It's not the winning, it's the taking part

[mr1303]

Or at least it will be tonight at Bristol Bridge Club. The EBU's new alert/announce laws come in to effect tonight, and my partner and I have changed our system specifically to make sure that we have to announce as much as possible, by playing mini NTs, intermediate 2 bids (10-15 5+ cards, may or may not have a second suit) in all 4 suits and more of that sort of thing.

 

As a result, we're having bets on who can call the poor over-worked director over most often.

 

Can't wait.

[the saint]

Its all a complete load of nonsense. The best thing to have done would have been to move us to unify our alerting procedures with those in place in the rest of the world. But no, we have this twaddle imposed on us.

[Joe de Balliol]

Who's your poor partner?

[david_c]

As a result, we're having bets on who can call the poor over-worked director over most often.

Strange ... I wonder what makes you think you're going to need the director?

 

Well, I suppose I can imagine a conversation starting

 

"Intermediate"

"What on earth does that mean?"

 

And now you have to explain.

 

But that's how it's supposed to work - not many people in a club will know what "intermediate" means, but the announcement at least tells them there's something they need to know, and there won't be a problem as long as you give a decent explanation when they ask for one.

[david_c]

Its all a complete load of nonsense. The best thing to have done would have been to move us to unify our alerting procedures with those in place in the rest of the world. But no, we have this twaddle imposed on us.

Meh. B)

 

You may call it twaddle, but I like it.

 

Announcements will be good for the game.

 

I'm prepared to keep defending our new EBU regs until the cows come home ...

[MickyB]

I agree with David, except I don't really have the energy to defend them right now.

[jtfanclub]

I apologize, but being an American, I'm lucky if I can find England, let alone the new EBU rules.

 

Does somebody have a link to them? Or would care to explain?

[MickyB]

The main change is introducing announcements - the range of 1NT openings, Stayman and Xfers after 1NT (P) and weak/intermediate/strong to describe natural 2 level openings.

 

There have also been some changes to alerts - there will be few alerts above 3NT and all(?) doubles are for takeout, unless alerted.

[Free]

Lol, looks a lot like our rules:

- no doubles or redoubles may be alerted!

- any bid beyond 3NT is not alertable

- many people think that in an auction where one player bid higher than 3NT, a pass is also a bid higher than 3NT which shouldn't be alerted. B)

 

But I still don't understand the problem...

[paulg]

Lol, looks a lot like our rules:

- no doubles or redoubles may be alerted!

- any bid beyond 3NT is not alertable

- many people think that in an auction where one player bid higher than 3NT, a pass is also a bid higher than 3NT which shouldn't be alerted.  :)

 

But I still don't understand the problem...

A summary of the new rules are on the EBU site and this page has a link to the Orange Book that has the complete version.

 

Penalty doubles of suits remain alertable, as do non-penalty doubles of notrump bids, even when above 3NT. Similarly, passes remain alertable below and above 3NT when they are conventional (as a pass is not a bid, it is a call).

 

Paul

[paulg]

Its all a complete load of nonsense. The best thing to have done would have been to move us to unify our alerting procedures with those in place in the rest of the world. But no, we have this twaddle imposed on us.

Which place in the rest of the world did you wish to unify with?

[Echognome]

The only two changes* that I dislike are two of the example auctions given on alerting.

*I'm not sure what the exact rules were on these sequences before.

 

2♥(showing ♥ and ♠) - (2♠) - X

 

X must be alerted if it's for penalty.

 

1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (2♦)

X

 

If 2♦ is a natural bid, then X must be alerted if it's for penalty.

 

Those two auctions just do not make sense to me. For example, in the first auction, it would make no sense to play double as takeout as you could never penalize them!

[Finch]

The only two changes* that I dislike are two of the example auctions given on alerting.

*I'm not sure what the exact rules were on these sequences before.

 

2♥(showing ♥ and ♠) - (2♠) - X

 

X must be alerted if it's for penalty.

Only if 2S was natural.

There have been a number of appeals cases recently where the overcaller has meant it as take-out of spades.

[Free]

What is the point in alerting penalty doubles, but not takeout doubles? Isn't that UI in many cases to partner? I mean, doubles are a frequent cause of disasters, so why let partner in on your logic during the auction? :)

[Finch]

What is the point in alerting penalty doubles, but not takeout doubles? Isn't that UI in many cases to partner? I mean, doubles are a frequent cause of disasters, so why let partner in on your logic during the auction? :)

The point of alerting doubles at all is the same as alerting anything else: to let the opponents on to the fact that your double doesn't necessarily mean what they might think it does.

 

The new rules change which doubles are alertable, but the principle is the same.

 

You might as well say why alert anything, it risks giving UI to partner.

[david_c]

Really I don't think it's possible to come up with a "good" set of alerting regulations for doubles. You can either have simple regulations which inevitably have some silly consequences for what you alert / don't alert, or complicated regulations which people wouldn't fully understand (which is worse I think, since the whole idea of alerting falls apart if people don't know what an alert is supposed to tell them).

 

Actually I'm not convinced that the new regulations for alerting of doubles are any better than the old ones - they both have their flaws - so I'd have preferred to leave them alone and save all the hassle. But the EBU have gone for simplicity, and that does have its advantages. Matt's examples are certainly unfortunate in that you're not likely to want to play those doubles as takeout, but you can't eliminate problems like this without having a lot of exceptions to the basic rules.

[Finch]

Really I don't think it's possible to come up with a "good" set of alerting regulations for doubles. You can either have simple regulations which inevitably have some silly consequences for what you alert / don't alert, or complicated regulations which people wouldn't fully understand (which is worse I think, since the whole idea of alerting falls apart if people don't know what an alert is supposed to tell them).

 

Actually I'm not convinced that the new regulations for alerting of doubles are any better than the old ones - they both have their flaws - so I'd have preferred to leave them alone and save all the hassle. But the EBU have gone for simplicity, and that does have its advantages. Matt's examples are certainly unfortunate in that you're not likely to want to play those doubles as takeout, but you can't eliminate problems like this without having a lot of exceptions to the basic rules.

I agree with all of this.

Sadly, another consequence of the rules is that

 

1NT P 2H (announced 'spades') P

2S x

 

is alertable if it is takeout

[david_c]

Sadly, another consequence of the rules is that

 

1NT P 2H (announced 'spades') P

2S x

 

is alertable if it is takeout

Oh dear, that's not good. I suppose you're right, though maybe since the completion of a transfer is not alertable any more the idea is to treat it as natural? I wonder why this isn't given as an example in the OB - maybe it wasn't even considered ...

[the saint]

I'm still of the opinion that no doubles should be alerted. Players can ask. It solves a lot of UI problems that way.

[the saint]

Lol, looks a lot like our rules:

- no doubles or redoubles may be alerted!

- any bid beyond 3NT is not alertable

- many people think that in an auction where one player bid higher than 3NT, a pass is also a bid higher than 3NT which shouldn't be alerted.  :blink:

 

But I still don't understand the problem...

A summary of the new rules are on the EBU site and this page has a link to the Orange Book that has the complete version.

 

Penalty doubles of suits remain alertable, as do non-penalty doubles of notrump bids, even when above 3NT. Similarly, passes remain alertable below and above 3NT when they are conventional (as a pass is not a bid, it is a call).

 

Paul

Having played Free's scheme whenever I play in Junior events abroad, I found it much, much better. (see previous post for extra emphasis)

[Blofeld]

Sadly, another consequence of the rules is that

 

1NT P 2H (announced 'spades') P

2S x

 

is alertable if it is takeout

Yes, we had this problem this evening. It feels very wrong.

 

Overall I like the new structure though.

[david_c]

I'm still of the opinion that no doubles should be alerted. Players can ask. It solves a lot of UI problems that way.

I've thought about this a bit more this week ...

 

"No doubles should be alerted" still seems a bit much. Alerting does serve a useful purpose, and some meanings of doubles are sufficiently unexpected that it would be helpful if opponents were informed about them.

 

On the other hand, the EBU's approach seems misguided. It is not necessary to use alerting to distinguish penalty doubles from takeout doubles - at least, not after the first round or so of the auction. So, while it may be useful to have alerts for some doubles here, they're really using them for the wrong thing. And on top of that they get all these problems with trying to write regulations explaining what an unalerted double is supposed to mean.

 

So basically - and this is very unusual - I think the ACBL have got it about right. I'd want to change it a bit for English tastes, but the ACBL's ideas about the sort of doubles which should be alertable seem to be reasonable.

[Trinidad]

I have always felt that doubles shouldn't be alerted, as long as they are on a sliding scale between take out doubles and penalty doubles.

 

So, take out doubles, responsive doubles, action doubles, competitive doubles, cooperative doubles, (suggestion to) penalty doubles do not need to be alerted. They are all "Do something smart, partner"-doubles where the flavor varies from 99% take out to 99% penalty.

 

However, doubles that have a much more specific meaning than this general "Do something smart"-idea should be alerted. Examples of these are DONT doubles, Lionel doubles, support doubles, Rosenkrantz doubles, lead directing doubles, lead inhibiting doubles, colorful cuebid doubles, stolen bid doubles, Lightner doubles, Snapdragon doubles and other.

 

The only double that falls a bit in both categories is the negative double. One can argue that it is "take-out-ish". Another may argue that 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl saying: "I have exactly four spades" is fairly specific.

 

But I would be happy if the people at the top would adopt the approach that specific doubles are alertable and "do something smart" doubles are not. I would gladly accept any decision on where to put the negative double.

 

Rik

[badderzboy]

The new concept on alerting doubles seems easier to remember but no doubt will be the cause of some dispute but it shouldn't be too hard to remember that a double of a natural suit bid is not alertable if for takeout and a double of an artificial bid is not alertable if it shows that suit otherwise alert!

 

The only problems I've seen so far are people annoucing too much info ie weak may be 5 cards for a 2 level opening and so on.

 

Steve

[david_c]

The new concept on alerting doubles seems easier to remember but no doubt will be the cause of some dispute but it shouldn't be too hard to remember that a double of a natural suit bid is not alertable if for takeout and a double of an artificial bid is not alertable if it shows that suit otherwise alert!

Unfortunately there is a difference between being easy to remember and being easy to get right. The new alerting regs lead to some very counter-intuitive positions, where if you sat down to think about it you might realise it was right to alert, but it might not even occur to you at the table. Even after people have got used to the rest of the new regulations, I can't imagine everyone remembering to alert some of the "obvious" penalty doubles. Frances's example of an alertable takeout double is equally counter-intuitive. Arguably it doesn't matter whether people get these difficult situations right, but if they don't it makes the whole thing seem a little farcical.