[VixTD]

Inter-county teams-of-eight match (county B-teams), scored as the sum of the IMPs between teams-of-four:

---

2♥ was alerted and showed a weak hand with 5+ hearts and another suit of at least four cards
The double was not alerted.

The regulations state that doubles of suit bids below 3NT that show that suit are not alertable if they are for takeout, alertable otherwise. EW do not play together frequently, and have no agreement about the double. West intended the double as some sort of game try, but was happy if East interpreted it as a penalty double.

Result: 3♦X(S)-2, NS -300.

North called the director and said that had she known that the double was for penalties she would have redoubled for rescue. If it was for takeout, she expected East to bid again, although she was aware it could have been passed by East for penalties.

West claimed that had NS removed the contract to 4♣ he would have bid 4♥, which he expected to make.

How would you rule?

[mjj29]

If they have no agreement about the double, then they don't need to alert it. You only alert agreements, which they don't have.

Also, North saying what she would do if the double was for penalties is irrelevant if a. if was 'some sort of game try' (which isn't penalties, in fact, if it's a game try you probably want to play in game and not defend a fair amount of the time, so it often will be taken out) and b. if she had asked and how we would rule the correct explanation is 'no agreement' anyway, which is probably going to lead to the same result.

Table result stands.

[billw55]

Admit I don't understand EBU rules about this sort of thing. To me, if EW have no agreement about the double, then what could there be to alert? Hence no adjustment. But that is probably wrong for some reason.

[Vampyr]

I don't play 2-suited openings, and the local methods would make a big difference to me in ruling. In the region where this was played, would the double be overwhelmingly penalty, or would it be "pass if your other suit is diamonds, otherwise bid"? If the former, and NS are experienced players, I would expect them to protect themselves. Even "no agreement" would convey the idea that this was not a "convertible takeout" double if that would be an unusual agreement.

As to West's argument, I think he might well have bid 4♥, but the play is not trivial. Perhaps West assumes East will get the hearts right; OK, but how does he plan to get to dummy to lead the third round? Or am I missing something?

My inclination is to give some proportion of the table result and 4♥-1 (How much depending on the issues in my first paragraph).

I imagine that some people will say that players should never be expected to protect themselves; the EBU has the sensible policy that a call can have at most one meaning that is not subject to alert or announcement, and without these things players are entitled to assume the unalerted meaning. But is the alternative (to penalty) meaning I mentioned above purely a takeout double? East should have alerted if there was some doubt in his mind, but in fact he seems to have assumed that the double was purely for penalties, so there is no excuse for not alerting. This doesn't necessarily mean that there was damage, but a PP is certainly in order.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-18, 08:20, said:

Admit I don't understand EBU rules about this sort of thing. To me, if EW have no agreement about the double, then what could there be to alert? Hence no adjustment. But that is probably wrong for some reason.

That depends whether East thinks it (probably) is alertable. Since he interpreted the double as purely for penalties, I believe he should alert it. Maybe this depends on how uncertain he was.

[c_corgi]

If we allow North to redouble for rescue here, surely we then have to rule fielded misbid as well.

[RMB1]

I think OB 5B10 is relevant

Quote

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.

East passed acting as though the double was for penalties, West's hand is consistent with the double being for penalties, so East should alert the double as penalties. Even though they have no agreement, they appear to have mutual understanding that the double is penalties.

The EBU regulations could be stronger - no alert means agreement is takeout - alert means agreement is other than takeout or no agreement/undiscussed.

[Vampyr]

c_corgi, on 2013-February-18, 08:56, said:

If we allow North to redouble for rescue here, surely we then have to rule fielded misbid as well.

Perhaps North has seen his partner's overcalls before...

But yes, there is no reason for North to think there is a better spot. I was wondering if the patheticness of the 3♦ call had any bearing in the case, and I think you are probably right that it does.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 08:41, said:

I imagine that some people will say that players should never be expected to protect themselves; the EBU has the sensible policy that a call can have at most one meaning that is not subject to alert or announcement, and without these things players are entitled to assume the unalerted meaning. But is the alternative (to penalty) meaning I mentioned above purely a takeout double? East should have alerted if there was some doubt in his mind, but in fact he seems to have assumed that the double was purely for penalties, so there is no excuse for not alerting. This doesn't necessarily mean that there was damage, but a PP is certainly in order.

OK, let's say east alerts the double. What should he then offer when asked about the meaning? "I don't know what it means"? Or is he obligated to offer his guess? If he does, and it turns out that his guess is quite different from west's intent, is this considered MI? What if he is uncertain of his guess until after north has called?

Also, the "sensible policy that a call can have at most one meaning that is not subject to alert or announcement" seems to assume that every double has one unambiguous default meaning. Who will decide what this meaning is? Will all such meanings be listed out for all auctions? Or will the director decide after the fact what the default meaning should be? How can we expect all four players to always know this default meaning, even in unfamiliar auctions?

I am not meaning to argue, it's just that the potential for ambiguity seems large to say the least.

[Zelandakh]

mjj29, on 2013-February-18, 08:19, said:

If they have no agreement about the double, then they don't need to alert it. You only alert agreements, which they don't have.

In EBUland, if you have no agreement about a call but you are going to treat it as if it has a meaning that would be alertable, or even that it may have such a meaning, then you alert. This is explicitly mentioned in one of the L&E books.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-18, 09:26, said:

How can we expect all four players to always know this default meaning, even in unfamiliar auctions?

They can read the regulation, which states that a double of a naturally bid suit is alerted unless takeout, and a double of a NT bid is alerted unless for penalties.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-February-18, 09:26, said:

OK, let's say east alerts the double. What should he then offer when asked about the meaning?

How about: "We have no agreements, but one (or more) of the possible meanings -which might be partner's intended meaning- requires an alert. I alerted since OB5B10 tells me to do that in such a situation."

Rik

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-18, 09:29, said:

They can read the regulation, which states that a double of a naturally bid suit is alerted unless takeout, and a double of a NT bid is alerted unless for penalties.

aha, ok, now I'm getting somewhere.

Is there a level limit on this? And what about ambiguous bids - such as two-suited bids, multi, etc? Do doubles of these also have proscribed default meanings?

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-18, 12:42, said:

Is there a level limit on this? And what about ambiguous bids - such as two-suited bids, multi, etc? Do doubles of these also have proscribed default meanings?

The limit is 3NT, after which doubles need to be alerted only if they are "strange", like lead inhibiting, negative slam doubles, Lightener(!).

For artificial bids that do not show the bid suit, the non-alertable double shows the bid suit.

And none of these doubles are proscribed; they are all permitted.

[paulg]

RMB1, on 2013-February-18, 09:00, said:

The EBU regulations could be stronger - no alert means agreement is takeout - alert means agreement is other than takeout or no agreement/undiscussed.

I had never appreciated that EBU regulations meant that it was necessary to alert any double where you have no agreement or is undiscussed, although I see that it is a corollary of the regulations.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2013-February-18, 17:17, said:

I had never appreciated that EBU regulations meant that it was necessary to alert any double where you have no agreement or is undiscussed, although I see that it is a corollary of the regulations.

It makes sense when you realize that the non-alert allows the opponents to assume a particular default meaning. So the alert should be given whenever that assumption is not necessarily valid, either because you have a specific agreement otherwise, or because you have no agreement (so the opponents should be warned that they need to guess, rather than assume the default).

[sfi]

VixTD, on 2013-February-18, 08:11, said:

North called the director and said that had she known that the double was for penalties she would have redoubled for rescue.

Ignoring any infractions relating to alerting the double, North's claim here is ridiculous. She has no reason to expect a 3-3 spade fit to play better than a 6-1 diamond fit, for example. No damage has been done, so the table result stands.

(The overcall got what it deserved as well, but that's another topic entirely.)

[VixTD]

I answered the director call, and fortunately had another regular from this forum on the opposing team to consult during the break.

We decided that East had a duty to alert the double even though he had no agreement, as the action he took was consistent with ascribing it an alertable meaning. The lack of alert constituted misinformation to NS.

North had been very insistent immediately after the hand had been played out that she would have redoubled. I know this is not proof that she would have done, and she could have been pulling the wool over my eyes, but even though I couldn't find much enthusiasm for the call among players I consulted, it's the sort of thing some players do, and one or two players thought it was a possible action, so I ruled that she might redouble about half of the time.

South might take this out into spades, but he's not likely to stay there if he does, so I thought West would likely have to make a decision over a 4♣ bid. He might bid 4♥, but bearing in mind that East preferred to defend 3♦X than bid game in hearts on the last round, he might also decide to defend. Finally, if he does bid 4♥, how likely is he to make it? Deep Finesse says he can make ten tricks, but I can't see how. Some of the players I asked thought it might make, but I didn't get a very convincing line of play from them. The adjustment I eventually came up with was:

40% 3♦X(S)-2
20% 4♣X(S)-1
20% 4♥(E)-1
20% 4♥(E)=

In retrospect I think I was generous to NS in allowing them to redouble quite so often, and I redressed the balance by allowing West to make 4♥ as much as half the time.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2013-February-19, 08:22, said:

I answered the director call, and fortunately had another regular from this forum on the opposing team to consult during the break.

We decided that East had a duty to alert the double even though he had no agreement, as the action he took was consistent with ascribing it an alertable meaning. The lack of alert constituted misinformation to NS.

North had been very insistent immediately after the hand had been played out that she would have redoubled. I know this is not proof that she would have done, and she could have been pulling the wool over my eyes, but even though I couldn't find much enthusiasm for the call among players I consulted, it's the sort of thing some players do, and one or two players thought it was a possible action, so I ruled that she might redouble about half of the time.

South might take this out into spades, but he's not likely to stay there if he does, so I thought West would likely have to make a decision over a 4♣ bid. He might bid 4♥, but bearing in mind that East preferred to defend 3♦X than bid game in hearts on the last round, he might also decide to defend. Finally, if he does bid 4♥, how likely is he to make it? Deep Finesse says he can make ten tricks, but I can't see how. Some of the players I asked thought it might make, but I didn't get a very convincing line of play from them. The adjustment I eventually came up with was:

40% 3♦X(S)-2
20% 4♣X(S)-1
20% 4♥(E)-1
20% ♥(E)=

In retrospect I think I was generous to NS in allowing them to redouble quite so often, and I redressed the balance by allowing West to make 4♥ as much as half the time.

If S had a 3♦ overcall, shouldn't N be doubling 4♥ ? in which case you should make it.

[aguahombre]

Just out of curiosity: If 2♥ were not a 2-suited convention, but merely a mundane weak two, would EBU TD's entertain an adjustment at all?

True, the EBU rules on alerting doubles are what they are. But opposite a one-suited preempt with an intervening bid, double is penalty, rather than asking opener to bid a suit he doesn't have; and it would be a joke for the NOS to claim damage on a failure to alert.