Tatties o'er the side

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&w=s643ht87dt862cq43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2c(ART%20FG)X(clubs)2s(6%20spades)p4sppp]133|200[/hv]

Teams.

 

This was a tip given to me by the late Victor Silverstone, who sadly passed away recently. Your lead.

[nullve]

♣Q

[Winstonm]

The double should be red suits so I need to find partner with AK and KQ and lead the KQ suit and hope there is a club to lose before clubs are established. I need the reds to divide 3-2 and 2-2 but if I lead the 3-2 suit I might establish a discard on the third round of a 2-2 suit loser. Therefore I need to lead the 2-2 suit so I lead a low diamond.

[smerriman]

The double should be red suits

Will depend on agreements but I would assume it shows clubs. So I'm also leading the queen, hopefully followed by the killing switch.

[AL78]

Will depend on agreements but I would assume it shows clubs. So I'm also leading the queen, hopefully followed by the killing switch.

 

I've never heard of that agreement and would also assume it showed the red suits.

[pilowsky]

Doesn't double of an artificial bid commonly mean lead that suit?

As in double of a Bergen raise or double of a transfer bid etc.

What am I missing?

[DavidKok]

It does, but the question is how 'artificial' 2♣ is. In many systems 2♦ and 2♥ would have been natural, showing 5(+). This leaves 2♣ for:

1. GF balanced.
   
2. GF with long clubs.
   
3. GF with a spade fit, possible shortage (worst case 5=4=4=0 outside a suitable splinter range). If you play Jacoby NT this option is not necessary.
   

The first two option promises some club length (at least three, if balanced without a 5-card suit and without a spade fit, and always at least two even with spade fit), the second promises 5+ and the third is a rare beast. It is plausible that this is the actual agreement of the pair, and they disclosed it as 'artificial' to get ahead of all the "but you don't have club length" discussions (even though in that case they should have said something like "GF, might be short in clubs if balanced or with a fit").

If that is the agreement, 2♣ most likely contains some actual clubs, and double for the reds is sensible no matter what the opps call their bid.

If their 2♦ and up are all sorts of artificial (maybe limited, 10-11 HCP?) and responder may well have a long red suit, double for clubs is very sensible.

 

As a comparison, I keep a text file with pre-typed alerts that I frequently need. My 2♣ alert reads:

2♣ = a. GF ♣; b. 11-13 bal.; c. 10-11 5+♥ (over 1♠); d. GF with fit (possibly short ♣); e. GF bal.

Most of these promise at least some club length, and the rare types are usually ruled out on the subsequent auction immediately.

[Cyberyeti]

Doesn't double of an artificial bid commonly mean lead that suit?

As in double of a Bergen raise or double of a transfer bid etc.

What am I missing?

 

Indeed, and is alertable if it doesn't here IIRC

[Winstonm]

Will depend on agreements but I would assume it shows clubs. So I'm also leading the queen, hopefully followed by the killing switch.

I didn’t notice 2C was artificial.

[lamford]

I didn’t notice 2C was artificial.

Indeed the double showed clubs and Victor's tip was always to lead the top card of partner's suit, even if an honour.

 

Leid th' hi'est caird or it wull be tatties o'er the side is the tip of the day.

 

Full hand at

http://woodberrybc.blogspot.com/

[Winstonm]

Indeed the double showed clubs and Victor's tip was always to lead the top card of partner's suit, even if an honour.

 

Leid th' hi'est caird or it wull be tatties o'er the side is the tip of the day.

 

Full hand at

http://woodberrybc.blogspot.com/

 

In my defense, I did take care to notice that 2C was not by a passed hand and therefore was not Drury. Then my mind went blank.

[AL78]

Doesn't double of an artificial bid commonly mean lead that suit?

As in double of a Bergen raise or double of a transfer bid etc.

What am I missing?

 

You are missing nothing, I failed to notice the 2♣ was artificial, in which case I can see the double is asking for a club lead.

[Trinidad]

I am sorry, but in my world, the double is takeout of spades, the only suit that the opponents have shown.

And for the record, GF does not equal to "strong". Responder is usually in complete control of the auction and can, at any point, sign off in 4♠ (and in some cases, even pass opener's 3♠).

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

I think your comment that a diamond lead (and playing 2 more) is immediately fatal is a bit of an overbid, it is however eventually fatal on the strip squeeze.

[lamford]

I am sorry, but in my world, the double is takeout of spades, the only suit that the opponents have shown.

That is a way to play it, but the lack of an alert tells you that it shows clubs.

[mycroft]

Interesting. Because for me, it doesn't:

Do NOT Alert the following []:...

After an Opening Bid and a Response if either the Opening Bid or the Response is Artificial, any double.

Nor, it seems, for Trinidad("thanks" to Google Mangle Translate):

You must alert bids where you suspect the opposing team will make another without warning

assigns meaning to. This is the main rule.

...

Bid appointments and habits that are not alerted:

...

Doubles, except when the aforementioned main rule applies.

Nor, even, for some games at the world or European level:

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:

 

All doubles.

It seems that in Scotland, even if screens are in use, Trinidad's double would not be Alertable - because All Doubles are not Alerted.

 

Perhaps, it's only in one odd place, where the Alert regulations are so unique and complicated that no other organization agrees with them, that the lack of Alert here "shows clubs". Which, if this was a lesson held in the YC's teaching room, would make sense. But assuming that it would be obvious to everyone on a worldwide bridge site seems parochial.

 

[Note: despite my comments above, I believe, and have stated here a number of times, that the EBU's Alert regulations on doubles are as close to "simple, obvious, and understandable by all who have read them" as it is possible to get (while also saying that that "as close to" is still pulling a fair weight), and I would be very happy if I were playing and ruling under those "Alerting doubles" rules instead of any of the others I have quoted.]

[Trinidad]

That is a way to play it, but the lack of an alert tells you that it shows clubs.

I don't understand what you are saying: What shows clubs?

2♣ was alerted as art. GF. So, that didn't show (or deny) clubs.

 

The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs. Are you serious that in your jurisdiction the standard meaning of a takeout double (showing the three suits that the opponents didn't show (or extra values)) requires an alert?

 

Do these takeout doubles require an alert too when they show hearts, diamonds and clubs?

1♠-Pass-1NT-X

1♠-Pass-3♣ (7-10, 4+ spades)-X

1♠-X-2NT (4+ spades, limit or better)-X

1♦ (11-16, 0+ diamonds) - Pass- 1♠-X

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

I don't understand what you are saying: What shows clubs?

2♣ was alerted as art. GF. So, that didn't show (or deny) clubs.

 

The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs. Are you serious that in your jurisdiction the standard meaning of a takeout double (showing the three suits that the opponents didn't show (or extra values)) requires an alert?

 

Do these takeout doubles require an alert too when they show hearts, diamonds and clubs?

1♠-Pass-1NT-X

1♠-Pass-3♣ (7-10, 4+ spades)-X

1♠-X-2NT (4+ spades, limit or better)-X

1♦ (11-16, 0+ diamonds) - Pass- 1♠-X

 

Rik

 

The double of an artificial suit bid shows the suit bid unless alerted, yes the double of a bergen 3♣ shows clubs unless alerted, that doesn't mean most people don't X to show T/O of spades, just that they alert it.

 

Your bottom example is a double of a natural bid so different, X of NT also has different rules.

[mycroft]

Yes, in my response to lamford, I didn't link to the EBU Alert procedure that explains your confusion. Sorry:

• "Simple" Alert table for non-Laws nerds
  
• Full System and Alert regulations. Chapter 4 has the Alerting rules in grotty detail.

So yes, "obviously" to all English and Welsh players, a non-Alerted double of an artificial 2♣ response is clubs. And frankly, I think that's great!

 

As an example of "'as close to' is pulling a lot of weight", however, witness the following bits out of the regulations (emphasis mine, and only for reference):

4B2: Doubles

The rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double is for take-out.

...

(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid.

In 4B2(a) and (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 has been followed by two passes’.

...

4C1:The following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings (see also 3E1 [short minor openings]):

(a) A bid of a suit before the opening bidder’s second turn to call which shows that suit and does not show any other suit. A natural bid before the opening bidder’s second turn to call shows 4+ cards, except for a minimum opening or response in clubs or diamonds which only need show 3+ cards. Bids later in the auction also only need show 3+ cards.

Preference bids, completion of transfer bids and raises may be on shorter suits.

So, I play 1♠-p-3♣ as a Limit Fit bid - "Primary club suit worth mentioning, spade support, limitish values." My reading of the above is that - at least arguably - that bid doesn't "show" clubs (it's not natural as it shows spades as well as clubs, surely I'm never going to play in clubs - okay, 6 or 7 maybe - and has not yet and will not be passed by partner), so again arguably, the only not-Alerted double is one that shows responder's long suit. Which is - counterintuitive?

 

But, apart from constructed scenarios like this one, the complete double Alerting regulation can in 99.9% of cases be boiled down to "if you double NT for penalty, double suit for takeout if natural and lead-directing if artificial, don't Alert, anything else Alert" (except for the "don't Alert almost all doubles over 3NT" bit). And in 99+% of those even the novices can understand, both what to do and what the opponents are doing - if we're willing to teach them. That's something you can't say about any other Alert Procedure.

[pescetom]

So yes, "obviously" to all English and Welsh players, a non-Alerted double of an artificial 2♣ response is clubs. And frankly, I think that's great!

 

You half convinced me: maybe this is better than WBF inspired "If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: All doubles (except the following abstruse exceptions)". Of course defenders of that would argue that this EBU rule is vulnerable to flag waving alerts ("penalty here, not takeout"), applying the same reasoning that disallows alerts of any call above 3NT beyond first round. Written agreements could help reduce this risk, but even the most scrupolous pairs will often lack clear explanation of how agreements about double are to be interpreted in specific situations.

 

The WBF rules look almost sensible when applied to the mess below:

a tricky redouble

[pilowsky]

Any time you do not ask about the meaning of a call when the meaning is not obvious, you are giving partner the information that the meaning does not matter to you -- that you will be taking the same action regardless of the meaning. This is definitely information which partner is not entitled to. This is true regardless of whether the call is defined as "alertable" under the ACBL regulations. No, you would not be asking the meaning of every call. If the meaning is obvious, then you don't need to ask because not asking doesn't give partner such information.

 

I just looked at pescetom's link to BW and found the quote above.

 

Does this mean that in relation to any call where I suspect that my partner might consider that my failure to ask about the meaning of a call could be construed to mean that I should lead a card that I might not otherwise have led may result in my partner believing something that he may (or may not depending on vulnerability) have thought?

How much time do I have to make this decision without providing unauthorised information to my partner?

What is the penalty for failing to ask?

How would a Director establish that I failed to ask to convey UI when opponents complain?

Or does this type of problem only arise in certain jurisdictions and at certain tournaments?

When people gather to decide the next tranche of bridge rules will they be reading Kafka while consuming LSD?

 

[Winstonm]

 

I just looked at pescetom's link to BW and found the quote above.

 

Does this mean that in relation to any call where I suspect that my partner might consider that my failure to ask about the meaning of a call could be construed to mean that I should lead a card that I might not otherwise have led may result in my partner believing something that he may (or may not depending on vulnerability) have thought?

How much time do I have to make this decision without providing unauthorised information to my partner?

What is the penalty for failing to ask?

How would a Director establish that I failed to ask to convey UI when opponents complain?

Or does this type of problem only arise in certain jurisdictions and at certain tournaments?

When people gather to decide the next tranche of bridge rules will they be reading Kafka while consuming LSD?

Kafka or LSD otherwise they cancel each other.

[lamford]

The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs.

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so.

[Douglas43]

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so.

 

Again this may be down to familiarity with EBU regulations, but it seems reasonable to treat this sequence for alerting purposes like a lead-directing double of a cue bid, or of Stayman, or of a transfer.

[mycroft]

Kit, incredible player and teacher though he is, has an attitude to Alerting that is - idiosyncratic, to say the least. To give him credit, he has a lot of company in the upper echelons of bridge, and frankly, has a spiritual adviser in Edgar Kaplan, who was (in)famous for wanting to have the Laws written so that directors could give the "right" ruling (I hope the last bits of Kaplanese are removed in the next lawbook). Kit, and that group, believes very strongly in "do what is correct and most useful for the opponents, no matter what the Laws and Regulations say."

 

The problem is that it works very very well for Kit in the KOs of the Soloway (the draft chaff in the Swiss he's going to beat even if they are massively unethical and/or have no clue about their rights or responsibilities) and for Kaplan in the Bermuda Bowl. When you're the absolute top of the game, playing the absolute top of the game, everybody knows what's needed, and everybody knows what's good, bad, or "interesting". (although I still remember one post on BW where a player in the top 32 - I think - of one of the big KO events had dummy lead and his LHO put down dummy and open the screen. They "picked up the hand and declarer did his best to play without using any knowledge", with full cooperation from the opponents. And expected to be - and was! - lauded for this "ethical behaviour" (he was also excoriated by several as well).)

 

But for Bridge as It is Played anywhere except in those hallowed halls, this attitude is totally unworkable. Not only do the less virtuous players "do what is right" in complete violation of everything - and get away with it, frequently - the A players emulate their heroes and "prefer Right over correct" (and they're not good enough to be Right all the time), and the B players learn that that's the way it is (and they're not good enough to be Right more than half the time), and the C players just get snowed even more.

 

So we have Rules. And they may be stupid. They frequently are, especially if you look at them from the outside. They may be full of holes, and have several "obviously wrong" cases (sorry to pick on the EBU rules, but it's the one that comes to mind: 1♠-p-1NT F1 ART-X is Alertable unless it's for penalty. Nobody plays it as penalty; I bet not everybody Alerts what they do play; nobody is misinformed by the lack of Alert. "Obviously wrong". But better than a whole collection of exceptions.) They may be too complicated for anybody to truly understand (but even then you should be able to understand what *your partnership* needs to Alert) (yes, this is picking on the ACBL rules this time). But it doesn't require the judgement of a Woolsey or a Rosenberg to "get right", and it doesn't require the judgement of a Kojak or a Matt Smith to deal with what happens when it "isn't right" (picking on the WBF rules, which to give them credit, are almost always "top of the top" and with screens. But the A players countries emulate their heroes...