long pause followed by take out double left in
E opens 1n 12-14 passed around to south who bids 2d, passed around to W who pauses for a full 2 minutes on bbo and then doubles, explained as take out in the absence of a card
E now passes to convert to penalty double holding Qxxx spades, AQJx hearts, Axx diamonds and xx clubs. Discussion at the table concerned unauthorised information taken by East in converting the double to penalties.
If called to consider legitimacy of final pass should director adjust score - I assume the fact that the 2d bid was on a very poor hand is not really relevant to the question of whether or not east took advantage of information gained by west's lengthy pause prior to double.
Comments
The quality of the 2D bid is irrelevant. In this case, 2H, 2S and 2NT are all potentially "logical alternatives" so the director should assign an adjusted score. To be honest I can't see anyone passing out 2Dx (assumed to be take out) without extraneous information, but that's not actually relevant to the correct ruling.
1st off: Did both E and W agree that the double was takeout? Are we assuming that it was a takeout in the absence of alert and no card, or did the players say that it was a takeout? I am only asking as perhaps it was meant/taken as a penalty double (perhaps they have no agreement?)?
If this was the case on Thursday, and I think it was, I suggested that the contract should be changed to 2H-1. I don't know if the other director made the change. The call wasn't alerted.
If there is an agreement, then admittedly passing out 2Dx becomes the more normal result. That said, the failure to alert means that an adjusted score may still be required if the opponents were damaged. Also, if this was late on in a round, I'd also want to check on the time remaining in the round... ordinarily South would ask for an explanation of the double at that stage given the failure to alert and it being passed out, but if they'd felt under time pressure through no fault of their own that might not have been possible. Admittedly, the director probably should have been called.
If there is no agreement, then an adjusted score has to be right in my view since, without the hesitation, a non-agreed double is normally taken as takeout. Only with the hesitation might the player start to think it should be penalties. Admittedly I can't find the appropriate part in the laws but this certainly seems to be in line with the general principles.
Are the compass directions correct? It's not possible for a call by East to be "passed around" to South, or from South to West.
That is what I thought too, however, I think he means in the sense of E bids, then the bidding passes to S, which then passes West - with the passing meaning that the action rotates around as normal, rather than Bid - Pass - Pass?
Surely the information about agreement or lack-off here is important too... If they play that as penalties and as such there was a failure to alert, then we would look at what different a correct alert may make.
Similarly, if they have no agreement, then that should also have been alerted, what difference would that make.
I know at my club I was initially caught out in this, where a double in a similar situation - 1NT - 2suit - double, was not alerted and I assumed take out, but it was for penalties. I am told (at least with a lot of the players in this area) that it is normal for a double here to mean penalties and that it used to be take-outs that need to be alerted! I may be wrong, but I have been told that the rules about that changed at some point?
Also, if we accept that systematically that the bid is a takeout double, would we not need to then poll players of similar skill and using their system as to what they would bid (and consider bidding) before adjusting? We are assuming that 2H should be the adjusted contract, however, someone might call 2NT, 2H, 2S, 3D or even perhaps some would pass converting to pens even without a hesitation? Also, after the hesitation, is passing a suggested action over bidding? Perhaps the hesitation is saying I am doubling, but I don't really have the correct shape for this 3S 2H 3D 5C perhaps, or I am considerably weaker than you might expect (say 4441 and 5 points perhaps). Without a poll, who knows?
The blue book is quite clear on this (and has been for some years):
"4 B 2 Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:
(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double is for take-out."
Why does a long hesitation before doubling would suggest a hand that preferred the double were left in?
Clearly W is struggling to find a suitable call, but it could easily be too strong or too weak to double, but no satisfactory bid and an unwillingness to pass. Less likely seems to be that he has a fistful of diamonds (he would surely pass).
Even if the system was that the double was (unusually) for penalties, then the implication is that the doubler would prefer the double to be taken out (WB 8.16.2c) and so leaving it in is not suggested.
We have to have a call suggested by the UI before we can consider logical alternatives (Law 16B1a) and adjustments, and I don't see that here.
I know what they are now, but... I didn't a few years ago and some of the partnerships at the club have been together for 40 odd years. Presumably there are other players out there under the same misunderstanding
Maybe you could clarify exactly what the auction was?