[lamford]

---

Teams, lead T♥; Table result: NS+1680

South, our friend from a local club who looks like the Secretary Bird and knows the EBU rules inside out, was like Oliver on the above deal, wanting more. He stated that the double of 6NT, obviously asking for a heart lead, was alertable, as it was a lead-directing double above 3NT. East argued that asking for a heart lead was standard, but South called the director, arguing he would have redoubled if he had known.

How do you rule?

[barmar]

OB5E4:

Quote

Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:
(a) Artificial opening bids
(b) Lead-directing passes
(c) Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other
than the suit doubled (or redoubled)

This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (© only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

[gordontd]

I'd want more than a post-facto statement that he would have redoubled to accept the assertion and adjust. Did he give a believable reason? And why did he not ask if he thought it made a difference, when he could easily have done so?

[blackshoe]

According to my reading of the OB, the Secretary Bird is technically correct. However, it appears to me that declarer will make exactly 12 tricks whatever the opening lead unless he later leads a heart from his hand — and the heart lead actually insures the contract at trick one. Also, the OB says

Quote

OB 5H1: A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

It seems to me this double is, while not "standard", common enough that Mr. Secretary Bird should have recognized that he should ask about it, and that asking carries no risk. So I would tell the defending side that they need to alert these doubles, and I would tell the Secretary Bird that no, he doesn't get to turn an average into a top by manipulating the laws (or the director).

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:13, said:

OB5E4:
This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (© only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

I agree with Barmar that this double doesn't fall into any of the exceptions listed in the OB. Since it is not a double (or redouble) of a suit, that immediately means it can't fall into the third category.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-09, 09:21, said:

However, it appears to me that declarer will make exactly 12 tricks whatever the opening lead unless he later leads a heart from his hand — and the heart lead actually insures the contract at trick one.

Declarer is aware of this. He wants the extra points from the redouble that he would have made with correct information (asking for a heart lead in this auction is practically a guarantee of ♥AQ, so he knows his K is working and partner's strength is all outside and fills in the holes in his hand).

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-09, 09:21, said:

and I would tell the Secretary Bird that no, he doesn't get to turn an average into a top by manipulating the laws (or the director).

If that double would normally produce an average in that club...hmmm.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-09, 09:37, said:

If that double would normally produce an average in that club...hmmm.

That's why he's a SB -- the competition is so tough he needs to resort to every loophole in the Laws to get a good result.

Of course, he'll claim that they're all winning because they're not following the rules and getting away with it.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:44, said:

That's why he's a SB -- the competition is so tough he needs to resort to every loophole in the Laws to get a good result.

Of course, he'll claim that they're all winning because they're not following the rules and getting away with it.

Or, if the competition is so weak that everyone would double 6NT with that, then our SB who plays there regularly must be equally bad or worse to need loopholes.

[bluejak]

There are two possibilities. Either it is not alertable - no adjustment - or it is alertable but no damage - no adjustment.

[aguahombre]

Over there, are calls above 3NT alertable? If they are delayed alerts, it would be too late to redouble, anyway. In the ACBL, the delayed alert thing applies to either side.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:13, said:

OB5E4:
This double doesn't seem to fall into any of the exceptions (( c) only applies when a suit has been bid, not NT).

This looks like a traditional Lightner double to me, an 80+ year old treatment.

If the final contract had been 6 of a suit other than hearts, and the double asked for a heart lead, it would clearly have been alertable, ancient treatment or not. I don't see any logical reason for your assertion that ( c ) only applies when a suit has been bid. It still asks for a lead of a suit other than the suit doubled. No suit was doubled, so it asks for a lead of one of the other suits, specifically hearts.

It does not say: "Doubles or redoubles of a suit that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the one doubled (or redoubled)"

And software that changes ( c ) when closed up to © might be changed too! Or is there a way to circumvent that?

And yes, aguahombre, some calls over 3NT are alertable in England.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:35, said:

Declarer is aware of this. He wants the extra points from the redouble that he would have made with correct information (asking for a heart lead in this auction is practically a guarantee of ♥AQ, so he knows his K is working and partner's strength is all outside and fills in the holes in his hand).

Indeed, in answer to you and gordontd, this was pretty much the point made by SB, almost immediately. "Well, he would, wouldn't he?", I hear some of you protest. And if he asked and was told "no agreement", then he would be practically marking the king of hearts in his hand. Why would he want to know, at that point, except to consider redoubling? Asking would stop West cashing a putative ace of hearts if the double was based, perhaps, on bad splits and short clubs.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-09, 10:21, said:

And yes, aquahombre, some calls over 3NT are alertable.

...but we don't have delayed alerts (to answer more fully aguahombre's question).

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-09, 09:59, said:

Or, if the competition is so weak that everyone would double 6NT with that, then our SB who plays there regularly must be equally bad or worse to need loopholes.

I did a simulation of the double of 6NT, and found that North was around 69% to have the king of hearts on this auction, and the heart lead was needed to beat it in 58% of those cases. That was just 100 hands, with the parameters that South had 18-19 balanced, North had 4-5 hearts, and 13-15 points. The double was a huge winner of IMPs. Especially if partner does not alert it, to reduce the risk of a redouble ...

[campboy]

Whether or not there was damage on this particular hand, it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

Personally I agree with Lamford. Hearts is a suit and it is not the suit doubled, so it is a suit other than the suit doubled.

[edit]You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2012-October-09, 10:52, said:

Whether or not there was damage on this particular hand, it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

Personally I agree with Lamford. Hearts is a suit and it is not the suit doubled, so it is a suit other than the suit doubled.

[edit]You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

I'd also like to see the definitions tightened up, I always assumed that this was alertable because "suit" and "denomination" were used interchangeably except when by context it was absolutely clear they were not, but maybe I'm wrong.

[jeffford76]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-09, 10:06, said:

Over there, are calls above 3NT alertable? If they are delayed alerts, it would be too late to redouble, anyway. In the ACBL, the delayed alert thing applies to either side.

In the ACBL, delayed alerts apply only to bids, not to all calls. Passes, doubles and redoubles if alertable are alertable at the time of the call even if the auction is beyond 3NT.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2012-October-09, 10:52, said:

... it would be nice to know whether the double is alertable for future hands.

There was some measure of agreement soon after the 2006 alerting rules came into force that Lightner doubles were still alertable. We think the L&E thought that they had made them not alertable, but had not succeeded. I think players are expected to ask about doubles of (what appears to be) the final (high level) contract.

Over the next few months there is work on revision of the EBU regulations - they may address this.

campboy, on 2012-October-09, 10:52, said:

You can produce (c) by inserting spurious tags viz

(c[b][/b])

cute!

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2012-October-09, 10:21, said:

And software that changes ( c ) when closed up to © might be changed too!

It is very kind of BBO to host these forums without charge. But it does mean we have no control over the software: there are a number of ways that other forums have different software which does seem better.