[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2012-October-16, 09:03, said:

I think it's more like asking whether you have any pets other than your unicorn.

I used to also have a lion, but that didn't work out.

[CamHenry]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-16, 09:19, said:

I used to also have a lion, but that didn't work out.

... is that where the unicorn went?

[aguahombre]

CamHenry, on 2012-October-16, 09:43, said:

... is that where the unicorn went?

There are conflicting legends

[PeterAlan]

campboy, on 2012-October-16, 08:37, said:

By that argument if you asked me whether I have any pets other than unicorns then I should answer "no", since

Spoiler

unicorns do not exist.

I'm not sure if you're replying to my earlier post, but if so the difference would be that the case of "other than the suit doubled" describes a state of affairs that could exist, but happens in this instance not to, as opposed to one which as posited by you could never exist.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2012-October-16, 06:12, said:

I note that, on your interpretation, any lead-directing double of such a NT contract would be alertable, whatever suit lead it was calling for.

That is right, and comments by RMB1 and FrancesHinden indicate that the intention is that lead-directing doubles of NT contracts are alertable. That seems desirable to me as well.

For example, "Lead-directional doubles are alertable (unless it's a double of the suit bid), non-lead-directional doubles aren't." seems a good summary of the regulation.

But I agree that this regulation should be tidied up.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-October-15, 17:08, said:

Why do you need to interpret it as something different to what it says? We have a set of the "suit doubled" which may or may not be empty. If double asks for a suit "not in that set" it is alertable. There is no need for any interpretation.

"The suit doubled" presupposes that a suit has been doubled. They could have said "the denomination doubled" if they meant to include doubling NT as a possibility.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-October-16, 15:15, said:

"The suit doubled" presupposes that a suit has been doubled. They could have said "the denomination doubled" if they meant to include doubling NT as a possibility.

Really? A double of NT asks for a suit other than NT? Or would you change suit in both places, so a double of NT asks for a denomination other than NT?

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-October-16, 15:15, said:

"The suit doubled" presupposes that a suit has been doubled. They could have said "the denomination doubled" if they meant to include doubling NT as a possibility.

Just as they could have said "Doubles or redoubles of suit bids which are lead-directing [...]" if they had meant to exclude doubling NT as a possibility. All we can conclude from that is that, no matter what was meant, the wording could be improved.

[bluejak]

Perhaps. Or possibly the wording means what it says, and the presumptions as to what it meant are flawed.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-October-17, 08:23, said:

Or possibly the wording means what it says, and the presumptions as to what it meant are flawed.

Much like the wording of some posts

[barmar]

When you double a NT bid, you haven't doubled a suit. So "the suit doubled" is a meaningless phrase in that context, and so is "other than the suit doubled".

[bluejak]

Correct. And your point is?

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-October-17, 08:23, said:

Perhaps. Or possibly the wording means what it says, and the presumptions as to what it meant are flawed.

If it were clear what it meant, we wouldn't have had this thread.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-October-18, 05:53, said:

Correct. And your point is?

I think I've made it before. If "the suit doubled" doesn't mean anything, then neither does "other than the suit doubled", so the exception doesn't apply.

Or maybe it could be this: There is no suit doubled, so the double asks for the lead of a suit. Should that really be alertable? What is the opening leader supposed to lead other than a suit?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-19, 09:07, said:

I think I've made it before. If "the suit doubled" doesn't mean anything, then neither does "other than the suit doubled", so the exception doesn't apply.

Or maybe it could be this: There is no suit doubled, so the double asks for the lead of a suit. Should that really be alertable? What is the opening leader supposed to lead other than a suit?

The point, and you know it, is that the double is lead-directing rather than saying "lead anything you like". Therefore it is alertable.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 19:02, said:

The point, and you know it, is that the double is lead-directing rather than saying "lead anything you like". Therefore it is alertable.

That should be the point. But, do we know that ---absent decent wording--- that is the rule?

I don't. I only know I should alert it because I lean toward alerting those grey area things.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 19:02, said:

The point, and you know it, is that the double is lead-directing rather than saying "lead anything you like". Therefore it is alertable.

But lead-directing doubles are not in general alertable. Only the ones that specifically mean NOT to lead the suit that was doubled (because it's the opposite of the expected meaning of a double of an artificial suit bid).

BTW, here's an interesting loophole to that regulation: Suppose you agree that doubling suit X asks partner not to lead the suit above X. That extremely unusual agreement would apparently not be alertable.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-22, 00:50, said:

But lead-directing doubles are not in general alertable. Only the ones that specifically mean NOT to lead the suit that was doubled (because it's the opposite of the expected meaning of a double of an artificial suit bid).

BTW, here's an interesting loophole to that regulation: Suppose you agree that doubling suit X asks partner not to lead the suit above X. That extremely unusual agreement would apparently not be alertable.

I think you are right, and the regulation should read
[c] Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing that either do not ask for the lead of the suit doubled (or redoubled) or ask for the lead of a specific suit.

Otherwise, in addition to your loophole, a double, say of a splinter, that says "don't lead this suit" is not alertable under the current regulation, as it does not ask for the lead of "a suit".

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2012-October-18, 14:19, said:

If it were clear what it meant, we wouldn't have had this thread.

Hmmm. I think it is clear, but people do not believe it is clear.

A double is alertable if it asks for a suit other than the suit doubled.

I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this applies in any way to a double of no-trumps.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 19:00, said:

Hmmm. I think it is clear, but people do not believe it is clear.

A double is alertable if it asks for a suit other than the suit doubled.

I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this applies in any way to a double of no-trumps.

Well, I agree with a member of the L&E, who replied in another thread:

lamford: Under the current rules, an auction such as 2H (weak) - (Double) - 3C - (6NT) x (or Pass Pass x) would always be alertable if it carried any lead-directional element, as it can never ask for the lead of a no-trump.

Frances Hinden: Yes. If your 6NT bid got doubled on the way out wouldn't you like to know if the opponents have an agreement about any lead-directional element to the double? (Possibly more relevant if 6 suit got doubled, but the principle is the same).

So, at least two people think it applies in exactly the same way to a double of no-trumps.