[jillybean]

ACBL

P (P) 1N (P)
P (X) ?P (2♣)
?

This is how the auction started, 2 passes, 1nt opening, 2 passes, double - alert!
1N bidder asks for an explanation, and the response is "we play DONT"
1N bidder asks for more information and is told 'I've forgotten', then passes.

2♣ is bid in response to the double, now partner of 1n bidder checks the oppositions cc for a meaning, only to find DONT! entered
under defense for nt. Player thinks they may want to bid depending on the meaning of X and calls the director.

How should things proceed now?

[Pig Trader]

Unless there are two mis-prints, it's an inadmissible double, so under Law 36A, the double and everything after are cancelled and are treated as having never happened.

Assuming instead that it's an opponent of the opener that doubled, and not the opener's partner, I'd ask the 2♣ bidder to leave the table temporarily and then ask the doubler to explain what he thinks are the partnership agreements of the double, adding that the opponents are entitled to know about his partnership agreements but not what he has in his hand. I have often seen players, having not called the TD, send the wrong person away from the table!

Barrie

[jillybean]

Auction fixed.

Thanks for the explantion, it's not what happened but now we know for next time.

[mycroft]

The name of the convention is explicitly *not* adequate disclosure (ACBL Alert Procedures). If they can't do anything more (because they've forgotten) and you need more to decide what to do, call the TD.

The TD will do what has to be done (and I hope that it's a right thing).

2♣ should be Alerted as well; if asked, information will be passed which will be UI to the 2♣ bidder. That's also an issue - as would be "not Alerting 2♣ so I don't wake up partner."

[bluejak]

While I am not a great fan of the ACBL SC it does have its good points. And it is pretty easy to show what you play on it in defence to 1NT, or to put it another way, there is no excuse with an ACBL SC, which there may be in certain situations.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-January-09, 11:34, said:

While I am not a great fan of the ACBL SC it does have its good points. And it is pretty easy to show what you play on it in defence to 1NT, or to put it another way, there is no excuse with an ACBL SC, which there may be in certain situations.

If you're filling out the CC quickly, as with a last-minute pick-up partnership, sometimes you take a shortcut on that section, since filling in each line is tediuous (twice so if you have different defenses to strong and weak NT). And if they didn't remember what double means with DONT, I'll bet they're not a regular partnership with an established CC.

[kenberg]

I try hard not to play a convention I don't remember, but it happens. I will give my views based on what I think is a reasonably fair way of dealing with this. I am always happy not being a director.

It seems to me that first one player and then the other should be sent from the table while the remaining player explains his understanding of the DONT convention. Explaining a bid is one thing, explaining what amounts to a relay system is something different.

After that, the auction should proceed as best it can.

Btw, here is one thing that cannot happen: The DONT bidder, with short clubs, cannot pass 2♣ and find his partner with long clubs. If the club bidder has really forgotten what their system is, the doubler is not allowed to decide that therefore his partner must really have clubs. If in fact the 2♣ bidder really has long clubs, I would regard his announcement that he forgot the meaning of his partner's double with great suspicion. One of those we won't shoot you this time but let's not see it again things.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-January-09, 12:49, said:

If you're filling out the CC quickly, as with a last-minute pick-up partnership, sometimes you take a shortcut on that section, since filling in each line is tediuous (twice so if you have different defenses to strong and weak NT). And if they didn't remember what double means with DONT, I'll bet they're not a regular partnership with an established CC.

Filling in each line may be tedious, but that's what the CC regulation says you're supposed to do. If I were the TD, called because you hadn't properly filled out the card, and you argued that you didn't have time to fill it out properly, I'd probably just tell you to you take the time to correct it as you go, and leave it at that. If you told me you'd not filled it out properly because doing so is too tedious, I'd give you a SAYC, and require you to play that system until you got it fixed. (The latter, btw, is what the regulation specifies).

We have a pair here, both very good players, who have a semi-regular partnership (by which I mean they play together frequently, although not, as far as I can tell, on a set schedule as some regular partnerships do). One of the seems to feel he's above convention cards - he never has one. The other, every time they play together in the club, grabs a blank card, scribbles a bunch of stuff on it, usually in pencil, frequently nearly illegible. In the defense to 1NT section, IIRC, he writes "CAPP" diagonally across the whole section in large capital letters. I don't know whether he throws this card away at the end of the day or sticks it in his pocket and then loses it later, but he always fills out a new one when he plays. Unfortunately, getting the director involved would be pointless. If she says anything to them, it'll be along the line of "c'mon guys, you know you're supposed to have two cards", she'll leave it there, and they'll ignore her. Of course, they haven't forgotten what they're playing — yet.

Ken's solution isn't unreasonable, and off the top of my head it's probably legal, but one problem in this particular case is that if one player can't remember what double means, he's probably going to screw up the explanation of the rest of the convention as well. Either way, I don't think I've ever seen a TD take this tack.

[barmar]

I was just explaining why CC's are often filled out in abbreviated form, not excusing it. In real life, sometimes you have to make concession to practicality. If you only have 10 minutes to discuss your agreements and fill out the card, corners will sometimes be cut.

Most of the time it's "no harm, no foul". But if an issue comes up where a correctly filled out form would have helped your side in a ruling, you should be prepared to be ruled against. That's the breaks.