[bluejak]

.. Swiss Pairs, MPs > VPs

---

The 1NT was a weak takeout, showing two or three of the other suits, less than an opening bid. 2♥ was pass or correct: West is known to have at least one major. The double for 2♥ was not alerted. 2♥ went three off for 800 and no matchpoints.

West called the TD and said he would have bid 2♠ if he had known the double was for penalties. 2♠ would quite likely have gone for -500, which would be all the matchpoints.

The alerting rules in England say

Quote

5 E 2 Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
(b) Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney minor openings.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.
© No trump bids.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.
(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.

Doubles are also alertable if they convey a potentially unexpected meaning in addition to take-out or penalties as defined above.

In 5E2(a) and 5E2(d) the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:
‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it is followed by two passes’.

So, if 2♥ "shows that suit" then an unalerted double is for takeout. If it does not then an unalerted double shows that suit. Note that the previous auction is irrelevant in general.

---------------------------------

The double was intended and understood as for penalties. Should it have been alerted? If so, would you adjust?

[billw55]

I suppose the rules are the rules. Although I don't see why a double here should be assumed as takeout, when the opponent has already made a takeout action. Takeout to what? Why?

[Quartic]

If I'm reading the regulations correctly, the 2♥ bid here does show a willingness to play 2♥ so the double should be alerted. I would adjust to 2♠x down 2 for 500 (Law 21B3). (I assume that 2♠x down 2 is the only likely outcome, otherwise would assign a weighted score.)

[bluejak]

 billw55, on 2012-May-21, 11:49, said:

I suppose the rules are the rules. Although I don't see why a double here should be assumed as takeout, when the opponent has already made a takeout action. Takeout to what? Why?

The previous English rules for alerting doubles were logical, not very difficult, and misunderstood by well over 50% of English bridge players. So the EBU went for something that is just simple: if it is natural, it is doubled, it is not alerted then it is for takeout, and (very very important) the actual auction is irrelevant . Players are actually beginning to learn these rules and a much higher proportion than previously get them right.

[richlp]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 11:39, said:

.. Swiss Pairs, MPs > VPs

---

The 1NT was a weak takeout, showing two or three of the other suits, less than an opening bid. 2♥ was pass or correct: West is known to have at least one major. The double for 2♥ was not alerted. 2♥ went three off for 800 and no matchpoints.

West called the TD and said he would have bid 2♠ if he had known the double was for penalties. 2♠ would quite likely have gone for -500, which would be all the matchpoints.

The alerting rules in England say



So, if 2♥ "shows that suit" then an unalerted double is for takeout. If it does not then an unalerted double shows that suit. Note that the previous auction is irrelevant in general.

---------------------------------

The double was intended and understood as for penalties. Should it have been alerted? If so, would you adjust?

Do these alerting rules apply when there has been previous penalty double? (Perhaps it should be in the "Why I lose at Bridge" forum but) To me, bridge logic dictates that once a penalty double has been made all future doubles are also for penalty.


If so, then I guess an adjustment could be warranted even though the logic of the auction indicates the double of 2♥ almost has to be penalty.

[billw55]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 12:22, said:

The previous English rules for alerting doubles were logical, not very difficult, and misunderstood by well over 50% of English bridge players. So the EBU went for something that is just simple: if it is natural, it is doubled, it is not alerted then it is for takeout, and (very very important) the actual auction is irrelevant . Players are actually beginning to learn these rules and a much higher proportion than previously get them right.

I guess there can be value in clarity.

Out of curiosity, is this rule absolute? Are they any possible exceptions, such as high level contracts (where takeout would be obvious nonsense), sacrifices, etc? Or maybe rich's point about prior penalty doubles? Lightner doubles? How about cases where the doubling side has no agreement - is the assumption of takeout forced on them?

As written it sounds like essentially, all penalty doubles of suit contracts are alertable.

[bluejak]

Every time you put an exception in, fewer people understand the rule. So, no, it does not matter what the auction has been. I am not sure how many times I have to say it. We have gone from rules a minority understand to rules that a majority understand. Both rules were moaned about so that does not help.

With rare exceptions, alerting stops at 3NT, so we are only talking low level doubles.

As for always playing penalty doubles after a penalty double, I don't. But anyway, the only way to have a simple rule is to have a simple rule. The idea of a simple rule with "obvious" exceptions is that you now have a complicated rule.

[billw55]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 13:59, said:

Every time you put an exception in, fewer people understand the rule. So, no, it does not matter what the auction has been. I am not sure how many times I have to say it. We have gone from rules a minority understand to rules that a majority understand. Both rules were moaned about so that does not help.

With rare exceptions, alerting stops at 3NT, so we are only talking low level doubles.

As for always playing penalty doubles after a penalty double, I don't. But anyway, the only way to have a simple rule is to have a simple rule. The idea of a simple rule with "obvious" exceptions is that you now have a complicated rule.

That bit in blue is what I had in mind, and it covers most nonsense situations that I was imagining.

And yes, I agree with you about simple rules. In the short term we have somewhat bizarre results like the hand posted, but these should fade quickly as people adapt to the rule.

[blackshoe]

It really boils down, I think, to whether they had an agreement, or were both winging it and happened to land on the same page. Or would, except now that I think about it, EBU has a rule that if you're going to treat a call as having an alertable meaning, you must alert it. Seems like a score adjustment on the basis of MI may be appropriate.

[ArtK78]

Silly rules lead to silly results.

I understand why you have the rule, and I understand that arguing against the rule accomplishes nothing. But it is still silly, and if it results in an adjusted score on this hand, that will be a silly result.

[bluejak]

For years alerting of doubles has been unsatisfactory and untrustworthy. It is now becoming trustworthy at last. Why is this silly?

But is not the whole argument pointless? The question is "How do you rule?". Answers "The Regulation is silly" hardly seem helpful.

Compare Law 27B1B. I think it a dreadful Law, and several here agree. If we get a case where Law 27B1B is relevant, and we are asked "How do you rule?" an answer "It's a bad Law" seems unhelpful.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 16:41, said:

For years alerting of doubles has been unsatisfactory and untrustworthy. It is now becoming trustworthy at last. Why is this silly?

What is truly silly is going for simplicity by eliminating all doubles if they are takeout or penalty. This regulation is certainly easy to remember, but seems nightmareish to play under.

Those who think that the EBU regulation in this regard is wrong or silly or whatever should try playing here. They will discover that it works extremely well.

[FrancesHinden]

I might be tempted to rule on the basis of an illegal convention. I don't think a 4342 1-count qualifies as a 'weak take-out double' although I admit that is all that the OB says.
Apart from that, yes a penalty double is alertable and it should have been alerted. But I am not convinced about the subsequent auction. For one thing, I don't understand why East couldn't have 5 hearts and 3 spades. What was he supposed to do over the double with a 3532 shape? A 2533 shape? I query the genuine pass-or-correct-ity of the call. Secondly, NS might not double 2S but might instead bid 3NT.

Finally, the play in 2Sx is interesting. Suppose they start with 3 rounds of diamonds, ruffed in the dummy with South discarding a heart. Declarer plays a trump, South wins and plays a club to North. North plays a fourth winning diamond, ruffed in the dummy while South discards another heart. Now if declarer plays a another trump South wins, draws a 3rd round of trumps with the 7 and plays clubs. Isn't that 3 off? Declarer makes 3 trumps and 2 hearts.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-21, 17:00, said:

Those who think that the EBU regulation in this regard is wrong or silly or whatever should try playing here. They will discover that it works extremely well.

I can imagine here, it could work extremely well for E/W.

[barmar]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-21, 17:04, said:

I might be tempted to rule on the basis of an illegal convention. I don't think a 4342 1-count qualifies as a 'weak take-out double' although I admit that is all that the OB says.

It seems ill-advised, I suppose, but I don't know if it's illegal. But it sure would be nice if they explained that it could be so weak -- just saying less than opening strength is hardly going to suggest this.

Quote

Apart from that, yes a penalty double is alertable and it should have been alerted. But I am not convinced about the subsequent auction. For one thing, I don't understand why East couldn't have 5 hearts and 3 spades. What was he supposed to do over the double with a 3532 shape? A 2533 shape? I query the genuine pass-or-correct-ity of the call. Secondly, NS might not double 2S but might instead bid 3NT.

Maybe they make use of redouble to allow advancer to show a strong preference rather than p/c.

But if it's truly p/c, why didn't West correct to his better major, regardless of the meaning of the double?

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-May-21, 18:25, said:

But if it's truly p/c, why didn't West correct to his better major, regardless of the meaning of the double?

Because he didn't have to. If partner has 3-5 as suggested by Frances, 2H will play better. And if partner has 4-4 as he actually had, he will get a ruling.

[blackshoe]

It almost never occurs to me at the table to consider what to do in the light of the possibility I might "get a ruling". Maybe I'm not competitive enough.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-21, 19:11, said:

It almost never occurs to me at the table to consider what to do in the light of the possibility I might "get a ruling". Maybe I'm not competitive enough.

Different world. Here, the rules are intended for equity, not just to be used as a backup plan when we bid with our flat one-count and an obvious penalty double isn't alerted.

[EricK]

 aguahombre, on 2012-May-21, 18:45, said:

Because he didn't have to. If partner has 3-5 as suggested by Frances, 2H will play better. And if partner has 4-4 as he actually had, he will get a ruling.

Unless South genuinely had a takeout double.

[aguahombre]

 EricK, on 2012-May-21, 23:50, said:

Unless South genuinely had a takeout double.

That is not possible. There are not more than 4 suits in a deck, and in a doubling sequence started by responder, the way to show lack of hearts is to pass.