Doubles in ACBL land

[qwery_hi]

Playing at the club yesterday, I was told by an experienced opponent that all doubles which are not penalty should be alerted in the ACBL. Is this correct? If it is correct, I find that my club doesn;t enforce it at all. Should it be enforced, and if I had the director called on me, what would the director look for the auction -

 

1♣ - p - 1♥ - p

2♥ - p - p - X (not alerted)

p - 3♠ - ap

 

3♠ went off 1 while 3♥ was a make at mps.

 

Thanks.

[awm]

That is not the rule.

 

The ACBL regulation is that doubles with a "highly unusual or unexpected" meaning are alertable. This leaves a great deal up to the director's judgement, but certainly takeout doubles of the opponents opening bids and standard negative doubles in simple auctions like opening-overcall-X are not alertable.

 

On the auction in question, it is not clear to me what the damage is. Supposing that the double had been alerted as takeout, what would the opponents do differently? They can't bid 3♥ over 3♠, and they can't force advancer to pass the double when it wasn't penalty.

 

And in any case I don't think playing this double as takeout is highly unusual or unexpected.

[Phil]

The "unusual or unexpected" meaning will be extended to cuebids soon (I hope).

 

Adam is right; a double here would be expected to be takeout, so it's not alertable.

[hrothgar]

Playing at the club yesterday, I was told by an experienced opponent that all doubles which are not penalty should be alerted in the ACBL. Is this correct?

This is most assuredly NOT correct.

 

AWM has already cited the appropriate guding clause.

 

If you're opponent ever raises this point again, ask him whether a takeout double in the following position requires an alert

 

1♠ - (X)

[Mbodell]

I've had one person explain the ACBL alert requirements of doubles as if your double is primarily penalty oriented it doesn't need an alert. If your double is primarily take out oriented it doesn't need an alert.

 

About the only X I alert are doubles that are part of a relay that opponents have interfered (I.e., X is a step of the relay showing something specific like 6322 shape), or a X saying don't lead my suit like after 1♠ - 2♥ - P - 2♠ - X* (don't lead my suit).

[kenberg]

People say all sorts of things.

 

This particular double would have been treated as take-out by Charles Goren and by my grandmother. If it is anything other than a take-out double then that should be alerted. Also if your partner had doubled directly over 2H I think almost everyone (including Goren and Grandma) would take this as take-out, the reason being that partner has spades, presumably four, but short hearts so that a first round double was not appropriate.

 

There certainly are doubles where some might play them as take-out, others as penalty. There can be disagreement about what actually is standard. For example:

 

1D Pass 1NT pass

Pass X

 

 

 

Some would play this as take-out but others would play it as a good hand with diamonds locked up and penalty oriented. The logic is that second hand has good values but no convenient way into the auction on the first round since his suit is in fact diamonds. If, as is often the case, you have not discussed this with partner then still no alert is needed. If you have discussed it, then it is still not clear to me an alert is needed whichever meaning you play. My guess is that this is most often played as take-out (penalty is my preference) so maybe the penalty meaning should be alerted, but my view is that an "experienced player" should be well aware of the ambiguity here and can ask if he wishes to know if you indeed have an agreement. Alerting here might give the appearance of trying to help partner rather than opponents. Playing online I would self-alert the intent.

 

Anyway, don't believe everything you hear from experienced players.

[Jacki]

Calls on whether or not a double is alertable give TDs a headache when interpreting if it's 'highly unusual or unexpected.' But here's an interesting discussion from an appeals case - from 2006, but it's still interesting.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Honolulu200...BC+%20063-4.pdf

 

Jacki

[jtfanclub]

In general, I alert if...

 

-A bid shows or denies a suit (or keycard) other than 'the unbid major(s)' or 'the unbid suit(s)'.

This includes 'stolen bid' doubles, support doubles, etc.

-The X is the first call in the auction for our side, below 2NT, and truly penalty.

 

I don't alert points/'do something intelligent'/action or whatever you want to call them doubles. If partner can leave in with a reasonable hand or take it out with an unreasonable hand, I'm not going to alert it.

 

So if

 

1♠ (P) P (2♥)

X

 

shows hearts, I would alert it. If it just showed a good hand, I would not alert it. If it was takeout, I wouldn't alert it either.

 

This still leaves auctions like:

 

(1♠) X (2♦) X

 

up in the air. I wouldn't alert it if it showed a good hand and invited partner to pass, and I wouldn't alert it if it was takeout for hearts and clubs either. I would alert it if it promised diamonds though, especially if its meaning is "I suspect the opp is psyching, we probably belong in diamonds".

 

Go figure.

[jdonn]

This still leaves auctions like:

 

(1♠) X (2♦) X

 

up in the air. I wouldn't alert it if it showed a good hand and invited partner to pass, and I wouldn't alert it if it was takeout for hearts and clubs either. I would alert it if it promised diamonds though, especially if its meaning is "I suspect the opp is psyching, we probably belong in diamonds".

 

Go figure.

Odd that the only meaning you alert is the standard meaning.

[JoAnneM]

I call them "kitchen table directors", and they are a "pain-in-the-butt" for actual directors. Rules that you hear at the table are more often wrong than right, especially at my club.

[keylime]

Agree with JoAnne 1000%.

[awm]

After reading the authors of the appeals casebook heap complaints upon the ACBL policy about which doubles are alertable... I wonder who exactly makes the alert rules? Evidently not the same set of folks (all good players quite conversant with the laws) who comment in the appeals casebooks...

[qwery_hi]

Calls on whether or not a double is alertable give TDs a headache when interpreting if it's 'highly unusual or unexpected.' But here's an interesting discussion from an appeals case - from 2006, but it's still interesting.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Honolulu200...BC+%20063-4.pdf

 

Jacki

Did the ACBL make a definite statement about whether this is alertable?

 

If not, do the players need to ask if the dbl here denies 4 spades if they want to know (irrespective of their spade length)?

[jillybean]

Agree with JoAnne 1000%.

Me too.

Thank heavens I learned the laws here before venturing to the club.

[kenberg]

In the quoted article we find that the EW pair thought that in fact they should alert the double, they were told not to do so by a director, after this hearnig they decided that they would go back to alerting the double even though the committee supported the non-alert.

 

I see this as a trend. Players who grasp and respect the concept of disclosing agreements find that the promulgated rules are so off kilter that they just decide to ignore the words of the officials and do what clearly is proper in the spirit of disclosure. The folks who are writing and interpreting rules might take note of this.

 

The logic seems quite straightforward to me. Do we really want fourth hand asking for an explanation every time the auction begins 1m-1H-X? If we do not want this, then when X denies four spades instead of shows four spades, there must be an alert. Wolff appears to be dumbfounded to find that anyone thinks otherwise and while no one mistakes me for Bobby Wolff, so am I.

[jtfanclub]

This still leaves auctions like:

 

(1♠)  X  (2♦)  X

 

up in the air.  I wouldn't alert it if it showed a good hand and invited partner to pass, and I wouldn't alert it if it was takeout for hearts and clubs either.  I would alert it if it promised diamonds though, especially if its meaning is "I suspect the opp is psyching, we probably belong in diamonds". 

 

Go figure.

Odd that the only meaning you alert is the standard meaning.

I know, isn't it strange? Well, at my level the X here just tends to show a decent balanced hand rather than diamonds, but I am aware that at higher levels the meaning I alert becomes standard. Last I heard, people were still alerting stolen bid X's across partner's NT opener, even though most people play that as well. Is that not your experience.

 

Online I can alert everything, and at the club I can alert based on the club, but who's to say at an NABC for an intermediate event what the opponents expect?

 

I don't think any of the three meanings (takeout of diamonds, good balanced, showing diamonds) is "highly unusual or unexpected". Would you disagree with this assessment?

[Sadie3]

According to one of the free lectures I attended in Monterey recently, doubles are one of the hot issues for clearing up in ACBL land. The other 2 tidbits I was advised regarding were the new required tapping of the alert card whenever alerting and requiring the use of a pass card rather than knocking or saying "pass" when ending an auction sequence.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. As far as I know, none of those things is "new" - although enforcing them apparently is.

[Trinidad]

They maybe new to Sadie3. Isn't that what these free lectures are for?

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Sure. My point was that folks violate those rules all the time, and nobody (including those of us who know better) ever says anything.

[kenberg]

Rapping the table for a pass? It's been years since I have seen anyone do that. If one wants to go with paranoia about signaling by style of passing (I suppose that's the reason for this attention to an archaic practice) I often see the following: Last hand, instead of pulling a pass card simply scoops up his cards and puts them back in the box. I suppose this could mean lead a heart, while playing the pass card and then scooping them up shows lack of interest in a heart lead.

 

I do not lie awake worrying about this.

 

The alert procedure has been an ongoing embarrassment to the ACBL. I recall when they decided to address Walsh responses to 1C openings. At one point if a partnership would skip over 5432 of diamonds to bid 1H on AQJ9 an alert was expected. Then it was changed to depend on the quality of the diamonds. Then it was changed again so that you could skip over any four card diamond suit w/o an alert but not a five card diamond suit. And so on. I don't know what the current rule is. Possibly this history is slightly off but not by much. It was exhausting trying to keep up with the latest whim.

 

It seems to me that the ACBL rules committee is often dominated by people whose idea of a fun evening is reading government tax manuals. I realize these things can get tough but a little common sense would go a long way. For example, in the Walsh response case I would like to know whether after 1C-1D opener feels perfectly free to rebid 1NT holding two four card majors. If so, I would call that a Walsh style. If opener, holding 4-4-2-3 would usually rebid 1H, then they are not playing Walsh. I, an opponent, need to know that much about their style but beyond that there are issues of judgment that to my mind require no alert. Let them bid their hands as they see fit.

 

 

From reading the reference, we see that some prominent ACBL folks think no alert should be required if 1m-(1H)-X is played as denying four spades. This seems to me to be the triumph of legalism over common sense. Few people get any pleasure out of foxing the opponents by playing an unusual and concealed convention, as indeed the players themselves made clear in this case. I hope the ACBL can get their act together on all of this.

[blackshoe]

Last time I saw people rapping the table for a pass was last night. And again the day before yesterday. Do not fall into Britannicus' error.

 

In my opinion, it's not a matter of paranoia, it's a matter of simply doing things the right way. It did confuse me quite a bit at first, because I got into duplicate in England, where a tap on the table indicates an alert. In any case, it's certainly no cause to lie awake nights.

 

While I deplore the way the C&C committee appears to conduct its business, I have to say that crafting an alert procedure is not an easy job, particularly when it needs to cover a jurisdiction as large and diverse as the ACBL. I don't fault them (and I don't think anyone else should) for not getting it right the first time.

 

As I understand it, it has become common, at least in some circles, to bypass diamonds in favor of a four card major even if you don''t play Walsh. Still shouldn't need an alert in my opinion. As you say, it's a matter of style, and such things are not usually alertable in the ACBL.

 

As to who dominates the C&C committee (or were you talking about some other rules committee?) the members' names are on the acbl web site. I do note that 2 of the 3 members of the "convention and defense approval" subcommittee aren't actually on the committee itself, which makes me wonder how it can be a "subcommittee". And also that the membership information may be out of date, as it's labelled "for 2008".

[awm]

I think the generally correct way to do these things is to have two documents about alerts.

 

The first is intended as a primer for players. It gives general rules (like "bids with unexpected meanings should be alerted" and "when in doubt, alert") and also specifically handles very common methods (stayman, transfers, fourth suit forcing, etc). This document should be a page or two at most. What the ACBL currently has is not bad in this respect.

 

The second document should be primarily a reference for directors (although available to interested players as well). This should include as many relevant examples as possible, and should be periodically updated to reflect recent appeals cases and discussions. This allows a director to look something up (is a negative double that denies four spades an alert etc.) and make consistent rulings with other directors and the C&C members. The length of this second document is not a primary concern, as it is primarily a reference and not something that most players ever need to look at.

 

This second document seems not to exist in ACBL-land (EBU evidently has very good such documentation).

[blackshoe]

Actually, I suspect that the alert chart is intended to be your first "for players" document, and the "alert procedure" the second. It may be the procedure needs more examples, and that they both need some revision - I'm not sure the chart is all that clear in all cases.

 

Frankly, I think the EBU white and orange books do an outstanding job of making the regulations (and advice on how to apply them) accessible, and I wish the ACBL would do something similar. But they were "not invented here", and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

[awm]

Another funny one:

 

Pass - Pass - Pass - 2M

 

With what point range (if any) would 2M require an alert? I have seen people play this as any of 8-12, 11-15, 13-16, and 16+ and all of them seem to think it is "standard" and not alertable.