[lamford]

---

EBU. Butler IMPs. Table Result: NS+800. Lead K♥

SB had recently been busy re-reading the EBU Blue Book and he seized an opportunity to call the TD as East after the above hand was played at a North London club this week, even though the result was already in his favour. Most Souths had opened 4C, and a Four Heart overcall had gone for 1100 at three tables. However, SB sensed an opportunity and called the TD because the double of 3H was not alerted, and he had every right to assume it was for takeout. If it had been alerted, he would have redoubled, obviously SOS, and the cold 3S would have been reached, probably doubled by North. If the NS agreement was that it was takeout, then South's pass with an extra club and a singleton heart was a fielded misbid and evidence of a CPU.

He quoted, verbatim, to the TD:
BB 4A6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding.

He was aware of the requirement in BB 2A2 to protect himself, but asking and then passing here would give UI if it were takeout, as it would clearly show a hand that would redouble after a penalty double - what else could he have for a question and then a pass? How would you rule?

Opportunities present themselves every day - to everyone. You just have to be alert and ready to act.- Marc Ostrofsky

[billw55]

A takeout double in this position after partner preempts does not really seem like a reasonable expectation to me. Although I admit that the rules for alerting doubles over there baffle me.

[campboy]

Well, the TD needs to find out what the N/S agreements are. There seem to me to be three possibilities.

• Double is penalty by agreement, and South forgot to alert.
  
• Double was takeout by agreement, and South fielded the misbid.
  
• They have no clear agreement on the double.

Option 3 seems quite similar to a case recently discussed in L&EC minutes (October 2014, p7 of this document). The auction started 1♦ 1♠ pass 2♠ pass pass dbl, which was not alerted and about which there was no agreement. Doubler had AJ853, T874, QT4, 7. The L&EC confirmed that the double should have been alerted if there was no agreement.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-23, 09:52, said:

Well, the TD needs to find out what the N/S agreements are. There seem to me to be three possibilities.

• Double is penalty by agreement, and South forgot to alert.
  
• Double was takeout by agreement, and South fielded the misbid.
  
• They have no clear agreement on the double.

There was a fourth possibility, which the TD established was the true one:
Double was penalty by agreement, and South did not think it was alertable.

[campboy]

Ok, so there was MI. It seems right to adjust, to me. It's certainly reasonable not to ask in this position as if South doesn't realise the double is penalty you don't want to put that idea in his mind. As you say, UI from asking could be an issue too.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2015-March-23, 09:24, said:

A takeout double in this position after partner preempts does not really seem like a reasonable expectation to me.

True, but people have stranger methods than this (recently I encountered a weak/intermediate 3♠ jump overcall over a weak 2♥. The need to protect oneself and the desire to avoid creating UI are often at odds with each other.

Quote

Although I admit that the rules for alerting doubles over there baffle me.

Over a (natural) suit below 3NT you alert unless it is takeout. Maybe that's baffling to some people; I don't know. The EBU have made a good decision to opt for simplicity and easy understandability. The only downside is that some "obvious" penalty doubles are alerted, and I for one do not find this onerous. Of course every alert regulation is gotten wrong once in awhile, and in this instance it involved an elderly couple who had not been to the club in a long while, so they had missed the summary of the new alerting regulations, which had been placed on the tables for a few weeks after the regulations took force.

LOL sorry if there is a bit of redundancy here; crossed a lot of posts.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-23, 10:15, said:

Ok, so there was MI. It seems right to adjust, to me. It's certainly reasonable not to ask in this position as if South doesn't realise the double is penalty you don't want to put that idea in his mind. As you say, UI from asking could be an issue too.

I think you are right. There is a slightly uncomfortable aspect of the hand, however, that this feels like a double-shot by SB, who pretty much "knew" from his hand and from most people's normal methods, combined with his perception of the knowledge of NS about the alerting regulations, that the double was penalties. It seems, however, that we cannot lawfully deny him that double-shot where he gets to redouble if it is right, and gets the score in 3Hx when it is wrong.

[Zelandakh]

What are the E-W methods over a takeout double? East presumably "knows" that South is sitting on a heart stack here if they are taking the lack of alert at face value.

[Trinidad]

SB has every right to take advantage of his own superior knowledge of the regulations, the knowledge of his own hand and his opponents' lack of knowledge of the regulations.

According to the regulations in force, there was MI. This led to damage. So, we adjust.

Of course, a PP is in order. Not only did South fail to alert. North failed to call the TD to correct the MI before the opening lead. Obviously, this PP doesn't go to NS. Instead it goes to the organizers for providing an alert regulation that only SBs can understand and apply.

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

The alert regulation for doubles might not be intuitive in places, but it's certainly simple, so I'm not sure that your claim that only SBs can understand it has any merit.

[Trinidad]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-23, 12:10, said:

The alert regulation for doubles might not be intuitive in places, but it's certainly simple, so I'm not sure that your claim that only SBs can understand it has any merit.

Even if one branch of the alert regulation tree would be simple (I don't think it is) then the context of the rest of the regulation makes it complicated (e.g. because it is not consistent with the rest of the regulation).

Furthermore, the alert regulation for doubles is not following the principle of full disclosure, where an alert means that a question about a call is encouraged/expected.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-23, 13:38, said:

Furthermore, the alert regulation for doubles is not following the principle of full disclosure, where an alert means that a question about a call is encouraged/expected.

Hm. I don't want to address whether the regulation follows the principle of full disclosure just now, but I do find the implication I see in "a question about a call is encouraged/expected" interesting. That implication is that if one of your opponents alerts, and at his turn partner asks "what's the alert?" or some such, the information content of the question is simply that partner is doing what is expected of him and what he is, by regulation, encouraged to do. If that's all the information content in the question, then the fact that partner asked cannot constrain you under Law 16B. Or so it seems to me. I can see that this might be affected by partner's tendencies — for example if he does not always ask — but let's stick to the basic implication for the moment. Am I wrong? If so, how and wny?

[Aardv]

SB knows perfectly well that this is a penalty double, and the TD knows he knows. And asking then passing gives nothing away; it's common to ask in an auction where take-out is unlikely, because you're going to want to know during the play anyway.

[barmar]

I think what Trinidad is trying to say is that the alert procedure was created for the purpose of warning the opponents that you're using an unexpected method, and suggesting that they should ask a question to find out what your special partnership agreement is. This isn't as strong as "encouraged/expected", but the general idea is that the basic meaning of unalerted bids should be familiar to most players, while alerted bids should have unusual or surprising meanings.

However, the need to codify the alert regulations has led to some situations where this basic principle is violated, because it's impractical to cover all cases in a regulation that players are expected to know and understand by memory. The old EBU regulations had alerts of Stayman, even though almost everyone played them, because they had a simple "alert anything artificial" rule. Now EBU has more elaborate rules, but there are still some meanings that 99% of players play but are alertable, e.g. the auction in this thread.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-March-23, 18:08, said:

Now EBU has more elaborate rules, but there are still some meanings that 99% of players play but are alertable, e.g. the auction in this thread.

Well, if the rules are more elaborate, this does not apply to doubles. People I this and other threads keep insisting that the rules are complicated, but they could not be simpler. I really do not understand what is complicated about: Alert if the double of a suit bid is not takeout. Alert if the double of a NT bid is not penalty. Alert if the double of an artificially bid suit does not show the suit. This is IT, and anyone who cannot easily understand and apply these rules is an idiot.

To address some of the issues above, the player in question has a tendency to bid and then think, so I believe that she simply relied too much on the lack of an alert without thinking of it in the context of the auction. At the time I had mixed feelings about whether there should be an adjustment. I was not the director on the night, but the case was discussed by the club's senior directors. I do know that the player was not trying to pass in case it work d and get her redouble by ruling if it didn't. This sort of strategy would not occur to her. Also I do not know if she has a strong idea about what "everybody" plays. Plus of course the UI is a concern; while I don't think that the thought process of the player in question had reached this point, it is relevant to another player in a similar position.

Anyway a PP was not in order, as these regulations marked the first time in many years that the EBU had changed its alert regulations, and leniency was recommended for a grace period of, I think, a year.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-March-23, 18:00, said:

it's common to ask in an auction where take-out is unlikely, because you're going to want to know during the play anyway.

From SB's point of view, penalty was unlikely because of the lack of an alert, and he was entitled to assume takeout, especially as the opponents had a meta-agreement of takeout doubles up to 3♠. If he asked and passed, and West then redoubled, clearly showing something like 3-6-3-1 with bad hearts, I bet the sirens would have been sounding all around the building. SB was also unlikely to need to know during the play for three reasons:
a) if he redoubled he was quite likely to be dummy in a pointed-suit contract.
b) if he passed he was almost certain to be dummy in a doubled heart contract
c) if he became a defender, he was unlikely to have any great interest in the play because of his lack of high cards.

And even if it is common to ask, there is no obligation on SB to do so. BB 4A6 is quite clear.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-23, 11:25, said:

North failed to call the TD to correct the MI before the opening lead.

I could not find the requirement for a defender to do this in the Laws. Is the Dutch translation different to the English version, or is there a Double Dutch version, where both the declarer and the defenders have an obligation to do so?

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-March-23, 19:16, said:

I could not find the requirement for a defender to do this in the Laws. Is the Dutch translation different to the English version, or is there a Double Dutch version, where both the declarer and the defenders have an obligation to do so?

No, there was just a confused Trinidad who thought that South was declaring...

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-23, 16:32, said:

If that's all the information content in the question, then the fact that partner asked [about an alerted call] cannot constrain you under Law 16B. Or so it seems to me. I can see that this might be affected by partner's tendencies — for example if he does not always ask — but let's stick to the basic implication for the moment. Am I wrong? If so, how and wny?

No, you are completely correct. I am surprised you ask.

If you regularly ask about alerts (and your question is neutral) the simple fact that you ask doesn't contain UI. Asking a question about an alert is the kind of behavior I expect from my partner. It doesn't tell me anything.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-24, 06:50, said:

If you regularly ask about alerts (and your question is neutral) the simple fact that you ask doesn't contain UI. Asking a question about an alert is the kind of behavior I expect from my partner. It doesn't tell me anything.

If you regularly do not ask about non-alerted bids, even if your question is neutral, the simple fact that you ask contains UI. Asking a question about a non-alerted bid is the kind of behaviour I do not expect from my partner. It tells me everything.

In this example, it would say, "I don't think that is a take-out double, pard, as my short hearts and length in the other two suits strongly suggest that it is penalties. If you have another four-card suit, it might be beneficial to run to it. And, wake-up South, everyone plays this as penalties!"