double alert

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa9hj8542djcqj832&w=sqt3hkqt976d98ct4&e=s54ha3daqt76542c6&s=skj8762hdk3cak975]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 2♥    Dbl   4♥    4♠

 Pass  Pass  5♦    Pass

 5♥    Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

 

Hi,

 

Here is a board from a recent tournament, I was called by E/W at about trick 4 after playing the first round of 's :rolleyes:

 

E/W claimed they were damaged by North failure to alert the double as penalty.

 

West “we were misled”

East “if i know what 2♥ x means i will not expose my self at 5 level, it is not a natural X’

 

How do you rule? I think Easts 5D bid was risky.

 

Does North have to alert the double as penalty if that is his intention even though it is not necessarily a partnership agreement?

 

tyia

jb

[awm]

If a bid is made with a nonstandard hand type, and the bidder has a reasonable expectation that partner will expect this hand type, then it should be alerted. So an all-out psych isn't alertable.

 

But in cases like this, I cannot imagine that north is trying "to psych." He intends his double as penalty, and he thinks there is at least a reasonable chance south will think so too. So it really should be alerted.

 

East's 5♦ bid is somewhat risky, but not unreasonable. He expects that N/S will have a better spade fit than they do (at least the 8 card fit will be 4-4 in the hands), that diamond cards are likely to be onside in the doubler's hand, and that heart length/honors outside partner's hand are with south. Good reasons to think 5♥X might go one down, with 4♠ making. I'd roll the result back to 4♠ making a normal number of tricks (looks like eleven to me).

[luis]

Sorry if I sound rude but how can this be a question or a problem?

 

It is very clear NS don't have an agreement about the double being penalties otherwise south wouldn't have bid 4♠ when east raised a 2♥x contract to 4 !!!

Just the idea of north having to alert his double because of what he has without an agreement is a terrible offense. You have to alert your partnership agreements not what you have in your hand.

 

Result stands and I would warn EW because of their amazing comments.

 

Luis

[cherdano]

"ALERT! This is a misguided penalty double!"

 

To add a serious note, if there was a partnership agreement about this being a penalty double -- it still would not be alertable under some jurisdictions.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Its hard not to have some sympathy for East-West.

 

I agree completely: If they had know that the initial double of 2♥ was for penalty, they would have never competed to the 5 level. However, as Luis points out, North South clearly didn't have a partnership agreement rgearding the meaning of the double and the Laws require that players alert their agreements not their flights of fancy.

 

I wish that I could give E/W an adjustment. I'd love to assign them -920 for 6C making, while letting N/S keep thier score. But I don't think that laws permit me to do so.

 

For what its worth, I like the 5♦ bid.

[Echognome]

I think this is a lot closer than people think. I had recommended to Jilly that the double should have been alerted. I used the following reasoning, although I think by the comments we should have probably asked North whether he thought his partner would take his double as. If North says "I wasn't sure as we had no agreement." Then I agree completely with Luis. If North says "Penalty of course." Then North thinks they have an agreement. Note that an agreement does not need to be explicit, it can be an implicit agreement as well.

 

To give you an example, if I'm playing with an unknown pickup expert and it goes 2♥ - X - P - ? If I bid 2NT then I should alert it as I'm expecting my partner to take it as Lebensohl even without discussion.

 

Now, I should take a step back because it clearly states in the laws that alerts are dictated by sponsoring organisations and the first thing I asked Jilly is "who are you counting as your sponsoring organisation?" I quoted her the EBU rules (I do not know the phrasing of the ACBL rules) which says that for alerting purposes, a double is considered natural if after a natural opening bid at the 1, 2, or 3 levels.

 

Anyway, to answer this question, you must answer the following:

 

(1) Who is the sponsoring organisation? What is a reasonable set of rules for alerting online?

(2) Do North and South have any agreement either explicit (clearly not in this case) or implicit? Under self-alerting I would want to ask North about it.

(3) If you rule there was MI, were E/W damaged? (I think most think they were.)

[LH2650]

In the ACBL, a penalty double at this level is alertable, and a failure to have an agreement here in itself constitutes damage, so check the NS convention card. If it indicates that the double is penalty, or is not filled out, adjust the score. However, figuring out what the score(s) should be seems really tough.

 

The rules seem to be completely different (or non-existent) in the WBF.

[jillybean]

Thanks, I have re-read my last post on alerts&doubles and I have yet to create or steal some rules to cover doubles.

 

What do other TD's use for rules here?

 

jb

[inquiry]

Thanks, I have re-read my last post on alerts&doubles and I have yet to create or steal some rules to cover doubles.

 

What do other TD's use for rules here?

 

jb

Let me give you the BBO rules on alerts. If there is the slightest chance the opponents will not understanding the meaning of your bid, then you are to self alert it. But as Luis said, you ALERT what your agreement is. If you have no agreement, then no alert is necessary, and indeed, you should never alert anybid for which you have no agreement with your partner.

 

Having said that, your agreement can be from experience. For instance if your partner has passed over 2H before iwht perfectly normal takeout doubles, you might have then "agreed" to play penalty doubles.

 

I agree totally with Luis's comments, and would let 5Hx stand. I would also ask NS to make an agreement about the meaning of auctions like this and if thye stick with penalty doubles here, to alert them in the future.

[bearmum]

[Finch]

In the ACBL, a penalty double at this level is alertable, and a failure to have an agreement here in itself constitutes damage, so check the NS convention card. If it indicates that the double is penalty, or is not filled out, adjust the score. However, figuring out what the score(s) should be seems really tough.

 

The rules seem to be completely different (or non-existent) in the WBF.

I am not aware of any Law that says a failure to have an agreement at all constitutes damage.

[helene_t]

In the ACBL, a penalty double at this level is alertable, and a failure to have an agreement here in itself constitutes damage

You mean "constitutes a violation", I suppose?

[luis]

In the ACBL, a penalty double at this level is alertable, and a failure to have an agreement here in itself constitutes damage, so check the NS convention card. If it indicates that the double is penalty, or is not filled out, adjust the score. However, figuring out what the score(s) should be seems really tough.

 

The rules seem to be completely different (or non-existent) in the WBF.

Absurd, point us to the written law that says such a thing.

[LH2650]

The ACBL requires filled-out convention cards under Law 40E. If a pair does not have such a card, and does not have the required agreements, their opponents cannot successfully employ their counter agreements, to which they are entitled. Therefore, they are damaged.

[luis]

The ACBL requires filled-out convention cards under Law 40E. If a pair does not have such a card, and does not have the required agreements, their opponents cannot successfully employ their counter agreements, to which they are entitled. Therefore, they are damaged.

So if you don't fill a convention card and the opponents went for 1100 they will say "hey they don't have a cc" and magically the 1100 is changed to +200 or something. Quite interesting.

I don't want to sound rude but what you say is a complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the rules. As long as you don't have an implicit or explicit agreement you are free to bid whatever you like without alerting and the opponents can't claim damage at all.

 

But what really annoys me about your posts is not what you think but the way you say it as if you knew the rules when it's quite evident you have no clue. Please when you are saying an opinion say it is your opinion and don't say "The ACBL says..." because that is completely missleading to the other posters and no doubt can be a source of horrible rulings in the future.

 

Law40E doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you say.

[Mr. Dodgy]

very quick response off the top of my head...

 

as i recall WBF regs state that doubles are 'self-alerting' - opps should be aware of the fact that doubles might mean all sorts of different things and ASK what agreements the partnership has.

[LH2650]

Law40E doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you say.

Once more for luis:

 

Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card.

 

The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out.

 

This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made.

 

There is a box on the card that covers doubles of preempts.

 

If you have not made an agreement here, you are in violation of Law 40E.

 

If you violate a Law, and it damages your opponents, they are entitled to a score adjustment.

 

 

In the original post it was asserted that at least one member of the partnership was playing the first double as penalty, and my remarks were directed at this specific case. Luis attempts to apply them to completely unrelated situations. Everyone I have ever played with would consider this a takeout double, and we would have that agreement even without a convention card. Of course, I hope that no partner of mine would make that double, no matter what we were playing!

[hrothgar]

Law40E doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you say.

Once more for luis:

 

Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card.

 

The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out.

 

This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made.

 

There is a box on the card that covers doubles of preempts.

 

If you have not made an agreement here, you are in violation of Law 40E.

 

If you violate a Law, and it damages your opponents, they are entitled to a score adjustment.

Comment the first: ACBL regulations are completely irrelevant in non-ACBL events....

 

Comment the second: Lets assume for the moment that this incident actually occured during an ACBL event... The ACBL has a regulation on the books that requires both members of a partnership to have a completed convention card. With this said and done, in all my years of bridge I can only recall seeing this regulation enforced on two occasions. For what its worth, I just wandered by an ACBL Online tournament that was underway. Out of the 36 pairs competing, 11 had anythign which resembled a convention card.

 

There are deep philosophical divides in the world of bridge regarding the appropriate scope of the Laws. One of the most profound focuses on whether the Laws are intended to empower or constrain regulatory bodies. For example, many regulators in the EBU and the ACBL use Law 40D to justify an amazing variety of personal whims... In a similar fashion, if seen ACBL notables attempt to apply the following logic:

 

1. In order for players to use a convention/treatment, it must be documented on a convention card.

 

2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card

 

(For what its worth, I am harshly critical when the regulatory authorities start playing these types of games. By focusing on the letter rather than the spirit of the Laws, they invite players to adopt the same code of behaviour and unleash a world of trouble)

 

Returning to your example: An ACBL administrator could use the convention card regulations to punish a percieved infraction in a separate and distinct area. However, given the calibre of many of the administrators I think we're better served strictly limiting their ability to impose their capricious whims on the world.

[Al_U_Card]

During ACBL online tourneys, do they disable the "ours" button so you can't refer to your own cc during play?

[luis]

Once more for luis:

Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card.

 

Right

 

The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out.

 

Right

 

This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made.

 

Debatable but let's say that yes you have to fill the card per-rule.

 

There is a box on the card that covers doubles of preempts.

 

Yes there is

 

If you have not made an agreement here, you are in violation of Law 40E.

 

Yes you are

 

If you violate a Law, and it damages your opponents, they are entitled to a score adjustment.

 

No no no and no.

The violation of rule 40E can lead to a procedural penalty, never to adjust a score. Not having a system, forgetting the system you play or not filling a CC might be violations and you are subject to a PP but in order to damage your opponents and adjust the score there has to be at least a case of missinformation and this is not one. It is true that without a CC when there is doubt you can be charged missinformation but this is not the case.

 

In the original post it was asserted that at least one member of the partnership was playing the first double as penalty, and my remarks were directed at this specific case.  Luis attempts to apply them to completely unrelated situations.  Everyone I have ever played with would consider this a takeout double, and we would have that agreement even without a convention card.  Of course, I hope that no partner of mine would make that double, no matter what we were playing!

 

And this is important because?

Every reasonable player plays the double as takeout and south took the double as takeout and bid accordingly. Why north decided to double is a bridge problem that does not inflict any rules. You can bid whatever you want.

 

Luis

[awm]

As I understand it, the point of these regulations is to require that pairs have agreements at least in very simple and common auctions.

 

For example, if I open 1NT and opponents ask the range, and we respond "no agreement" that's kind of a cop-out. Surely there is some sort of expectation based on general experience. It's not reasonable to really have no idea what our opening bids mean. This kind of thing puts opponents in a very untenable position. Basically the situation is: partner almost surely knows what I have for my bid based on "general experience." For example, if I open 1NT in the US it's almost surely 15-17 if we haven't talked about it. Our opponents may have the same information, although this is less clear if they're from another part of the world (or are much less experienced players). But even if they do, it is very hard for opponents to know that they are on the same page. Suppose they've agreed to a method where double of strong 1NT is not for penalties. If I open a "no agreement" NT that is "probably 15-17" then is double penalty or not? Are they sure partner will be on the same page? This seems really unfair, since everyone at the table has an inkling of what opener actually has.

 

Similarly a pair shouldn't be able to have "no carding agreements." This might be okay if it was really the case that they played random spot cards (subject to not obviously giving up a trick with their plays). But most people don't do this. And if you've defended enough hands with someone you usually get an inkling of what their card plays mean, or which card they tend to lead from length.

 

I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double.

[luis]

I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double.

No, again you are one of the people that think that a player making a bid without an agreement should say what he has to the opponents and that doesn't exist.

[LH2650]

No no no and no.

The violation of rule 40E can lead to a procedural penalty, never to adjust a score. Not having a system, forgetting the system you play or not filling a CC might be violations and you are subject to a PP but in order to damage your opponents and adjust the score there has to be at least a case of missinformation and this is not one. It is true that without a CC when there is doubt you can be charged missinformation but this is not the case.

 

You might look at 12A1.

[Finch]

Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card.

 

The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out.

 

This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made.

Nope. Doesn't say that in 40E that I can see anywhere.

[benlessard]

At first its seems clear that north south have no partneship agreement and that north X is a misbid. So they can be no misinformation (in the partnership agreement sense).

 

 

 

But what is annoying me is that

 

South knows or should knows its penalty just by looking at his hand.

 

and the bidding indicated hes sure its not TO (or hes a beginner) 4s a ridiculous bid if the x was TO and not a complete mistake if the x was penalty its a 65 with a void in opps suit after all.

 

Those who thinks south will/should X if they know North X is penalty do not live on the same planet as me (either forcing pass or bid)

 

 

So even if i honestly think NS are complete beginners and have no PA. The "SOUTH inconsistent bidding " would give me enough leeway to doubt the no-agreement approach protect the score. "Maybe north made many penalty X with cheese and south know he had to pull it off."

 

 

Directors should use some leeway to protect the field from hands like this.

 

Adjusted score for NS and EW (depending on the traveler scores) because i believe that the rules leave some judgement to the director on all deals to protect the field.

 

 

 

 

If its self-alerted i don't know the rulings about this 1.

 

 

When there is a close situation between no-agreement, mistaken agreement and forgotten agreement in close case i feel in favor of the non-offending side.

 

 

Ben