Unalerted double (EBU)

[Vampyr]

[/size]

Oh dear, I don't play in England often but I thought it was

 

Natural suit: not takeout = alert

Artificial suit: not penalty = alert

Notrump: not penalty = alert

 

This is true, but some posters were having trouble with that, so I thought I'd just give the two "fundamental" rules and see whether they could cope.

[gnasher]

Orange Book 4H6 Take-out doubles

The clarity of that definition is rather spoiled by the later section which reads:

The following doubles must not be alerted:

(a) Any ‘negative’ or ‘responsive’ double played in a traditional manner, such as 1♣ (1♠) dbl showing 4 hearts, since these are examples of take-out double

[Vampyr]

<drivel>

 

Right, so I said that the average three-year-old would understand the alert regulations, but that I am unsure about something entirely different, and this amused you?

 

Well, as Abraham Lincoln might have said if he'd had the internet: "Better to simply lurk and be thought a fool than to post messages and remove all doubt."

[Vampyr]

The clarity of that definition is rather spoiled by the later section which reads:

 

Yes, I think that negative-type doubles were considered to be neither fish nor fowl, and the decision was made to call them takeout because they are so common and alerting them, to be quite frank, was annoying.

 

I don't love the fact that 1m-(1♥)-X is not alertable if it promises four spades or if it is just generally takeout, but I can live with it. I am curious, though, about the status if the double promises at least four spades. You must know, Andy -- surely you play this with some partners! (Well, I know it is alertable but it is a curious thing).

[billw55]

Right, so I said that the average three-year-old would understand the alert regulations, but that I am unsure about something entirely different, and this amused you?

So being uncertain whether or not to alert is "entirely different" from the alerting regulations, and your claim that they are completely clear?

[Vampyr]

So being uncertain whether or not to alert is "entirely different" from the alerting regulations?

 

The regulations on alerting doubles is one thing, and it obviously applies when the agreement is known.

 

Whether to alert a call (not just a double) when you have no agreement and no good guess, but know that it might be alertable is another thing. If I knew the meaning of this call, especially if it was a double, I could tell you whether to alert it!

[billw55]

The regulations on alerting doubles is one thing, and it obviously applies when the agreement is known.

Ah ok, this was actually not so obvious to me. Others were arguing that the double under discussion should be alerted, despite the lack of agreement.

[Vampyr]

Ah ok, this was actually not so obvious to me. Others were arguing that the double under discussion should be alerted, despite the lack of agreement.

 

Yes, when agreement is lacking, the situation is a bit murky. In this case I think it is pretty clear that the double should be alerted, but other calls in other situations can be tricky.

[VixTD]

If East had alerted the double, this would have prompted North (assuming he was considering acting at all) to ask about the meaning of the double. He would have been told "no agreement". Hence any putative adjusted score should be on the basis of North assuming that E/W have no agreement about the double, not on the basis that it was agreed to be penalties.

I did actually phrase the question in that way: "What would you have done if you had been told they had no agreement about the double?", but they would actually have had a bit more to go on than that. They would have known from the alert and answer not only that EW had no agreement, but also that East was going to act in such a way as to allow for an alertable (i.e. non-takeout) interpretation (otherwise why alert?), and that might have persuaded them to start the rescue manoeuvres.

[gnasher]

I am curious, though, about the status if the double promises at least four spades. You must know, Andy -- surely you play this with some partners! (Well, I know it is alertable but it is a curious thing).

I think it's clearly alertable. It's neither a "takeout double" according to the definition quoted by Gordon, nor a "negative double played in a traditional manner".

[gnasher]

They would have known from the alert and answer not only that EW had no agreement, but also that East was going to act in such a way as to allow for an alertable (i.e. non-takeout) interpretation (otherwise why alert?)

Would they know that? If my partner makes a bid of whose meaning I'm unsure, where one of the possible meanings is alertable, I usually alert it. I know I'm probably not required to do that, but I also don't think it's prohibited. Often I haven't even decided how I'm going to treat it.

[lamford]

1N (3S) X

We should alert the opponents that they are going down, so next hand won't raise causing them to go down more.

Your example is poorly chosen, as 6 out of 10 players I surveyed at a strong London event recently played this double as takeout. I presume the other 4, being members of the Orange Order, correctly alert it when it occurs.

[lamford]

Would they know that?

They would be entitled to conclude when you alerted and answered "no agreement" that you were intending to treat it as being alertable. If there was "no agreement" and you were intending to treat it as not alertable, then I think it is wrong to alert, although the converse is not specifically in 5B10.

[gnasher]

They would be entitled to conclude when you alerted and answered "no agreement" that you were intending to treat it as being alertable. If there was "no agreement" and you were intending to treat it as not alertable, then I think it is wrong to alert, although the converse is not specifically in 5B10.

Even with no agreement about the particular sequence, I would nearly always have some agreement that might be relevant, so it would be covered by "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. " or "a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning".

 

Anyway, if the L&EC wanted to prohibit alerting when you don't know what it means but intend to treat it as not alertable, I think they would have said so.

 

The real answer is for the L&EC to change this ill thought-out rule (5B10, I mean - the rest of the alerting rules are fine).

[Trinidad]

So, how about a takeout double in the case of transfers?

 

1. 
    
   
2. 3♦ (preempt in hearts) - Dbl
   
3. 2♦ (weak two in hearts or strong options) - Dbl
   
4. 1♣-Pass-1♦ (T-Walsh showing hearts) - Dbl
    
   

In the third case, I know at least that there is an alternative way to play (maybe even better) where Dbl shows diamonds and a 1♥ cue is the takeout double. But I don't know of anybody serious who would play the double of a 3♦ transfer preempt as penalty (indicating a diamond stack). If I ran into someone who would play it like that, it would be so completely unexpected that it would deserve an alert.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

So, how about a takeout double in the case of transfers?

 

1. 
    
   
2. 3♦ (preempt in hearts) - Dbl
   
3. 2♦ (weak two in hearts or strong options) - Dbl
   
4. 1♣-Pass-1♦ (T-Walsh showing hearts) - Dbl
    
   

 

Unalerted doubles of artificial bids are penalties / show the suit of the bid [named in the bid]

[blackshoe]

"the suit of the bid" meaning, presumably, "the suit bid" rather than "the suit shown"?

[gnasher]

Is this a lot different from ...

Yes, it's different when the bid is not discussed but may be intended as alertable.

 

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that, through agreement or general bridge knowledge, the bidder's partner believes that the intended meaning does not fall into an alertable or announceable category."

If it's not discussed, you alert.

 

"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."

If it's not discussed, you don't alert.

[blackshoe]

I've split of the discussion of how the EBU regulation should be changed to a new thread in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum. Please continue your discussion there.

[Zelandakh]

I can see a bit of a loophole in the EBU alerting rules. Say the opponents make a call and alert it because there is no agreement but one of the potential meanings is alertable (and another is natural). If you double this, which is the non-alertable meaning?

[Vampyr]

So, now the Dutch bridge league has the regulation that the "vague" penalty - takeout doubles are not alerted, but the specific doubles (support, etc.) are. IMO, this is by far the best alert regulation of doubles that I have played under.

 

This is interesting. I should have thought that the takeout/penalty distinction is the most important, since there are a number of auctions where both are possible (ie they have made a simple or jump overcall over our 1NT opening, or our first double after which we have made a strength-showing double or redouble or a 1NT overcall).

 

If you're playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted...

 

Pairs who play really strange meanings (X=transfer, penalty doubles over 1 level interference, etc.) will pre-alert the opposition.

 

I find pre-alerts intriguing in many situations, but here it definitely seems as if the pre-alerting of the strange doubles is needlessly time-consuming compared to alerting them when they come up.

[sfi]

I find pre-alerts intriguing in many situations, but here it definitely seems as if the pre-alerting of the strange doubles is needlessly time-consuming compared to alerting them when they come up.

 

It's not time consuming. A common phrase is something like "we play transfers in many competitive situations including X or XX. Please ask if they come up." You have to pre-alert the transfers anyway since the opponents may need to agree on a defence, so the last bit is all of three seconds extra. Nobody would go through all the permutations.

 

But it's important to realise that the principle behind the self alert of doubles and redoubles is that there is not a standard meaning much of the time, so the regulations don't arbitrarily select takeout or penalty as the non-alertable meaning. I like it because I'm used to it, but it's just a slightly different approach to that of the EBU.

 

The EBU approach also seems fairly straightforward. Despite the quirky situations that will sometimes occur, it looks easy enough to comply with.

[blackshoe]

Grrr. Do I have to lock this thread?

[Vampyr]

It's not time consuming. A common phrase is something like "we play transfers in many competitive situations including X or XX. Please ask if they come up." You have to pre-alert the transfers anyway since the opponents may need to agree on a defence, so the last bit is all of three seconds extra.

 

You may well be right. I am not familiar with pre-alerts since we don't have them here.

 

Grrr. Do I have to lock this thread?

 

For what possible reason?

[WellSpyder]

For what possible reason?

To stop people being able to post to it, perhaps?