UI
Hi All, a ruling was made to adjust a score back to NS playing in clubs. I agree with the ruling but some don't. What is the view of other directors?
S W N E
1n P P X
P P 2C* P
P X 2D X
P P P
2C* = exit transfer to diamonds not alerted
North had 2 spades 2 hearts 5 diamonds 4 clubs
Director called at end of play with op’s claiming UI. The director adjusted the score to two clubs doubled down three. (two diamonds doubled made for a top). I would appreciate your views.
Comments
What did the double of 2C mean?
Had the alert happened, perhaps even explained as transfer to diamonds and then passed anyway them was can take South as 5 clubs and 2 diamonds. So if we have 3+ clubs and only 4/5 diamonds then I think we pass. If we had 6+ diamonds or 0/1 club then i think it would not be logical to pass...
Thinking of shape, not card values, then pass 2C with this
Xxx
Xx
Xxxxx
Xxx
However bid 2 diamonds with
Xxx
Xxx
Xxxxxx
X
So i think we need to see norths hand.
A poll can also be completed... giving the bidding and norths hand without giving details about the lack of alert.
If North had been playing behind a screen and been unaware of the lack of alert South's Pass would have been taken as deliberate and showing at least 5 Clubs (6 if N/S 1NT allows a 6-card Minor).
We are given North's shape by TerryEd and North had 4 Clubs so without the UI from lack of alert I think
that North is Passing 2C every day of the week. So:
a) Was there UI? - Yes. South's failure to alert tells North that South thinks North's 2C is 'to play'
b) Was there a Logical Alternative? - Yes. Pass is a Logical Alternative if South had alerted 2C then passed
c) Was the action taken (2D) suggested over the LA (Pass) by the UI. Yes.. South may only have two Clubs.
d) Were non-offenders damaged? Yes - 2DX gives non-offenders a bottom
So I would be adjusting to 2CX by North.
This seems clear-cut to me so I'm not sure a poll is needed but it's probably best not to get in the habit of thinking you can second-guess a poll so I'd probably do a small poll to start with, along the lines Martin suggests
Peter Bushby Suffolk
After the double, I don't think it's that clear with the information we've been given. North knows that he intended to show diamonds but he also has clubs if his partner wants to play in clubs and cares to compete. What are the hands? What was the vulnerability? As Frances asks, what did the two doubles show? Was either of the two doubles alerted as being for penalties?
All the doubles were for penalties. Norths actual hand was 2 Spades 3 Hearts 4 Diamonds 2 Clubs but I think this is irrelevant as without the UI North had implied 5+ Clubs. Remember Souths hand is
xx
xx
xxxxx
xxxx
Why takeout an implied 9+card fit to a possible 7 card fit, unless we think partner has forgotten the system.
Didn't you say that was North's shape in the original post?
Peter Bushby Suffolk
Were they alerted as penalties? If not then EW were giving misinformation.
If the doubles weren't alerted and N thinks that they are for takeout then I can see 2D being a reasonable bid, showing willingness to compete in the minors, especially at favourable vulnerability.
By the way, Terry, giving shape is a far cry from giving the hand or are you saying that North had a Yarborough with 2254 shape?
Yes sorry in the last post I should have said North not South.
So remember Norths hand is
xx
xx
xxxxx
xxxx
S 9 6
H Q 3
D 10 9 8 7 5
C Q 10 7 6
I agree that failing to alert a penalty double of a suit contract below 3NT is MI. In practice, though, I've never seen a penalty double actually alerted; double alerting rules are one of those rules that it's almost impossible to get players to comply with. (Making penalty doubles and takeout doubles announceable would probably go some way to reducing the confusion here!)
Once 1NT has been doubled, it is normal practice to play doubles of any "escape" contract as penalties, and this is the expected meaning. Do such doubles require an alert?
Doubles of suit bids below 3NT are alertable if they are not for takeout.
Thank you, Gordon, for the clarification. I have never seen anyone alert such doubles and wondered if they might be an exception. I will attempt to educate when I have my TD hat on.
"Once 1NT has been doubled, it is normal practice to play doubles of any "escape" contract as penalties, and this is the expected meaning."
I think that depends on the circles in which you play. I have no expectations of my opponents' doubles on this auction, because I see about a 50/50 split between take-out and penalties.
Likewise, Frances. Ais523 also commented regarding announcing the meaning of doubles. I think that this would aid the side making the doubles more than the opponents. Currently, players are expected to know their own system and it could be very useful UI to know how partner was interpreting a double you've just made, rather than merely wondering whether they were aware that it should have been alerted.
An exception being doubles of artificial bids when the double would show strength or length in that suit (BB 4B2(d)).
(Comment removed as research proved it redundant).
You may be surprised to learn that some play take-out doubles when opponents escape: pass is forcing and the 'take-out' double in the pass-out seat means 'I would have passed if you would have made a penalty double'.
I could also live with "doubles are never alertable", "doubles are always alertable", and "double is only alertable if it shows a specific shape other than takeout shape" (i.e. hypothetical regulations in which penalty and takeout doubles are treated the same in terms of alertability).
As it is, though, the alerting regulations are in a weird situation where a lack of alert has a clearly defined meaning, and yet players tend to ignore that meaning and fail to alert anyway; either we want the penalty vs. takeout nature of doubles to be disclosed to everyone, or else we want them to be disclosed only the non-doubling side ask,s and at the moment we're in a bit of a hybrid state between these two possibiliities, with both sides needing to wonder whether the doubler's partner knows the alerting rules or not. If they know the alerting rules, you get "everyone knows if it's penalty or takeout"; if they don't, you get "nobody knows if it's penalty or takeout". These are both sensible schemes, but surely we should decide which we prefer and design the alerting regulations accordingly, rather than letting it vary based on the player's knowledge of the regulations.
(The current state actually has much more potential for UI issues than any of the suggested fixes. If a player knows that their partner knows the alerting regulations, they then know for certain that their unalerted double of a suit below 3NT was interpreted as takeout. However, the opponents don't know this because they don't know whether the doubler's partner knows the regulations or not, and thus are unaware of any UI being transmitted and won't call the Director even if it appears to have been used.)