Protect oneself?

[mjj29]

The pre-2006 alerting rules were well understood; in 99% of situations they translated to "the double is alertable if it does not have the traditional rubber bridge meaning". This practice did lead to alerts being more common than non-alerts in sequences such as 1♣-1♠-dbl, but the requirement to alert was very well understood and adhered to.

 

Under the "simple" new rules most players do not alert penalty doubles and one can certainly not rely on an unalerted double to be take-out by agreement.

I'd rather have an unambiguous law which is currently badly observed than a law in which edge cases can be ambiguous in whether they should be alerted, let alone whether people think they should be alerted. After all, while a lot of them may be obvious as to whether they used to be alertable, this isn't neccessarily true for those of use who haven't played 40 years of rubber bridge and it certainly isn't the case in a significant minority. Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope we can at least gradually retrain people to alert correctly. At least this time I can explain it in under a minute...

[nigel_k]

IMO the director should never give redress. The idea that the next player is entitled to assume the double is takeout unless alerted is just science fiction. The fairest approach is that opponents just have to ask every time, or until the regulators are replaced with sane people.

It is jolly easy to criticise from a position of ignorance.

 

Yes, the current rules for alerting doubles in the EBU are not particularly logical. That does not mean they are wrong.

 

...

 

Bring back sane regulators: we need people who will spoil the game so that foreigners can see alerting is logical.

I did consider saying something more polite but it didn't seem adequate.

 

I am not suggesting a complex set of rules. For example, a rule that no doubles are alerted would be an improvement. At least the innocent pair who made an entirely normal penalty double in the opening example would not be at risk of having their good result wiped out. A rule that penalty or takeout doubles are not alerted, but other doubles are alerted, would IMO be the best rule and is still very simple.

[Vampyr]

So "unusual" doubles will, in fact, be alerted, with, as Helene notes, no need to try to define what these are.

Your original post gives an example of an auction where a highly unusual meaning is not alertable; indeed, that is the whole problem in this thread.

No I don't think that's the problem, or even a problem.

 

Indeed it is not. The OS were not taking a stand on the alertability of the double; nor were they knowledgeable enough to make the argument that the penalty double was not alertable because it was not unusual; they just did not know the regulation.

 

If opps fail to alert a call in which the universal agreement is alertable, you can always ask.

 

Like if someone responds 2♣ to a 1NT opening and partner doesn't announce it. You may or may not obtain redress if 2♣ turns out to be Stayman and you were damaged by the non-announcement, but since you are 99% sure that it was Stayman, it is better to ask than to assume the highly unusual but non-anouncable meaning.

 

Right. That is the situation I faced; should a player be given redress when she assumed that the double was takeout even though this was very unlikely. Of course, it is easy to be "taken in" and not give the matter much thought when a call is not alerted. But there have to be limits.

[Vampyr]

I am not suggesting a complex set of rules. For example, a rule that no doubles are alerted would be an improvement. At least the innocent pair who made an entirely normal penalty double in the opening example would not be at risk of having their good result wiped out. A rule that penalty or takeout doubles are not alerted, but other doubles are alerted, would IMO be the best rule and is still very simple.

I think that both of these "improvements" are horrible. And the innocent pair were unlikely to have their result wiped out; this was the point in the OP.

[campboy]

I'd rather have an unambiguous law which is currently badly observed than a law in which edge cases can be ambiguous in whether they should be alerted, let alone whether people think they should be alerted. After all, while a lot of them may be obvious as to whether they used to be alertable, this isn't neccessarily true for those of use who haven't played 40 years of rubber bridge and it certainly isn't the case in a significant minority. Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope we can at  least gradually retrain people to alert correctly. At least this time I can explain it in under a minute...

The old rule was equally unambiguous if you read the actual OB wording. The two rules take about the same amount of time to explain.

 

Of course, it doesn't matter that they take about the same amount of time to explain if no-one is listening when you explain them. The great thing about the previous rule was that lots of people who didn't know what the rule was managed to get alerting right anyway.

[blackshoe]

The laws define "alert" as

A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation.

That's all. There is no implication that players might, or should, infer some meaning to the call based on the alert. IMO it is folly to make such an inference. I know that's the practice in England (and probably other places). It's still folly. Let's keep it (sort of) simple: if a player alerts, and his opponent does not ask for an explanation, the opponent continues at his own risk. If a player does not alert, and it later turns out that [a] the call required an alert, the opponents did not get an explanation of the call, and [c] they were consequently damaged, then they are entitled to redress. There should be no support for an argument that "he alerted, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress".

 

Now if the alert regulation has a hole in it, such that some meanings which don't require an alert may be unexpected, well, I guess the only recourse a player has is to ask for an complete explanation of any auction in which such a call comes up. Maybe it's time consuming, and maybe it's a pain in the ass. And just maybe, if the RA hears enough complaints about the situation, they'll change the rules.

[WellSpyder]

There should be no support for an argument that "he alerted, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress".

I don't think anyone has suggested this, have they?

 

What may be suggested, though, is supporting the argument that "he didn't alert, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress."

[CamHenry]

I was called to the table when an auction which had started (3♣)3♦(X)was about to be passed out in some contract or other. It turned out the the double had not been alerted. I offered the last passer the opportunity to change his call, which he did not wish to do; it was his partner who volunteered that she would have done something different if the double had been alerted. (The OS had not played for awhile and were unaware that a double in this auction requires an alert).

 

I spent a while wondering what I would do if called back to the table with a claim of damage (thankfully, I was not). My question is, would redress be offered to an experienced player based on the non-alert of a double in this situation? (3♣ was an ordinary preempt.)

Replying to the actual question here, rather than to the debate about alerting-of-doubles.

 

I am not an expert player, yet I would take it as bridge logic that the double is penalties and would be surprised when it wasn't alerted. If I was going to run away from a penalty double, I would ask what the double was. If I'm told it's penalties, I say something like "Oh, it's alertable then - but don't worry this time".

 

As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed. I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise. The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

[Vampyr]

The old rule was equally unambiguous if you read the actual OB wording. The two rules take about the same amount of time to explain.

I don't have a copy of the old Orange Book; can someone post the regulation?

 

Anyway, the old regulation may have been simple to explain, but it was difficult to put into practice. And there were worse problems than ambiguity -- for instance, the alerting of negative doubles. Is anyone going to ask every time in this situation in case the double is something exotic?

 

In my experience things tended to get particularly murky later in the auction.

 

The great thing about the previous rule was that lots of people who didn't know what the rule was managed to get alerting right anyway.

 

How? By guesswork? The old regulation was in place for a long time, so for the most common situations were well known.

 

I think it is unfortunate that Jeffrey's experience with the new regulation has been similar to Helene's. I have not found this to be the case at my usual clubs; people here have been willing to learn and apply the new regulations. This seems to confirm my belief that English people live either in London or in some "primitive elsewhere". Sorry bluejak.

[campboy]

The old rule was (paraphrased)

 

+ In most situations double is not alertable if penalty, alertable otherwise

+ If the bid doubled was a natural suit bid below 3NT and doubler's partner has not previously bid, doubled, redoubled or made a value-showing pass (such as a penalty pass of a t/o double), double is not alertable if for takeout, alertable otherwise.

 

I imagine the reason people got it right was essentially that Jeffrey suggests. But really the only situation where it differed from player's expectations was 1suit (suit overcall) dbl, and that was so common people got used to it.

 

The drawback with the new one is that pretty much no-one is going to get it right unless they actually know what the rule is, because there are so many counterintuitive situations. Now the two rules are pretty similar in terms of level of complexity, but the problem has always been that most people have no interest in finding out what the rule is (the rest will get it right anyway).

[blackshoe]

What may be suggested, though, is supporting the argument that "he didn't alert, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress."

If Y does not require an alert, then no, "you" shouldn't.

[bluejak]

The old rule was (paraphrased)

 

+ In most situations double is not alertable if penalty, alertable otherwise

+ If the bid doubled was a natural suit bid below 3NT and doubler's partner has not previously bid, doubled, redoubled or made a value-showing pass (such as a penalty pass of a t/o double), double is not alertable if for takeout, alertable otherwise.

 

I imagine the reason people got it right was essentially that Jeffrey suggests. But really the only situation where it differed from player's expectations was 1suit (suit overcall) dbl, and that was so common people got used to it.

 

The drawback with the new one is that pretty much no-one is going to get it right unless they actually know what the rule is, because there are so many counterintuitive situations. Now the two rules are pretty similar in terms of level of complexity, but the problem has always been that most people have no interest in finding out what the rule is (the rest will get it right anyway).

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. The reason the current rule is so much simpler is that [considering doubles of suit bids below 3NT] it says alert if not takeout. The old rule said alert if not takeout in some situations, alert if not penalties in other situations. When the situation was not completely standard players got it wrong, often saying something like that they could not be bothered with very complicated rules that changed every year.

 

Both rules were counter-intuitive to many people, since many people think that if you play it the way "I" do it should not need an alert, any other way should. But the new rule is easier, and when push comes to shove, that is why it is better.

[VixTD]

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. The reason the current rule is so much simpler is that [considering doubles of suit bids below 3NT] it says alert if not takeout. The old rule said alert if not takeout in some situations, alert if not penalties in other situations.

The new rule is much simpler to understand, but not easier for the majority of bridge players to adopt. I expected players to need some time to settle in to the new set of regulations, but I have to admit nothing prepared me for the widespread resistance to alerting of penalty doubles of suit bids. The EBU decreed that breaches of the alert regulations would be dealt with leniently for a period of about one year while players get used to them. Here we are four years on and there is little sign that players are getting used to them.

 

Why this should be is a matter for speculation. Perhaps players are too used to the notion of an alert carrying the message: "this call has an unexpected / artificial meaning", or "you may want to ask the meaning of this call". (So they ask the meaning of an alerted double in (3♣) - 3♦ - (X) and are told "penalties". Thanks for the warning!)

 

I don't disagree with Bluejak that the old rule was imperfect and needed changing, but I think it is futile to suppose that the day will soon dawn when the number of players who routinely alert penalty doubles of natural suit bids even creeps into a majority.

[VixTD]

As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed. I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise. The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

I was going to try to formulate a reply to the original question (something people seem reluctant to do), and this is basically the approach I would take. There is certainly no automatic right of redress for the non-offenders - they would have to show that they either had good reason to believe it was a takeout double, or show that they could not ask without putting their side's interests at risk.

 

That said, the side who failed to alert are the offending side who have caused the problem. As Bluejak says, the new rule on alerting of doubles is easy to understand. They should be given a stern warning, to be backed up by a procedural penalty if they don't make some effort to change their ways.

[Vampyr]

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. 

I am with Bluejak here; I think that to say that the new and old regulations are equivalent in complexity seems almost to be taking the piss.

 

I think that one reason that people are "resistant" to alerting doubles of suit bids below 3NT is that these doubles come up very infrequently. Low-level doubles are usually takeout, and people have quite easily adapted to not alerting takeout doubles of all sorts. The more common situations will always be more readily recognised.

 

I hope that mjj's optimism is justified. Many of us in this forum and in our clubs started playing bridge at the kitchen table/in a university dorm room, etc. But these days, most new duplicate players are not moving over to it from rubber bridge. One of the first conventions new players are taught, in bridge lessons, is the one-level takeout double. This double is never alerted. So it will likely seem more natural to these new players that a penalty double of a low-level suit bid will require an alert.

[Vampyr]

That said, the side who failed to alert are the offending side who have caused the problem. As Bluejak says, the new rule on alerting of doubles is easy to understand. They should be given a stern warning, to be backed up by a procedural penalty if they don't make some effort to change their ways.

I didn't give a "stern warning". They didn't know the regulation; that's not a crime. Now they know it.

[campboy]

I am with Bluejak here; I think that to say that the new and old regulations are equivalent in complexity seems almost to be taking the piss.

Really? The new rule splits doubles up into three categories (natural suit bids at the 1,2 or 3 level; other bids at the 1,2 or 3 level; bids at the 4 level and above) with a different (and genuinely non-trivial) rule for each; the old rule only had two categories. However, under the old rule there were three conditions which had to be checked in order to determine which category you were in (natural suit? below the 4 level? has partner acted?) whereas under the new rule there are only two.

 

I am willing to accept that most people disagree with my opinion about the levels of complexity being similar (I did not say "equivalent"), but it is a genuinely held opinion and certainly not taking the piss. More to the point, it's not really important. So let me repeat the offending paragraph with that removed:

 

The drawback with the new one is that pretty much no-one is going to get it right unless they actually know what the rule is, because there are so many counterintuitive situations. The problem has always been that most people have no interest in finding out what the rule is (the rest will get it right anyway).

[NickRW]

Like if someone responds 2♣ to a 1NT opening and partner doesn't announce it...

Slightly off topic - but that is another funny one. AFAIK the only meaning of 2♣ in response to 1NT that is neither alertable nor announcable is a weak take out - except that even beginners have learnt Stayman - so weak take out appears to me to be a less common meaning than Gladiator or Keri - in other words it is highly unusual - and therefore one might think it ought to be alertable!

 

Anyway, at the risk of seeming like Mr Grump (again), when I started back playing Bridge in clubs a couple of years or so ago, I made it my business to read the Orange book - I didn't really understand the alerting regs pertaining to double - I found discussions and moans about it on the internet and was not really further enlightened. Started playing anyway, and it became immediately apparent that just nobody was alerting any doubles other than 1) non penalty doubles of 1NT and 2) support doubles (very few pairs play either of these). Since then the regs have been changed - and nobody has taken the slightest bit of notice whatsoever - and nobody is being damaged as far as I can see.

 

I suppose I would have a problem if a player from another club came along where they did enforce the regs - but frankly I am more concerned with people failing to put all their cards back in the boards properly, opening leads out of turn and revokes. (And we get a fairly regular trickle of players from other clubs - and do not have problems with them and conflict over alerting policy - so I assume other clubs are as far away from the theoretical EBU norm as we are!)

 

Nick

[bluejak]

Players do not really have difficulty with alerting doubles of NT, and the rule about above 3NT is a general one that players also find easy. The problems come in doubles of suit bids below 3NT.

 

For most players a rule that depends on the auction and changes based on it is more difficult than one that does not.

 

The way you have categorised it might be the way you see it, but it is not the way the average player does.

[blackshoe]

I wondered how the ACBL regulation looks wrt complexity. So I looked it up.

 

First, five types of doubles are defined:

 

Doubles (in increasing order of penalty orientation):

* Takeout: Partner is requested to bid.

* Competitive: Shows a desire to compete further; partner usually bids.

* Optional: Shows extra high-card values; offers partner a choice between bidding or passing.

* Penalty-oriented: Partner normally passes but occasionally bids.

* Penalty: Partner is requested to pass.

 

The entirety of the section on doubles, redoubles and passes is:

 

Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

 

1♠-P-4♣ (splinter bid)-Dbl

If this double asks for the lead of any suit other than clubs, an Alert is required.

 

1♥-Dbl or 1♦-P-1♠-Dbl

If either double is penalty or lead directing only, an Alert is required.

 

3♥-Dbl or 3♥-P-P-Dbl

If either double is penalty, an Alert is required

 

Passes or redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings require an Alert.

 

1♣-P-1♠-Dbl- Rdbl

If redouble shows three-card spade support rather than a good hand, an Alert is required.

 

1♠-P-2♣-2♠- P

If the second Pass says, "I do not want a spade lead on defense," an Alert is required.

The Alert Chart says most doubles and redoubles do not require an alert, but that highly unusual and unexpected ones do. WRT passes, the chart says only that highly unusual and unexpected meanings require an alert.

 

On the Convention Card, support doubles and redoubles and penalty doubles of overcalls are the only thing in red - indicating an alert is required.

 

The examples are, I suppose, useful, but they cannot possibly be comprehensive. The regulation itself admits that the meaning of "highly unusual and unexpected" is "fuzzy", but excuses itself on the grounds they couldn't come up with a better idea. :D :blink:

 

I suppose the regulation is simple, at least in form, but it sure lends itself to confusion and disagreement over what is and is not "highly unusual and unexpected".

 

I note that the list of defined doubles does not include "lead-directing", even though that's the only meaning other than penalty directly addressed in the examples. No, I'm wrong. There's an example of a support redouble, also not included in the list of definitions. Seems rather silly to define a bunch of types of doubles, and then not refer to them in the regulation.

[helene_t]

Many club players will persist that the rules are too complicated and that they will never be able to understand them, no matter how simple they are. I suppose due to the age of the bridge population it is just difficult to get any change broadly understood and accepted. Most of us are too old to learn new things. And UK is a conservative country.

 

Alertable agreements like conventional responses to 2NT and 2♣ openings are almost never alerted. Sometimes people will announce them, though :). FSF is alerted some 25% of the time I would guess, like Blackwood :) Weak twos usually announced, sometimes alerted. Transfers usually announced but everybody says "transfer" rather than the correct "hearts" (or "spades"). And some alert transfers.

 

Players at my club generally play very vanilla so there isn't that much to alert. So it's not that it matters much. I guess I should just get over it.

[PeterAlan]

Let's keep it (sort of) simple: if a player alerts, and his opponent does not ask for an explanation, the opponent continues at his own risk.

 

But it never is that simple, because of UI, especially if the opponent asks for an explanation and in the light of it decides to pass.

 

This brings me to a bugbear of mine, the host of defences to (weak) 1NT. I'm beginning to think that these should be announceable (mine is EBU-land) rather than alertable, to avoid the UI problems that the NT-opening side has, which cripples their ability to compete effectively.

 

I can give you an example from the Corwen (which also illustrates the problems cited above with the alerting of doubles) - I'm not giving the actual hand, since it's really the regulation of the auction that is my point. And this isn't club bridge, where you can smile when the sort of technical transgressions that Helene describes take place.

 

Neither side vulnerable. E (dealer) opens 1NT (weak), S overcalls 2C, alerted. W, who holds a 9-count with 5 hearts to AJ and 4 clubs to A, enquires, is told "Hearts and another", and decides to Pass. N bids 2D.

 

E holds 5 spades, and E-W, having been stolen blind in similar sequences in the past, have decided that they're prepared to compete to 2S in those circumstances (let's not distract ourselves with the bridge merits or otherwise of this view). E therefore bids 2S, and N predictably screams blue murder (actually, a reaction was forseeable; the totally OTT manner of it wasn't). The TD asks for the auction to continue, which it does: Pass from S and W, double from N (not alerted), pass from E, tank followed by pass from S, pass from W.

 

It looks as though N/S can take 9 tricks in D, so -100 will be OK, -300 won't. E asks S "You didn't alert the double, so it's take-out, right?". S: "We don't have an agreement on it". (N-S, both heavily capped, have been playing together for at least 15 years.) E: "Well, unless it's take-out, it's alertable". N: "No it isn't." E tried further enquiries about the 1NT defences in order to try and decide whether S's second suit is spades or clubs, but got nowhere.

 

Now I'm not asking for a lot of sympathy for E-W (who can make 8 tricks in both H and NT as escapes from 2Sx), but it does seem to me that the scales are tilted heavily in N-S's favour as regards being able to know what's going on, and inhibit E-W's ability to compete effectively or punish intervention without running foul of UI constraints. It's clear, as I read the rules, that an optional double is alertable: in fact N had the spades, and S's second suit is clubs. N-S both know this, but E can't tell.

 

PeterAlan

[VixTD]

That said, the side who failed to alert are the offending side who have caused the problem. As Bluejak says, the new rule on alerting of doubles is easy to understand. They should be given a stern warning, to be backed up by a procedural penalty if they don't make some effort to change their ways.

I didn't give a "stern warning". They didn't know the regulation; that's not a crime. Now they know it.

That's fair enough, of course. I think I'd inform those who might not be aware, warn those who ought to know better, and only fine those who ought to know better, have been warned and still refuse to comply.

 

I don't want to acquiesce to a general acceptance that no one is going to learn to alert doubles and act as if they weren't alertable. If we're going to do that, let's formally rescind the regulation.

[blackshoe]

But it never is that simple, because of UI, especially if the opponent asks for an explanation and in the light of it decides to pass.

It seems to me that if you need to know, you had better ask, whether that gives UI to partner or not. And if you don't need to know, I suppose you shouldn't ask. Of course, some will then argue that not asking conveys UI — and maybe it does, but is it useful UI?

[jallerton]

As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed.  I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise.  The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

I was going to try to formulate a reply to the original question (something people seem reluctant to do), and this is basically the approach I would take. There is certainly no automatic right of redress for the non-offenders - they would have to show that they either had good reason to believe it was a takeout double, or show that they could not ask without putting their side's interests at risk.

I agree with this. The TD needs to talk to the player and then form a judgement whether it is likely that this player both (i) really did believe that the double had to be take-out when it was not alerted and (ii) might well have acted differently had the double been alerted.

 

Unlike Henry I wouldn't automatically restrict redress to novices; apparently there is a Premier Grand Master who genuinely believes that the alerting rules "are so simple that people are actually starting to get them right pretty consistently".