[Chris L]

This problem arose in an Eastern Counties League match between Cambs & Hunts and Suffolk yesterday. At one table in the "B" team match, (Love All, dealer E), S opened a weak NT and W doubled for penalties on ♠AJTx ♥AQ9xx ♦9 ♣AQT. The oppo were apparently playing "system on" after the double and N bid 2♥* on a 5341 3 count. S duly converted to 2♠ on his 2443 13 count. W doubled this for penalties and all passed, EW scoring +300.

At the end of the hand, NS asked for a ruling on whether the second double should have been alerted as being for penalties; I'm not sure what damage was said to have ensued from the failure to alert, but that's not the point of the question. I couldn't deal with the matter as I had yet to play the board. There was an EBU TD playing in the "B" team match and he looked at the hand with his TD hat on after he had played it himself and ruled "result stands". Given that EW can make 6♣ - and did make 5♣ +1 at one table in the "B" team match - NS seemed happy enough.

My colleague discussed it with me afterwards and neither of us was sure whether, after 1NT has been doubled for penalties (not alertable under OB 5 E 2 C ), the double of the 2♠ bid should have been alerted under 5 E 2 (a). Is 5 E 2 (a) no longer relevant once EW have embarked on a "blood" sequence? Or could one argue that, since 2♠ didn't actually show ♠ (the 2♥ bid did that), no double was necessary under 5 E 2 (d)? In that case, what is the position if NS had been playing "system off" and N had bid 2♠, passed back to W who doubled for penalties?

[mjj29]

Chris L, on 2011-February-21, 02:40, said:

Or could one argue that, since 2♠ didn't actually show ♠ (the 2♥ bid did that), no double was necessary under 5 E 2 (d)? In that case, what is the position if NS had been playing "system off" and N had bid 2♠, passed back to W who doubled for penalties?

I believe that this is the position. Completion of a transfer doesn't show the suit and so double is alertable if take out and not if penalties. This also applies in auctions such as 1N-P-2D-P-2H-P-P-X and similar.

Jeffery Allerton sent a paper discussing such oddities in alerting doubles to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee which I believe was discussed at the meeting on the 26th January for which minutes are not yet available. His paper recommended making such doubles take out by default as if the transfer completion showed the suit.

In your latter example, where 2 spades showed spades a penalty double would be alertable.

Whether or not the players have embarked on a 'penalty double sequence' does not affect the alertability, but it might affect whether a 'failure to protect oneself' had occurred if it is now sufficiently obvious that it's a penalty double. In this sequence I do know people who play the double for take out, so I would not expect that to apply.

[lamford]

mjj29, on 2011-February-21, 07:22, said:

Jeffery Allerton sent a paper discussing such oddities in alerting doubles to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee which I believe was discussed at the meeting on the 26th January for which minutes are not yet available. His paper recommended making such doubles take out by default as if the transfer completion showed the suit.

Jeffrey's suggestion is a good one. Would it extend to the situation where a pass showed the suit bid? For example: 1NT - (2C)* (say hearts and another) - Pass - (Pass) - Double. I play that as takeout of clubs, and am unsure whether it should be alerted.

EDIT: After writing the above sentence, I found the text of the paper at http://www.bridgeweb...Doubles%201.pdf and note that Jeffrey recommends that when a conventional bid is passed, the current OB treatment that the double is alertable unless it is penalties is changed. I agree.

[VixTD]

Chris L, on 2011-February-21, 02:40, said:

Is 5 E 2 (a) no longer relevant once EW have embarked on a "blood" sequence?

There is nothing in the regulations to suggest this. The intention of the change in the alerting regulations for doubles that was introduced in 2006 was to simplify the criteria used to decide whether or not to alert. So whether or not you should alert depends on the meaning of the bid (whether it shows the suit or not), and not on what any of the earlier calls might have been or meant.

Chris L, on 2011-February-21, 02:40, said:

Or could one argue that, since 2♠ didn't actually show ♠ (the 2♥ bid did that), no double was necessary under 5 E 2 (d)? In that case, what is the position if NS had been playing "system off" and N had bid 2♠, passed back to W who doubled for penalties?

This has been discussed here before, and I believe it was suggested that the Laws and Ethics Committee consider it. I'm not sure whether they have done so, and if so what answer they reached.

I alert penalty doubles of such bids, treating them as "natural for alerting purposes" even though they are not listed in OB5F1(a). It's difficult to support this by the letter of the law, it just seems more sensible to me.

[Cyberyeti]

I asked exactly this question in a previous thread on this subject, and got different views on whether transfer completion (guaranteeing a 7 card or better fit for most people) is natural or artificial.

Also the auction 2♦(multi)-P-2♥(obviously artificial, pass/correct)-P-P(hearts)-X

Where what you alert is different to 2♥(weak)-X and 2♥-P-P-X even though the auctions are functionally identical.

[dburn]

From August 2011, completion of a transfer and a bid that is in a suit where partner has implied that he might hold length - e.g. 2♦ (Multi) - 2♥ (pass or correct) - will be held to "show the suit" for the purposes of the relevant alerting regulations in the Orange Book. Until then, players and directors are invitied to continue to argue about it.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-February-21, 11:18, said:

From August 2011, completion of a transfer and a bid that is in a suit where partner has implied that he might hold length - e.g. 2♦ (Multi) - 2♥ (pass or correct) - will be held to "show the suit" for the purposes of the relevant alerting regulations in the Orange Book. Until then, players and directors are invitied to continue to argue about it.

So, neither of these applies to the pass of a conventional bid, as it is the pass that implies length, and it is the bid that is being doubled. So, I presume, they will continue to argue about it long after that, as the EBU will be reluctant to tamper with regulations on doubles that they have just changed. I would have just accepted Jeffrey's paper in its entirety.

[FrancesHinden]

Jeffrey's paper didn't actually make any recommendations, it merely listed a set of sequences which are ambiguous and asked the L&E to clarify the alerting regulations. So they could neither 'accept it' or 'reject it'.

Dburn's answer addressed the OP. It didn't address the question you asked, although the L&E have indeed done so as well (double of an artificial bid passed out - converted to 'natural' - is considered double of a natural bid). I thought this was much less clear than the other auctions, partly because the e.g. double of a transfer completion is universally played for take-out but e.g. 2D (multi) P P dbl is not. What's more, very few people have explicit agreements about this type of sequence.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-21, 14:33, said:

Jeffrey's paper didn't actually make any recommendations, it merely listed a set of sequences which are ambiguous and asked the L&E to clarify the alerting regulations. So they could neither 'accept it' or 'reject it'.

Dburn's answer addressed the OP. It didn't address the question you asked, although the L&E have indeed done so as well (double of an artificial bid passed out - converted to 'natural' - is considered double of a natural bid). I thought this was much less clear than the other auctions, partly because the e.g. double of a transfer completion is universally played for take-out but e.g. 2D (multi) P P dbl is not. What's more, very few people have explicit agreements about this type of sequence.

Thanks. How should that last double be played? My regular partner and I play it the same way as the immediate double (13-15 bal) or a good hand, but that may not be best.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm sorry, I don't think the L&EC see it as their job to decide on the best use of double on these sequences, merely on which doubles should be alerted.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-22, 15:58, said:

I'm sorry, I don't think the L&EC see it as their job to decide on the best use of double on these sequences, merely on which doubles should be alerted.

You are right - the question belongs in one of the bridge-related discussion threads. Sorry to have asked it here.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Jeffery Allerton sent a paper discussing such oddities in alerting doubles to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee which I believe was discussed at the meeting on the 26th January for which minutes are not yet available.

It was discussed and the draft minutes are on the EBU Website now.