[Cascade]

Yes we disclose that we play negative free bids.

Yes we disclose the meanings of our doubles on the first round of the auction and many other auctions. I didn'g go and double check but I am pretty sure that on our WBF card we have a description of when we play penalty doubles. Where this occurred we were using a less complete ABF card although we had our WBF card at the table in case the opponents needed more information.

If they play penalty doubles then it is not that I want to change my methods but I can judge differently. This I am entitled to do.

"unusual" could easily be interpreted as unusual relative to their other agreements.

What you think is standard may not be standard for others therefore I think there needs to be considerable care in disclosure.

Standard or not the laws require prior disclosure before making any call. Not to disclose and surprise the opponents can easily be surprising to the opponents.

[Phil]

Wayne, I think you are doing a lot of rules lawyering here.

I think its preposterous to request a pre-alert of a double in this sequence. The match would never start if pre-alerts of this nature had to be disclosed.

I would use my energy to devise countermeasures in the future, depending on what the meaning of double meant. As a seasoned player, I think you have a lot of responsibility to ask even if the opponents have some technical obligation to alert.

[Cascade]

 Phil, on 2011-January-28, 20:25, said:

Wayne, I think you are doing a lot of rules lawyering here.

I think its preposterous to request a pre-alert of a double in this sequence. The match would never start if pre-alerts of this nature had to be disclosed.

I would use my energy to devise countermeasures in the future, depending on what the meaning of double meant. As a seasoned player, I think you have a lot of responsibility to ask even if the opponents have some technical obligation to alert.

I am not so sure obviously.

The language in the regulations is pretty soft in terms of the standard for "surprise" - "which might surprise them" etc. I think this correspondingly places a hefty obligation on the opponents to disclose.

Here is another statement from the regulations "A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score".

Personally I usually go out of my way to have available a comprehensive system card with many supplementary sheets. To me this seems to be the standard required by the regulations.

In the current case I was surprised. It did not occur to me that they might play a penalty double after this 3♥ bid given the information on their card. Could the opponent have known that I might be surprised? I don't think it is too long a bow to draw to argue that they could have known that. Thus they had an obligation to pre-alert.

A prealert could be as simple as "we play penalty doubles after either side has opened 1NT". I really don't think that is too much to ask.

Why have a regulation that effectively says you need to take care to make sure your methods are known when you are not willing to enforce that regulation when an opponent is "surprised" at the method?

[paulg]

Wayne,

It seems that we are unanimous that your expectations are too high in this instance. The forums rarely agree on anything, so perhaps time to let this one go.

Paul

[FrancesHinden]

To answer the original question:

No x 4

I wouldn't be particularly surprised at double being either penalties or take-out here.

I play "negative and responsive doubles" but still play this double as penalties. This is neither a negative or responsive double.

Quote

In a context in which takeout style doubles are disclosed and played to high levels then I think a situation in which your side plays penalty doubles on the first round of the auction is likely to surprise and be unexpected and is therefore unusual.

I _would_ be very surprised if they played, say, 3H (3S) x as anything other than penalties. I would be fairly surprised if they didn't play (1H) 3S (4H) dbl as penalties - all first round auctions.

Quote

Personally I usually go out of my way to have available a comprehensive system card with many supplementary sheets. To me this seems to be the standard required by the regulations

I would not accept "many supplementary sheets" as pre-alerting anything. Do you expect your opponents to read your comprehensive card with its many sheets before starting play against you? The only benefit that has is when you wish to provide evidence of your methods to a TD.

[peachy]

 gordontd, on 2011-January-28, 03:17, said:

Actually, originally it was when they opened, partner doubled, they raised and we doubled for takeout. Then it was expanded to include other situations, like the one you describe above, and called by some an "extended responsive double".

I misspoke. Should have read what I wrote LOL. That is what I meant.