[Mbodell]

Vampyr, on Nov 5 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

Apparently, in the ACBL neither penalty nor takeout doubles are alerted. This is an extremely unhelpful regulation.

I think that the EBU have got it right by having one unalertable meaning for doubles.

yeah, the rough rule of thumb that one experienced player in my club says is "if a double is mostly takeout or mostly penalty it doesn't need to be alerted". Common things that do need alerts, IMO, are support doubles, doubles showing a specific suit (I.e., double as a transfer), and/or anti-lead direct doubles (I.e., I double the cue bid of my suit to show please don't lead my suit).

[barmar]

The rule in the ACBL makes reference to "highly unusual and unexpected meanings". If a particular double is usually penalty, you don't have to alert it if it's penalty, but should alert if it's takeout (or something else), and vice versa.

But support doubles are always alertable, so there was definitely a failure to alert.

Furthermore, I think that in the original auction, if support doubles were not in use, the usual, expected meaning of the double would be penalty (it can't be takeout, because all 4 suits have been bid -- where is partner supposed to take out to?), so a penalty double would not be alertable. West was justified in assuming that the unalerted double was for penalty. While he could have protected himself by asking, I don't think such a basic auction requires him to. Few players play support doubles over 2♠, and his reason for thinking South could have a spade stack seems quite reasonable.

[bluejak]

It is perfectly possible to play it as a takeout double. There is no rule that says all suits bid means no takeout double. A takeout double says "I have sufficient values and the right shape for playing this hand somewhere not in the suit just bid". That is a perfectly possible meaning for a double in this position - in fact I play this double as takeout myself.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 5 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

West says he would have raised spades had he known the double was not for penalties. If a non-penalty double shouldn't have been alerted, then he couldn't know that.

I don't think this is the right method of addressing the infraction.

If the player based his call on his own misunderstanding, I would agree with you under Law 21A. However, Law 21 B provides:

"Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

So, we do not need to establish whether West was misinformed or not. We are told by the Laws that he is deemed to have been.

So, we only have to decide whether "the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation" and it appears here that it was. If the call had been alerted and explained as a "support double" then I can quite believe the person "could well have" raised, which is all we need to establish to award an adjusted score. So, the fact that he jumped to the conclusion that it was a penalty double is not that relevant; we are only interested in what would have happened without the infraction.

[pirate22]

ok 12 cards in west's hand-can one assume west had Kxx in spades???

[olien]

Well, I think the ruling was wrong, and that the result for everybody should've been changed to 4S making. Also, why were N/S not penalized for not having their cards filled out in identical fashion?

[bluejak]

Possibly the ACBL wants to continue running tournaments, and having no players would make that tricky.

We suggest a practical approach in these forums. well, in the first three: theoretical questions are sometimes suitable for the Changing Laws & Regulations forum. Now, one thing you do not do is issue lots and lots of penalties: players do not like it. With the exception of pairs where one player fills the SCs out for both of them, I estimate, about 99% of pairs have at least one difference between their two CCs. It is not practical, nor desirable, nor helpful to fine such pairs.

Whether we like to or not, some rules are made to be broken, and the heavy stick approach is not the answer. For example, the last pass of an auction using bidding boxes should be made by putting a card down. How many players do not? Do you want to penalise every one?

When a player does something wrong, which a majority of other players do, we do not penalise. But any adjustment will take note of any illegal action however common.

[jdonn]

Yes penalizing for convention cards not being a perfect match would be pretty ridiculous.

[mycroft]

My opinion (but of course, when ruling at the table, this is a judgement call (both in "highly unusual or unexpected" and "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves"*) so I would consult with other TDs) is that if this had been the other way around - 1C-1D-1S-2H; unAlerted X..., that a "top flight, 5000 MP player" should have checked. But as you say, the fraction of players who play Support doubles past two of responder's suit is still very small, and the ones who do who don't know it's Alertable in the ACBL is practically nonexistent; I don't think that that's "recognizable" outside of "hmm, is (1S) 3C unalerted Ghestem?" or "is (3S) 4C Gerber?", so I will so rule. I'd probably rule that way even if West's "I wanna bid 4S" came after the hand, but certainly before dummy came down. But I am still but an egg.

I guess that I should state specifically on this one that although I do, occasionally, TD in the ACBL, I'm not doing so now. My opinion is just that, and bears nothing as evidence to what the LC or the TD-at-the-table might say.

If I played that call as "partner, I want to play somewhere", I wouldn't refer to it as "takeout". In England, that has a defined meaning, and I assume, it is the correct one for this situation. However, in the ACBL, it would invariably be responded to with "to what suit? There isn't one." More commonly, here, this is referred to as "Our hand" or "cards" (or, if it doesn't tend to show convertable values, "two places to play" or even "do something intelligent") doubles. Not that the by-and-large are going to understand that, either. Just another instance of two worlds divided by a common language.

* that's the printed standard, not "could possibly have known" or any of the other things in this thread - Jeremy, that quote is from the ACBL Alert Procedure document.

Adam, while I'm sure there are pairs that don't Alert and don't get punished for it (although I've given my share of "double bad" scores in these situations, and will continue to do so; the non-Alerters don't always get a good board when their opponents get a bad one) the issue is that there are definitely players who play the "oblivious" double-shot. Strangely enough, frequently they are getting paid for their experience. Note: the *best* pros don't do this; nor even the merely good ones. The struggling ones are the ones more likely to try to pull this off.

[bluejak]

The trouble with 'cards' is that various things I have seen about such doubles make it clear they are not takeout doubles: a 'cards' double is optional, suggesting a pass much more than a takeout one.

If anyone asks me "to what suit?" that is easy: any suit apart from the one bid, or no-trumps. Same as a takeout double in any other position, of course.

[greenender]

Surely the essence of a takeout double when your side has bid two suits and the enemy has bid the other two is normally this: "I want to compete in whichever of our two suits affords the best fit, but I don't yet know which that is".

Depending on the auction, the precise suit lengths implied by such a double may vary, but surely the problem is that in a classic support double position, such a double is going to deliver precisely three-card support a high percentage of the time: with four, why would opener give responder a choice; with two, would he not normally rebid his own suit or go quietly?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for correct alerting, and if a takeout double isn't alertable but a support double is, then players who play support doubles should jolly well alert them. But I can't see myself as a TD being that inclined to accept that a player's call could well have been influenced by the MI, if the essence of the MI at issue is the difference between a takeout and a support double.

Here, of course, a penalty meaning is in the frame, and I believe that Lamford's conclusion is right.

[nige1]

I agree with BLuejak that it is daft to blame a victim for his failure to ask an opponent if he has broken the rules. West thought the double was penalty but even if he guessed it might be intended as takeout, why shouldn't he pass in the hope that opponents were having a misunderstanding? That misconception would be prevented if his LHO had obeyed the rules and alerted the double as support. And West might even have got it right if his opponent's convention card had not misled him.