[bluejak]

Scoring: S Pairs{MP}

----------P--1NT
--P--2♣-3♣-Dbl
--P---P---P

Result:
3♣ dbld -5
NS +1400

---

1NT was announced as 15-17 and 2♣ as Stayman. The double was not alerted: acording to EBU regulations that means it is for takeout.

South said he meant it as penalties. North said he did not alert the double because it was for takeout: he just decided to pass it because of the vulnerability.

West said h did not run because it was a takeout double and would have redoubled if told it was a penalty double.

[aguahombre]

reiterating....EBU, or any other organization. Get back to simple, easy to understand.
Double is suggesting penalty, unless alerted...etc, etc. The rest of the statements...for instance, by north, are just plain silly. A 1NT opener, who doubles at the 3-level, wants to set the opponents.

[bluejak]

The EBU alerting rules for doubles are fantastically simple. When we tried more logical ones they were not understood nor followed. Giving us advice of one sequnce - or position - without looking at the overall is not helpful.

Anyway, how does that affect this hand?

[aguahombre]

EBU says double is takerout, unless alerted. that is why East could make his atrocious bid. West is a victim. South is playing bridge. North made a vulnerability decision. Why reward e/w?

[Echognome]

Aquahombre obviously has an axe to grind with the alerting rules. I agree with David that this grumbling only detracts from the problem posed.

[nigel_k]

I can't see redouble leading to anything better than -800 so probably few matchpoints are at stake.

It is certainly believable that North might take a view and pass a takeout double in this situation. He expects 500 at least and with suits not breaking, slam may not make or he may collect 1100.

However I am skeptical they have a firm agreement that double is takeout in this situation. Did anyone ask South what the N/S agreement was about doubles generally?

One problem with the regulation that no alert means takeout is that there will be times when there is simply no agreement. I think it's asking too much of people to expect them to alert when they have no agreement - that just goes against human nature.

This could well be one of those times, or maybe they have some vague agreement that double is for takeout unless it's obviously a penalty situation. This is very playable and I do it myself but there can be misunderstandings. So even knowing for certain what they have agreed will not tell us for sure whether they should have alerted the double.

I would prefer an regulation that both takeout and penalty doubles are not alerted, but other doubles (eg DONT or support doubles) are alerted. This is equally simple and more practical and useful, in my opinion.

[Cyberyeti]

What does redouble achieve ? How many tricks get made in 3♠X after 3 rounds of trumps ? My guess would be 4 also, certainly no more than 5.

To Aquahombre - No, not everybody plays doubles at the 3 level after a 1N opener for penalties, I would in this situation, but for me in my most usual partnership, P-1N-3C(weak)-X is for takeout, so the opener may decide to reopen with a ToX.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Aug 19 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

The EBU alerting rules for doubles are fantastically simple.  When we tried more logical ones they were not understood nor followed.  Giving us advice of one sequnce - or position - without looking at the overall is not helpful.

Anyway, how does that affect this hand?

Where should East-West run?

In a spade contract N/S begins with Ace, King and a little spade, and in any other contract . . . . .

I am not comfortable with a regulation that leaves a player facing a call on which he has no agreement in limbo whether or not to alert.

The Norwegian alert rules on pass, double and redouble are fantastically simple: These calls are to be alerted if they are not "natural". And a "natural" double in this position sure is for business, not for takeout. What should be the purpose of responding to Stayman with a takeout double of an intervening bid?

Let that be -- here I cannot see that alerting or not alerting makes any (significant) difference on the result. East/West are in for a bottom whatever they do?

regards Sven

[Ant590]

It seems to me a split ruling between 3♦x and 3♠x is fair to both sides.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Double is suggesting penalty, unless alerted...etc, etc.

That would make 1H x for take out alertable. I don't think that would please the average club player too much.

Any set of rules including the EBU ones throw up anomalies but essentially it is

x a suit bid naturally take out, alert if not
x of NT bid naturally penalty, alert if not

Thay maybe right or wrong but it is hardly over complicated.

[helene_t]

I think it's fair to say that they don't have an agreement. I also think that unless NS are Meckwell or similar, it is naive from W to assume that they have an agreement: How much sense does t/o mean? It should show both majors since otherwise N would not know whether to take it out with only one 4-card major. Maybe a sensible agreement would be that it shows hearts and denies spades, or something like that. How many of us have discussed this with p?

And even if it is t/o, N will often leave the double in at this vulnerability.

Off-topic: I live in England and I agree with Sven that it is problematic that a double about which we have no clear agreement may or may not be alertable. This is true for all calls but especially for doubles, because there are so many situations in which our agreement is "common sense", and the border between common sense as a partnership understanding and common sense as general bridge knowledge is blurred.

Not sure if any other rule would be better, though. Alerting all t/o doubles seems ridiculous to me, and certainly not simpler than the EBU rules. Alerting only doubles that have some third kind of meaning such as DONT might or might not be simpler, but it would also lead to lots of potential UI situations when player ask what 1NT-(2♥)-x* mean etc.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Aug 19 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

The double was not alerted: acording to EBU regulations that means it is for takeout.

That's a simplification of what one may be able to conclude from the absence of an alert. There is an unresolved legal question as to whether, in the absence of any agreement, even implicit, you can be required to alert. In other words, does alerting relate to agreements or to meanings. Bluejak himself has argued on occasion that the absence of an alert for a double does not necessarily tell you that it is a takeout double: it may alternatively tell you that there is no agreement.

The reality of the situation in England is that obvious penalty doubles (in situations which people have not made explicit agreements about) are frequently not alerted, and most of the time this doesn't cause a problem because the opponents know why you doubled.

North said there is an agreement it is takeout, and made a penalty pass. South doesn't seem to think there is such an agreement, or has forgotten.
- If in fact there is no agreement, but North is going to take it as takeout, it is certainly correct not to alert. Unfortunately since North chose to make a penalty pass, we cannot be sure that North really did take it as takeout.
- If in fact there is no agreement, but North chose to take it as penalty, it is certainly appropriate to alert, but it remains uncertain if one can be criticised for not doing so.

[StevenG]

The big problem seems to me to be that:-
- You have no agreement about a specific sequence.
- You have a general agreement that doubles below 3NT are normally for takeout, unless they obviously are not.
- Partner makes a double that common sense suggests might be intended for penalties, but it's not clear.
Do you go with your agreement or your instincts? What if your instincts are affected by the contents of your own hand?

At club level, I've given up trying to draw inferences from opponents' failure to alert in these sequences. Even people who take an interest in the laws/regulations don't know whether they should be alerting or not, especially as, if asked, they'd usually say something like "values", or "do something sensible, partner", rather than "takeout" or "penalties".

Different players have very different doubling styles. With the hand in question, in my partnerships, I'd expect to do exactly what North did, i.e. assume the double was takeout and convert to penalties (500+ looks certain, and beats any game we might have). But that's because doubles in my partnerships are strongly takeout oriented. Clearly, players whose doubling style is penalty oriented see this as an easy penalty double. It's certainly not at all clear to me.

[skjaeran]

I fail to see any damage here.
Does anyone think EW can get out cheaper in an alternative contract here? The best they can do is to play 3♠, where they can be held to three tricks, as far as I can see.

[aguahombre]

skaeran, on Aug 19 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

I fail to see any damage here.
Does anyone think EW can get out cheaper in an alternative contract here? The best they can do is to play 3♠, where they can be held to three tricks, as far as I can see.

a voice of reason. I hope you are on a lot of AC's

[hrothgar]

skaeran, on Aug 19 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

I fail to see any damage here.
Does anyone think EW can get out cheaper in an alternative contract here? The best they can do is to play 3♠, where they can be held to three tricks, as far as I can see.

I often find myself wishing that the TD could adjust the score to 3♠X -6.

I think that this type of policy might very well decrease the number of inane appeals.

[awm]

I seem to recall that when matters are unclear, the director is supposed to rule mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid.

Here, I'd rule that the agreement is probably penalty (south thinks it's penalty, north might be making a speculative pass but the statement thereof is rather self-serving and a bit dubious). If N/S can produce some documentation that their agreement (and it really matters) is takeout they can go to committee.

Assuming the double is properly alerted, the likely contract after west redoubles is 3♠X. While a trump lead could hold this to three tricks, we're not supposed double-dummy defense by the offending side. A heart lead is not atrocious, and allows declarer to ruff a heart, ruff a club, ruff a heart, ruff a club, and ruff a third heart. At this point declarer is unlikely to score any other tricks. So I'd rule 3♠X-4, -1100. It does not seem likely that this helps E/W MP score much, but then the 3♣ call was pretty bad bridge.

[cherdanno]

I think a trump lead against 3♠X is automatic after this auction.

[bluejak]

It seems to me that a lot of you are forgetting which side are the alleged offenders. Certainly, perfect defence to 3♠ dbld might mean there is effectively no damge. Why should there be perfect defence?

It does not really matter whether you think EBU alerting regs are right or wrong. As often happens I think the arguments here for changing the alerting regs convince me we have got them right, because the arguments are very poor, for example the Norwegian approach which is pretty much what failed abjectly before. But anyway, why do you care? If you were a TD called to the table to rule would you seriously spend all your time moaning at the regulations? You would be a pretty poor TD if so.

The question is how you would rule given two facts:

• you are not automatically going to assume that the non-offenders get everything right, and
  
• you are going to follow the regulations as they are now.

Note that this posting was written before reading awm's and cherdanno's last postings.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Aug 20 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

It seems to me that a lot of you are forgetting which side are the alleged offenders. Certainly, perfect defence to 3♠ dbld might mean there is effectively no damge. Why should there be perfect defence?

It does not really matter whether you think EBU alerting regs are right or wrong. As often happens I think the arguments here for changing the alerting regs convince me we have got them right, because the arguments are very poor, for example the Norwegian approach which is pretty much what failed abjectly before. But anyway, why do you care? If you were a TD called to the table to rule would you seriously spend all your time moaning at the regulations? You would be a pretty poor TD if so.

The question is how you would rule given two facts:

• you are not automatically going to assume that the non-offenders get everything right, and
  
• you are going to follow the regulations as they are now.

Note that this posting was written before reading awm's and cherdanno's last postings.

Before we do all of that we have to establish that there are offenders.

This is far from clear.