[VixTD]

---

Swiss Pairs, MPs -> VPs
Result: 4♥X(N)-1, NS-200
East's 3♣ overcall was intermediate. His first double was not alerted. NS called me at the end of play to query this "takeout" double. I asked EW what their agreement is for doubles in competition. East thought that all doubles at the three-level and above were for penalties, West was not sure of their agreement. South said she would not have bid 4♥ had she known this might have been a penalty double.
The regulations say that doubles of suit bids up to 3♠ which show the suit bid should not be alerted if for takeout, alerted otherwise.

What's your ruling?

[campboy]

It shouldn't be alerted if i) they have no agreement or ii) it is takeout. Anyway, East seems to think they do have an agreement that it is penalty, and so we should rule on the basis that it should have been alerted. If South had known the double was penalty he would presumably have passed, so adjusting to 4♣-2 by East looks right.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2011-May-11, 10:38, said:

It shouldn't be alerted if i) they have no agreement or ii) it is takeout.

Is this right? My understanding of the Orange Book (OB 5B10) is that it shouldn't be alerted if
i) they have no agreement and he is going to act as if it were take-out; or ii) it is takeout.

It may still be the case that this (first) double is not alertable.

A South who can get their mind round the implications of the Orange Book regulations might be expected to ask whether the double is known to be takeout or [known to be] undiscussed. In the latter case, bidding 4♥ is more risky.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-May-11, 11:40, said:

Is this right? My understanding of the Orange Book (OB 5B10) is that it shouldn't be alerted if
i) they have no agreement and he is going to act as if it were take-out; or ii) it is takeout.

Clearly he was going to act as if it were takeout as he bid 4♣, so maybe there is no infraction, just a misunderstanding.

[Vampyr]

A player who has made an intermediate jump overcall cannot be expected to support two other suits, surely. A double from a preemptor generally shows unexpected defensive strength, doesn't it? So the double has to be at least cooperative.

[campboy]

RMB1, on 2011-May-11, 11:40, said:

Is this right? My understanding of the Orange Book (OB 5B10) is that it shouldn't be alerted if
i) they have no agreement and he is going to act as if it were take-out; or ii) it is takeout.

My interpretation is different (but may, of course, be wrong). The OB says that he should alert it if he is unsure whether or not it is alertable and is going to treat it as having an alertable meaning. If he knows there is no agreement then he knows it is not alertable, so 5B10 does not apply.

IOW I think 5B10 covers the case where he is unsure what the agreement is, not the case where there is definitely no agreement.

I believe this is a side issue anyway; neither East nor West claimed they had no agreement (East said they had an agreement it was penalties and West said he wasn't sure).

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-May-11, 11:47, said:

Clearly he was going to act as if it were takeout as he bid 4♣, so maybe there is no infraction, just a misunderstanding.

Really? Funny kind of take-out double if it doesn't advertise tolerance, at least, for the only unbid suit. So, with 5 cards in the only unbid suit, he returns to his partner's suit with a doubleton, and that's acting as if it is take-out? 4C is the bid you might choose with confidence if you were sure it was a competitive double. But it is also the bid you choose if you don't know what kind of a double it is, and just want to minimise your losses from getting it wrong, so W could argue that he wasn't "acting as if" it was any specific kind of double.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-11, 13:28, said:

A player who has made an intermediate jump overcall cannot be expected to support two other suits, surely. A double from a preemptor generally shows unexpected defensive strength, doesn't it? So the double has to be at least cooperative.

Actually there is only one unbid suit, so it is not so implausible that he is offering to support it. You are probably correct that any sensible interpretation of the double lies in the cooperative/competitive area. But this is irrelevant. The relevant question is what agreement they (think they) are playing to, even if it is daft.

[VixTD]

I thought there was sufficient evidence to rule that NS had been misinformed, and it was reasonable to assume that South would not have competed to 4♥ had the double been alerted. I adjusted the score to 4♣(E)-1, NS+100. (I may have weighted the result to a different number of tricks made, I can't remember, but if I did this had the lion's share of the weighting.)

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-12, 01:44, said:

Really? Funny kind of take-out double if it doesn't advertise tolerance, at least, for the only unbid suit. So, with 5 cards in the only unbid suit, he returns to his partner's suit with a doubleton, and that's acting as if it is take-out?

Really? Funny kind of jump overcall if it is does not show six clubs. It is not clear why he should choose a potential five-three diamond fit, rather than a known six-two club fit, especially as diamonds is higher than clubs. We are only concerned whether there was a failure to alert. Only by interrogating East-West can the TD judge what the methods are, but the fact that West bid 4C is not evidence that there was a breach of OB5B10.

I can, however, certainly accept the TD ruling, as he is to assume misinformation rather than misbid if there is no evidence to the contrary. But was there any information at all? All they can glean from the failure to alert is that there was no agreement, and that West treated it as takeout. If they had asked and been told takeout by West, that would be different.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2011-May-16, 08:35, said:

But was there any information at all?

Yes, I think so.

Quote

East thought that all doubles at the three-level and above were for penalties, West was not sure of their agreement.

So at least one member of the partnership thought they had an agreement that this double was for penalties and therefore alertable.

[Fluffy]

I guess the ruling is right, but IMO south's action was very poor regardless. Its very hard to find a full hand where 4♥ is a winner, (s)he's got all blanks!. So maybe the ind of ruling the appealing comitee should rule back?

[blackshoe]

Bad bridge is no basis for a ruling.

[Fluffy]

I though there was something about wild/gambling actions, doens't it apply over UIs?

[campboy]

Fluffy, on 2011-May-19, 03:04, said:

I though there was something about wild/gambling actions, doens't it apply over UIs?

Yes. However it only applies to the score for the NOS; OS get the full adjustment even if you rule that it is WoG. But I think this is just a poor bid and nowhere near the standard for WoG.