[bluejak]

---

The secondary Pairs final in the EBU Autumn Congress, third and final 18 board session.

There were no alerts. 2♦ doubled made exactly, in fact Deep Finesse suggests an overtrick is possible. At my table 2♦ undoubled made exactly but it was misplayed and it is possible we might have beaten it.

E/W were annoyed at the lack of alerts. N/S explained that they had no agreement to play 2♣ as anything but natural, North merely decided on the spur of the moment that 2♣ then redouble would be best. The redouble was for takeout and therefore alertable: South knew it was for takeout but "assumed it was not alertable because everyone plays it as takeout". E/W did not seem so sure that redouble would normally be takeout.

Any views?

[blackshoe]

What do EW claim they would have done differently if redouble had been alerted?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 06:42, said:

E/W were annoyed at the lack of alerts. N/S explained that they had no agreement to play 2♣ as anything but natural, North merely decided on the spur of the moment that 2♣ then redouble would be best. The redouble was for takeout and therefore alertable: South knew it was for takeout but "assumed it was not alertable because everyone plays it as takeout". E/W did not seem so sure that redouble would normally be takeout.

Important question (for this hand).
(1) Might EW have done anything different if 2C and the takeout redouble had been alerted. Answer: seems unlikely.

(2) Did N take any improper advantage of the failure of S to alert 2C or XX? Can't see any.

So no damage, no adjustment. But no criticism on EW for calling the director.

General questions (not resulting in any damage on this hand).
(1) Should the XX have been alerted. Yes. Unquestionably. That's how English alerting rules work.

(2) Should 2C have been alerted. Much more difficult. Bidding something then redoubling it to mean "anywhere but here" is a well-known maneouvre. Is this an agreement or common bridge knowledge? Is one expected to alert every bid in wriggle-out situation to say "we have not made any specific agreement over this sequence, but sometimes players are known to bid fake suits and redouble them for rescue in this kind of sequence"? I think provided S is going to take the suit as a real suit, and N doesn't do it very often, then I don't think there is a strong argument for alerting it, because EW aren't really going to take any action in advance of the redouble if N only does it rarely. If N does it regularly, then I think you have to start alerting it, as EW may then want to take pre-emptive action.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-25, 07:08, said:

(1) Should the XX have been alerted. Yes. Unquestionably. That's how English alerting rules work.

Well, according to OB5B9:
"General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable <snip>"

NS had no agreement on redouble, and I would expect any pick-up partner to conclude that redouble was SOS, especially in a B final. Therefore it was not alertable. 5E3 indicates that the redouble would be alertable, but I presume that 5B9, coming first in the general section, applies.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 06:42, said:

E/W were annoyed at the lack of alerts. N/S explained that they had no agreement to play 2♣ as anything but natural, North merely decided on the spur of the moment that 2♣ then redouble would be best. The redouble was for takeout and therefore alertable: South knew it was for takeout but "assumed it was not alertable because everyone plays it as takeout". E/W did not seem so sure that redouble would normally be takeout.

The following regulations from the EBU Orange Book may be relevant:

Quote

5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see section 3 A 2) must be alerted.

Quote

5 G 3 Players should not alert:
...
(f) A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take-out: this is considered general bridge knowledge – see 5 B 9.

It is possible that the inference that 2♣ in the OP might possibly be removed and that the subsequent redouble was for takeout would likewise be considered general bridge knowledge.

[Free]

That's what you get opening a crappy 11 count and doubling for penalty with a crappy 9 count. I don't see how an alert would've changed things.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 08:20, said:

NS had no agreement on redouble, and I would expect any pick-up partner to conclude that redouble was SOS, especially in a B final. Therefore it was not alertable. 5E3 indicates that the redouble would be alertable, but I presume that 5B9, coming first in the general section, applies.

We are not actually told that they have no agreement on the redouble, only on the 2C. But even if they didn't have an agreement, there is also

5B10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

I do wonder how "completely obvious" these "general bridge inferences" over SOS redoubles are. It clearly wasn't obvious to a player in the current Venice Cup/Bermuda Bowl: the player's partner three times transferred and three times redoubled that player's failure to complete the transfer after the transfer was doubled. The last rdbl was passed out and it went for 3400.

[Vampyr]

[/quote]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-25, 10:42, said:

I do wonder how "completely obvious" these "general bridge inferences" over SOS redoubles are. It clearly wasn't obvious to a player in the current Venice Cup/Bermuda Bowl: the player's partner three times transferred and three times redoubled that player's failure to complete the transfer after the transfer was doubled. The last rdbl was passed out and it went for 3400.

That may be so, but this regulation, quoted by Robin, seems clear:

Quote

5 G 3 Players should not alert:
...
(f) A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take-out: this is considered general bridge knowledge – see 5 B 9.

RMB1, on 2011-October-25, 08:33, said:

It is possible that the inference that 2♣ in the OP might possibly be removed and that the subsequent redouble was for takeout would likewise be considered general bridge knowledge.

Unless I am somehow reading the regulation wrong, the above seems to be explicitly stated in it.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-25, 12:23, said:

Unless I am somehow reading the regulation wrong, the above seems to be explicitly stated in it.

It's not quite -- the regulation is about 1NT bidder's partner doing this, not doubler's partner -- but I agree that the two situations are sufficiently similar for us to extrapolate that this 2♣ is not alertable either.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 06:42, said:

There were no alerts. 2♦ doubled made exactly, in fact Deep Finesse suggests an overtrick is possible. At my table 2♦ undoubled made exactly but it was misplayed and it is possible we might have beaten it.

E/W were annoyed at the lack of alerts. N/S explained that they had no agreement to play 2♣ as anything but natural, North merely decided on the spur of the moment that 2♣ then redouble would be best. The redouble was for takeout and therefore alertable: South knew it was for takeout but "assumed it was not alertable because everyone plays it as takeout". E/W did not seem so sure that redouble would normally be takeout.

Any views?

If E/W were annoyed at the lack of alerts, they need to consider their own contribution. The TD should ask E/W to confirm the meanings of West's doubles of 2♣ and 2♦. If, as would seem to be the case, they have an agreement that double is penalties, the TD should consider a PP for East's failures to alert penalty doubles of ostensibly natural calls.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-October-25, 13:32, said:

It's not quite -- the regulation is about 1NT bidder's partner doing this, not doubler's partner -- but I agree that the two situations are sufficiently similar for us to extrapolate that this 2♣ is not alertable either.

Ah, right. It was the auction in the OP that I had read incorrectly...

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 08:20, said:

NS had no agreement on redouble, and ...

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 06:42, said:

The redouble was for takeout and therefore alertable: South knew it was for takeout but ...

It appears that N/S did agree on the meaning of redouble, namely SOS.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-25, 10:42, said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call

But if someone considered it was not alertable because it was an agreement that one would expect with a pick-up partner, then one would be correct not to alert it, even if it were SOS. It does not say "artificial"; it says "alertable".

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-October-25, 18:20, said:

It appears that N/S did agree on the meaning of redouble, namely SOS.

But the same principle applies; even if North-South agreed on the meaning of redouble, then they would be correct not to alert it if they regarded it as an agreement one would have without discussion. Similarly, they would be correct not to alert fourth-suit forcing, if they considered it to be an agreement that one would have without discussion. Its artificiality is not the issue; its alertability is.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-25, 12:23, said:

That may be so, but this regulation, quoted by Robin, seems clear:

But that is about the 2C, and I agree with Robin, I just hadn't spotted that there was such clear guidance on precisely this point. My anecdote was about alerting the redouble. The player here excused himself from alerting the redouble because he said it was obvious. My anecdote was to show that in reality it isn't completely obvious to everyone, even at the highest level. So if you know, whether from explicit agreement, or experience, that this is a takeout redouble, you must alert it and not hide behind "it's obvious to me, it must be obvious to everyone".

[campboy]

They should not alert it if it is SOS based purely on general bridge knowledge, sure. But if it is based on partnership agreement (whether an agreement about this auction or a more general principle) then it becomes alertable. You (lamford) say that N/S had no agreement on redouble; I don't know where you get that idea from.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 18:26, said:

But the same principle applies; even if North-South agreed on the meaning of redouble, then they would be correct not to alert it if they regarded it as an agreement one would have without discussion. Similarly, they would be correct not to alert fourth-suit forcing, if they considered it to be an agreement that one would have without discussion. Its artificiality is not the issue; its alertability is.

I have not believed that since very early in my bridge career when I got fined for failing to alert an utterly obvious, not explicitly agreed, control-showing cue-bid in a slam auction. (In those days bids above 3N were still alerted.)

I am also reminded of the occasion I made another bid of that description, and my partner deliberately passed it in order to tell me, so I would never forget, that she doesn't play cue-bids, not even obvious ones of no alternative interpretation. This perhaps explains precisely why it should be alerted.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-October-26, 03:22, said:

They should not alert it if it is SOS based purely on general bridge knowledge, sure. But if it is based on partnership agreement (whether an agreement about this auction or a more general principle) then it becomes alertable. You (lamford) say that N/S had no agreement on redouble; I don't know where you get that idea from.

"North merely decided on the spur of the moment that 2♣ then redouble would be best." strongly suggests that they had no agreement.

You are wrong that it necessarily becomes alertable if it is based on a more general agreement. This has been quoted at least twice:

5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see section 3 A 2) must be alerted. (my emphasis)

It would be necessary for it to have a potentially unexpected meaning for it to become alertable, and this would only be unexpected to a novice. If there is an implicit agreement, then you are right, but the whole tone of the OP suggests that there was not.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-26, 03:23, said:

This perhaps explains precisely why it should be alerted.

No it doesn't. Whether it should be alerted or not is a matter of law, and the OB seems clear that, based on the facts presented, it was not alertable. 5G3(f) reinforces that view.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-October-26, 06:52, said:

You are wrong that it necessarily becomes alertable if it is based on a more general agreement. This has been quoted at least twice:

5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see section 3 A 2) must be alerted. (my emphasis)

It would be necessary for it to have a potentially unexpected meaning for it to become alertable, and this would only be unexpected to a novice. If there is an implicit agreement, then you are right, but the whole tone of the OP suggests that there was not.

But I take that as saying the opposite from you. The EBU has this doctrine that certain doubles and redoubles must be alerted in all situations. Therefore "takeout" is the potentially unexpected meaning of an unalerted redouble, regardless of the logic. Probably they should have a clarification in relation to alerting doubles and redoubles.

"5 B 5 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category."

But if it was indeed an unexpected penalty redouble, the correct thing to do is not alert it. Does this mean that the ops should ask about all unalerted redoubles in case it unexpectedly means it is for penalty, rather than that you merely thought that it had the obvious, without agreement, meaning? This really isn't fair. Perhaps it destroys the EBU's alerting policy for doubles and redoubles, but I think more likely you should just alert it when it has an alertable meaning, regardless of how you knew that.