Unusual Methods?

[pigpenz]

Ran into an unusual thing last night in an acbl tourney.

auction:

1♠ 2♣ double**

**penalties

 

after about a minute of hitting the explain button, opp finally answered that it was for penalties. I was curious as to wether or not an unusual tmt. like that should be pre alerted since if pairs knew that the pair were playing penalty doubles instead of negative doubles some people might change their method or at least beef up their overcalls.

 

Sometimes people have obtuse understandings that only come up once in awhile but this is something that may come up several times in an event.

[awm]

This sort of thing seems to lead to cyclical problems. For example:

 

Pair One: We play a very aggressive overcall style.

Pair Two: Okay, let's play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles.

Pair One: Partner, let's beef up our overcalls and make them more sound then.

Pair Two: Whoops, back to negative doubles.

.....

 

Or how about:

 

Pair One: We play the weakest possible NT opening range such that your double is not for penalty.

.....

 

I think you have to draw the line somewhere and not everything can be a pre-alert. Certainly a timely alert during the bidding would be nice though.

[barmar]

I've heard that this type of cycle of agreements isn't allowed -- you can't change your constructive methods based on opponents' defensive methods. I can't find it in the Laws, it's probably in most SO's convention regulations. And it can certainly result in unworkable situations. For instance, many partnerships have a NT defense agreement like "DONT versus strong NT, Capp versus weak NT"; what would happen if they encountered a partnership with the agreement "Strong NT unless the opponents use DONT against it, weak NT unless the opponents use Capp against it"? The latter partnership needs to designate a default to handle the case where both of those defenses exist, and then the defenders can use their chosen defense.

[Finch]

It's been established (by precedent, if nothing else) that the side that goes first in the auction has to define their methods first.

[barmar]

Going back to the original question, alerting and pre-alerting regulations are set by the SO. ACBL tourneys use ACBL's alert rules . They require that penalty doubles in this auction be alerted, but do not require a pre-alert. The alert chart lists the following pre-alerts:

• Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).
  
• Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.
  
• Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé.
  
• SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.
  
• Leading low from a doubleton
  

I don't think penalty doubles in place of negative doubles falls into any of these categories.

[bearmum]

Ran into an unusual thing last night in an acbl tourney.

auction:

1♠ 2♣ double**

**penalties

 

after about a minute of hitting the explain button, opp finally answered that it was for penalties. I was curious as to wether or not an unusual tmt. like that should be pre alerted since if pairs knew that the pair were playing penalty doubles instead of negative doubles some people might change their method or at least beef up their overcalls.

 

Sometimes people have obtuse understandings that only come up once in awhile but this is something that may come up several times in an event.

I don't think that penalty doubles of this type should have to be prealerted (because then there would be SO many things on prealert that it might take AGES to list them all :P )

 

HOWEVER it is my belief that all calls have to be alerted if they convey information which is contrary to the "USUAL" meaning of the bid -- which in this case I believe is 'usually' negative :ph34r:

 

I am surprised that you felt it necessary to ask what the double was though -- did you have any suspicion that it WAS for penalties??

[keylime]

After just finishing the rather unentertaining and abysmal Lancaster, PA regional (the weather great, people nice, bridge stinky), I ran into some things I've never seen before:

 

1. 1M (2 of a new suit) X = pen oriented, no game intent

2. 2S opening on a 5-5 minor hand (have dealt with 2NT being this but not 2S).

3. American Forcing Minor system, but in a recreated form.

4. A leading to trick 1 system based on Fantoni-Nunes carding (Slavinsky leads).

5. Two system method based on vulnerability.

 

In each and every case not only was I pre-alerted, but the opponents went out of their way to make sure we "understood" the basics of the treatment/method.

 

If your opps are pen doubling instead of playing a far more flexible pass and/or negative double setup, obviously they don't balance or reopen well at all.

 

Between the horrific rate of slow play, the poor quality of the bridge (especially the slam bidding dept - absolutely beyond horrible), and the ever increasing rates to play bridge....I don't think that worrying about unusual treatments is the most important thing on the earth. However, I do think that full disclosure needs to be enhanced.

 

I strongly think it might be time to consider redoing either the ACBL Convention Card, or permitting WBF CC's at A/X events and at NABC's.

[the hog]

A penalty X at the 2 level requiring an alert? Now Ihave heard everything! Ye Gods and little fishes.

[bearmum]

A penalty X at the 2 level requiring an alert? Now Ihave heard everything! Ye Gods and little fishes.

LOL Hog -- but mostly over 1M -2anything - a X is usually negative --- so I really believe it should be alerted as PENALTY double ;)

 

and in USA I BELIEVE which are not "usual" should be alerted --- (USA players please correct me if I am misunderstanding ACBL regs)

 

Here in OZ I have been advised the same -- to alert calls which are different from 'normal' so the way my P and I play Precision 1NT (13-15) - 2(D/H) as transfer -2X (transfer suit) 3X (another suit) ALERT --- means we have FOUR cards in transfer suit and FIVE in second suit ---- the OPPOSITE to what most players would expect :huh:

[mr1303]

The day when the use of the X card to say "this is going off" requires an alert is the day I give up bridge. What's wrong with (as I do whenever I have an agreement that I play them) alerting negative doubles?

[Echognome]

Mark - Should I add that an initial takeout double is not alertable in the EBU and a penalty double is! What about takeout versus penalty doubles of 2 and 3 level preempts? As much as I admire the simplicity of the EBU alerting rules, there is always some customs or norms that are in effect. Besides, the EBU is moving more towards the alert/announcement rules in the states.

 

That being said, having played in both countries, I prefer the EBU alerting rules and am not looking forward to the change next year.

[david_c]

The day when the use of the X card to say "this is going off" requires an alert is the day I give up bridge.

August 2006, apparently.

 

I've actually spent a lot of time trying to think of a decent alerting regulation for doubles, and have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing. The EBU is moving from one flawed scheme to another equally flawed scheme. Given how difficult it is to change people's habits, I think this is a really bad idea.

[inquiry]

I think the question of rather a penalty double needs to be alerted or not is not the issue raised here (really). It is rather playing penalty doubles is so unusual a method it needs to be "pre-alerted". Here I think the answer is no. For one thing, it probably will not affect the range of overcalls. Why? Say you overcall light and the next hand has a penalty double... the bidding will be either..

 

1M-(2C)-X = penalty, or

 

1M-(2C)-P-(P)-X-(P)-P = same hand as above.

 

So, it is unlikely to affect the nature of the 2C overcall anyway. And, pre-alerts are really something for highly unusual methods. Plenty of pairs still play neg doublees only through 1S.

 

As far as should the double of 2C be alerted if it is negative or penalty? All I can say is the opponents have a RIGHT to know the meaning of the double before their next bid (after the double). You cann't just double and expect them to guess. So whatever the rules/regulations are, if you ahve any doubt that they may not understand the meaning of your double, it is your obligation to make sure they know... this might be in the form of big red letters on your convention card... "No NEGATIVE DOUBLE"... on BBO, also via private chat or alert.

[Echognome]

I don't understand this? Why do we need to do this unless playing in an ACBL game? Alerting regulations are controlled by the SO, so I'm not quite sure what I *have* to alert or pre-alert in general.

 

All that being said, I usually err on the side of caution and alert more than I have to. E.g. If I'm playing at an all UK table, I will not alert a weak NT. If I'm playing at a mixed table I will.

[pigpenz]

the reason I asked what the bid was is that there was no alert for a negative double. So after trying several times the opp final said it was a penalty double, now believe me he didnt come right out quickly and answer it took more than a minute to get him to answer. Anyway all roads on this board led straight to hell ;)