Alerting of Doubles

[Gerben42]

Hi, I was thinking about a good rule for alertability of doubles. What I want is that:

 

* Take-out

* Penalty

* Optional

* Do something intelligent

 

-doubles are not alertable, but specific suit-showing bids for example DONT or support Dbl are alertable.

 

How would you formulate this?

[joker_gib]

In Belgium, now, all the doubles are non alertable !

 

You can always ask...

 

This is not too bad IMHO.... :)

[Gerben42]

In my opinion "no alerting of double" (and pass, and redouble) is a TERRIBLE rule!

 

"You can always ask" is only true in theory.

 

Consider the following:

 

Case A: 1♣ (natural) Dbl. Would you always ask what Dbl is?

 

Case B: 1♣ (could be short) Dbl. Would you now always ask what Dbl is?

 

Case C: 1♣ (Polish) Dbl. Would you now always ask what Dbl is?

 

Case D: 1♣ (Precision) Dbl. Would you now always ask what Dbl is?

 

Most people wouldn't ask in case A, and most would in case D. The people in cases B and C would perhaps start out with "always ask" but having heard dozens of similar and dozens of vague answers, they will give up and no longer ask.

 

Then they meet the pair that has made special agreements versus case B or C and get a bad score. Who is at fault? THE REGULATIONS!

[Free]

In my opinion "no alerting of double" (and pass, and redouble) is a TERRIBLE rule!

I agree!

 

A simple example: who will ask about 1♣-(1♦)-Dbl? All beginners learn that this shows 4-4M, but some advanced/expert players play this as transfer with 4+♥.

[david_c]

Hi, I was thinking about a good rule for alertability of doubles. What I want is that:

 

* Take-out

* Penalty

* Optional

* Do something intelligent

 

-doubles are not alertable, but specific suit-showing bids for example DONT or support Dbl are alertable.

 

How would you formulate this?

Now, this is a bit of a sore point for me at the moment; but I'll have a go at answering the question anyway ...

 

First of all, the definitions are always going to be slightly fuzzy. You can't expect to be able to write down a totally mechanical rule for deciding what category a double fits into.

 

With that in mind, IMO the best way to approach it is to:

1. Give a rough explanation of what the terms "take-out" and "penalty" mean, plus two extra terms of your choice (let's say "optional" and "value-showing"). Make it obvious that these explanations aren't intended to be totally precise. (Though you could take the opportunity to clear up a few particular cases, if they fit in here more naturally than as separate examples).

2. Write your general rule in the form "Double is not alertable if it is take-out, penalty, or anything in between such as optional or value-showing. All other doubles are alertable."

3. Give specific examples of alertable and non-alertable doubles.

 

I hope you have better luck than me.

[TylerE]

Who about this: Doubles that show length in unbid suit(s), penalty of a shown strain or extra values are not alertable. All other doubles are alertable.

[whereagles]

Around here, we alert no doubles, but a year ago we used to alert dbls that were not pure penalty or pure take out.

[JoAnneM]

Surely you would alert a conventional double such as DONT that shows a six card or longer suit and says nothing about hand strength or trick taking?

[bid_em_up]

Surely you would alert a conventional double such as DONT that shows a six card or longer suit and says nothing about hand strength or trick taking?

Of course he would. I suspect he means doubles such as negative doubles and responsive doubles which imply one or two other (usually known) suits, and not doubles that show 1 unspecific suit.

[paulg]

In my opinion "no alerting of double" (and pass, and redouble) is a TERRIBLE rule!

We have been playing with this rule in Scotland for the past 18 months. However you must pre-alert any unusual doubles. The most common pre-alert is "our double of your strong 1NT is artificial"; my pre-alert includes that many doubles and redoubles can be transfers.

 

It makes no difference to the top players, as they look at convention cards and are generally aware.

 

The club players love it, as they never knew what doubles to alert anyhow and the experts in the clubs win regardless of whether their doubles are strange, alerted or not. Most of the club players play the same system and know 'who is funny'.

 

Where you would be most concerned is the larger congresses where club players might get exploited by unscrupulous experts. That this is not seen as a problem is probably because (1) 95% play basically the same system (2) we do not have many experts and (3) most of the experts are pretty pleasant at these congresses.

 

As far as I am aware, the only complaints have been from the English. And this is perhaps why the EBU will not be adopting this rule, as their community is a lot broader than the Scottish.

 

Paul

[jtfanclub]

I got called last week for failure to alert on....

 

 

P (P) P (1♦)

X

 

showing a 10 count or so and diamonds...which it would for most beginners I know. I got out of it by pointing out that this time there was no damage, but I don't like regulations that require beginners to alert natural, intuitive bids.

[hanp]

Surely you would alert a conventional double such as DONT that shows a six card or longer suit and says nothing about hand strength or trick taking?

I suspect that Nuno meant "Around here, we alert no doubles" exactly as he wrote it. Note that this is by regulation.

[TylerE]

I got called last week for failure to alert on....

 

 

P (P) P (1♦)

X

 

showing a 10 count or so and diamonds...which it would for most beginners I know. I got out of it by pointing out that this time there was no damage, but I don't like regulations that require beginners to alert natural, intuitive bids.

HUH?? I see nothing natural or intuitive about that. Furthurmore, I know of no one, even rank novices who would play it that way.

[Free]

Surely you would alert a conventional double such as DONT that shows a six card or longer suit and says nothing about hand strength or trick taking?

I suspect that Nuno meant "Around here, we alert no doubles" exactly as he wrote it. Note that this is by regulation.

I think so to. In Belgium the rule is clear: no Dbl or RDbl may be alerted! So conventional, penalty, takeout, snapdragon, 0/3 keycards, "I want a coke"-dbl,... may not be alerted.

[Impact]

In Oz all doubles are NOT alertable (but pre-alerts of doubles which are unusual are required - so for instance transfer doubles that we play, PODI, PORI etc).

 

Also note that opponents can ask, and if you become the declaring side you are required to provide the additional information before they make their opening lead.

 

By contrast a Pass which is anything but "content" or "nothing to contribute" IS alertable (as it must be because you can hardly be put on notice otherwise!!). This occurs frequently both in relay auctions and multis...

 

regards,

[hanp]

That's very funny, do your opponents then discuss their defenses against pori and podi?

[whereagles]

Surely you would alert a conventional double such as DONT that shows a six card or longer suit and says nothing about hand strength or trick taking?

I suspect that Nuno meant "Around here, we alert no doubles" exactly as he wrote it. Note that this is by regulation.

Correct.

 

As I said, we tried alerting artificial dbls but then some people abused the rule when it came to "optional dbls", so we just decided to make all doubles non alertable.

[Trinidad]

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make "special doubles" alertable. Obviously, it is difficult to define specifically what "special" means, but most players have about the same feeling about it: Support doubles, DONT doubles, snapdragon doubles, colorful cuebid doubles, DOPI and the whole bunch are "special doubles".

 

Doubles showing otherwise diffcult to bid hands (takeout doubles, card showing doubles, optional doubles, etc.) and penalty doubles are not "special doubles".

 

You could try to come up with a specific definition, but I agree with David that that will be very hard to do.

 

Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do. This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them.

 

Special doubles will then be alertable. Most of those doubles occur in situations where you have various options on how to play the double. Therefore, opponents cannot have an expectation of what the double means.

 

I know that the vague definition strategy has its drawbacks, but it works a lot better than very specific definitions that turn out to be not watertight. (Not to mention that a long list of definitions will loose 99% of the players.)

 

Rik

[Gerben42]

You could try to come up with a specific definition, but I agree with David that that will be very hard to do.

 

This is what I want! If we together can come up with this definition, then we can go to our NBO and ask them to think about adopting it.

 

I've been told off by opponents that my Dbl of a Polish ♣ that showed 5+♥ was akin to cheating, and I feel very strongly that it was unfair to the opponents to not alert this Dbl, but against the regulations if I would alert it.

[ArtK78]

How about this?

 

Alert all doubles that have a meaning that would be unexpected by a significant majority of players.

 

For example:

 

1♥ - x

 

If the double was a penalty double, that would be alertable (surely no one would expect a double of a 1♥ opening bid to be for penalties?).

 

If the double showed length in clubs it would be alertable.

 

While this rule seems a little fuzzy on first glance, I suspect that it would be very easy to deal with in practice.

[paulg]

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do.  This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them.

Although a fine ideal in practice the devil is in the detail. How do you know what your opponents will expect? One problem is that the 'general' knowledge of BBF poster (whatever their skill level) is far, far greater than your average club player - to my mind this means that 'reasonable' alerting strategies appear far more reasonable in this forum than they would in real life.

 

For example, even in the very short list above you will find a lot of disparity in the UK over the meaning of a double of a jacoby transfer.

 

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

 

Paul

[david_c]

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

They certainly said that they preferred not to change. It's unclear whether they actually said they preferred the current rules. Indeed it's unclear whether the CC actually knows what the current rules are.

[Trinidad]

You could try to come up with a specific definition, but I agree with David that that will be very hard to do.

 

This is what I want! If we together can come up with this definition, then we can go to our NBO and ask them to think about adopting it.

I know this is what you want. And believe me, we are very much on the same side. We share a very strong feeling that "special doubles" should be alerted. We also both know exactly what those "special doubles" are. So there, we are in complete agreement.

 

In a case like this, you can follow two strategies:

 

1) You can formally describe what a "special double" is (or alternatively describe what a not "special" double is).

 

2) You can make a vague rule saying that "special doubles" need to be alerted, without saying much more. (I used the idea of a "meaning that your opponents may not expect" or something similar.) You give some examples and hope that everyone knows what is meant.

 

You and I are beta scientists. We believe strongly in exact logical or even mathematical descriptions of everything around us, including bridge conventions. Our first instinct is to go with strategy 1, the formal description.

 

But not every bridge player is like you and I. For many players and directors it will be easier to understand the more "intuitive" "definition". (Just imagine that a definition might be intuitive! YUCK!! ;))

 

Even for the two of us, mathematically disturbed geeks ;), an intuitive definition works. You just wrote a few lines in a posting (definitely not a definition). Imagine that someone comes up with a list of 100 doubling situations and an intended meaning for the double and asks both of us whether it should be alertable. I am pretty sure that we would come up with the same answer on at least 98 of them. We may well come up with the same answer on all 100. Without any formal definition.

 

Everybody knows what "special doubles" are, but I think a formal definition will be hard (if not impossible) to come up with. And if you can come up with a formal definition, it will be incomprehensible for many players. To me, it is similar to defining "water". Everyone knows what it is, but how do you define it?

 

Therefore, I think it is wiser to go with strategy 2: The "we all know what it is" definition. (If it looks like a special double, walks like a special double and quacks like a special double, it probably is a special double.) Not because I am in favor of this kind of definition in general, but because I think it works best in this case.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do.  This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them.

Although a fine ideal in practice the devil is in the detail. How do you know what your opponents will expect? One problem is that the 'general' knowledge of BBF poster (whatever their skill level) is far, far greater than your average club player - to my mind this means that 'reasonable' alerting strategies appear far more reasonable in this forum than they would in real life.

 

For example, even in the very short list above you will find a lot of disparity in the UK over the meaning of a double of a jacoby transfer.

 

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

 

Paul

But quite obviously, the list of alertable doubles should depend on where you are playing. All alert regulations depend on where you are playing. After all, the general idea behind alerting is that you alert bids that you think your opponents may not understand properly without additional information.

 

As an example, a Polish club opening should be alertable in the USA. But probably not in Poland (I have never played in Poland, but you get my idea). A 1♠ opening that is frequently bid on a four card suit might be alertable in the USA, but not in the UK. In China, a 1♥ opening that could be made on 20 points might be alertable (if "everyone" is playing a strong club system), etc.

 

So in The Netherlands (where I play) most players will treat a double of a Jacoby transfer as lead directing (I don't, which is why I put it in my list). But if in the UK the opinions are divided on the meaning of the double, it is clear that opponents will not expect your meaning of the double regardless what it means. Therefore alert.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

You may be able to come up with a complete list of which doubles should be alertable and which should not be alertable, but, unfortunately, you will find that each situation that presents itself in the auction is different.

 

You would need a list of alertable doubles in direct seat over each possible opening bid.

 

You would need a list of doubles by opener's partner over each possible overcall of an opening bid.

 

You would need a list of doubles by fourth seat over each possible response to each possible opening bid without interference.

 

Etc.

 

While it is clear that there are a finite number of bidding situations, the number is very large. So a definitive list of which doubles are alertable and which are not may not be practical.

 

Many bidding situations can be lumped into groups (direct one-level overcalls of opening bids) so as to reduce the number of possible lists, but, unfortunatly, the number of possibilities will still be quite large, and the groupings of bidding actions may not be accurate for all doubles.

 

Hence, you will have to deal with some "fuzzy" rule such as has been proposed above. I worded the rule as alert any double that has a meaning that a significant majority of players would not expect. It is hard to phrase the rule more specifically, but as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said when referring to pornography, "I know it when I see it."