[ncohen]

Write the ACBL for an authoritative answer. The Bulletin has a column on rulings. Write to the author.

[tickeno]

of course it is alertable if you don't have diamonds, the double of an artificial bid shows that suit. The opponents could play in no trump and then you don't want a diamond lead. You need length and strength in the suit, not just Ace doubleton. People misconstrue lead directing for "I want this lead" instead of "I have this suit" which is what it means.

[pescetom]

tickeno, on 2019-June-10, 21:22, said:

People misconstrue lead directing for "I want this lead" instead of "I have this suit" which is what it means.

Lead directing means exactly what it says. You are however quite right that double of an artificial suit is more likely to be suit showing than merely lead directing.

[phoenixmj]

I also wonder about the opposite - alerting when not required gives unauthorized info as to partner's interpretation of the double.

I am not defending wisdom of the bid - only asking about the alerts. I can certainly agree that it may well NOT be wise. So, I may never make this bid in the future.

But certainly I will make the bid at higher levels (say an artificial response to RKC or the like) and I am virtually certain that this does not require alert even if you are requesting a lead into your void/singleton. But partly that is because of level which I think changes the alert procedures.

We are relative novices (certainly in that game) and want to learn not only how to play better but to do the right thing.

[miamijd]

tickeno, on 2019-June-10, 21:22, said:

of course it is alertable if you don't have diamonds, the double of an artificial bid shows that suit. The opponents could play in no trump and then you don't want a diamond lead. You need length and strength in the suit, not just Ace doubleton. People misconstrue lead directing for "I want this lead" instead of "I have this suit" which is what it means.

Not necessarily. Doubles of higher-level calls could be AKx or AQx. Just depends on the context.

[danhputnam]

miamijd, on 2019-June-10, 12:07, said:

Well, I'm an ACBL certified director, but I get them wrong sometimes, too. In my opinion, you should alert this double, but it doesn't look like the opponents were damaged.

Under ACBL regulations, doubles, redoubles, and passes are alerted if they are "highly unusual or [have] unexpected meanings".

(1NT) 2c(capp) 2d(transfer) X

What would a typical expert expect this double to mean? I see three main possibilities:

1. Short hearts and support for all the other suits. That is: "Partner, if your suit is hearts, you might want to double for penalty. If you suit is anything else, I have support for you, and you can bid over their 2H bid." You could use a 2H call here for that meaning, but what if partner's suit actually is hearts? That's why I think X is better for this hand.

2. A diamond suit. "Partner, I don't know what you suit is, but I have good diamonds if you want to compete there."

3. Sort of like 2, but lead-directing, with enough diamonds to survive if the opponents elect to X 2D and partner leaves it. Maybe AKxx at a minimum, hopefully longer.

I like treatment 1; many would play 2; I don't think 3 would get many votes on bridgewinners.

Lead-directing with short diamonds looks very odd to me. Would you double two diamonds with

x xxx KQJTxx xxx?

Probably so, unless you play treatment 1 above. Well, if you would do the same thing with

xxxx xxx x Axxxx

you're going to put your partner in an untenable situation. How you do know his suit isn't spades? And if it is, how does he know to pass if you have the first hand and bid like crazy in spades if you have the second?

Short diamonds here is going to be VERY unexpected. If your actual agreement is "lead direction; could be a suit or shortness," I think that needs to be alerted.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how your opponents were damaged. Did they do anything differently as a result of the failure to alert? Seems unlikely. I doubt I would have adjusted the score, but if that really is your agreement, then I would have advised you to alert it from now on.

Are there any ACBL directors out there who disagree with me?

Cheers,
Mike

Most low-level doubles of artificial suits are done with strength and length because of the danger of opponents converting your double to penalty. However, they do not generally suggest competing in that suit. The purpose and definition of the double is simply "lead directing" and it is not alertable in acbl as long as it calls for a lead of the doubled suit.

[miamijd]

danhputnam, on 2019-June-11, 13:52, said:

Most low-level doubles of artificial suits are done with strength and length because of the danger of opponents converting your double to penalty. However, they do not generally suggest competing in that suit. The purpose and definition of the double is simply "lead directing" and it is not alertable in acbl as long as it calls for a lead of the doubled suit.

AKx or AQx or the like I would agree with you. But who in their right mind wants partner to lead a suit where they have a singleton? I think this is not lead-directing in any sense that the opponents would expect, and accordingly, I would think it should be alerted.

Moreover, the agreement potentially yields an underhanded way of showing shortness. Certainly you would agree that if the agreement was "shortness" it should be alerted. Well, how do we know that the pair is going to make the same bid holding AQTx in the suit? Maybe they will pass with that and choose MOSTLY to make the bid with shortness, relying on their opponents to believe that it shows a suit.

I still think that if the bid can show shortness at this level then it should be alerted.

Mike

[phoenixmj]

miamijd, on 2019-June-11, 15:52, said:

AKx or AQx or the like I would agree with you. But who in their right mind wants partner to lead a suit where they have a singleton? I think this is not lead-directing in any sense that the opponents would expect, and accordingly, I would think it should be alerted.

Moreover, the agreement potentially yields an underhanded way of showing shortness. Certainly you would agree that if the agreement was "shortness" it should be alerted. Well, how do we know that the pair is going to make the same bid holding AQTx in the suit? Maybe they will pass with that and choose MOSTLY to make the bid with shortness, relying on their opponents to believe that it shows a suit.

I still think that if the bid can show shortness at this level then it should be alerted.

Mike

I did not intend anything "underhanded" when I made the double. I believe standard understanding is lead directing but I would agree that it USUALLY shows that you have that suit "covered" as opposed to the ability to trump. My agreement with my partner is no more than that - so his understanding would be the same as our opponents. I am just as likely to "mislead him" as I am my opponents. It is just that in this situation - based on HIS holding - he deduced that I was likely short. Had he led the ace and then the king - he would see that I had a singleton and can trump the third round. Question is - would he lead the king after seeing the queen on the board? The benefit was likely marginal at best. We may have done better without the double. I also really doubt that it affected anyone's bidding. Our score on that board was around 50%

BUT - let's say I had a void and it is a suit contract. Who would not want their partner to lead that suit? And with a singleton - I don't think it is all that crazy to want that suit led when you have trump available that will clearly not take a trick unless used for trumping.

Suppose I had the singleton Ace - and it was a suit contract. Would that be acceptable as a double? I certainly want that suit led.

I am not defending the wisdom of the bid and honestly - it was not intended as unethical and I am still not convinced that it was a problem. I wanted a lead in the suit that I doubled - it was not some secret meaning that only my partner and I understood. Would I do it again at the 2 level - probably not but it depends on circumstances and my hand. If one in every 500 times I double I have shortness and want the lead for that reason, and the other 499 it means I have that suit literally covered - then is the alert now crazy? It would be very misleading. And I do believe that lead direct is standard and not alertable in acbl in general.

Certainly at a higher level - I would make that bid if I wanted that suit led because of shortness - and I hope you agree that it is not alertable at higher levels for sure. I have seen that done and never thought twice about it.

I appreciate all of the input. Food for thought. Probably never come up again at the 2 level:)

Bottom line - whenever I see a double like that I "assume" lead directing. The question was and is - does it matter why you want that suit led?

[pescetom]

miamijd, on 2019-June-11, 15:52, said:

Moreover, the agreement potentially yields an underhanded way of showing shortness. Certainly you would agree that if the agreement was "shortness" it should be alerted.

There's nothing underhand about an agreement if it is on the CC. You also omitted the question mark, but my answer is no, unless by "should be" you mean "should be in terms of conformity to ACBL rules". I don't see any good argument for alerting unusual or slightly unusual or not quite usual or not made here or anything but X.

[blackshoe]

dsLawsd, on 2019-June-10, 14:17, said:

This might merit a question to "Ruling the Game" in the ACBL Bulletin.

I am a Certified Club Director and cannot be sure either.
But, since 2♣ is a Convention that does Not show a suit yet
I think the Partnership is required to have an agreement as to the meaning of calls including the double. Since there are multiple possible meanings the Opponents are entitled to know how you play it.

Agree with that first bit. :-)
Not sure where you get the idea that "the Partnership is required to have an agreement as to the meaning of calls including the double." Not from the law book, certainly.

As I understand the OP, they have the agreement that 2!C over 1NT shows a single suited hand. They have the agreement that double of an artificial bid is "lead directing" but had not discussed what that meant. Most people, I think, learn "lead directing doubles" as showing a decent honor holding in the suit. So without looking at his hand, OP's partner probably would think OP had some honors in the suit. But looking at his hand, he sees that he has the honors (two of them, anyway, and the top two) and length in the suit. So now he thinks, even though they've never discussed this possibility, that OP has a shortage in diamonds. Does he need to alert because of this inference? No, he does not. It's based on what's in his hand, not what's on their system card.

I think, If I found myself in OP's position, seeing (or inferring) that opps are upset that we didn't alert, and not being sure of the regulation, I would call the director (after the hand) explain the situation, and accept whatever ruling the director makes. If I were the director called, given what I've read here, I would rule that the double does not require an alert. If I thought it did require an alert, the question becomes whether the MI caused damage. I'd have to see all four hands, and perhaps have declarer show me how he's been damaged (if he thinks he has) for that latter part of the ruling. If there was no damage, there's no score adjustment. If it did require an alert, you would be cautioned to alert it in future (and to be sure you know how to explain it).