Alertable Double?

In my area it is relatively common to play 2D response to 1NT as three way.
EITHER Xfer to H,
OR balanced raise to 2NT without 4cd Major,
OR balanced slam try.
So a response of 2D is alerted (not announced) and opener usually rebids 2H.
Now suppose opener's LHO doubles 2H (having been silent before)
Again commonly this is played as T/O, because 2D is most frequently a transfer. If so is it alertable?
BB 4B2(d) suggests this is a Dbl of a suit bid that doesn't show the suit bid, thus T/O Dbl alertable.
But BB 4H5(b)says completions of Xfers are deemed to show the suit, thus T/O Dbl not alertable.
Comments please.
There is a twist to this, but I'd like a consensus on this issue first!

Comments

  • If you alert 2D then 2H is not a completion of transfer.

  • I think that takeout double is not alertable on the basis that 2H could well end the auction; but I am not saying the Blue Book says so.

  • @Alan16248 said:
    If you alert 2D then 2H is not a completion of transfer.

    BB 4B2(d) says doubles of "Suit bids that do not show the suit bid
    Alert unless the double shows the suit bid"

    So, as 2H is not a completion of the transfer but is a puppet bid which is required by this "multi" system, the Double should be alerted unless it SHOWS Hearts.

    IMO the fact that 2H may end the auction isn't relevant.

  • Was the 2H bid alerted? If not then 2H shows hearts and this is where the discussion begins.

  • 4B2 also says the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:

    ‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it has
    been followed by two passes’.

    I think this is usually taken to mean that pass or correct bids are treated as natural for these purposes and I think the situation under discussion is the same as that. Most of the time the partnership will turn out to have a heart fit, and if you don't make a takeout double now you may well not get another chance.

  • I believe the 2H was alerted.
    (I was TD, and only called to the table at the end of the auction)
    I think adam's description of the 2H as puppet rather than completion of transfer is a very useful distinction.
    So; a puppet bid is not deemed to show suit bid, thus T/O Dbl alertable. But completion of transfer is deemed to show suit thus T/O Dbl NOT alertable.

    Interestingly two other directors playing in the event thought a T/O Dbl should not be alerted.
    Ie they would treat 2H as Xfer completion

  • The way I play it (which I do) the 2H bid is not a puppet: it shows fewer than four hearts. With four hearts one bids 2S (minimum) or 2NT (maximum).

  • I agree that the question is not trivial, but I would assume that a double intended for take-out is not alertable.
    It's not a pass-or-correct bid in the way that a 2M response to a multi is, but it has similarities.

    The fact that 2H might easily end the auction is relevant.

    The fact that if this came up at the table undiscussed then I would assume double was take-out of hearts is also relevant. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I can't see why second seat wants to make a lead-directional double showing hearts when (i) LHO might have long hearts and (ii) second seat is going to be on lead against NT contract.

    However, if fourth seat is genuinely unsure what the double means then they should alert it, because if they aren't sure whether it is take-out or hearts, then certainly one of those meanings is alertable!

    However Two, I can't see the opening side claiming any damage from an alert or lack of alert, because they know they are playing an unusual system.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    4B2 also says the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:

    ‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it has
    been followed by two passes’.

    I think this is usually taken to mean that pass or correct bids are treated as natural for these purposes and I think the situation under discussion is the same as that. Most of the time the partnership will turn out to have a heart fit, and if you don't make a takeout double now you may well not get another chance.

    I agree that most of the time the 2D will have been made as a transfer bid.
    And I guess having bid NT, Opener is willing to play in that, or indeed any, suit!
    But are these two factors enough to essential 'lift' a relay into a 'completion of transfer'?

    Also I think two points made by Frances are highly relevant.
    Firstly it is difficult to envisage hands on which the doubler wants to penalise when he couldn't double 1N.
    (and this was a teams event!)
    Secondly doubler's partner should have been unsure as to meaning.

    Which leads to the twist mentioned before!
    The story so far.
    After 2 passes, S opens 1NT and N responds 2D (alerted and explained as H OR bal raise to 2N w/o M)
    S replies 2H(alert) and W Dbls (no alert). All pass.
    West who was very familiar with N/S system meant his Dbl as T/O (4-1-3-5 and 14pts.)
    His defence to 1NT (Multi-Landy) meant he had no bid over the initial 1NT.
    S now asks about the Dbl, and is told by E it is penalties. This is consistent with the lack of alert.
    E W were not a regular partnership. Unlike W, E was not familiar with N/S methods, but had agreed that double of artificial bids was penalty/lead directional.
    S goes -2, calls TD, and claims he has been mis-informed; because it is of course E not W who holds H (KJxxx).
    Does S have a case here?

    E stated that on the explanations given he doesn't KNOW that N has H at the time of W Dbl.
    But with his H holding it is extremely unlikely that W wishes to Dbl 2H for penalties, given his P over 1NT.
    And when N passes (confirming the 2D as Xfer), he can be fairly sure the Dbl was T/O.
    But should he have volunteered more info?
    IE he could have said 'We agreed that DBl of artificial bids would be penalties, I think 2H is artificial.'
    (Much more than that and he might as well spread his hand!)
    Of course it is still his prerogative to convert the Dbl to penalties.
    Also S, who knows W well, should know that the DBl was probably T/O.

    PostScript Whether S has been informed is moot. He claimed he could have played differently to go -1.
    But even Deep-Finesse goes -2!

  • I think the ruling under discussion is pretty much unrelated to whether it should be alerted or not. There's no question of MI unless responder would have done something differently after the double - but it sounds as if responder had a 'normal' weak transfer to hearts, so they wouldn't have done.

    Opener has no 'MI' from an alert or lack of it. South asked, and was told it was penalties. The correct answer was 'If it were a normal transfer double would be take-out. We have also agreed that double of an artificial bid shows the suit. We have not discussed this specific auction'

    That would be full information, and South certainly has MI when told it was penalties.
    Whether South would have gone one off may or may not be true. The fact that DF does two off is irrelevant: we don;'t know how the play went or if there was an earlier misdefence.

Sign In or Register to comment.