[Rossoneri]

This happened in an event with IMP scoring

---

2♣X went 2 off. East informed opponents at the end of the hand that partner had failed to alert his X as a support double. EW have support doubles marked on their convention card. NS called the director and claimed damage - South claimed he would have bid 2S had he known it was a support double.

Director was called and she ruled that the table result stands.

NS appealed. The appeals committee was told by EW at the appeal that West had simply failed to alert. EW are not a regular partnership but they had a board earlier in the session where support doubles came up (against a different pair of opponents). East also argued that South could have protected himself by enquiring about the double. NS claimed that the double was not alerted hence the assumption that it was for takeout. S claimed that it would be difficult for him to pull to 2♠ without the alert and he would have done so if it had been alerted and explained as being a support double.

How would you rule if you were on the AC?

[wank]

obv some polling to be done, but sounds ridiculous to me. i don't see why south should be significantly more inclined to bid over a support double than a take-out double.

[MickyB]

Result stands. When RHO makes a takeout double LHO is very likely to have a club stack. When RHO makes a support double they will often be guessing when to pass. This seems much more significant to me than any implications about spade length with RHO.

[mycroft]

I don't see what difference "I have diamonds and spades (and probably a couple of hearts)" would make for me pulling to spades than "I have diamonds and 3 hearts" would. Every club that East doesn't have, West or North has...and likely West.

If South thought that "takeout" meant "you can't pass", maybe it's safe. "I have minimal heart support, Do The Right Thing" might mean that the pull is more warranted, because "DTRT" could more easily mean "pass", but as I said above, it also means that it's less likely West has a trump stack and *will* pass.

And 2♠x is going to be ugly if North doesn't just "happen" to have half her hand in spades, and East has some of those cards (as he should for a "takeout" double).

My small contribution to the poll.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-December-16, 11:06, said:

IAnd 2♠x is going to be ugly if North doesn't just "happen" to have half her hand in spades, and East has some of those cards (as he should for a "takeout" double).

Isn't that South's point? Without the alert, he presumed East's double showed ♠]. He therefore assumed that 2♠ would be ugly, so he didn't pull. If he knows East is actually showing ♥, there's less chance that he has a bunch of ♠, and partner is more likely to have some.

[gnasher]

A natural weakish 2♠ is certainly more appealing after a support double than after a takeout double. However, South would need to persaude me that this is what 2♠ actually means in their style. Most people would, I think, play 2♠ as a more constructive bid.

Quote

East also argued that South could have protected himself by enquiring about the double.

I hope the appeals committee wasn't swayed by this nonsense. Why should South ask about an unalerted call on the off-chance that the opponents have broken the rules? If you ask because you would bid over a support double, then pass when you're told it's takeout, you create UI for your partner and give the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

The relevant EBU rule begins "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up) .." In this case the misinformation isn't obvious, the explanation is plausible, and South can't protect himself without giving UI.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-December-17, 04:22

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-December-17, 04:14, said:

A natural weakish 2♠ is certainly more appealing after a support double than after a takeout double. However, South would need to persaude me that this is what 2♠ actually means in their style. Most people would, I think, play 2♠ as a more constructive bid.

South stated that he would have bid 2S if there had been an alert. In general TDs accept this; one of the questions they ask is "what would you have done differently with an alert?". The absolute duty is on East-West to alert, and I agree that South will just assume takeout. Two Spades is unlikely if East suggests Four Spades, quite plausible if he does not. Surely, West now bids 4H, and this looks to be one off, and I would ajdust to this.

[bluejak]

I don't think TDs are quite as naive as you believe Paul. When a player who knows what the most successful action is tells you he would have taken the most successful action it is not routine to automatically believe him.

I don't actually believe South at all: with a void club and a likely pull on his left he will pass: he was just unlucky there was a reasonable penalty pass on his left. No adjustment.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-December-17, 10:28, said:

I don't actually believe South at all: with a void club and a likely pull on his left he will pass: he was just unlucky there was a reasonable penalty pass on his left. No adjustment.

Why is there a likely pull on his left when he has a void? I would have thought it quite likely that West will pass. But the only way to reasonably decide what South would bid is to poll players of the same ability with both auctions.

[paulg]

Given that South failed to overcall one heart, many would play that two spades shows club tolerance, if not real support, in this auction. A key question for this pair as a poll, without this information, is meaningless.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2011-December-18, 03:29, said:

Given that South failed to overcall one heart, many would play that two spades shows club tolerance, if not real support, in this auction. A key question for this pair as a poll, without this information, is meaningless.

With 2D and 2H available as UCBs, surely we can show spades with or without club tolerance? Something like 2S = just spades; 2H = spades and clubs; 2D = clubs only. I suspect the TD did not ask what these would have meant, nor did he establish what 2S would have meant in their methods.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2011-December-17, 04:14, said:

A natural weakish 2♠ is certainly more appealing after a support double than after a takeout double. However, South would need to persaude me that this is what 2♠ actually means in their style. Most people would, I think, play 2♠ as a more constructive bid.

I think any hand that would take a constructive action over a passed-hand overcall, and has five spades, would have overcalled 1♠ in the first place.

But as Paulg says, it is possible that 2♠ would show club support in their methods. Who knows.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2011-December-17, 03:01, said:

Isn't that South's point? Without the alert, he presumed East's double showed ♠]. He therefore assumed that 2♠ would be ugly, so he didn't pull. If he knows East is actually showing ♥, there's less chance that he has a bunch of ♠, and partner is more likely to have some.

Yes, but it's also more likely that East has clubs with a takeout double rather than a support double, not West, so it is less likely that 2♣x will be passed out - whereas it's not very likely that 2♠ will play undoubled.

[StevenG]

mycroft, on 2011-December-19, 11:40, said:

Yes, but it's also more likely that East has clubs with a takeout double rather than a support double, not West, so it is less likely that 2♣x will be passed out - whereas it's not very likely that 2♠ will play undoubled.

Why? East is promising diamonds and spades.

[Elianna]

Rossoneri, on 2011-December-15, 19:38, said:

NS appealed. The appeals committee was told by EW at the appeal that West had simply failed to alert. EW are not a regular partnership but they had a board earlier in the session where support doubles came up (against a different pair of opponents). East also argued that South could have protected himself by enquiring about the double. NS claimed that the double was not alerted hence the assumption that it was for takeout. S claimed that it would be difficult for him to pull to 2♠ without the alert and he would have done so if it had been alerted and explained as being a support double.

How would you rule if you were on the AC?

I am curious whether double as penalty is alertable in your jurisdiction.

If it's not, then I don't think that S has any case, because by passing an unalerted and unasked double, he could be passing a penalty double.

[gnasher]

Elianna, on 2011-December-19, 16:12, said:

I am curious whether double as penalty is alertable in your jurisdiction.

Yes it is. The only non-alertable meaning of this double is "takeout".

[lamford]

wank, on 2011-December-15, 21:17, said:

obv some polling to be done, but sounds ridiculous to me. i don't see why south should be significantly more inclined to bid over a support double than a take-out double.

Because the takeout doubler is significantly more likely to have four spades than the support doubler maybe.

[Elianna]

gnasher, on 2011-December-19, 16:33, said:

Yes it is. The only non-alertable meaning of this double is "takeout".

Thank you for clarifying. No one was asking that question, and it wasn't clear to me what jurisdiction OP was in (I'm bad at remembering everyone's jurisdiction). I asked because in mine, only the support double is alertable, both penalty and TO are not.

[barmar]

Elianna, on 2011-December-21, 14:05, said:

Thank you for clarifying. No one was asking that question, and it wasn't clear to me what jurisdiction OP was in (I'm bad at remembering everyone's jurisdiction). I asked because in mine, only the support double is alertable, both penalty and TO are not.

It says "England" in the thread description, so the EBU is the presumed jurisdiction.