Unalerted Support Double

[TylerE]

The Facts:

 

Event: 2nd Session of a 2 Session Pairs game at a regional. The event is flighted. The hand in question happened in the top flight. The EW pair are a fairly new partnership, West holds about 5000 masterpoints, and East just under 1000. NS are a husband and wife who have been playing together for a very long time (20+ years).

 

West Hand:

 

♠Kx

♥AQx

♦AKQxx

♣xx

 

East Hand:

 

♠QJTxxx

♥xx

♦JTx

♣xx

 

N/S are white, E/W are red, South Dealt:

 

(1♣) - 1♦ - (1♥) - 2♠ (Weak)

(X, no alert) - p - (3♣) - p

(p) - 3♦ - ap

 

At this point (before the lead, and with dummy unseen), West asks about the X and is told it was a support double. West then calls the director, and tells him that if he'd known he would have bid 4♠ over the X with proper information. The director says that it's too late for a change, and to play 3♦ and call again after the hand.

 

The hand is played, table result is 3♦+1, 130 for EW. The director is called again and west again wants 4♠, but the director rules result stands, that West could have asked for an explanation of the X at the time it was made, or before bidding 3♦. West appeal the ruling.

 

The Appeal: After the facts were agreed, West stated that he though the X of 2♠ was penalty, and that a support double at that level did not occur to him. In this part of the country support doubles, if played at all, are through 2♥. The pair in question play them through 3♥, although the South player's card was marked 2♥, the X was meant as a support X, and the North CC was marked 3♥.

 

West stated that S could easily have a penalty double of spades, East is known to preempt somewhat aggressively, and why should he bid 4♠ when he's been doubled for penalty in 2♠. He stated that he bid 3♦ because after the 3♣ bid he wasn't prepared to sell out.

[bluejak]

One wonders what the point of an alert system is if the TD merely says the player could have asked. Of course he could but why should he? Perhaps we need a new mnemonic - no, what's the word? Like RADAR where the letters stand for something? Something short and pithy for "Let's screw the non-offenders for doing nothing wrong".

[blackshoe]

Acronym. Give me some time, I'm sure something will come to mind, other than FUBAR which is perhaps a bit strong for this TD's ruling - but only a bit. :)

[karlson]

I have to admit that the line between "support (non-mandatory)", which is clearly alertable and "takeout (almost always exactly 3 hearts)", which is clearly non-alertable, has always seemed very fuzzy to me. Do the laws experts have any insight which could clear the matter up?

[awm]

It seems fairly frequent that when some call is not alerted, a player assumes that call would have the same meaning it'd have in his own partnerships. This happens even with quite good players, and even in situations where there is an alternative treatment that would also not be alertable.

 

Of course, to some degree this is just an oversight by the player who "forgot to ask" but it definitely happens a lot. The troubling thing is when the call in question actually requires an alert. ACBL directors routinely rule "well you could've asked, no adjustment" on common alertable calls like this. The upshot is that people who routinely fail to alert sometimes gain a substantial advantage (i.e. when their opponents "forget to ask") and never really have a board adjusted against them for it.

 

Are there "cheaters" who deliberately fail to alert? Hard to say, but there are certainly pairs who are much less proactive about alerting than other pairs. Maybe they're forgetful, maybe they don't understand the alert policy, or maybe it's intentional... but for whatever reason these pairs win a lot of boards directly because of their lack of alerts.

 

This seems really bad to me, and I wish it would be routine to adjust when: (1) a call is alertable but not alerted (2) the opponents assumed a non-alertable meaning (3) the opponents were damaged due to their assumption. But ACBL seems to stick in a fourth requirement: that the non-offending side could not possibly have ever suspected that a failure to alert might have occurred and asked. Tough standard to meet.

[blackshoe]

What does and does not require an alert is a matter of regulation. If the Regulatory Authority does not write clear regulations, the line may be quite fuzzy. If the RA does write clear regulations (IMO the EBU is much better at this than is the ACBL) then the line should be fairly clear. As to where the line is in Karlson's example, well, that depends on the jurisdiction. However, in the OP, X can't be for takeout - all four suits have been bid. It's either penalty, or some (non-takeout) other meaning, of which "support" seems most likely to me. Basically, as I understand the ACBL regulation, if the X shows 3 card heart support, it's a support double, and requires an alert, whatever else may be included in the meaning. This one, it seems to me, is pretty clear.

[jeremy69]

I think the director is due some education! Why does he believe that it is the non offending side's duty to ask. Where does this idea come from? If a support double was not alerted and there is some damage as a result of this then it seems clear to me to adjust. Whether there is adjustment or not I would warn the side of their duty to alert and if it were a second or subsequent offence give them a PP.

[Phil]

The Director needs some remedial lessons.

 

Still, North needs to attend assertiveness training classes. Pard makes a r/w WJS and we hold a prime 18 and no club duplication? Maverick needs to get in the dogfight here.

 

North has 12 cards, btw.

[helene_t]

I have to admit that the line between "support (non-mandatory)", which is clearly alertable and "takeout (almost always exactly 3 hearts)", which is clearly non-alertable, has always seemed very fuzzy to me. Do the laws experts have any insight which could clear the matter up?

My thought as well, but as Ed says, this can't be a t/o double as all four suits have been bid, so the normal meaning of this double is penalty.

[bluejak]

I do not see the logic. A takeout double is one that suggests partner picks a place to play on the available evidence, not including the suit doubled. The fact that all four suits have been bid does not affect this at all.

 

Alerting of doubles is a matter of regulation, not people's logic, since the latter does not work very well. For example, in the EBU, an unalerted double here is for takeout. Since I play it for takeout in this position I do not alert it.

[peachy]

Not sure if it does any good but you could mail this to ACBL Rulings - with dates, TD name, opp names, etc. relevant detail.

 

The table ruling is plain wrong, IMO.

[Phil]

So did the AC change the table result Tyler?

[TylerE]

The AC felt that West should have known something was up, and left EW with their +130, while also stating that NS had benefitted from the failure to alert, and awarded them -170 for 3♠+1, which frankly makes no sense to me at all, given West's statement before seeing dummy that he would have bid *4* ♠ with the alert. I was East, so my role in all this was rather limited, but I feel strongly that the table ruling was wrong, and the AC decision only very slightly better.

[mich-b]

I (being non expert about bridge laws) think the AC's decision is in the right direction.

 

N/S have failed to alert an alertable call - there is no doubt about it, so their score should be adjusted negatively, be it -170 or -620.

This does not however automatically mean that E/W are entitled to a positive adjustment. The double could have had other non-alertable meaning (takeout), and assuming that it was penalty was just wrong.

 

I feel that assigning different scores to EW and NS with a negative total, is often a good solution in cases like this.

[bluejak]

Is it a legal solution? Under what law?

[Finch]

Can some helpful American TD tell us exactly what meanings of double in this auction are alertable in the ACBL, and which aren't?

[aguahombre]

helpful American TD

Jumbo shrimp

[peachy]

Can some helpful American TD tell us exactly what meanings of double in this auction are alertable in the ACBL, and which aren't?

I don't act as TD and don't have to be one to read the ACBL alert regs - such as they are...

Support Dbl is alerted. That is clear, be it this auction or other auctions where Dbl is support. Other doubles in this auction (unless meaning is highly unusual or unexpected) are not alerted.

[Finch]

Well, here's a conditional answer:

 

- If a take-out double (whatever that may mean) is not alertable, then EW have not been damaged. West says he would have raised spades had he known the double was not for penalties. If a non-penalty double shouldn't have been alerted, then he couldn't know that.

 

- If anything other than a penalty double was alertable, then I would adjust.

[Vampyr]

Apparently, in the ACBL neither penalty nor takeout doubles are alerted. This is an extremely unhelpful regulation.

 

I think that the EBU have got it right by having one unalertable meaning for doubles.

[Mbodell]

Apparently, in the ACBL neither penalty nor takeout doubles are alerted. This is an extremely unhelpful regulation.

 

I think that the EBU have got it right by having one unalertable meaning for doubles.

yeah, the rough rule of thumb that one experienced player in my club says is "if a double is mostly takeout or mostly penalty it doesn't need to be alerted". Common things that do need alerts, IMO, are support doubles, doubles showing a specific suit (I.e., double as a transfer), and/or anti-lead direct doubles (I.e., I double the cue bid of my suit to show please don't lead my suit).

[barmar]

The rule in the ACBL makes reference to "highly unusual and unexpected meanings". If a particular double is usually penalty, you don't have to alert it if it's penalty, but should alert if it's takeout (or something else), and vice versa.

 

But support doubles are always alertable, so there was definitely a failure to alert.

 

Furthermore, I think that in the original auction, if support doubles were not in use, the usual, expected meaning of the double would be penalty (it can't be takeout, because all 4 suits have been bid -- where is partner supposed to take out to?), so a penalty double would not be alertable. West was justified in assuming that the unalerted double was for penalty. While he could have protected himself by asking, I don't think such a basic auction requires him to. Few players play support doubles over 2♠, and his reason for thinking South could have a spade stack seems quite reasonable.

[bluejak]

It is perfectly possible to play it as a takeout double. There is no rule that says all suits bid means no takeout double. A takeout double says "I have sufficient values and the right shape for playing this hand somewhere not in the suit just bid". That is a perfectly possible meaning for a double in this position - in fact I play this double as takeout myself.

[lamford]

West says he would have raised spades had he known the double was not for penalties. If a non-penalty double shouldn't have been alerted, then he couldn't know that.

I don't think this is the right method of addressing the infraction.

 

If the player based his call on his own misunderstanding, I would agree with you under Law 21A. However, Law 21 B provides:

 

"Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

 

So, we do not need to establish whether West was misinformed or not. We are told by the Laws that he is deemed to have been.

 

So, we only have to decide whether "the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation" and it appears here that it was. If the call had been alerted and explained as a "support double" then I can quite believe the person "could well have" raised, which is all we need to establish to award an adjusted score. So, the fact that he jumped to the conclusion that it was a penalty double is not that relevant; we are only interested in what would have happened without the infraction.

[pirate22]

ok 12 cards in west's hand-can one assume west had Kxx in spades???