Auction and Explanations
2 Natural, GF
West's X of 5C was after an agreed hesitation,
i.e. BIT (Break in Tempo)
Play - N/A
6HE NS -980
Tournament Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling:
Given the EW agreements it was ruled that passing the double was not a logical
alternative. Table result of EW +980 to stand.
Reasons for Appeal:
The agreed hesitation before doubling 5C provided East with a
logical alternative to pass and collect a sure plus when partner has wasted
club values. The assertion that ‘support doubles’ are played after a 5 level
intervention is unlikely and self-serving. Also, AQJxx is very far-fetched to
be treated as a support double!!
Excerpt from EW system notes:-
- lf they bid and raise a suit
double is takeout through the roof. If partner has bid a suit and
their fit is at 3H or higher, double shows support and defensive values.
However, if partner made a weak jump, double is penalty because partner is
- If neither side has shown a fit
double is takeout through 4H, co-operative beyond. (But a double of
a 4S opening is tko) After partner opens in a major, double then a new suit is
F2NPR, negative free bids at 2-level. Opposite a tko double, double of a new
suit is penalty (a suit implied by the doubler) However ...
- lf partner's hand is well-defined
double is penalty, both over and under. Also applies if we bid and
raise a suit, though opener can rarely remove a double under the length. Note:
if the player sitting over their length has denied 4+ cards in the suit, it's
takeout over, still penalty under
Decision of the Appeals Committee:
The committee noted the system notes submitted by the respondents
and decided that accordingly the double of 5C clearly was not penalty. It was
either "cooperative" or showing a fit. The committee felt that the
"cooperative" interpretation was more likely than "fit showing".
Considering the two possible interpretations:
If the double was taken as fit showing, then removing the double
to 5H is completely clear cut.
The committee interpreted a "cooperative" double to mean that
partner should pass with a hand suitable for defence, bid with an unsuitable
hand. In that case, the committee considered that passing the double on the
East hand is not a logical alternative in view of the extreme shape, void in
clubs, and lack of defensive cards.
The committee noted the desirability of clear disclosure (potentially including
pre-alerting) of unusual doubles in competitive auctions.