[dickiegera]

---

South now bids 2♠ which is insufficient. Director called and West does not accept bid and south bids 3♠.

I East am very happy to pass.
North double was surely penalty.
If South would have changed bid to pass West would have been down a lot.
My question is would the final contract been 3♦ doubled or would E/W have any options?
I know that West could bid over pass. What West might bid I am not sure.
If West did bid 4♦ could South now double? North is barred.

Thank you

[RMB1]

> My question is would the final contract been 3♦ doubled or would E/W have any options?

E/W have the option of trying to make 9 tricks. If E/W wanted to avoid playing 3♦X they should accept 2♠

> If West did bid 4♦ could South now double?

Yes.

[weejonnie]

If south passes then the final contract should be 3♦ doubled.
(If North's double was for penalty then it should have been alerted. It is possible that South thought it was negative.)
The reason why North is barred is that he has Unauthorised information (i.e. that South has (presumably) Spades) (I know the rules state that North is barred - I am just giving the rationale)
South has no unauthorised information - hence there is no penalty on him.
Note that Declarer can forbid (or require) North from Leading a spade at his first opportunity. (Since spades hasn't been mentioned in the legal auction)

[PhantomSac]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-06, 17:05, said:

(If North's double was for penalty then it should have been alerted.)

lol

[barmar]

What kind of hand could North have that wants to make a negative double on the 3 level, but wasn't interested in doubling on the 2 level? I don't think this being penalty is a matter of partnership agreement, it's just bridge logic.

[wank]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-06, 17:05, said:

(If North's double was for penalty then it should have been alerted.

you remind me of an english player i saw playing in spain who called the director to complain about the opponents speaking a foreign language (it was spanish).

[steve2005]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-06, 17:05, said:

(If North's double was for penalty then it should have been alerted. It is possible that South thought it was negative.)

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-06, 17:44, said:

lol

Yes, 7NX is for takeout nowadays.

[PhantomSac]

barmar, on 2014-September-06, 17:52, said:

What kind of hand could North have that wants to make a negative double on the 3 level, but wasn't interested in doubling on the 2 level? I don't think this being penalty is a matter of partnership agreement, it's just bridge logic.

Nah it's ALERTABLE

[PhantomSac]

wank, on 2014-September-06, 22:05, said:

you remind me of an english player i saw playing in spain who called the director to complain about the opponents speaking a foreign language (it was spanish).

OFFICIAL BRIDGE LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BRO

[RMB1]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-06, 23:44, said:

OFFICIAL BRIDGE LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BRO

Nothing is the Laws about English.

[PhantomSac]

I should have used the /sarcasm tag!

[Vampyr]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-06, 23:44, said:

Nah it's ALERTABLE

Apparently it isn't in the jurisdiction in question.

[PhantomSac]

tough crowd...

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-08, 05:30, said:

Apparently it isn't in the jurisdiction in question.

Nor in any jurisdiction with any common sense. Humor doesn't seem to work on this site.

[nige1]

Under EBU regulations, in the OP case, a penalty double of 3♦ is alertable. Also, in the following example, if the bracketed bids are natural and the doubles are penalty, then all the doubles are alertable. (The double of 3♦ is assumed to be T/O although the double of 2♦ was penalty).
1N (2♦) _X (2♠)
_X (3♦) _X

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-08, 13:15, said:

Nor in any jurisdiction with any common sense. Humor doesn't seem to work on this site.

Well. The EBU alert regulation is the best one I know. Doubles is a difficult area which they have managed to get right.

But anyway you think the EBU lacks common sense. What jurisdiction do you play in, the ACBL? People in glass houses...

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-09, 01:22, said:

Well. The EBU alert regulation is the best one I know. Doubles is a difficult area which they have managed to get right.

But anyway you think the EBU lacks common sense. What jurisdiction do you play in, the ACBL? People in glass houses...

A player who didn't make a negative double on the previous round, all of a sudden discovers he holds a negative double when his RHO rebids the same suit? I am pretty sure no jurisdiction or person who thinks the penalty double of 3D in the OP case is alertable has "managed to get it right."

Of course, 3D will be going down a lot after a double in this situation. North was probably going to sit a reopening double at the 2-level; to assume takeout is just a bad joke.

[Lanor Fow]

With regards to doubles the EBU have taken the approach of not only trying to be specific, but also simple, when alerting. I agree with both parts. Some years back the rules were less simple to try and cater for the more 'obvoius' situations. What actually happened was that most people did not know the rules, and so doubles got alerted or didn't incorrectly some of the time. It also meant that given most people didn't know the alert rules for doubles, it was difficult to trust alerts or lack of for doubles so yoou generally had to ask if it would make a difference, leaading to UI for your side.

With the new rules, my expereince is that most people, especially at tournaments, know them and follow them. Yes, they lead to doubles that 'everyone' plays being alertable in some cases, but this is a small price to pay for people knowing the alert rules and being able to generally rely on others to know them.

As for the spedific part, whilst this is not possible in many cases, I believe that alerting procedure being as specific as possible, whilst still allowing for the vast majority of bridge players to easily understand or learn them, leads to alerts being most useful.

In short, I agree with Vampyr.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-09, 05:35, said:

A player who didn't make a negative double on the previous round, all of a sudden discovers he holds a negative double when his RHO rebids the same suit? I am pretty sure no jurisdiction or person who thinks the penalty double of 3D in the OP case is alertable has "managed to get it right."

The EBU do not 'think' this double is alertable; they have stipulated that it is. What is the objection to alerting a call that the SO have told you very clearly that you should?

What the EBU have is a blanket rule that is easy to explain, understand and follow. Yes, this results in counterintuitive situations, like alerting an "obvious" (to a beginner?) penalty double, but so what? Do you think that a list of hundreds of auctions would be better?

EDIT: crossed the post above, rather than imitated it.

[aguahombre]

Actually, I should have learned a long time ago to not assume EBU disclosure regulations have anything to do with letting the opponents know a call is not what it might seem to be.

And I am sure a player who made a bad 2nd overcall in the same suit might love the opportunity for a counter penalty if someone didn't alert the penalty double. You think his partner could have done something about it if he knew the double was penalty?