EBU: To alert or not alert a double

[helene_t]

In EBU, penalty-dbls on natural suit bids below 3NT must be alerted.

 

Suppose your partner makes a double in a situation which you haven't discussed. On the basis of your general bridge knowledge, you take it as penalty.

 

Would you alert such a double?

 

Does it matter if it is a clear-cut penalty double, such as 2M-(3m)-x, or whether it is more subtle, say (1m)-x-(1M)-x ? What if it isn't really general bridge knowledge but more like "local style", say 1NT-(2M)-x? In the latter case you could say that it is a specific partnership understanding because you know that your partner, given his age, level and choice of basic system most likely play this double as penalties, but OTOH, at a club evening opps have the same information as you have since they know your p as well as you do?

 

Another issue: You open 1NT, LHO overcall, p doubles, which is by partnership agreement "optional", i.e. you will usually take it out with a doubleton and usually leave it in with 3 cards. Is that double alertable?

[peachy]

In EBU, penalty-dbls on natural suit bids below 3NT must be alerted.

 

Suppose your partner makes a double in a situation which you haven't discussed. On the basis of your general bridge knowledge, you take it as penalty.

 

Would you alert such a double?

 

Does it matter if it is a clear-cut penalty double, such as 2M-(3m)-x, or whether it is more subtle, say (1m)-x-(1M)-x ? What if it isn't really general bridge knowledge but more like "local style", say 1NT-(2M)-x? In the latter case you could say that it is a specific partnership understanding because you know that your partner, given his age, level and choice of basic system most likely play this double as penalties, but OTOH, at a club evening opps have the same information as you have since they know your p as well as you do?

 

Another issue: You open 1NT, LHO overcall, p doubles, which is by partnership agreement "optional", i.e. you will usually take it out with a doubleton and usually leave it in with 3 cards. Is that double alertable?

Between rock and a hard place...I don't know how this regulation works but I sympathize with players who have to obey it. Difficult when there are only two types of doubles defined. I am sure you get "real" answers to your question, mine is just a "note of sympathy".

[Pict]

Reality is that nobody (to my knowledge) analyses a position about which they have no simplistic agreement and then alerts a double.

 

Pragmatically you can argue that the current regulations sort of work at a simple level. That in itself is an achievment and not to be disparaged.

 

Personally I'd go for the 'doubles are self alerting' approach. But most of the time it doesn't matter, and if it might matter most players just let it ride anyway.

[jallerton]

In EBU, penalty-dbls on natural suit bids below 3NT must be alerted.

 

Suppose your partner makes a double in a situation which you haven't discussed. On the basis of your general bridge knowledge, you take it as penalty.

 

Would you alert such a double?

 

Does it matter if it is a clear-cut penalty double, such as 2M-(3m)-x, or whether it is more subtle, say (1m)-x-(1M)-x ? What if it isn't really general bridge knowledge but more like "local style", say 1NT-(2M)-x? In  the latter case you could say that it is a specific partnership understanding because you know that your partner, given his age, level and choice of basic system most likely play this double as penalties, but OTOH, at a club evening opps have the same information as you have since they know your p as well as you do?

 

I think it depends on (i) whether we have any general agreements which could be relevant to the meaning of this double and (ii) the actual sequence.

 

With a new partner, after 2M-(3m)-X I would alert the double and say when asked: "no specific agreement, but this double is often played as penalties"

 

In other sequences I might alert and say when asked: "no specific agreement, but the following other agreements could be potentially be relevant............"

 

Another issue: You open 1NT, LHO overcall, p doubles, which is by partnership agreement "optional", i.e. you will usually take it out with a doubleton and usually leave it in with 3 cards. Is that double alertable?

 

Yes, because as this double is expected to be passed on the majority of hands it is not a "take-out double".

[gordontd]

Difficult when there are only two types of doubles defined.

There aren't only two types of doubles defined, but there's only one type of double in this situation (of a suit-bid below 3NT) that's not alertable - a take-out double.

[gordontd]

Reality is that nobody (to my knowledge) analyses a position about which they have no simplistic agreement and then alerts a double.

When I play with a stranger with little discussion (which I do a lot), I alert such doubles and if asked say "we don't have a specific agreement, but I believe the normal meaning of this double to be alertable".

[mjj29]

In EBU, penalty-dbls on natural suit bids below 3NT must be alerted.

 

Suppose your partner makes a double in a situation which you haven't discussed. On the basis of your general bridge knowledge, you take it as penalty.

 

Would you alert such a double?

Yes:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the parrtnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement

 

Another issue: You open 1NT, LHO overcall, p doubles, which is by partnership agreement "optional", i.e. you will usually take it out with a doubleton and usually leave it in with 3 cards. Is that double alertable?

Yes:

The following doubles must be alerted: c) Any 'competitive', 'co-operative' or 'optional' double

[Cyberyeti]

Another mess goes around announcing and alerting in EBU land.

 

You open 1N, your partner bids 2D (hearts, announced) and you bid 2H (by rule unalerted) now is this natural when I double it or artificial ? There is no guarantee you have a heart fit particularly if the 1N may contain a singleton and indeed you'd bid something else if you had a big heart fit.

[mjj29]

Another mess goes around announcing and alerting in EBU land.

 

You open 1N, your partner bids 2D (hearts, announced) and you bid 2H (by rule unalerted) now is this natural when I double it or artificial ? There is no guarantee you have a heart fit particularly if the 1N may contain a singleton and indeed you'd bid something else if you had a big heart fit.

Just because it's not alerted doesn't make it natural - it doesn't promise a 3 card suit, so it's not a natural suit bid. I expect, therefore, that a takeout double of hearts there is alertable.

[dburn]

Per the Orange Book, the last call in the sequence 1NT-2♦-2♥ requires an alert if it denies four hearts, but not if it does not.

 

Since a bid of 2♥ in this sequence does not "show hearts", I imagine that a takeout double requires an alert while a penalty double does not. I am not certain of this, however, and no doubt one of my colleagues will be able to give you a more definitive answer.

 

However, I sincerely hope that we have not created the following absurdity: a takeout double of the last call in the sequence 2NT-3♦-3♥ does not require an alert if opener promises 3+ hearts, but does require an alert if opener does not so promise. That would be too ridiculous even for the people responsible for the ridiculous regulations in the first place.

[helene_t]

I would consider the transfer accept to be a natural bid for this purpose. The pair has at least a 7-card heart fit so the normal meaning of the double is t/o. It is similar to a natural 2♥ response to a 1NT opening which also doesn't show more than a 7-card fit.

 

Less obvious is a seminatural 1m opening playing 5-card majors, and the p/c response to multi.

[Vampyr]

In EBU, penalty-dbls on natural suit bids below 3NT must be alerted.

The problem with a statement like this is that most posters will take it at face value.

 

As Gordon has mentioned, the regulation is not that penalty doubles must be alerted; it is that doubles which are not takeout doubles must be alerted.

 

In any case, transfer accepts are specifically non-alertable. In addition, they are an offer to play in that denomination at that level. And finally, at least one person in the partnership has shown 5+ cards in the suit. Therefore a non-alerted double would be takeout, irrespective of whether the simple completion denied a certain holding in the suit. Really, Mr Burn, you should know better.

 

The regulations on alerting doubles are sometimes non-intuitive, but are very very simple. Why must people insist on complicating them?

[dburn]

In any case, transfer accepts are specifically non-alertable. In addition, they are an offer to play in that denomination at that level. And finally, at least one person in the partnership has shown 5+ cards in the suit. Therefore a non-alerted double would be takeout, irrespective of whether the simple completion denied a certain holding in the suit. Really, Mr Burn, you should know better.

 

The regulations on alerting doubles are sometimes non-intuitive, but are very very simple. Why must people insist on complicating them?

I do know better. As I have said, the last call in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥ requires an alert in some circumstances but not in others. The statement "transfer accepts are specifically non-alertable" is not actually true, and the problem with a statement like this is that most posters will take it at face value...

 

However, that is not the issue. The question is whether the completion of a transfer is "natural", not whether the completion of a transfer is alertable. On this question, as far as I know, the L&E is still divided (bluejak thinks it is not; I think it is; what others think I cannot tell).

 

While that remains the case, the question of whether a double of 2♥ in the given auction is alertable or not remains open. You see, the regulations on alerting doubles are not only non-intuitive, they are also non-simple.

 

Addendum: I have just discovered that it's even worse than I thought. It appears that these "very simple" alerting regulations contain the principle that:

 

A takeout double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is not alertable if S "shows the suit", but is alertable otherwise. Any other double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is alertable if S "shows the suit", but may not be alertable otherwise.

 

Now, in the sequence 1NT-2♦-2♥, the question is no longer whether 2♥ is natural, but whether it "shows hearts". If it does not, the following is a consequence of these "very simple" regulations:

 

In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♥ [Double], the final call requires an alert unless double is takeout; but

In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♦ [Pass] 2♥ [Pass] Pass [Double], the final call requires an alert if double is takeout.

 

Not only may the regulations on alerting doubles be non-intuitive and non-simple, I have the feeling that they may actually be verging on the criminally insane.

[gordontd]

Addendum: I have just discovered that it's even worse than I thought. It appears that these "very simple" alerting regulations contain the principle that:

 

A takeout double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is not alertable if S "shows the suit", but is alertable otherwise. Any other double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is alertable if S "shows the suit", but may not be alertable otherwise.

 

Now, in the sequence 1NT-2♦-2♥, the question is no longer whether 2♥ is natural, but whether it "shows hearts". If it does not, the following is a consequence of these "very simple" regulations:

 

In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♥ [Double], the final call requires an alert unless double is takeout; but

In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♦ [Pass] 2♥ [Pass] Pass [Double], the final call requires an alert if double is takeout.

 

Not only may the regulations on alerting doubles be non-intuitive and non-simple, I have the feeling that they may actually be verging on the criminally insane.

What's needed is for the L&E to say that the completion of a transfer bid is considered to "show the suit", and all is as we would (I think) wish.

[helene_t]

I don't think so. Consider

2♥-p-p-2♠

dbl-p-3♥-dbl

 

3♥ does not show hearts, (oh well it may show 1+ hearts), it just shows a desire not to defend 2♠X.

 

Still, the final double should be alertable if penalties.

 

The criterion should be if 3♥ is an offer to play in hearts.

[RMB1]

I was thinking about such matters this weekend, duing some fascinating bridge that did not need much from the TD except moving boards and getting the air conditioning turned on. :)

 

For what its worth, I think some of these problems would be solved if take-out doubles of non-forcing suit bids (natural or not) were not alertable, including all protective doubles (of suit bids). So in the sequence (2♦=multi)-P-(2♥=pass or correct), double by either player (with opener passing) would be take-out of hearts if not alerted.

[jeremy69]

Not only may the regulations on alerting doubles be non-intuitive and non-simple, I have the feeling that they may actually be verging on the criminally insane.

 

Lucky the L&E is not the cabinet or your aversion to the concept of collective responsibility would lead, per se. to your resignation or alternatively the resignation of all the other members.

 

I agree with Gordon that defining what completion is would resolve this specific problem. I will ensure it is covered at the next L&E meeting.

[gordontd]

I agree with Gordon that defining what completion is would resolve this specific problem. I will ensure it is covered at the next L&E meeting.

Robin's post above indicates that there might well be value in considering doubles of Pass/Correct bids at the same time.

[helene_t]

As long as we don't make the rules more complex than they are ......

 

Suppose we could rephrase the rules to:

- a double on a natural suit bid below 3NT is alertable if it is not t/o.

 

That would suffice for most most situations. Sure, some will get it wrong when they judge a natural bid to be non-natural for the purpose of this regulation (or v/v), or consider a t/o double to be non-t/o (or v/v). There would be plenty of footnotes for the perfectionists. But many club players already find this basic principle too complicated (not that I can imagine anything simpler, maybe "alert all non-penalty doubles except doubles on a 1-level suit opening", as the Irish rules say, would be simpler).

 

I like Robin's rule:

- a double on a natural and/or nonforcing suit bid below 3NT is alertable if it is not t/o.

 

But now the rule already sounds more complicated. Also, I am not sure if it always makes sense. Suppose opps open a multi 2♦ and p doubles. As it is, I must alert the double if it doesn't show diamonds. But under Robin's rules, if 2♦ is non-forcing I must alert the double if it isn't t/o of diamonds. This can't be right. Especially if their agreement about the forcing character of 2♦ is vague.

 

OK, maybe that was an academic example. You will get few TD calls, let alone adjustments, from failure to alert a double on multi, at least if it's just the standard meaning (13-15 bal or strong).

[iviehoff]

This seems to remain a controversial situation on which the EBU remains a bit inconsistent. The nub of it is whether one alerts meanings (agreed or inferred), or just agreements.

 

Going to basic law, it is only agreements that are disclosable, not general bridge inferences. The EBU's rule on alerting doubles works best if meanings are alertable regardless of agreement or not. So I think the issue is that what the EBU would like isn't quite legal, but it goes as far as it can in that direction, leaving some weasel words to stop short of it. The relevant passages in the Orange Book are as follows.

 

OB 5 B 4 Alert or announce any of partner’s calls believed to be alertable or announceable even if the meaning cannot be explained.

 

OB 5 B 5 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

 

OB 5 B 10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

 

Note the use of the word "agreement" in 5 B 5: not meaning, agreement. Which seems to imply that if you hear a double not alerted, then you should realise "no agreement" is a possible reason for that non alert. And 5 B 10 also falls short of being definitive on meaning: if your basis for assuming it to be a non-takeout double is "general bridge knowledge", not implicit agreement, you are not necessarily acting "as if it is alertable", because only agreements are disclosable and alerts are a form of disclosure. But if you realise it is a non takeout double as a result of partnership style, then clearly you should alert it.

[VixTD]

For what its worth, I think some of these problems would be solved if take-out doubles of non-forcing suit bids (natural or not) were not alertable, including all protective doubles (of suit bids). So in the sequence (2♦=multi)-P-(2♥=pass or correct), double by either player (with opener passing) would be take-out of hearts if not alerted.

I think it would be much better if the regulations concerning bids which express some sort of willingness to play in the suit bid (even if the bidder is not actually promising any cards at all in that suit) were clarified, and those concerning pass-or-correct bids were left alone.

 

So a double of the completion of a transfer, or simple preference to 3♣ after an unusual no trump overcall should not be alerted if for takeout. At least the partnership has shown the transfer suit / clubs.

 

With the sequence 2♦[multi] (P) 2♥ (X) no one has promised any hearts, so let's make it alertable if it's for takeout of the suit no one has yet shown.

 

I think this will be intuitively easier for most players to grasp (although I admit that 90% of EBU players struggle to alert penalty doubles of even natural suit bids).

[campboy]

The 3♣ bid you mention is I believe already considered natural, as a preference bid (OB 5F1a). A simple rephrasing of that clause -- replace "preference bids and raises" with "bids of suits in which partner has shown length" -- might do what you want with minimal disruption.

[Vampyr]

Suppose we could rephrase the rules to:

- a double on a natural suit bid below 3NT is alertable if it is not t/o.

The actual wording is:

 

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

 

and a couple of lines below that it says that such doubles are not alertable above 3NT.

 

I am not sure what this proposed change of wording would accomplish, since it doesn't seem very different from the existing regulation.

[helene_t]

Well maybe. This is obviously just semantics.

 

I thought a natural bid doesn't necessarily show the suit bid, it may also be an offer to play in the denomination named, based on partner's expected length in the suit. For example, I may raise partner's preempt to game with a void, that is still a natural bid.

[RMB1]

In the sequence (2♦)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X, the double is a double "of" 2♥ (which does not "show the suit bid") not a double of opener's pass (which does show hearts).

 

So the regulations require an alert of a take-out double here, just as they do for (2♦)-P-(2♥)-X.