Jump to content

Failure to Alert


lamford

Recommended Posts

[hv=pc=n&s=sak3hk3daj43ckjt5&w=s9852ht96d9752c96&n=sq64hj8542dkq6caq&e=sjt7haq7dt8c87432&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c(clubs%20or%20balanced)p1hp2np6ndppp]399|300[/hv] Teams, lead T; Table result: NS+1680

 

South, our friend from a local club who looks like the Secretary Bird and knows the EBU rules inside out, was like Oliver on the above deal, wanting more. He stated that the double of 6NT, obviously asking for a heart lead, was alertable, as it was a lead-directing double above 3NT. East argued that asking for a heart lead was standard, but South called the director, arguing he would have redoubled if he had known.

 

How do you rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OB5E4:

Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:

(a) Artificial opening bids

(b) Lead-directing passes

(c) Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other

than the suit doubled (or redoubled)

This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (© only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

 

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to my reading of the OB, the Secretary Bird is technically correct. However, it appears to me that declarer will make exactly 12 tricks whatever the opening lead unless he later leads a heart from his hand — and the heart lead actually insures the contract at trick one. Also, the OB says

OB 5H1: 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.

It seems to me this double is, while not "standard", common enough that Mr. Secretary Bird should have recognized that he should ask about it, and that asking carries no risk. So I would tell the defending side that they need to alert these doubles, and I would tell the Secretary Bird that no, he doesn't get to turn an average into a top by manipulating the laws (or the director).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OB5E4:

This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (© only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

 

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

I agree with Barmar that this double doesn't fall into any of the exceptions listed in the OB. Since it is not a double (or redouble) of a suit, that immediately means it can't fall into the third category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it appears to me that declarer will make exactly 12 tricks whatever the opening lead unless he later leads a heart from his hand — and the heart lead actually insures the contract at trick one.

Declarer is aware of this. He wants the extra points from the redouble that he would have made with correct information (asking for a heart lead in this auction is practically a guarantee of AQ, so he knows his K is working and partner's strength is all outside and fills in the holes in his hand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that double would normally produce an average in that club...hmmm.

That's why he's a SB -- the competition is so tough he needs to resort to every loophole in the Laws to get a good result.

 

Of course, he'll claim that they're all winning because they're not following the rules and getting away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why he's a SB -- the competition is so tough he needs to resort to every loophole in the Laws to get a good result.

 

Of course, he'll claim that they're all winning because they're not following the rules and getting away with it.

Or, if the competition is so weak that everyone would double 6NT with that, then our SB who plays there regularly must be equally bad or worse to need loopholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OB5E4:

This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (( c) only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

 

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

If the final contract had been 6 of a suit other than hearts, and the double asked for a heart lead, it would clearly have been alertable, ancient treatment or not. I don't see any logical reason for your assertion that ( c ) only applies when a suit has been bid. It still asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled. No suit was doubled, so it asks for a lead of one of the other suits, specifically hearts.

 

It does not say: "Doubles or redoubles of a suit that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the one doubled (or redoubled)"

 

And software that changes ( c ) when closed up to © might be changed too! Or is there a way to circumvent that?

 

And yes, aguahombre, some calls over 3NT are alertable in England.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declarer is aware of this. He wants the extra points from the redouble that he would have made with correct information (asking for a heart lead in this auction is practically a guarantee of AQ, so he knows his K is working and partner's strength is all outside and fills in the holes in his hand).

Indeed, in answer to you and gordontd, this was pretty much the point made by SB, almost immediately. "Well, he would, wouldn't he?", I hear some of you protest. And if he asked and was told "no agreement", then he would be practically marking the king of hearts in his hand. Why would he want to know, at that point, except to consider redoubling? Asking would stop West cashing a putative ace of hearts if the double was based, perhaps, on bad splits and short clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, if the competition is so weak that everyone would double 6NT with that, then our SB who plays there regularly must be equally bad or worse to need loopholes.

I did a simulation of the double of 6NT, and found that North was around 69% to have the king of hearts on this auction, and the heart lead was needed to beat it in 58% of those cases. That was just 100 hands, with the parameters that South had 18-19 balanced, North had 4-5 hearts, and 13-15 points. The double was a huge winner of IMPs. Especially if partner does not alert it, to reduce the risk of a redouble ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not there was damage on this particular hand, it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

 

Personally I agree with Lamford. Hearts is a suit and it is not the suit doubled, so it is a suit other than the suit doubled.

 

[edit]You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not there was damage on this particular hand, it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

 

Personally I agree with Lamford. Hearts is a suit and it is not the suit doubled, so it is a suit other than the suit doubled.

 

[edit]You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

I'd also like to see the definitions tightened up, I always assumed that this was alertable because "suit" and "denomination" were used interchangeably except when by context it was absolutely clear they were not, but maybe I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over there, are calls above 3NT alertable? If they are delayed alerts, it would be too late to redouble, anyway. In the ACBL, the delayed alert thing applies to either side.

 

In the ACBL, delayed alerts apply only to bids, not to all calls. Passes, doubles and redoubles if alertable are alertable at the time of the call even if the auction is beyond 3NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

There was some measure of agreement soon after the 2006 alerting rules came into force that Lightner doubles were still alertable. We think the L&E thought that they had made them not alertable, but had not succeeded. I think players are expected to ask about doubles of (what appears to be) the final (high level) contract.

 

Over the next few months there is work on revision of the EBU regulations - they may address this.

 

You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

cute!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And software that changes ( c ) when closed up to © might be changed too!

It is very kind of BBO to host these forums without charge. But it does mean we have no control over the software: there are a number of ways that other forums have different software which does seem better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think players are expected to ask about doubles of (what appears to be) the final (high level) contract.

I think players are entitled to assume that the double does not fall into an alertable category if it is not alerted. I would consider that asking would almost always damage his side's interests and for OB5H1 to apply, it is necessary for him BOTH to have been aware of the likely meaning AND to be able to ask without giving information to the opponents. The higher the level, the greater the likelihood the information that one is considering a further bid is useful.

 

Like SB, I have no sympathy for those that do not read the Orange Book from cover to cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...