Home EBU TDs

Alerting of double of artificial bid: correct ruling?

Recent Portland Pairs heat, the bidding starts with N and proceeds: 1S (2D) 3D (X), 3S P 4S P. Should the double be alerted and what is the default meaning without an alert? E/W were both playing it as takeout of spades which affects hand evaluation - 4S bidder is stretching, and AJ9x in clubs would look less attractive given that meaning of the double. To the play - the only line to make 4S was to play clubs for no loser (Q8xx). This requires KT(x) on the left, so declarer starts by running CQ. This is an extra undertrick when all clubs are on the right.
The ruling was "result stands" with no good explanation apart from "some other players made it".
Any comments on this forum please?

Comments

  • The relevant part of the alerting regulations (in the Blue Book) is 4B2(d), assuming that the 3!d is not natural (and very few players would play it as natural):

    [doubles of] Suit bids that do not show the suit bid [below 3NT]

    Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid.

    So the non-alertable meaning of the double here is "support for diamonds" (or something approximating that); any other meaning needs to be alerted.

    The lack of alert gives misinformation to the opponents. If that damages them, they're entitled to an adjusted score. (E/W are defending, so they can't point out the lack of alert until the hand's over, unless E realises of their own accord that they failed to alert. So they don't get penalised for anything other than consequences of the misinformation itself.)

  • As already stated, the non-alertable meaning of a double of an artificial bid is that it shows the suit.

    I have asked the TD about this case and he says that he agreed with you that there had been misinformation, but that he doubted you had been damaged. He consulted various other people by email and found no support for your partner's claim that she would not raise to game with the correct information (and indeed that seems contrary to logic to me) and very little support for your suggestion that you might have played the hand differently, so that was why he ruled that the result stand.

    I understand that he did not give as the reason "some other players made it" and I understand your partner discussed it further with him before deciding not to appeal.

  • OK, so we agree on misinformation and disagree on the extent of damage. We didn't appeal because an extra % in this competition is not worth the effort - I'd rather get home earlier. I'd be assigning a split score here, with the following considerations:

    • Effect of the take out meaning of the double on bidding is hard to estimate; my hand evaluation would have us stop in 3S since so much of the values are in the suits shown by oppos (and clubs are no longer a potential source of tricks). Hence some percentage to 3S results

    • Play: the effect of misinformation is clear cut. Playing LHO for CK with some length in the suit is zero percentage if declarer is given the right information. OTOH, it's the only line to make the contract if double showed diamonds (and on the play to first two tricks also KQJ of hearts). I would have given declarer an extra trick in my split scores, so some part of 3S making, some of 4S-1.

    What is prey wrong with my logic?

    KQ104, 753, Q10, AJ96. It is 12 HCP opposite a minimum bid (partner did not even make a game try in 1S (2D) 3D (X), 3S ). The DQ is waste paper when diamonds are bid an supported, and clubs are in the wrong place. Some of us are capable of hand evaluation, you "contrary to logic" comment is not helpful in this context.

    "very little support for your suggestion that you might have played the hand differently" - you are a pretty good player yourself, and you are saying that you wouldn't try to make the contract? 2D overcaller showed so far the ace of hearts (no other points there) and something in diamonds - not KJ though, since her partner ostensibly showed diamond values by the double. And you see "very little support" for playing this hand for KC? And also you don' t see that the double showing the other two suits changes the logic completely, when the club length is on declarer's right? Now low to the Jack is the best chance, hoping for KC singleton with LHO. Do I really need to spell this out?

    Oh, and the director actually did tell me that the contract was made at one table implying that there is not much to complain about. It would have made on a diamond lead indeed.

    I am still curious, if we appealed this decision in a proper competition, what would be the outcome. I suppose we'd at least get the deposit back since misinformation is not in doubt.

  • I do not think this is the sort of query that the forum was established to answer.

  • Apologies if this question is off topic. I simple want to know how (and why) I should rule in a similar situation when directing in the club - because my approach would have been different from the comments I have received so far, from the director and from Gordon. I thought that was at least one of the purposes of the forum, to achieve consensus on TD decisions in grey areas.

  • vmilman, I can't put myself in your position or know how you feel about the ruling. However, that said I agree with BarkerBridgeTD that this forum is not the place for this query. My reasonings are that if you had wanted to "achieve consensous on TD decisions in grey areas" then you could have anominised the information so that the match and people involved would not be accessible to anyone. In addition you could have given all the hands and given details of all the bidding, including all alerts and any explanations given during the auction. It would also been more appropriate to have omitted the penultimate sentence of your opening post.

    As a very novice director I am disappointed to note that anyone would wish to ignore the set procedures and then so openly question a ruling. I only hope that when I make a perceived mistake that someone involved will follow those procedures so that all involved can learn. All that has happened here is that all involved (including those readings these posts) will, to a limited extent, feel agrieved with this outcome.

    CMOT_Dibbler

  • I agree with CMOT_Dibbler & BarkerBridge TD. This should not be a second bite of the cherry, or a forum to highlight "perceived errors" by the TD. If you felt as strongly as appears you should appeal in the correct fashion. As stated, anonimity is the way to air a genuine point of principle.

  • @vmilman said:
    Apologies if this question is off topic. I simple want to know how (and why) I should rule in a similar situation when directing in the club - because my approach would have been different from the comments I have received so far, from the director and from Gordon. I thought that was at least one of the purposes of the forum, to achieve consensus on TD decisions in grey areas.

    The general points in dealing with these sorts of cases, which have been established in this thread and might be of help to all TDs here are:

    • Check the alertability of the double, which in this case establishes that there was misinformation.
    • Consider whether the player has been damaged due to this misinformation, checking by polling other players if necessary.
    • There is no suggestion that players deliberately state things that are incorrect, but we all find it hard to know what we would have done under different circumstances, especially when we know the outcome of the hand, so this is why we should poll rather than automatically accepting what the players say they would have done.
    • Consider giving a weighted score unless the case is very clear-cut.
  • I was the director concerned. I didn't ever say that there would be no adjustment because other players had made four spades. I did say that any adjustment would have little effect because it wouldn't overtake those in our heat who made 4S, but I quickly corrected this because of course it would be scored over the entire country and I didn't know at the time how many pairs would make 4S.

    You were not in a position to stop in 3S; that decision would be taken by your partner. You didn't argue that the misinformation had any effect on the bidding until much later, your initial claim was that it would affect your play in 4S. I'm not saying that's a reason to dismiss it out of hand, but you'd be in a much stronger position to claim that your partner would have passed 3S if you made it immediately, rather than after a long consideration. I just didn't believe that anyone would stop short of game with her hand. I e-mailed a number of other directors at other venues around the country, and they agreed with me.

    Your claim that you would have played the club suit differently was a much closer decision, but again the opinions I got, from both directors and players at other venues (one director with more players at his disposal kindly conducted a poll for me) brought in little support. The line you took carried a big risk of going two off which would surely be a disastrous matchpoint score. In an IMP game I could understand it, or if you were in an unusual contract that you had to make to get any matchpoints, but (despite your later assertion) you know you are in a normal contract, and staking everything on an unlikely club layout just doesn't make sense.

    The other point that makes me a little uneasy is that you are putting a lot of faith in your opponents' knowledge of the alerting regulations. You must be aware that not everyone alerts calls correctly, and you could have asked the meaning of the double at the beginning of the play if it made such a big difference. The Blue Book says that experienced players should protect themselves if they can do so without putting their side's interests at risk, and you could have done so here. I suppose there might be a small risk of alerting the opponents if they are at odds over their understanding of the double, so I might have to concede this point, but there's no evidence that they are having a misunderstanding.

  • I think that concludes the usefulness of this discussion.
This discussion has been closed.