerting takeout doubles. No doubt I had too much time on my hands when I composed my previous post, but I would still come back to the point that what really matters is that the opponents understand the bid, not that it has a particuar label attached to it. In cases like this, the regulatory regime has become a bit too hung up on labels, with understanding taking second place. This leads to regulatory, rather than bidding, problems that it's hard to solve at the table.

I realise you don't, David, but if you will forgive my saying so you do not always show a recognition of where other posters are coming from. Let me put, as clearly and simply as I can, why I differ from you. 3 is an odd number. 3 is also a prime number. It is not either odd or prime in an exclusive sense, and I hope you understand how it can be both. Oddness and primality are well-defined, and capable of precise testing: if we have two computer programs, one that tests for oddness and one that tests for primality, 3 will satisfy both if we put it through them. We conclude that 3 is both odd and prime. Here we have two pretty precise definitions of "competitive" doubles (OB 4H5) and "takeout" doubles (OB 4H6). We embody these definitions in two computer programs, and put this double through them. I have already said why it passes the "takeout" test, and I would agree with Mycroft that it also passes the "competitive" test. We conclude that it is both. You seem to have a viewpoint that says "these have different names, and they are different things", and are unable to depart from this in your thinking. It may be that in drafting the OB definitions you intended them to be exclusive, and believed that you had achieved this. If so, I think you are mistaken, for the reasons above. Moving on, there is also a second, more fundamental, problem: the Procrustean nature of the regulatory regime - you invent a bunch of categories, and, like Procrustes, you try to fit "double" bids precisely into one (or more) of them. What we find, however, is that real life doesn't always fit the Procrustean bed, and it requires a lot of chopping or stretching to achieve those ends. Just as colours run in a continuous spectrum, so do doubles in real life, and sometimes trying to say whether a double is "takeout" or "competitive" makes no more sense than trying to say whether purple is red or, instead, blue. The partnership members won't always have just the same take on a particular bid, which may be bluer to one and redder to the other, and their respective views will also be coloured by the cards in their hands: the goal of an totally objective categorisation is ultimately chimerical. At some conceptual level, therefore, any attempt to pigeon-hole doubles - and hence partnership agreements about doubles - in the OB manner is fundamentally misconceived: on a practical day-to-day level, of course, it is both required and helpful, so long as one is alert to its limitations. It is with doubles like this that the limitations are exposed; when that happens, it is time to bring common sense to bear, and not to be too dogmatic. It would be seriously worrying if players came to feel forced to subordinate their bridge judgments to some arbitrary set of regulatory requirements. And let's not forget that the real purpose is that opponents should know the real meaning of the bid, not that they can attach some particular label to it. None of this is to deny the immense value of making sensible arrangements to regulate partnership agreements, to ensure proper disclosure, and to deal with CPUs: by-and-large, I think the arrangements are very good. But please don't go into denial when difficult areas are highlighted - and those, after all, are the ones most likely to be the subject of posts here.

If we're going to be that forensic, let's look at N's second double against this test. "A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand." N certainly doesn't want to play in 2♠ undoubled, but doesn't yet have enough information to decide himself on where to go. Tick. "Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected." N surely has significant extra values for his bidding to date, and is prepared for both ♥ and ♦ contracts (though S has shown no inclination to go there). Tick. "Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date." Partner has said in response to the query that he's been asked to bid, but his hand is indeed very suitable for defence etc. and he has chosen to pass. Tick. So the double meets the take-out test. OB 5E2[a] instructs that a takeout double of this 2S bid is not alertable. You seem to be following the remark in OB 5G4[c] that a double can not be both "takeout" and "competitive"; it would seem from the above and this thread that this is erroneous, and it can be just that. I don't see that S can be penalised for failing to resolve such discrepancies in OB wording at the table, especially when it's perfectly clear to everyone just what's going on.

I really don't buy this "fielded misbid" idea. It seems to me that before you can have a fielded misbid you have to have a misbid, and I just don't see how N's second double can be characterised that way. Yes, their agreement may be that it's for takeout, but what else is he supposed to do? S's already just repeated his ♣ in response to N's negative double, so he's not interested in ♥ and won't have a second ♦ suit either. It seems to me that bidding ♣, ♦, ♥ and (unless stopper-showing) ♠ are all out, bidding 2NT is obviously wrong (unless forcing), and 3NT isn't attractive with just a singleton in partner's suit and no alternative trick source. Pass is a recipe for playing in 2♠ undoubled, which can't be right. What's left for N to do to show extra values? Yes, the second double obviously has some "competitive" overtones, but surely that's just bridge? If I was sitting W, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear it passed (though I hope I wouldn't have gone twice to the well, vulnerable, on that hand). And with an AK in his suit opposite a partner who has no interest in it, and an outside A, I'm not going to criticise S for converting it. I've already endorsed relevant remarks about further enquiry. Having said that, in the absence on any evidence whatsoever of UI (and we've been given none), a jump to "nasty smell" conclusions and references to "cheating" just lead me to jump to "pre-judged" conclusions. But maybe I'm just naive.

I agree with this. Even with my limited experience, I've seen enough to realise that jumping to conclusions about what might have happened is asking to be wide of the mark. As it happens, I was interested in this board (Board 23 of the first session), and looked up the traveller. It was played 125 times: N/S played in game 91 times, and in partscore 6 times. Of the 28 times it was played E/W, 23 were in 2♠X by W, 3 in 3♠X and just once in 2♠ undoubled. I can imagine that there were plenty of WJOs, but I don't suppose that all 21 of the other 2♠X arose from N passing S's re-opening double. If you're not just reading along, you'll see that I've given 27, not 28, E/W contracts. At our table, S opened the sort of nebulous 1♣ that says "I'm here" but not much more, my partner overcalled 1♠, and N passed, presumably waiting for a re-opening double or something. He's still waiting; we played in 1♠ making 5 tricks for -200. PeterAlan

Well it wouldn't be the first time. I remember one exemplary defence written up by Pat Cotter when he was the Country Life correspondent; the text made clear that he was responsible for the key plays on both sides of the table.

On a detail, presumably it's East that both alerts and (not West) explains the 2♥ bid.

Thanks, David, I'd tried to use the wrong Comment box (the one at the bottom) and wasn't getting the results I wanted! And thank you to Nigel and Robin for the very helpful replies. Peter

If only W and N have called, isn't it Law 13D that's in point?

Well, since a ♥ game (or just possibly slam) seems to be the only possible alternative to a 5+♦ contract, I'd say "Yes, it is demonstrably suggested." PS: The ruling wasn't pursued.

I'd be grateful for views / education on this one, to aid my understanding on how to deal with such cases - I wasn't involved in making the ruling, and wasn't party to the discussions that led to it. Having dipped into the White Book I have a question on one particular aspect of it, as below, but I'd be grateful for any general comments on the determination as well. A ruling from the club tonight: [hv=pc=n&s=sj98hj987dkt942c2&w=s73hq5dj83cj87653&n=sakqthkt6432d65cq&e=s6542hadaq7cakt94&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h2c2h4c4hpp5c5hdppp]399|300[/hv] Table result: 5♥X -1; E/W +200 E's Pass of 4♥ was very slow, and led to N asking for a ruling on W's 5♣ bid. The ruling handed down was 50% of 4♥= & 50% of 5♥X -1; N/S +210. My specific question is about the application of the Reveley ruling guidance in 16.3 of the White Book. That's written in black and white terms of a call being "disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present", but here, in effect, the TD has decided that 50% of the time 5♣ was disallowed and 50% of the time it wasn't. Enlightenment, please! PeterAlan PS: How does one add comments / highlights to bids during hand diagram creation, please?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj84hq75dajt865c3&w=st752hat6d93cjt72&n=sa93hkj8432dkca95&e=skq6h9dq742ckq864&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1d2c3c4c4dp4hppp]399|300[/hv] Lead: ♣K Table result: 4♥+1 (N/S +450) N's 3♣ was after substantial BIT (sorry, I haven't managed to highlight / tag it in the auction box). It was alerted by S and explained by him before E's 4♣ as "Unassuming Cue Bid; shows good raise in Diamonds" (later qualified to "shows Diamond support"). E raised the BIT at this point and it was agreed at the time. No further information is available on N/S's methods (standard scruffy small SC). E expressed reservations about the N/S auction both after the final pass (before opening lead) and after dummy went down. S then said that N's new suit at the 4 level was clearly showing 6 or so cards. This may or may not be referred by E/W's team captain for a formal ruling (there appeared to be no effective ruling mechanism in place at the time, and the match result is not substantially affected by the outcome). I'd nevertheless appreciate the forum's views. PeterAlan

Thank you all for the various replies.

Sorry, I should have added that E-W were playing with a standard CC that indicates 10-19 HCP as normal range for 1S opening (though probably none of the players would have checked that detail, instead just relying on general experience of playing club Acol almost all of the time). I'm interested in where posters consider the boundary lies between psyche and deviation. The incident caused a bit of ill-feeling at the time, partly because some feel that some other players, such as N, use aggressive requests for psyche recording to discourage any psyching / deviation (out-and-out psyches are virtually unheard of). W, for example, took the view that it was just a (very) light opening bid, made in the context of a relatively informal event.

EBU (OB Level 4, under which the minimum values for such 1 openings by agreement are both of (i) Rule of 18 and (ii) 8 HCP); Club Mixed Pivot Teams match, thus scratch (one-off) partnerships, both playing Benji Acol. For the avoidance of doubt, there's been no discussion about light openings etc. E dealer; E-W non-vulnerable, N-S vulnerable. [hv=pc=n&e=saj632hqt63dt654c]133|100[/hv] E opens this 1S first-in-hand. After a poor result on the hand, N wants the TD to record this as a psyche (I'm not going into the details of the rest of the auction, play or result, since N was focusing only on the opening bid; also, there's no suggestion that W in any way fielded the bid). Your views?

Let's take this really slowly, if only for dummies like me, go back to the original question and summarise what appears to be the received view. (Actually not the original question, which (the heading) was "Is the auction AI?", and the answer to which seems for the reasons below unequivocally to be Yes, but instead the one in the OP.) First, it seems to be accepted that at the time of partner's announcement it is legal for the opener to be woken up to the fact that (s)he has actually bid 1NT rather than 1♠ and (s)he could have changed the bid immediately under Law 25A. (See, for example, gordontd's post at the foot of the first page.) Had (s)he done so, other considerations would not have arisen. I can't actually tell where chapter and verse has been given on the basis for this, but it seems clear enough (see below) that Law 16A1[c] allows for the wake-up, and the rest follows in the normal way. On that basis, it (the fact of having bid 1NT) is therefore what is loosely called Authorised Information (a term which, like Unauthorised Information, does not not appear in the Definitions section and which therefore derives from the construction of the Laws) to opener. However, this does not mean that UI considerations can no longer come into play. The question arises of whether other actions of opener are constrained by the information in the announcement; in particular, whether it is also Unauthorised Information to him/her for the purposes of Law 16B. The received view, if I have understood it correctly, is: (1) It is indeed possible for information to be both Authorised (for the purposes of, say, Law 16A1[c]) and Unauthorised (for the purposes of, say, Law 16B1). This has caused some surprise to those like me who naively regarded the terms as mutually exclusive ; and (2) It was UI for the purposes of opener's response to the 2♦ transfer, and for the remainder of the auction (subject to the usual caveats). I've been careful in the way I've drawn the above, because I think, for example, that the first paragraph of David's characterisation below was misleading: I think it is absolutely clear that an Announcement is authorised information - Law 161A[c] says so explicitly: "1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: ... [c] it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorised or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or ..." As I read this, the announcement is information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws and regulations", so is explicitly authorised, but the parenthesised caveat deals with the point that it may also be UI for purposes covered by Law16B1. Those purposes cover choices of call or play by the recipient subsequent to the receipt of UI. Because of the way that the Laws are worded it seems to me that one must deal with the AI / UI question in the way I have above (and David did in his second paragraph), allowing information to be AI for some purpose(s) yet UI for other(s), rather than by way of David's dichotomy "it contains information, so it must be authorised or unauthorised". It was naively accepting this dichotomy that led to my earlier quick and erroneous post. The more nuanced approach seems to be necessary, and is of course at the very least clearly implicit in many of the posts above, and virtually explicit in some. And as dburn makes clear, even if you have prior AI, receiving the same information subsequently as UI brings you within the Law 16B constraints. OK, that deals with what I believe the general consensus of the thread to have been. If I'm wrong, and still missing something, I'd be grateful if someone would make clear what it is, because I'm really struggling if so, and I'm the man at the Clapham bridge table. On a detail, and with my tongue only slightly in my cheek, may I just question the immediate assumption that the announcement was UI for the purposes of Law 16B? We're treating announcements as a special kind of alert, and that Law refers to extraneous information made available by partner through "for example, ... an unexpected alert" with a footnote clarifying that "unexpected" means "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". If we're taking a truly forensic approach to the Laws, does the announcement meet the test? It's not "unexpected" in relation to the "basis of his action", namely the 1NT bid that we've put on the table and left there. Now let's suppose that opener exercised their Law 25 right and changed the opening bid from 1NT to 1♠ (having been woken up by the announcement, but before partner bids of course). How is opener to treat a bid of 2♦ by partner now? Is it UI to you that partner's bid now means diamonds and not a transfer to hearts, and if not, why not? After all, it's still UI that your partner announced the erroneous 1NT. The logic of the thread would seem to suggest that despite being able to able to wake yourself up enough to change your call you can't base your subsequent calls on the knowledge that you've done so, since the knowledge that partner's 2♦ bid now really means diamonds derives from the UI of the original announcement. Finally, may I mention again the second sentence of the Introduction to the Laws (which "for the avoidance of doubt ... form part of the Laws"): "[The Laws] are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." In a case such as this, where an inadvertent mistake has led to an easily-rectifiable position in which no damage has occured, it is surely appropriate to seek an interpretation that allows normal play to continue rather than to impose deliberate bidding misunderstandings on one side. The Laws start before Law 1, and we do ourselves no favours when we forget this. PeterAlan

Point taken, David - it was a quick reaction to the thread. PeterAlan

Partner and I have bid and made 4H on a 3-3 fit and a perfectly sensible auction (3S-X-P-4H, where both hands were playing partner to have 4+ hearts). Moreover, there was no defence to it and it was the only making game. PeterAlan

Surely ALL announcements must be authorised information to partner as well as opponents: for example, partner has to be able to correct them (at the appropriate time) if they are erroneous. Let's not start suggesting that they're authorised for some purposes but not others. At risk of provoking wrath, it seems to me we're in danger of getting into angel-pinhead interface issues in this thread. Even normal, real-world law brings a certain amount of common sense to bear ... PeterAlan

I did not "criticise the victims", David, and I have proposed letting this exchange drop. But since you're not prepared to do so, let me repeat myself so as to be blindingly clear about what I am saying and what I am not. RMB1 described the board thus: It seems to me that if you've got a board put in front of you with a normal board label that has had another number stuck over the number part of that label then it's very obvious that there's been a change to the number part of the label and not to the rest. In those circumstances it might, just might, occur to someone to think "does the new number go with the rest of the label?", and, say, pick up their scorecard to check. I'm not "blaming" anyone for not doing this, I'm not "criticising the victims", I was just attempting to make a practical suggestion that might lead someone, if this cropped up again, to query the board before playing it. Do I have to spell all this out in words of half a syllable to avoid such over-reaction? My last words on the subject. PeterAlan