Self alert - different requirements?

[jillybean]

Hi, here is a board from one of my own tournaments…the board finished normally 2♥ex-1 and east called me asking for an adjustment “opp didnt alert neg double and then i took wrong view playing trumps would have won otherwise” The ruling is largely irrelevant no damage, no adjustment.

 

What I did find interesting is that east was telling me that self alerting changes the requirements and like bids at the 4level, all doubles must be alerted.

 

I am aware of the 4level requirement but not of the double – can any of my more learned forum members shed any light on this?

 

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=sa972h62dj9864c73&w=st864hq4dqcaqt652&e=sq53hajt87dt52c94&s=skjhk953dak73ckj8]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 Pass  Pass  Pass  1NT

 Dbl!  Pass  2♥    Pass

 Pass  Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

[paulg]

It depends on your Conditions of Contest.

 

In the tourneys I run, all conventional calls should be alerted. Technically this includes Stayman, most doubles, transfers, etc.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

It remains to be seen if NS had any special agreements about this double.

 

Default alert requirements on BBO (which should apply unless you specify anything else) are extremely simple, much simpler than IRL alert equirements:

- Alert everything unless you're sure that opps have the same information about the meaning of the call as partner has.

 

Personally, I go a little bit further. If I have no agrement about a call while I think that the opps might assume that I might have an agreement and just forgot to alert, I alert and give the explanation "No special agreement". In this particular case, I would alert the double and say "no agreement" with all of my BBO partners since I don't have agreements about this double with any of them.

 

This is not required, though. A non-alert can means either "the agreement is standard and natural" or "we have no special agremeent" and it's opps own responsibility to ask.

 

Result stands unless there is evidence that NS have a special agreement about this double, which is quite unlikely.

[barmar]

I think the meaning of this double should be pretty obvious to all. North can't have a ♥ stack, since he would have bid Stayman or transferred in the previous round. He also shouldn't have a good hand, since he would have bid something previously. So what else can it be but negative?

[jillybean]

Thanks, the actual hand and ruling is not in question here - I was hoping someone could tell me the 'official' (WBF/ACBL/EBU) regulations regarding self alerting when screens are in use.

[Cascade]

Thanks, the actual hand and ruling is not in question here - I was hoping someone could tell me the 'official' (WBF/ACBL/EBU) regulations regarding self alerting when screens are in use.

From what I recall takeout doubles normally get alerted behind screens particularly in more convoluted auctions.

 

However I think a competent player who assumed penalty took a big position by not asking the meaning of the double.

[Mr. Dodgy]

WBF

 

The following classes of calls should be alerted:

 

1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(:D.

3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit.

 

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:

 

1. All doubles.

2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.

3.Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction.

 

That's about it for the WBF's alerting procedure that I can see. The ABF Alerting Regulations go into more detail: these are based on the WBF Laws, and if I recall correctly, it states that ALL doubles are "self-alerting" and thus These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted. It may be risky to make assumptions as to the meaning of such a call. You are entitled (at your turn to call) to ask for your own protection, but bear in mind that unnecessary questions may be more helpful to the opponents than to your own side, and may convey unauthorised information thereby limiting partner’s options.

http://www.abf.com.au/members/AlertRegs04.pdf

 

Whether screens are in use doesn't seem to make any difference to what is alertable, but I may be mistaken.

 

The The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge (2001) doesn't say much more the matter beyond this addendum to Law 80: Powers of the sponsoring organisation to establish special conditions include, but are not limited to, the provision of software enforcing correct procedure, the establishment of regulations governing the use of software facilities for alerts and disclosure, and other changes, not in conflict with these Laws, as may be necessary for the conduct of online bridge.

 

I don't know if either the WBF or ABF regs really address the online issue of self-alerting as it occurs on BBO. Looks like it is up to the SO to make these decisions.

 

I'd stick with 'self-alerting' Doubles and Redoubles as per the ABF above, for simplicity's sake. I think that it is frankly too difficult to draft anything comprehensive about when to alert or not alert such calls - unless you go with something really simple like "Alert and explain all doubles that are NOT penalty" (as penalty would be the 'natural' meaning of a double, right?).

 

Agree in this case that there is no damage and this must be negative although no agreement in this auction is reasonable for many pairs I'd guess.

 

Bear in mind i'm not terribly well learned.

[keylime]

Beaner,

 

I'm of the view that the appeallant is doubleshotting his poor result. There's absolutely zero alert needed for this bid in ACBL juridictions.

[jikl]

I have a feeling that if it had been a penalty double by North and they had the ♥s you would be getting the same complaint, just in reverse. "They didn't alert it was a penalty double! Everyone knows that is takeout!"

 

Sean

[glen]

Although this will never happen, and I'll be in the minority here (a minority of one perhaps) I believe that either:

 

1) The system makes something in the white box mandatory for doubles; or

 

2) Even better, the system pops up a Takeout, Values, Penalty, Negative, Support, Other (please specify) type checkbox for anybody making a double.

[hrothgar]

Although this will never happen, and I'll be in the minority here (a minority of one perhaps) I believe that either:

 

1) The system makes something in the white box mandatory for doubles; or

 

2) Even better, the system pops up a Takeout, Values, Penalty, Negative, Support, Other (please specify) type checkbox for anybody making a double.

Amusing to see this thread at the same time folks are complaining about the FD app on another one...

[paulg]

The WBF Policy is quite clear that non-natural doubles should be alerted when screens are in use.

 

Although not stated officially, I believe that self-alerting on-line is essentially the same as playing with screens. The principal differences are that you self-alert to both opponents and do not alert your partner's calls (so, even better than screens).

 

Hence the conclusion is that you should self-alert non-natural doubles.

 

Local jurisdictions (ABCL, ABF) may have regulations that modify this. Personally I prefer the WBF approach.

 

Paul

[1eyedjack]

Although this will never happen, and I'll be in the minority here (a minority of one perhaps) I believe that either:

 

1) The system makes something in the white box mandatory for doubles; or

 

2) Even better, the system pops up a Takeout, Values, Penalty, Negative, Support, Other (please specify) type checkbox for anybody making a double.

Amusing to see this thread at the same time folks are complaining about the FD app on another one...

When FD was first released I thought what a great product. Then I tried writing my system into it and rapidly blew cold. So I am waiting for the next generation, with an enhanced system design interface.

 

I am only posting this because one of my "complaints" at the time was that I could not see how to program into FD my algorithm for defining whether a double was takeout v penalty - of particular relevance to the OP on this thread. As far as I could tell, the only way to do this was to list all of the possible sequences in which a double might arise and individually define the double for each sequence. I suspect that I am wrong. I must be, if Hrothgar reckons that FD would provide the solution to the problem in the OP.

[david_c]

The WBF Policy is quite clear that non-natural doubles should be alerted when screens are in use.

It's far from clear, since the WBF policy as quoted by MrDodgy above only defines alerting for bids, it doesn't say anything about passes, doubles and redoubles.

 

But anyway, what does "natural" actually mean for doubles? This is the problem.

[blackshoe]

Hence the conclusion is that you should self-alert non-natural doubles.

Okay, I'm confused. My understanding is that some jurisdictions (the ABF being one of them) consider certain calls, or certain calls in certain situations to be "self-alerting" - meaning that the very existence of the call at its point in the auction should "alert" opponents that they may need to ask questions. Here, you seem to be using the term to mean a player alerting his own calls. Are we all on the same page as to the meaning of the term "self-alert"?

[blackshoe]

But anyway, what does "natural" actually mean for doubles? This is the problem.

A natural double is one that says "sorry, opps, but you aren't making that contract". A natural redouble says "oh, yes we are!" :-)

[jillybean]

Hence the conclusion is that you should self-alert non-natural doubles.

Okay, I'm confused. My understanding is that some jurisdictions (the ABF being one of them) consider certain calls, or certain calls in certain situations to be "self-alerting" - meaning that the very existence of the call at its point in the auction should "alert" opponents that they may need to ask questions. Here, you seem to be using the term to mean a player alerting his own calls. Are we all on the same page as to the meaning of the term "self-alert"?

Hmm When I use 'self alert' I am meaning the process of alerting your own bid when playing online. I didnt know this term was used for bids that err, self alert. B)

[paulg]

Hence the conclusion is that you should self-alert non-natural doubles.

Okay, I'm confused. My understanding is that some jurisdictions (the ABF being one of them) consider certain calls, or certain calls in certain situations to be "self-alerting" - meaning that the very existence of the call at its point in the auction should "alert" opponents that they may need to ask questions. Here, you seem to be using the term to mean a player alerting his own calls. Are we all on the same page as to the meaning of the term "self-alert"?

Like jb I use the term self-alert in the on-line sense.

 

I view the term "self alerting" for a call that is always alerted to be as useful as the term "semi forcing" B)

 

p

[jillybean]

But anyway, what does "natural" actually mean for doubles? This is the problem.

A natural double is one that says "sorry, opps, but you aren't making that contract". A natural redouble says "oh, yes we are!" :-)

Exactly - doubles are rarely alerted and if asked why not the usual response is "but thats natural there!"

 

The definition HomeBase use for alerting doubles is :

 

4. Any double below the three level that is not for TAKEOUT, and any double after your partner has bid notrump naturally that is not for PENALTY. (Example: if your partner opens 1NT and the next hand overcalls, if you make negative (takeout) or card showing rather than penalty double, you must alert the double.)

 

http://forums.homebaseclub.com/index.php?showtopic=85

 

Im not sure if this is the WBF definition or Bens endeavor to clarify the requirements. I understood (1NT) X is for penalty - does this change when the doubler is a passed hand?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Im not sure if this is the WBF definition or Bens endeavor to clarify the requirements. I understood (1NT) X is for penalty - does this change when the doubler is a passed hand?

<snip>

Assuming the partner to the passed hand,

passed as well, the dbl cant be penalty,

did he miscount?

If they play it, I would like to play for money

with them.

I promise, we wont use the redbl card.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

<snip>

Im not sure if this is the WBF definition or Bens endeavor to clarify the requirements. I understood (1NT) X is for penalty - does this change when the doubler is a passed hand?

<snip>

Assuming the partner to the passed hand,

passed as well, the dbl cant be penalty,

did he miscount?

If they play it, I would like to play for money

with them.

I promise, we wont use the redbl card.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

A 'yes, no exceptions' would have sufficed <_<

 

I fnd a lot of this game confusing, but perhaps none more so than doubles, everyone talks of natural meanings and people have many different understandings of whats natural.

Edited November 28, 2006 by jillybean2

[david_c]

4. Any double below the three level that is not for TAKEOUT, and any double after your partner has bid notrump naturally that is not for PENALTY. (Example: if your partner opens 1NT and the next hand overcalls, if you make negative (takeout) or card showing rather than penalty double, you must alert the double.)

Well, it could be worse, I suppose. Obviously it only makes sense for doubles of natural suit bids, not for NT bids or artificial bids. That problem could be fixed easily enough, but there are more fundamental issues.

 

It's hard enough to get this right in face-to-face bridge (I've been lobbying the EBU for a change to their rules); for online bridge you have the additional problem that there is no fixed set of alerting rules and so people probably aren't going to take the trouble to learn yours. So having very idiosyncratic alerting regulations (which HB rule 4 certainly is) is not going to work IMO. The only way out that I can see is to make the rules explicity based on common sense, like the ACBL does:

 

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." [They also give a few examples.]

[blackshoe]

You play a game. Where the rules of the game are specified, you play by those rules, whether you know them or not. Where the rules are not (or not completely) specified, but there is an authority who can make rulings, you play by those rulings (I don't much like that method, but it happens). Bottom line: the Sponsoring Organization ought to make and publish the necessary rules; players ought to learn them, and should certainly expect any rulings to be in accordance with them.

[david_c]

You play a game. Where the rules of the game are specified, you play by those rules, whether you know them or not. Where the rules are not (or not completely) specified, but there is an authority who can make rulings, you play by those rulings (I don't much like that method, but it happens). Bottom line: the Sponsoring Organization ought to make and publish the necessary rules; players ought to learn them, and should certainly expect any rulings to be in accordance with them.

Sure, players have a duty to follow the published regulations. But also the SO has a duty to make their regulations easy to follow. Perhaps some TDs might take a sadistic pleasure from having idiosyncratic regulations and then penalising players who get them wrong, but this is obviously not good for the game.

 

Like it or not, players will not learn detailed rules for every SO on BBO. Even if they wanted to, it would hardly be possible since there are so many different SOs to choose from. So, roughly speaking, it is better if the SO chooses rules which correspond to what the players would already expect to happen.

[jillybean]

Perhaps some TDs might take a sadistic pleasure from having idiosyncratic regulations and then penalising players who get them wrong, but this is obviously not good for the game.

I try to get my pleasure elsewhere, but I am aware of tournaments having their own unique rules. :)

 

This is a reoccurring problem, doubles are not usually alerted at all and players rightly or wrongly call attention to it and claim damage.

Stating a rule such as alert all non natural bids is little help here and asking players to alert any bid that their opps may not understand is too subjective in this multi system environment.

 

If indeed games played behind screens require all doubles to be alerted, this may be a good rule to adopt. Failure to alert does not automatically mean damage and an adjustment, having a clear rule that everyone could understand would be a great start.

 

jb