Alerting a double

[c_corgi]

I agree that there is MI. What I don't understand is why West would prefer to play in H when North has the heart length but not when it is South who has the H length.

[aguahombre]

No, you've read something incorrectly, though I'm not sure whether it's the regluation or the original post.

 

 

South's double was for penalties, so it wasn't for takeout, so it's alertable, so EW were misinformed.

O.K. It was your post; I haven't read 5G5 (d), myself. In your post, the regulation calls a double of 2H in an analogous pass/correct situation "take-out" and at the same time states that it shows the suit bid. I don't understand calling a double take-out when it shows the suit RHO bid, but that's what you quoted from the Orange Book while also quoting that the OB says it must not be alerted.

 

That is what we have in the OP: a double of a pass/correct bid showing the suit bid.

[helene_t]

Aquahombre, you misunderstand. It is the p/c bid itself that is deemed to show the suit bid.

 

The double is not deemed to show the suit bid, it is cosidered t/o i.e. expected to be short in the suit bid.

[c_corgi]

Agua, when it says 'this is deemed to show the suit bid', I think this is intended to refer to RHO's bid rather than our double.

[mycroft]

Yes, that makes all the difference to me. The Alert decisions on doubles that David posted made me immediately think "so, do pass-or-correct calls 'show the suit' or not? There should be a special case/interpretation on that one, given that the EBU has a lot more pass-or-correct calls than we in the ACBL (to the point where I'm not sure that "pass-or-correct" is adequate explanation over here).

 

Given the interpretation given, that "pass-or-correct" calls are deemed to "show the suit", then the double of 2♥ should be for takeout. I like the rules, I like the clarity, but I think the number of "non-intuitive Alerts" are legion, and it's only lawyers like David and I that find it "easy" and "clear". "Easier" or "clearer", sure.

 

Having said that, is there a "you should know to protect yourself" clause in the English regulations? This clearly seems to be the time to pull it out, given that one has to have read and understood the revisions to the OB that are 8 months old to know that this is an arguable case *that has had the argument decided*. Trusting it to be "clearly" takeout because unAlerted I would expect to be a mug's game.

 

But I bet this pair won't forget this regulation soon. It'll be fun if they're the kind to take umbrage when they're on the other side of the coin.

 

I don't think I'm awarding all of -500, though; some fraction of -600 (and some fraction of -630, if south logically would be declarer) seems to be in order.

[gnasher]

Having said that, is there a "you should know to protect yourself" clause in the English regulations? This clearly seems to be the time to pull it out, given that one has to have read and understood the revisions to the OB that are 8 months old to know that this is an arguable case *that has had the argument decided*.

Yes:

3A3. It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

However, I don't think this situation passes the "implausible" test. Also, asking about the double does put EW's interests at risk, if West only asks when he's considering running.

 

Trusting it to be "clearly" takeout because unAlerted I would expect to be a mug's game.

I agree: many people aren't as familar with the alerting regulations as Bluejak's posts might suggest. Personally I would always ask the meaning of this double, regardless of my hand. But, because I would always ask, I'm not giving anything away by doing so.

[Finch]

That is not possible. There are not more than 4 suits in a deck, and in a doubling sequence started by responder, the way to show lack of hearts is to pass.

 

I play double as take-out on this auction. It has some theoretical merits, which I won't go into here.

 

Apart from observing the 2Sx is also potentially 800, I might also observe that I don't see why West is passing a take-out double (that is likely to be passed out for penalties) on his 3-card suit, but would bid over a penalty double.

[nige1]

East-West are fortunate to be more knowledgeable about Orange Book regulations than I am. As North I wouldn't have known to alert South's double of 2♥. If the director judges that North's failure to alert damaged East-West, would he give much weight to Frances' clever defence of 2♠? Would he give some weight to 2♠ undoubled?.

[Trinidad]

Yes, there is MI. According to paragraph x.y.z. of the OB, the penalty double should have been alerted.

 

No, there is no damage because of the MI. Did West seriously think that North was going to bid over a takeout double? In that case South wouldn't have any hearts, East wouldn't have many hearts (else he would have bid 2♠, 2♦ or something fancy (XX or 2♣)). Since there are 13 hearts in the deck, where does he think they would be?

 

So, irrespective of the meaning of the double (takeout or penalty), West knew that if he passed his partner would play 2♥X. If the double would have been takeout, West would have even more reason to run from 2♥, since the hearts would be behind him and break worse.

 

As a TD, I would also tell EW that -if this is a normal 1NT overcall, VUL- an explanation "less than an opening bid" is incorrect. I would also tell EW should start alerting their passes and explain as "implying length in the opponents suit" or something similar.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

I might be tempted to rule on the basis of an illegal convention. I don't think a 4342 1-count qualifies as a 'weak take-out double' although I admit that is all that the OB says.

Something over ten years ago a player overcalled 1NT on a 3343 zero count. When this was discussed at an L&EC meeting I suggested it might be illegal but was told that it was definitely legal to play it this way.

 

Having said that, is there a "you should know to protect yourself" clause in the English regulations?

5 H Misinformation and Penalties

 

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

 

I agree: many people aren't as familar with the alerting regulations as Bluejak's posts might suggest. Personally I would always ask the meaning of this double, regardless of my hand. But, because I would always ask, I'm not giving anything away by doing so.

If I gave the impression that people know the alerting rules, then I am sorry. While people have been pretty good over the years with alerting of bids and passes, doubles has been different. Under the previous rules, which seemed reasonable, I doubt one player in three got them right. That is why they were simplified. Now that they are simple the number of people understanding them is rising quite a lot, but not to the extent where people are particularly reliable. Like gnasher, I always ask in this sort of situation, but only about doubles: other calls I rely on the alerts.

[Trinidad]

If you would want to simplify the alert rules with respect to doubles, wouldn't a rule like "All doubles that are not for penalty have to be alerted." be pretty simple?

 

If you don't like that (and you want to make takeout doubles not alertable), you could make the rule:

 

"All doubles are alertable, except for takeout doubles. A takeout double is defined as:

Either:

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits

or

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits or any strong* hand

or

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits or 10 HCPs and 5-5+ in two unbid suits "

 

With either of these two rules, the amount of incorrect alerts regarding doubles might drop well below 50% within 2 years! ;)

 

Rik

 

* I am sure strong is defined somewhere in the OB.

[RMB1]

* I am sure strong is defined somewhere in the OB.

 

You so don't want to go there

"strong" = "extended rule of 25" = a little better than an average hand and a bit of shape

:)

[bluejak]

I don't want to change the alerting rules for doubles, which are now workig well and getting known. I merely wanted views on the actual ruling.

[gordontd]

If you would want to simplify the alert rules with respect to doubles, wouldn't a rule like "All doubles that are not for penalty have to be alerted." be pretty simple?

 

Yes, it would be simple, and would mean that doubles of opening bids, opening pre-empts, and negative doubles would need to be alerted. Doesn't sound good to me.

 

If you don't like that (and you want to make takeout doubles not alertable), you could make the rule:

 

"All doubles are alertable, except for takeout doubles. A takeout double is defined as:

Either:

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits

or

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits or any strong* hand

or

- 10 HCP or more and 3+ cards in all unbid suits or 10 HCPs and 5-5+ in two unbid suits "

 

With either of these two rules, the amount of incorrect alerts regarding doubles might drop well below 50% within 2 years! ;)

 

 

The first sentence is not far off what we have. The following sentences would once again make negative doubles alertable. We used to have that, and they were one of the main sources of complaints about our alerting regulations.

 

I'm pretty sure our incorrect alerts of doubles are well below 50% anyway, so your suggestions would make everything worse.

[bluejak]

I thought it one of the most interesting rulings that i have seen recently and find it sad that so few people were interested in discussing it. It was ruled that the result stood, because the failure of the 1NT overcaller to find out what the double was plus the fact that he passed a pass/correct bid with four spades and three hearts was a clear breach of Orange book 5H1.

 

While, of course, we never say anyone has done something unethical, it did occur to me that not asking and passing looks like a straight double shot attempt to me. Some people have commented how unlikely it is to play this double as takeout: rather than apply that to the hand they just wanted to criticise the regulations. If you had overcalled with that heap vulnerable, when 2♥ is doubled, do you really say to yourself "Oh, good, I have got away with it!"? Even if the double was not for penalties a penalty pass seems highly likely.

 

Some people think 2♥ is likely to have five cards. Why? Nothing to stop partner having four spades and three hearts, is there?

 

I think it a pity that the off-topic argument about the regulations has led to so few people considering the actual hand.

 

The AC upheld the TD while returning the deposit.

[gordontd]

Have you told us what was the TD's ruling that the AC upheld?

 

It seems to me that the double of 2♥ is alertable, but I can see no connection between that and the inferior score that EW earned by virtue of West failing to follow his own system. I cannot see that anything would have been any different if East had a suitable hand and made a takeout double.

[jdeegan]

:P I think the relevant issue here is W's claim that he/she/it would have bid 2♠ had they known RHO's double of 2 ♥ was for penalty. This is an obvious bald-faced lie. Pard said he/she/it liked ♥ and W held J9x.

[bluejak]

It was ruled that the result stood, because the failure of the 1NT overcaller to find out what the double was plus the fact that he passed a pass/correct bid with four spades and three hearts was a clear breach of Orange book 5H1.

 

 

Have you told us what was the TD's ruling that the AC upheld?

Yes! :D

[nige1]

No, there is no damage because of the MI. Did West seriously think that North was going to bid over a takeout double? In that case South wouldn't have any hearts, East wouldn't have many hearts (else he would have bid 2♠, 2♦ or something fancy (XX or 2♣)). Since there are 13 hearts in the deck, where does he think they would be?

Puzzled ...

If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double

If an opponent makes an unalerted call (high-lighted in local regulations) and you fail to protect yourself by asking, that shouldn't be grounds for an adverse ruling

[Trinidad]

Puzzled ...

If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double

That -by itself- is correct. But there is more to it: If South really had a takeout double, then where are the hearts? West has three, East has asked West to bid 2♠ if he doesn't have a heart suit, so East has 3-4 hearts, South has 0-2 for his supposed takeout double and North will have: 13 - 3 - (3 to 4) - (0 to 2) = between 4 and 7 hearts. With such a hand, North is not going to honor partner's request to bid a suit. He will convert the takeout double into a penalty double.

 

So, it hardly matters what South's double means. West knows that North will pass if West passes or West knows that North will almost certainly pass if West passes.

West's argument is: "If I would have been 99% sure that North would pass, I would have bid 2♠. Now, I was only 90% sure that North would pass, hence it was a good idea to pass.". That is hardly a good argument.

 

If you add to that the fact that West was violating his system by passing, you will conclude rapidly that the failure to alert was not the cause of the damage.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Puzzled ...

If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double

If an opponent makes an unalerted call (high-lighted in local regulations) and you fail to protect yourself by asking, that shouldn't be grounds for an adverse ruling

Of course not, by itself, just that it is with the actual hand.