A 1-level double

[bluejak]

A friend of mine posted this on rec.games.bridge [RGB]:

 

Tonight, my LHO held

 

[hv=d=m&v=&s=saq65h5dkt32cqj84]133|100|[/hv]

and over my 1C opening, she doubled. Partner subsequently played the hand in 3H and took a 2 way trump finesse the wrong way because of his expectations about the double.

 

After, when he enquired of the opponents what the double was, they told him it only showed opening points and had no shape requirement. They also play that overcalls are limited to less than an opener because they would double with opening values.

 

I have no quibble with their chosen method or, charitably, with the result on this hand. However, I feel we should know about this agreement.

 

A quiet chat with the director revealed that he thought the wording of the Australian regulations about doubles was murky and that only really unusual meanings of double should be (pre)alerted. He didn't think this fitted the bill. Is this meaning really unusual? If not, what would be?

 

The relevant Australian regulations read:

 

2.4 Self-alerting calls

There are five different types of self-alerting calls, viz.

•Doubles

•Redoubles

•Cue bids of an opponent’s denomination/suit

•All calls at the four level or higher, and

•Any 2♣ response to a 1NT opening bid in an uncontested auction.

 

These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted. It may be risky to make assumptions as to the meaning of such a call. You are entitled (at your turn to call) to ask for your own protection, but bear in mind that unnecessary questions may be more helpful to the opponents than to your own side, and may convey unauthorised information thereby limiting partner’s options.

 

3.1 Pre-alerts

 

3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information.

 

3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the opponents’ 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents’ suit, etc. Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted.

 

3.3 Delayed alerts

 

3.3.1 At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual features, particularly any unusual non-alerted calls. Upon inquiry, you must disclose fully, not only the specific meanings of all calls, but also any inferences you have drawn from the auction based on partnership experience (as distinct from general bridge knowledge). These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences, such as hand types partner probably does not have for his bidding. Defenders must not, at this time, draw attention to their own calls, nor voluntarily offer explanations (they must of course fully disclose upon inquiry).

 

3.3.2 Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert. If interested, the opening leader should enquire before leading, or his partner may enquire after the opening lead has been made face down.

 

So, what do you think?

[Cyberyeti]

I think that while I think the regulations are bizarre, the double is not "really unusual" so doesn't require them to tell you about it. Also I'm not sure whether this is "really unusual" in Australia or is more common there than it is here.

 

I had a similar thing at the MSO where a (foreign) pair was playing 1any-x-xx as pure pointcount and this was done unalerted as standard with 5 card support which we didn't expect.

[MikeRJ]

What is "really unusual" depends on local practice and the level of the level of the players - presumably the director is well placed to judge.

 

Certainly I have played in clubs/regions (not in Australia) where amongst the weaker players it was very common for a double to show "opening points" with no shape requirements.

 

I think this is one of those areas where the good players have to accept that they may be occasionally fixed, but in the long run they will gain by playing against infrerior methods. Next time ask!

 

Mike

[OleBerg]

The agreement as not unusual, it is the most normal agreement for such a double. (Not in advanced or expert circles, but if you simply count the number of players playing it.) Your friend has protect himself.

 

It is really being on to high a horse, to believe that everyone automatically must play your expert methods or alert. Actually, it would be more fair to ask your friend to pre-alert his doubles with shape-requirement, when playing with little old ladies/men.

 

If appealed, I would judge it to be without merit.

[jeremy69]

I guess this depends on the local regulations but in England I am sure it is not alertable. You doubled and expect partner to take it out unless he has a stack of the suit opened. That qualifies as a take out double. Maybe you should put this on your card although I bet that most of the players who do it don't think it particularly unusual and I agree with the comment above that in the long run you will gain if your opponents do this.

If the sequence started (1♣) 1♠ and the next hand made a negative double with a 4-1-7-1 shape because "he was not strong enough to bid 2D" would you expect any redress if you played the hand incorrectly because it did not conform to your expectation of a negative double?

[PeterE]

What is "really unusual" depends on local practice and the level of the level of the players - presumably the director is well placed to judge.

I second this.

 

Of course everything said about English regulations is senseless given the relevant local regulations within the OP.

 

What I wonder is that this pair not only plays "TO doubles" that do not have any shape requirements but that their suit overcalls are limited "to less than an opener because they would double with opening values".

I believe - without being familiar with ABF habits - that this combination of doubles and limited overcalls might / should require a Pre-Alert.

[shintaro]

;)

 

Further to 69

 

If a person 2nd in hand with say QXXX void QJxx Jxxxx doubles an opening 1♠ bid is that within parameters having 6 HCP and 5 for a Void ???

 

This obviously caused the oponents to misplay the hand

 

:rolleyes:

[aguahombre]

I assume the range for an overcall is clearly marked on the CC. Not sure that this pair would even know that their style is unusual. It is really difficult to require club players who are inexperienced to know that their style is unusual enough to alert, pre-alert, or announce. I am in ACBL land, but think the principle should be the same, even if the laws are written differently.

[nigel_k]

In beginners classes people are taught that double shows an opening hand. So when they have an opening hand they double. It's the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent but inexperienced players do this all the time.

 

The regulations are silly but they would likely not have alerted or pre-alerted in this case regardless of regulations.

 

Whether it is 'unusual' or 'very unusual' depends on the event. In a strong field anything other than a takeout double is highly unusual so I would definitely expect a pre-alert for this and an adjustment if the failure to alert caused damage. In a weak field the double would not be unusual.

[cherdanno]

If this is a pair of advanced players, I would expect them to alert their doubles and overcalls.

[awm]

I know that in the US, such doubles are not considered sufficiently "unusual and unexpected" to require any alert. Of course, the type of wording used in this regulation (both in US and Australia) is such that local practice will be more important than whatever is done elsewhere in the world.

[peachy]

I know that in the US, such doubles are not considered sufficiently "unusual and unexpected" to require any alert. Of course, the type of wording used in this regulation (both in US and Australia) is such that local practice will be more important than whatever is done elsewhere in the world.

Yes, not alertable in ACBL. But offshape takeout doubles are unusual and unexpected enough so that the ACBL system card has a tickbox for Offshape TO Doubles. However, a person who uses those, most likely does not know better and is not aware there is anything "wrong" with their doubling style and therefore, most likely will not have that box on the system card checked. Similarly, if opponent asks, they most likely would not be answering the "question behind the question" about shape or other style matters, and they would just say "Takeout Double" and stare blindly wondering why the question was asked... So what is the remedy? Have to ask several direct questions to find out their style as to shape of TO Doubles?

 

Anyway, this does not address OP issues as it took place in Australia, not in ACBL...

[sfi]

I know of one top pair who play their one-level doubles exactly this way, and they do pre-alert them. However, it's common enough for people to double with an opening hand and no particular shape that I would not expect the majority of (largely less experienced) players to say anything beforehand.

 

Nor would I expect an adjustment even if the top pair forgot to say something before the match or round.

[bluejak]

I answered somewhat in line with the postings here, ie a good experienced pair should be alerting, a poor pair would not even understand what the problem was.

 

In beginners classes people are taught that double shows an opening hand.

Not when I taught them. I taught it shows an opening hand and a specific distribution. But novices forget a lot of what they are taught.