Unalerted Support Double

[olien]

Well, I think the ruling was wrong, and that the result for everybody should've been changed to 4S making. Also, why were N/S not penalized for not having their cards filled out in identical fashion?

[bluejak]

Possibly the ACBL wants to continue running tournaments, and having no players would make that tricky.

 

We suggest a practical approach in these forums. well, in the first three: theoretical questions are sometimes suitable for the Changing Laws & Regulations forum. Now, one thing you do not do is issue lots and lots of penalties: players do not like it. With the exception of pairs where one player fills the SCs out for both of them, I estimate, about 99% of pairs have at least one difference between their two CCs. It is not practical, nor desirable, nor helpful to fine such pairs.

 

Whether we like to or not, some rules are made to be broken, and the heavy stick approach is not the answer. For example, the last pass of an auction using bidding boxes should be made by putting a card down. How many players do not? Do you want to penalise every one?

 

When a player does something wrong, which a majority of other players do, we do not penalise. But any adjustment will take note of any illegal action however common.

[jdonn]

Yes penalizing for convention cards not being a perfect match would be pretty ridiculous.

[mycroft]

My opinion (but of course, when ruling at the table, this is a judgement call (both in "highly unusual or unexpected" and "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves"*) so I would consult with other TDs) is that if this had been the other way around - 1C-1D-1S-2H; unAlerted X..., that a "top flight, 5000 MP player" should have checked. But as you say, the fraction of players who play Support doubles past two of responder's suit is still very small, and the ones who do who don't know it's Alertable in the ACBL is practically nonexistent; I don't think that that's "recognizable" outside of "hmm, is (1S) 3C unalerted Ghestem?" or "is (3S) 4C Gerber?", so I will so rule. I'd probably rule that way even if West's "I wanna bid 4S" came after the hand, but certainly before dummy came down. But I am still but an egg.

 

I guess that I should state specifically on this one that although I do, occasionally, TD in the ACBL, I'm not doing so now. My opinion is just that, and bears nothing as evidence to what the LC or the TD-at-the-table might say.

 

If I played that call as "partner, I want to play somewhere", I wouldn't refer to it as "takeout". In England, that has a defined meaning, and I assume, it is the correct one for this situation. However, in the ACBL, it would invariably be responded to with "to what suit? There isn't one." More commonly, here, this is referred to as "Our hand" or "cards" (or, if it doesn't tend to show convertable values, "two places to play" or even "do something intelligent") doubles. Not that the by-and-large are going to understand that, either. Just another instance of two worlds divided by a common language.

 

* that's the printed standard, not "could possibly have known" or any of the other things in this thread - Jeremy, that quote is from the ACBL Alert Procedure document.

 

Adam, while I'm sure there are pairs that don't Alert and don't get punished for it (although I've given my share of "double bad" scores in these situations, and will continue to do so; the non-Alerters don't always get a good board when their opponents get a bad one) the issue is that there are definitely players who play the "oblivious" double-shot. Strangely enough, frequently they are getting paid for their experience. Note: the *best* pros don't do this; nor even the merely good ones. The struggling ones are the ones more likely to try to pull this off.

[bluejak]

The trouble with 'cards' is that various things I have seen about such doubles make it clear they are not takeout doubles: a 'cards' double is optional, suggesting a pass much more than a takeout one.

 

If anyone asks me "to what suit?" that is easy: any suit apart from the one bid, or no-trumps. Same as a takeout double in any other position, of course.

[greenender]

Surely the essence of a takeout double when your side has bid two suits and the enemy has bid the other two is normally this: "I want to compete in whichever of our two suits affords the best fit, but I don't yet know which that is".

 

Depending on the auction, the precise suit lengths implied by such a double may vary, but surely the problem is that in a classic support double position, such a double is going to deliver precisely three-card support a high percentage of the time: with four, why would opener give responder a choice; with two, would he not normally rebid his own suit or go quietly?

 

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for correct alerting, and if a takeout double isn't alertable but a support double is, then players who play support doubles should jolly well alert them. But I can't see myself as a TD being that inclined to accept that a player's call could well have been influenced by the MI, if the essence of the MI at issue is the difference between a takeout and a support double.

 

Here, of course, a penalty meaning is in the frame, and I believe that Lamford's conclusion is right.

[nige1]

I agree with BLuejak that it is daft to blame a victim for his failure to ask an opponent if he has broken the rules. West thought the double was penalty but even if he guessed it might be intended as takeout, why shouldn't he pass in the hope that opponents were having a misunderstanding? That misconception would be prevented if his LHO had obeyed the rules and alerted the double as support. And West might even have got it right if his opponent's convention card had not misled him.