[blackshoe]

I use curly brackets {} when I want to avoid ©

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2012-October-09, 11:21, said:

I think players are expected to ask about doubles of (what appears to be) the final (high level) contract.

I think players are entitled to assume that the double does not fall into an alertable category if it is not alerted. I would consider that asking would almost always damage his side's interests and for OB5H1 to apply, it is necessary for him BOTH to have been aware of the likely meaning AND to be able to ask without giving information to the opponents. The higher the level, the greater the likelihood the information that one is considering a further bid is useful.

Like SB, I have no sympathy for those that do not read the Orange Book from cover to cover.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2012-October-09, 18:54, said:

Like SB, I have no sympathy for those that do not read the Orange Book from cover to cover.

I will get right on that, as soon as I finish "Mastering Mandarin as a Second Language".

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-09, 09:21, said:

and I would tell the Secretary Bird that no, he doesn't get to turn an average into a top by manipulating the laws (or the director)

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-09, 09:37, said:

If that double would normally produce an average in that club...hmmm.

Especially at teams ...

[blackshoe]

Well, if it would normally produce a top, Mr. SB doesn't need the redouble, does he?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2012-October-09, 10:21, said:

If the final contract had been 6 of a suit other than hearts, and the double asked for a heart lead, it would clearly have been alertable, ancient treatment or not. I don't see any logical reason for your assertion that ( c ) only applies when a suit has been bid. It still asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled. No suit was doubled, so it asks for a lead of one of the other suits, specifically hearts.

I interpret "asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled" as "asks you NOT to lead the suit that was doubled". Since you can't lead NT, this is a vacuous request, since any lead would satisfy the request)

You're interpreting it as "asks for a lead of some specific suit that is not the suit doubled".

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2012-October-10, 14:40, said:

I interpret "asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled" as "asks you NOT to lead the suit that was doubled". Since you can't lead NT, this is a vacuous request, since any lead would satisfy the request)

You're interpreting it as "asks for a lead of some specific suit that is not the suit doubled".

I think either meaning is reasonable, but it would also be a valid interpretation that none of this applies, since no suit was doubled.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2012-October-10, 14:47, said:

I think either meaning is reasonable, but it would also be a valid interpretation that none of this applies, since no suit was doubled.

Does that mean the double is alertable or not? It's confusing because we're in a mess of multiple negatives: "Calls above 3NT are NOT alertable EXCEPT ... lead-directing doubles ... OTHER THAN ..."

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2012-October-10, 15:01, said:

Does that mean the double is alertable or not?

I think it means that it ought to be clarified, but that in practice it's unlikely to cause a problem (outside of the feverish imagination of lamford ).

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2012-October-10, 15:33, said:

I think it means that it ought to be clarified, but that in practice it's unlikely to cause a problem (outside of the feverish imagination of lamford ).

If I ever meet him, I plan on checking for feathers....

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-October-10, 18:05, said:

If I ever meet him, I plan on checking for feathers....

Will you be taking your own tar?

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2012-October-09, 10:21, said:

I don't see any logical reason for your assertion that ( c ) only applies when a suit has been bid. It still asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled. No suit was doubled, so it asks for a lead of one of the other suits, specifically hearts.

I think that the interpretation that (c ) doesnot apply when there hasn't been a double of a suit is far more reasonable. But I think the discussion is cute, in a SB sort of way.

However, the impression that I get is that (c ) might not have been meant for Lightner doubles at all. (Although it is clear that -as it is worded- it applies to Lightner doubles of suit contracts.) My impression is that it is meant for doubles of suit bids that specifically ask not to lead the suit bid (where normally such a double would ask for the lead of that suit).

Examples (spades are trump):

4♦ (cue)- Dbl: Lead diamonds: not alertable; please don't lead diamonds: alertable

4NT- 5♥ (2 keys)
Dbl: Lead hearts: not alertable: please don't lead hearts: alertable

5NT- 6♦ (A or K of trumps)
Dbl: Lead diamonds: not alertable; please don't lead diamonds: alertable

4♣ (fit jump)
Dbl: Lead clubs: not alertable; please don't lead clubs: alertable


Why do I think that (c ) might not have been intended for Lightner doubles at all? If I would write a regulation and intended it to apply to Lightner doubles as well as lead directing doubles of cues, fit bids, and what more, I would never combine these two in one rule. I would split them into two different rules because that would be much clearer to whoever reads it. (After all, whenever I write something, my aim is that the reader will understand what I mean. I am not a lawyer working for an insurance company.)

If it was Lamford's goal to point out that this alert rule is hard to interpret, he has done a good job.

Rik

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2012-October-11, 01:37, said:

My impression is that it is meant for doubles of suit bids that specifically ask not to lead the suit bid (where normally such a double would ask for the lead of that suit).

That was how I interpreted it, too.

The point is that we generally don't want to alert above 3NT, but there are a few cases that are very unusual and deserve to be alerted. Doubling a suit bid to request a lead of that suit is normal, so hardly requires an exception. The same thing with Lightner doubles. But doubling a suit to tell partner NOT to lead that suit is the opposite of the normal meaning -- that deserves to be an exception.

[FrancesHinden]

 lamford, on 2012-October-09, 09:00, said:

South, our friend from a local club who looks like the Secretary Bird and knows the EBU rules inside out, was like Oliver on the above deal, wanting more. He stated that the double of 6NT, obviously asking for a heart lead, was alertable, as it was a lead-directing double above 3NT. East argued that asking for a heart lead was standard, but South called the director, arguing he would have redoubled if he had known.

How do you rule?

As director, I would remind South of the hand that came up the previous week when he had exactly the same hand, exactly the same auction up to the double, but partner's hand was approximately:

---

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-12, 15:16, said:

As director, I would remind South of the hand that came up the previous week when he had exactly the same hand, exactly the same auction up to the double, but partner's hand was approximately:

---

I think the director tried that approach, but SB argued that on that hand his excellent partner would have used the gadget they had agreed over 2NT of bidding 3S - please bid 3NT - and then bidding 4NT as Blackwood, releasing the immediate 4NT to be quantitative. They had discussed this the previous week when they had played in the slam off two aces, and SB now wanted the redouble as a reward, as he ruled out the possibility of the double being based on two aces.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2012-October-10, 14:40, said:

I interpret "asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled" as "asks you NOT to lead the suit that was doubled".

Why do you need to interpret it as something different to what it says? We have a set of the "suit doubled" which may or may not be empty. If double asks for a suit "not in that set" it is alertable. There is no need for any interpretation.

[Zelandakh]

 lamford, on 2012-October-15, 17:08, said:

Why do you need to interpret it as something different to what it says? We have a set of the "suit doubled" which may or may not be empty. If double asks for a suit "not in that set" it is alertable. There is no need for any interpretation.

We also have a set of bids that can be doubled. If the bid doubled is a suit doubled and the double calls for a different suit then it is alertable. If the bid is not a suit doubled, for example a NT bid, then it is not alertable; similarly if the double is of a suit but does not request a different suit. This is the aletrnative way of parsing the regulation. There is a need for interpretation - either the regulation shouild be changed to "a suit other than the denomination doubled" or it should be cleaned up to indicate that doubles of NT bids do not need to be alerted under this exception.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2012-October-15, 17:08, said:

Why do you need to interpret it as something different to what it says? We have a set of the "suit doubled" which may or may not be empty. If double asks for a suit "not in that set" it is alertable. There is no need for any interpretation.

Alternatively, and arguably more in accordance with everyday linguistic understanding, the phrase "other than the suit doubled" means that regulation © only applies in the case where a suit has been doubled and has no application otherwise.

I note that, on your interpretation, any lead-directing double of such a NT contract would be alertable, whatever suit lead it was calling for.

[campboy]

By that argument if you asked me whether I have any pets other than unicorns then I should answer "no", since

Spoiler

unicorns do not exist.

[WellSpyder]

 campboy, on 2012-October-16, 08:37, said:

By that argument if you asked me whether I have any pets other than unicorns then I should answer "no"

I think it's more like asking whether you have any pets other than your unicorn.