[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1NT!  Dbl
 RDbl  Pass  2♣!   Pass
 2♠    Pass  Pass  Dbl
 Pass  3♦    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

Dbl "15-18"
RDBl not alerted
2♣ "forced"

South called wanting adjustment as RDbl artificial and not alerted, they missed 3nt.

When I asked about Rdbl west said he wasnt sure about agreement but knew he couldn't leave 1NT X in, didnt know what to do. (edit) but then said 2♣ (by east)was puppet

East said Rdbl (by west) was showing weak 5 card and his 2♣ was puppet.

How do you rule?

tyia
jb

[Cascade]

East appears to have alerted 2♣. It would be interesting to know what East thought the redouble meant.

Without hearing that answer it appears that EW have at least an implicit understanding that Redouble is for takeout (of some sort). NS were entitled to this information.

Before I would award an adjusted score I would also like to know what NS's agreements are about the first double and second double. It appears they could have extracted a decent penalty from 2♠ and that South made a penalty double but North pulled this.

If NS had a misunderstanding then they would not be entitled to redress.

Was South's second double alerted? Should it have been alerted if it was for takeout? penalty?

[badderzboy]

I suspect that West has no explicit agreement with East over 1NT-x-XX as most mean it as transfer to ♣ or run to something ptr, here with an explicit agreement most would tfr to ♠ surely.

It's a slight dbl shot as it can scare the opps into running too (bluff time...)

3NT looks in no way straight forward mind if a spade isn't lead try a club lead and it may be 3NT-1...

[helene_t]

North could see in his own cards that rdbl was not for business. Maybe he didn't trust his partner's dbl? He could have asked what the redouble meant.

[david_c]

No adjustment - North may have been temporarily misled by the lack of alert of the redouble, but he can't do anything other than pass at that point. Then, once East bid 2♣ and alerted, N/S knew exactly what was going on. When North bid 3♦, which caused the bad result, he had the correct information (or, at least, he would have done if he had asked about the alerted 2♣ bid).

[hotShot]

Was 1NT alterted as weak?
(If they do not play weak NT there is no problem since East holds 14HCP and a flat hand. This would be covered by judgement.)
But if they play weak NT, a compleat system includes clear escape routes for 1NTx. It is very important for the weak NT player to have cristal clear agreements about that.
So if they are playing weak NT, there should have been 2 alterts.
Assuming N/S did not know that East's 1NT is weak.
North sees 15-17 HCP with East, 15-18 HCP with his partner and 7HCP in his own hand.
This means that West can hold 3 HCP at best.
Assuming N/S knew it was a 12-14 NT by east:
North sees 12-14 HCP with East, 15-18 HCP with his partner and 7HCP in his own hand.
This means that West can hold 6 HCP at best.
So it is pretty obvious to North that redbl is not a strong bid.
But is it obvious to south?
North bids are: pass, pass, 3♦
Does this show strength in any way? Shift a K form N to W, would that change the bidding?
South has about 7-10 HCP to distribute on West and North. Even the fact that East passes 2♠, does not make sure the majoraty of the remaining points is with north.
So by the missing alert, we have a clear misinformation send to south.

So 1) there was a misinformation, but was there damage?
What is the maximum strength for West redbl? 5HCP or even more?
To rule this information is essential, because the weaker redbl is, the stronger south sees north.
So 2) There is damage.

But is 2) caused by 1)?
No it is not! fortunatelly North bid 3♦. This is a shot in the dark, opps may not have fit, north knows they have the majoraty of points. Is south dbl penalty or a very strong take out? I think it is penalty, because there is a pass between the dbl's. It is hard to understand why north decides to run.

So score stands.

[mink]

At the point when the 2♣ is alerted as "forced", it is clear that the redouble must be some kind of takeout, because if the redouble was strong, it should be allowed to be passed. If either North or South was unsure what to expect, they could have asked both opps by private chat.

Of course, the redouble should have been alerted even though West did not excactly know what it should mean, but at least he was sure that partner would not think he is strong and pass. But fortunately for him, North could not make any use of this information immediately after the redouble, and after the next bid and its explanation N/S should be aware of what was going on. If they were not aware, I doubt that they would ever have reached 3nt with all alerts.

Karl

[epeeist]

Regardless of whether or not the redouble should have been alerted, the 2♣ bid was alerted as "forced". That presumably means, forced by the redouble. If in that situation NS both chose not to inquire of west what the redouble meant I can't possible see how there was any damage to NS.

I'll totally agree that the redouble should have been alerted. But UNLESS North had a credible argument he would have bid immediately over the redouble if it had correctly been explained and the failure to do so somehow led to missing out on 3NT (etc.) I can't see how ANY damage was caused, regardless of whether or not an alert should have been made.

[Rebound]

epeeist, on Jun 28 2005, 12:40 AM, said:

Regardless of whether or not the redouble should have been alerted, the 2♣ bid was alerted as "forced". That presumably means, forced by the redouble. If in that situation NS both chose not to inquire of west what the redouble meant I can't possible see how there was any damage to NS.

I'll totally agree that the redouble should have been alerted. But UNLESS North had a credible argument he would have bid immediately over the redouble if it had correctly been explained and the failure to do so somehow led to missing out on 3NT (etc.) I can't see how ANY damage was caused, regardless of whether or not an alert should have been made.

I agree. There is no mention of the relative skill/tournament experience of the participants, but I believe the following, quoted from ACBL.org is relevant here:

"Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves."

I mention this in support of the argument that after the 2♣ bid, the opponents may be expected to be aware the rdbl was not a strength showing call. I concede, however, that North's 3♦ call may be evidence that the above does not apply.

[pigpenz]

i would let result stand.....north made a bad deciscion by bidding 3 diamonds where pass of double or 2nt would be more practical choices.

[scoob]

i don't think what you would or wouldn't have bid sitting in north's chair has any relevance, does it?