Unalerted double (EBU)

[barmar]

That may be right. This is certainly a hand where I would be very impressed if declarer found the correct DD line.

[lamford]

I'm not sure it is as simple as that, barmar. It is true you can pick up the trumps this way, but there is also a significant danger of losing control, particularly if the defence start with clubs. I suspect the winning line is to start on the spades and only work on the trumps later, but would declarer do that in practice given the dangers of a spade ruff if the suit doesn't break 3-3?

As long as the declarer reverts to spades after discovering the 4-1 heart break there is no problem. Win club, cash king of hearts, run 10, then on to spades. You need spades 3-3 anyway or they beat you with a spade ruff. If the defence keep playing clubs, you ruff one in dummy with the 3♥, pitching a diamond from East. Now you can use a top diamond as a trump substitute.

[lamford]

The adjustment I eventually came up with was:

 

40% 3♦X(S)-2

20% 4♣X(S)-1

20% 4♥(E)-1

20% ♥(E)=

 

In retrospect I think I was generous to NS in allowing them to redouble quite so often, and I redressed the balance by allowing West to make 4♥ as much as half the time.

A pretty good effort, and I agree that redouble is hardly automatic on the North hand, but then if she often faces 3D overcalls as bad as this (what on earth was wrong with double?) she might need to rescue this particular partner more!

[PhilKing]

North played you.

 

The idea that they would run is a joke.

[jallerton]

I answered the director call, and fortunately had another regular from this forum on the opposing team to consult during the break.

 

We decided that East had a duty to alert the double even though he had no agreement, as the action he took was consistent with ascribing it an alertable meaning. The lack of alert constituted misinformation to NS.

 

North had been very insistent immediately after the hand had been played out that she would have redoubled. I know this is not proof that she would have done, and she could have been pulling the wool over my eyes, but even though I couldn't find much enthusiasm for the call among players I consulted, it's the sort of thing some players do, and one or two players thought it was a possible action, so I ruled that she might redouble about half of the time.

 

South might take this out into spades, but he's not likely to stay there if he does, so I thought West would likely have to make a decision over a 4♣ bid. He might bid 4♥, but bearing in mind that East preferred to defend 3♦X than bid game in hearts on the last round, he might also decide to defend. Finally, if he does bid 4♥, how likely is he to make it? Deep Finesse says he can make ten tricks, but I can't see how. Some of the players I asked thought it might make, but I didn't get a very convincing line of play from them. The adjustment I eventually came up with was:

 

40% 3♦X(S)-2

20% 4♣X(S)-1

20% 4♥(E)-1

20% ♥(E)=

 

In retrospect I think I was generous to NS in allowing them to redouble quite so often, and I redressed the balance by allowing West to make 4♥ as much as half the time.

 

In MI cases, sometimes when a player of the non-offending side says: "I would have done XYZ had the opponents alerted/explained differently" it would be more accurate for him to say "I wish I had done XYZ" or "If I had known all four hands I would have done XYZ".

 

Whilst players do sometimes take strange actions at the table, it's always a dilemma for a TD when a player claims that he would have taken an implausible action. Is the player making this up, or does he really bid like this?

 

In this particular case, I would like to consider some more basic questions.

 

1. What was the infraction?

 

The infraction was the failure to alert, as apparently required by the dubiously worded Orange Book 5B10 regulation.

 

2. What would/might have happened, had the infraction not occurred?

 

If East had alerted the double, this would have prompted North (assuming he was considering acting at all) to ask about the meaning of the double. He would have been told "no agreement". Hence any putative adjusted score should be on the basis of North assuming that E/W have no agreement about the double, not on the basis that it was agreed to be penalties.

[Vampyr]

The infraction was the failure to alert, as apparently required by the dubiously worded Orange Book 5B10 regulation.

 

Do you dislike this regulation? I think it makes sense.

[Vampyr]

I answered the director call, and fortunately had another regular from this forum on the opposing team to consult during the break.

 

Did you really consult with a player whose team was affected by the ruling? LOL

[aguahombre]

Do you dislike this regulation? I think it makes sense.

Unfortunately, you yourself illustrate why the regulation does not make sense. You said very early on (in this thread) that a call should have only one unalerted meaning.

 

Let's see.

 

1C (P) 1H (1S)

X

 

Support double?

Extended negative?

Snapdragon?

 

The double has several possible meanings ---all unalerted except Penalty. Lumping all doubles which are not penalty into "takeout" is a joke.

 

1N (2D) X.

 

Transfer?

Major suits?

non descript invite +

 

All unalerted under the blanket of "Takeout"?

[Vampyr]

This was not the regulation Jeffrey was referring to, but I do think that this one is also sensible, in large part because it is simple to explain and apply.

 

 

1C (P) 1H (1S)

X

 

Support double?

Extended negative?

Snapdragon?

 

The double has several possible meanings ---all unalerted except Penalty. Lumping all doubles which are not penalty into "takeout" is a joke.

 

These doubles are all alertable, with the possible exception of your second example. I would have to know a bit more about what the "extended negative" double shows before I could tell you.

 

1N (2D) X.

 

Transfer?

Major suits?

non descript invite +

 

All unalerted under the blanket of "Takeout"?

 

No. These are also alertable.

 

The description of "takeout double" is a little vague in the Orange Book since it tries to define the term in the context of a variety of auctions. But I think most people know what a takeout double is, and your examples are not takeout doubles. If you had included "short in diamonds, support for the other suits and the values to compete", then that would be a takeout double and not alerted.

[aguahombre]

One thing seems certain..I don't understand the EBU regulations per the alertability of doubles. So, if only to me, they don't make sense. It seems to me that the precept is "If you are going to have the audacity to try and penalize opponents' bidding, you had better alert." Of course in these cases it is too late for them to do anything about it; so, perhaps EBU should make penalty doubles a pre-alert.

[Vampyr]

One thing seems certain..I don't understand the EBU regulations per the alertability of doubles. So, if only to me, they don't make sense.

 

I don't know why you are having trouble. Here is the regulation:

5 E 2 Doubles

The rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

(b) Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney minor openings.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

© No trump bids.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.

(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable

otherwise.

Doubles are also alertable if they convey a potentially unexpected meaning in addition

to take-out or penalties as defined above.

In 5E2(a) and 5E2(d) the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:

‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it

is followed by two passes’.

 

Another regulation goes into further details to explain slightly unusual auctions, but it does not violate the above precepts.

 

Maybe you hadn't actually read the regulation and thought that (a) above read: "Double of these bids is alertable if for penalties; non-alertable otherwise"?

 

Takeout and penalty are not the only two types of doubles.

[aguahombre]

O.K. Now it makes sense.

 

2S (3D) X

 

1N (3S) X

 

We should alert the opponents that they are going down, so next hand won't raise causing them to go down more.

[Vampyr]

O.K. Now it makes sense.

 

2S (3D) X

 

1N (3S) X

 

We should alert the opponents that they are going down, so next hand won't raise causing them to go down more.

 

If you are playing these doubles as penalty or as anything other than takeout, then yes, they are alertable.

[Lanor Fow]

O.K. Now it makes sense.

 

2S (3D) X

 

1N (3S) X

 

We should alert the opponents that they are going down, so next hand won't raise causing them to go down more.

 

I'm taking this post as containing no sarcasm, as I'm sure you wouldn't suggest hiding agreements from opposition to try and get them to a worse place, or an alert system that deliberatly makes it unclear, to help get them to a worse place.

[WellSpyder]

Did you really consult with a player whose team was affected by the ruling? LOL

What else do you suggest, when everybody at the match is in one team or the other (including VixTD)? As it happens, I had no idea which side was which when I was given the hand, since it happened at the other end of the room. (Each county has 3 teams of 8 involved in the match, so it is not the same as a simple teams of 4 match where it is pretty unlikely that you won't know which team is playing EW and which NS at the table in question.)

[WellSpyder]

North played you.

 

The idea that they would run is a joke.

I happen to know the North player involved, and she is as honest as they come. I am therefore entirely confident that if North is clear that she would have redoubled, then that is what she believes. It doesn't follow, of course, that she actually would have done, which is inherently unknowable by anyone.

 

And I agree that redoubling would be a dubious action, which I would not expect to take myself on the hand. But, as Vampyr pointed out earlier, perhaps she has seen her partner's overcalls before - they have been playing together for a long time.

[billw55]

One thing seems certain..I don't understand the EBU regulations per the alertability of doubles. So, if only to me, they don't make sense.

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

 

Vampyr, do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

[mjj29]

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

The alertability of doubles is very simple. There's one meaning for non-alert that's well defined in each case and everything else you should alert.

 

What's difficult is 'no agreement' cases. The regulations _don't_ _require_ you to alert those, but they do ask you to give the opponents as good a guess as you have. Thus, if you genuinely have no idea, then don't alert. If, however, you have a good guess that it's alertable case, then alert and say "we don't have an agreement, but ...".

[gordontd]

do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

You would be misinforming your opponents whenever the double was not alertable.

[Vampyr]

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

 

This does not apply only to doubles of course; this applies to all calls. If the meaning might be alertable, you alert. If they ask and you don't know, so be it. Maybe there are agreements for similar situations that can yield a comparison. How is this different from being asked about an agreement you don't have or are unsure of, without your having alerted?

 

 

Vampyr, do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

 

No, the alert regulation for doubles is basically:

 

Suit:not takeout = alert

Notrumps:not penalty = alert

 

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

 

Edit: Crossed several posts, so I thought I might add this:

 

Thus, if you genuinely have no idea, then don't alert. If, however, you have a good guess that it's alertable case, then alert and say "we don't have an agreement, but ...".

 

I am unsure about whether you should alert when you have no idea. In any case, the opponents don't always ask, and if you didn't alert and they asked you would still reply as immediately above. So it is not the alert that is the difficulty, it is the lack of agreement.

 

And the UI issue is symmetrical -- after all, you can't neither alert not not alert!

[paulg]

the alert regulation for doubles is basically:

 

Suit:not takeout = alert

Notrumps:not penalty = alert

 

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

Oh dear, I don't play in England often but I thought it was

 

Natural suit: not takeout = alert

Artificial suit: not penalty = alert

Notrump: not penalty = alert

 

 

[billw55]

So Vampyr, I assume the regulations also contain a precise definition of "takeout" ?

[billw55]

Also:

 

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

 

...

 

I am unsure about whether you should alert when you have no idea.

:blink:

[gordontd]

So Vampyr, I assume the regulations also contain a precise definition of "takeout" ?

Orange Book 4H6 Take-out doubles

A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to

describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit

doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant

extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on

a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for

his actions (if any) to date.

[gnasher]

If [you don't know but] the meaning might be alertable, you alert.

That's what the rule ought to be. In fact, the current rule is: if you don't know but you intend to treat it as an alertable meaning, you alert.

 

I'm rather hoping the the L&EC will change that this year.