[gnasher]

pigpenz, on 2016-April-12, 14:10, said:

thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!

It is. I expect Lamford will in due course apologise for his inadventent parochialism.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 14:21, said:

And it seems that in the ACBL South's double is alertable if is penalties:

It seems to me obvious that its not.

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert."

There is nothing unusual or unexpected about a penalty double in a forcing auction, especially in North America, so plainly a penalty double does not require an alert. If you alerted this double in the ACBL and then explained it as penalties, you would at the least get some odd looks.

Quote

in Poznan (EBL) it would have been alertable too.

Which part of the EBL alerting rules do you think makes this call alertable? It's not conventional, it doesn't have a special meaning, and it's not based on or leading to a special understanding between the partners. It's also a double, which is explicitly not alertable in an event without screens. (I realise that your reference to Poznan might imply the use of screens, but it seems clear from the OP that screen-regulations are not relevant in this case.)

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2016-April-12, 16:45, said:

It seems to me obvious that its not.

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert."

There is nothing unusual or unexpected about a penalty double in a forcing auction, especially in North America, so plainly a penalty double does not require an alert. If you alerted this double in the ACBL and then explained it as penalties, you would at the least get some odd looks.



Which part of the EBL alerting rules do you think makes this call alertable? It's not conventional, it doesn't have a special meaning, and it's not based on or leading to a special understanding between the partners. It's also a double, which is explicitly not alertable in an event without screens. (I realise that your reference to Poznan might imply the use of screens, but it seems clear from the OP that screen-regulations are not relevant in this case.)

I was referring to an event with screens. Is it really the case that only the EBU requires an alert of penalty doubles of suit contracts where the opponents have bid and raised a suit and we have not yet shown a suit. And is there an ACBL director who can confirm or deny if a penalty double here is alertable? And even if it is penalties, and not alertable, I do not think North will pass it! And it is also worth noting that a US TD adjusted to 4H=, without giving the offending side -2000. Therefore, he, at least, did not view that result as at all likely, in non-weighting-territory.

[lamford]

pigpenz, on 2016-April-12, 14:10, said:

there was no understanding on the 3♥ call

As I expected and predicted. We should therefore poll, say, ten peers to give them the auction (2C)-2H(alerted)-Pass(values)-3H(undiscussed)-(Dble)(undiscussed). This is the authorised auction and that is how we establish the LAs; I have just seen a post of gnasher's where he makes a similar point. We could put it as a poll in the expert forum, but I don't have time to do that. In fact I don't have time to post on this thread any more and will not respond to it again. No doubt gnasher will be pleased that I have had my say. One point to make is that Pass of 3Hx doubled is surely encouraging, as we have forced to 3S, and it is therefore not an LA. Campboy's point that 3H is not just hearts or partner would have passed 2H is the most convincing for me in this thread. And no, I don't think Pass of 3Hx is an LA.

[blackshoe]

pigpenz, on 2016-April-12, 14:10, said:

sorry for all the confusion, yes i am in usa and thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!

Yes, these forums are intended to deal with problems from all jurisdictions, but we do ask that any original post specify where it happened, since it often matters.

People here tend to react as if whatever is posted occurred in their home territory if you don't specify a jurisdiction, and sometimes even if you do. :-)

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-12, 18:34, said:

As I expected and predicted. We should therefore poll, say, ten peers to give them the auction (2C)-2H(alerted)-Pass(values)-3H(undiscussed)-(Dble)(undiscussed). This is the authorised auction and that is how we establish the LAs; I have just seen a post of gnasher's where he makes a similar point. We could put it as a poll in the expert forum,

I am glad you have now come over to the idea that West's action (the UI case) needs to be investigated. However I would disagree that the Expert forum is the correct place on BBF to do this, there is no evidence that the players involved were experts and reason to suspect that the I/A forum would be more appropriate, possibly with a note that real experts should not respond. More to the point, the Expert forum is for expert-level subjects rather than expert opinions and I very much doubt this hand qualifies on that score.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2016-April-12, 16:28, said:

In any case, you didn't even ask your pollees the right question. The relevant question is not "What does 3♥ mean?", but "What would you do in this auction, facing an undiscussed 3♥, and what other actions would you seriously consider?"

Imagine what happens when someone asks you the latter question. Isn't one of the first things out of your mouth (or in your mind if you don't think out loud) as you work this out "Well, I think 3♥ means X, so...". So they're very much the same question, since in situations like this the answer to the 2nd question is obvious given the answer to the first.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2016-April-13, 09:27, said:

Imagine what happens when someone asks you the latter question. Isn't one of the first things out of your mouth (or in your mind if you don't think out loud) as you work this out "Well, I think 3♥ means X, so...". So they're very much the same question, since in situations like this the answer to the 2nd question is obvious given the answer to the first.

No, the first thing I'd think is "There are two possible meanings: natural, and fit-showing". The next thing I'd think is "I can cater for both by passing."

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2016-April-13, 12:11, said:

No, the first thing I'd think is "There are two possible meanings: natural, and fit-showing". The next thing I'd think is "I can cater for both by passing."

So that's "I think it means X or Y, so...." That still fits my template.