No Alert of support double

[jmcw]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq52hqt32da32ckq3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1s2cd]133|200[/hv]

 

There was no alert of the double and RHO did not have the support double box ticked on her c.c.. Should I just bid 3♣, or pass and wait and see what happens.

 

Does anything change if RHO does have the support double box ticked off.

 

Edited N/S were VUL.

[Vampyr]

Well, it does not sound as if the opponents are playing support doubles. If it is written on the card you may have been given MI, but it is hard to anticipate whether or how you will be damaged.

 

Why are you considering choosing a different action based on whether the double is support or ordinary takeout?

[hevnandhel]

I'd bid 2♦ (good 3-card raise), no matter what the Double is.

[helene_t]

What is the unalerted meaning of the double in your jurisdiction?

 

If it is penalty then you can pass and then if it turns out it wasn't penalty you can call the TD afterwards if you think you may have been damaged.

 

If t/o doubles are not alertable in this situation then I would just bid 3♣.

 

You could also ask, of course, and that is what I would do at a friendly club. It does give the show away.

[lamford]

You could also ask, of course, and that is what I would do at a friendly club. It does give the show away.

I think you should always ask about doubles, as many players do not understand the alerting rules of these, and only an SB takes advantage of his better knowledge of the Blue Book or equivalent.

[Trinidad]

I think you should always ask about doubles, as many players do not understand the alerting rules of these, and only an SB takes advantage of his better knowledge of the Blue Book or equivalent.

If this is in the ACBL (and the fact that the OP mentions 'tick boxes' suggests that) then AFAIK the default (not alertable) meaning is penalty. So, the opponents may well have a misunderstanding. In that case, I would certainly not ask but hope I would be able to score +380 on a deal where the opponents can make 3♠.

 

Rik

[jmcw]

If this is in the ACBL (and the fact that the OP mentions 'tick boxes' suggests that) then AFAIK the default (not alertable) meaning is penalty. So, the opponents may well have a misunderstanding. In that case, I would certainly not ask but hope I would be able to score +380 on a deal where the opponents can make 3♠.

 

Rik

 

 

This is the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. Without an alert the double would be penalty (Canada), but I have a clear 3♣ bid.

 

I passed, LHO bid 2♠ and it came back to me. Should I bid 3 ♣ now?

[Trinidad]

Now, you are probably in a mess. But don't worry, there is a way out.

 

Always assume that there was no infraction. This means that you should play your best bridge now, and assume that the information that you got from the opponents ("Dbl is not alertable and, hence, for penalties.") is correct. This means that East has a big hand, with about 4 clubs, and West has a singleton or void in clubs, a lot of spades and little else.

 

As soon as it becomes reasonably clear that the explanation was wrong (e.g. because East puts a 3=4=5=1 distribution in the dummy) you call the TD. You explain that there was no alert and that (e.g.) the dummy looks more like a support double than a penalty double to you. The TD will tell you to finish playing the hand and call him back if you think you have been damaged. So that is what you will do.

 

After the hand, you will see that West will be the one with the club length, instead of East. That means that:

East intended his double as support

West understood the double as support

This means that it is highly unlikely that EW are playing double as penalty.

 

When I am the TD, I typically weight this "the proof is in the pudding" evidence very heavily. You can write on a CC whatever you want, but at the table it becomes clear what your real agreements are. In such a case, I will not say that they don't play penalty doubles. I will just say that the evidence that they aren't is stronger.

 

So, if all this happens, I would rule MI. And if there is damage, I would adjust the score.

 

However, not all TDs are like me. So, I would do the above once. If the TD basically says that you are an idiot and you should have known, or that he doesn't rule in your favor for some other reason, then follow Lamford's advice and just ask.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

When I am the TD, I typically weight this "the proof is in the pudding" evidence very heavily. You can write on a CC whatever you want, but at the table it becomes clear what your real agreements are. In such a case, I will not say that they don't play penalty doubles. I will just say that the evidence that they aren't is stronger.

 

The proof, actually, is in the eating.

 

But anyway, is it not possible that E/W do not know the alerting rules? Penalty is the non-alertable meaning, but it seems highly unusual. E/W may well be playing takeout doubles and not know that they are alertable. I would ask,

[jmcw]

I think you should always ask about doubles, as many players do not understand the alerting rules of these, and only an SB takes advantage of his better knowledge of the Blue Book or equivalent.

 

And if the answer is, "I don't know" and there is nothing on RHO c.c., what now?

[barmar]

You assume the unalertable meaning. If it turns out to be different, and you were damaged, the TD should adjust the score.

 

This assumes that they actually have an agreement. If he doesn't know because they haven't discussed it, then there's no MI, so no justification for an adjustment.

[blackshoe]

Always assume that there was no infraction.

I would word this slightly differently: Never assume that there was an infraction.

 

Your opponents are obligated by law and regulation to provide two identically completed system cards. If they don't have them, or they are not correctly filled out, that's on them. So don't worry about it, just look at the card, and go with what it says (or doesn't say).

 

I agree with Rik's approach to ruling, pretty much, but I would add a couple of things for EW's benefit: first, there is a pretty good series, periodically reprinted in the ACBL Bulletin and available in its entirety on the ACBL website, on how to fill out the system card. Strongly recommend they read it, and make sure their cards are correctly completed. Second, the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest state that "a partnership is responsible for knowing its methods". This is a fairly common situation, so you need to know what you're doing here. Actually, these should be to everybody's benefit. B-)

[Vampyr]

I think that a problem with a convention card that has check boxes is that the fact that a box isn't checked doesn't mean that there was a decision not to check it. The partnership could have akipped over that bit or not got that far or just forgot or whatever.

[jmcw]

Thanks for the answers, but I must confess I'm still confused.

 

In my opening post, I showed a hand that is clearly worth a 3♣ raise (under normal circumstances). But now uncertainty clouds my decision, why?, because it appears the opponents. want to penalize 2♣.

 

If I wake them up by asking (as some have suggested) what the double is, am I not doing a miss justice to all the other east/west in the field?.

 

Am I not allowed to assume certain things from their failure to alert and nothing on their convention card?

 

According to my local director, "I stopped playing bridge" when I passed the double, he did not even look at their c.c.

[akwoo]

I think the double being penalty IS alertable in the ACBL. The convention card is red for penalty doubles in the upper left corner.

 

Support is ALSO alertable.

 

The non-alertable meaning is negative - I'd take this as 4 cards in the unbid major.

[blackshoe]

This is a "support double" situation. If the double is not "support", then it probably does not require an alert - but I would think the common meaning is takeout, not penalty. Maybe I'm wrong. If it is "support" then you have been mis-informed and the director should protect your equity in the hand. If it's penalty... well, 2♣ is an overcall, albeit not one made directly over an opening bid. It seems to me that akwoo is right, and if this double is penalty it should have been alerted, and again the director should protect your equity.

 

Your director was wrong. Not being sure what to do is not "stopped playing bridge". But if you assumed an alertable meaning when there was no alert, well, that's on you. If you don't know which meanings require an alert in this situation, ask your director to tell you. He will first tell you that it's not his job to teach you how to play bridge. He's right about that, but explain to him that you're not asking that, you're asking what the rules are. He should answer you then.

[Trinidad]

I think the double being penalty IS alertable in the ACBL.

Thanks for clarifying. My previous post was based on the assumption that takeout would be alertable (as it used to be when I was playing in the US, I am getting old). If penalty is alertable then that post lost its basis.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Thanks for clarifying. My previous post was based on the assumption that takeout would be alertable (as it used to be when I was playing in the US, I am getting old). If penalty is alertable then that post lost its basis.

 

Obviously one is alertable and one is not; where does one find a definitive answer?

 

[

]If I wake them up by asking (as some have suggested) what the double is, am I not doing a miss justice to all the other east/west in the field?.

 

I think it is not best practice to assume that opponents don't know their methods. Particularly as this is a situation where nobody knows what is alertable, it is far more likely that the opponents have forgotten to alert. And if you ask and are misinformed you will be protected.

[barmar]

Obviously one is alertable and one is not; where does one find a definitive answer?

The ACBL Alert Procedures. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have enough detail to be sure about this situation. It says that support doubles/redoubles are alertable, but doesn't say which of the possible alternate meanings in this sequence would be alertable. There's a general statement:

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

So we're left to judge which of penalty or takeout would be considered highly unusual or unexpected.

[barmar]

If I wake them up by asking (as some have suggested) what the double is, am I not doing a miss justice to all the other east/west in the field?.

You have no responsibility to the field. Do what you need to for your game, let them worry about themselves.

[blackshoe]

So we're left to judge which of penalty or takeout would be considered highly unusual or unexpected.

Yeah. Sixty years ago, that would probably be takeout. Now it's probably penalty. Is "probably" good enough?

 

I would look it up in Truscott's The Bidding Dictionary, but I'm pretty sure this particular auction isn't in there. Too many calls. :(