Alerting Doubles

[bluejak]

If you're playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted, then not asking about the redouble (or about the double) is really poor. Even at club level here everyone will quickly check about what the double means if it's not totally obvious. Sometimes people ask about obvious ones too, and it doesn't detract from the flow of the hand.

The great problem with this is that it gives a very unfair advantage to people who play something strange. If the bidding goes

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2s(Weak)d]133|100[/hv]

how many people will ask? But it is perfectly legal here - and in most jurisdictions, I fancy - to play it as a transfer to clubs.

 

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

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

 

If I were playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted, I would ask about all doubles and redoubles in all auctions.

No, you wouldn't [in my opinion]. I have tried it in Scotland where the alerting regs are terrible. After the fourth or fifth time you ask [2♠, double, what's that? takeout; 1NT, double, what's that? penalties; 1♥, pass, 1♠, double, what's that? takeout; 2♥, double, what's that? takeout; 1NT, double, what's that? penalties] you get sick of it, and the bidding goes 2♠, double, you don't bother, and your auction is messed up by not knowing he showed clubs.

 

One of the things that people do not seem to really understand is that it matters when doubles occur. If you get an auction like

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2c2s3c3d4c4dd]133|100[/hv]

I am probably going to ask routinely, but the answer will be something along the lines of cards, penalties, strong and the like - and they all show much the same thing! If you want a rule I could live with make sure you have sensible alerting for doubles and redoubles through [that's up to and including for the English :)] opener's rebid. Alerting is far less important after that.

[sfi]

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

 

In my experience, yes. It may not work in some jurisdictions, but in my experience in Australia it works quite well. Here I would say "our doubles over opening bids are artificial." At that point my partner and I can agree what a redouble should show and whether we treat the double of 1NT as penalty. That's just normal behaviour here.

 

And you don't have to mention all the quirks - just the ones against which the opponents might need to discuss a defence. Artificial doubles of opening bids are clearly in that category.

 

Over the past month my opponents' pre-alerts relating to doubles have included the following:

 

- 'our first step response to a take-out double is negative'

- 'we play lots of penalty doubles and few takeout doubles after we open the bidding'

- 'doubles in competition are rarely what they sound like and frequently transfers'

 

If they don't pre-alert adjustments can and have been given.

 

Not having experienced other jurisdictions where this doesn't work I can't suggest why the difference.

[Vampyr]

Not having experienced other jurisdictions where this doesn't work I can't suggest why the difference.

 

Clearly in Scotland (as in England) there is nothing in the regulations about pre-alerts, so it is not normally done.

[gnasher]

No, you wouldn't [in my opinion].

Yes I would. In this case I think my opinion carries rather more weight than yours. I can be particularly bloody-minded about negating the effects of stupid rules.

 

I would make an exception if I already *knew* the meaning, as I might do if there was a rule that an artificial double had to be prealerted.

[paulg]

Clearly in Scotland (as in England) there is nothing in the regulations about pre-alerts, so it is not normally done.

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. There are pre-alerts and it is normally done:

 

From the SBU System Policy:

 

2.2.2 At the start of each round, you should exchange convention cards with your opponents and inform them of

• Your basic method
  E.g. Natural with four-/five-card majors (specify the minimum length for one of a minor if fewer than four); Strong Club (specify minimum HCP for 1♣)
• The range of your opening 1NT, including any variations according to position and vulnerability
• The meaning of your two-level opening bids
  E.g. Strong Twos; Strong 2 , Game-forcing 2 , Weak Twos in the majors; Weak Twos in three suits; Multi 2♦ ; Two-suited Weak Twos in the Majors
• Any unusual aspects of your system
  E.g. Canapé (opening or responding in a shorter suit before a longer one); game-forcing two-over-one responses; weak jump shifts; unusual doubles (such as low-level penalty doubles; or a double of 1NT which is not penalty

List these items in a clearly identifiable area of your convention card.

 

I know David does not like these alerting regulations and has been damaged when a pair forgot to inform him that they played a non-penalty double of one notrump, but different regulations are all part of playing bridge in a foreign country.

[barmar]

Yes I would. In this case I think my opinion carries rather more weight than yours.

Not necessarily. It's hard to be objective about oneself.

 

You may say now that you would always ask, but unless you've actually been in the situation and have done this I wouldn't believe you. You might even try for a while, but I suspect that after a while you'd find it tiresome and revert to old behavior. Believing that you could do it on a regular basis seems to me like an example of illusory superiority.

[paulg]

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

As far as I can tell most people in Scotland, including the English visitors, like the pre-alert regulations. I don't come across pairs who use the alerting regulations to hide their methods although, like in every country, people make mistakes.

 

If you want a rule I could live with make sure you have sensible alerting for doubles and redoubles through [that's up to and including for the English :)] opener's rebid. Alerting is far less important after that.

I could live with this rule too. Now we just have to define 'sensible'.

 

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

[Vampyr]

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

 

Very sensible if you want to ask all the time. Otherwise, not so much.

[paulg]

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

Very sensible if you want to ask all the time. Otherwise, not so much.

I'd understand your comment if I'd said WBF, but I said ACBL, where basically just 'unusual' doubles are alerted and it works pretty well most of the time.

[Vampyr]

I'd understand your comment if I'd said WBF, but I said ACBL, where basically just 'unusual' doubles are alerted and it works pretty well most of the time.

 

I misunderstood; I had assumed that "most doubles" meant that neither penalty nor takeout doubles required an alert.

 

If that is not true, the problem is how do you define "unusual" and "unexpected"; this seems to require an auction-by-auction audit. The EBU regulations avoid this; for example (1♠)-P-1NT-X is alertable when it is takeout of spades, even though penalty would be a much more unusual meaning. So you could make this double non-alertable when it is takeout, and add a lot of complexity to an easily understandable regulation just with that one auction; and where does it end? 1♥-(X)-XX-(2♣); X. Which meaning is more unexpected? Takeout and penalty are both common. So which gets an alert and which does not?

 

This is the sort of thing that the EBU eliminated, and it is much better this way.

[jallerton]

What should they change it to? It is a thorny issue, and I think that the regulation makes the best of a bad job, but I would be interested to know what you and Jeffrey think would be more appropriate.

 

The problem with 5B10 is that it is not consistent with the general principles of disclosure of partnership agreements. I like the principles outlined earlier in the Orange Book:

 

3B3[A player should explain only the partnership agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner’s call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how the player intends to interpret it.

 

3B4A player can find it difficult to strike a balance between giving opponents information to which they are entitled, and avoiding saying how the player intends to interpret a call or play which has not been specifically discussed. If the player believes that the meaning of partner’s call is affected by relevant partnership experience the answer should be along the lines of “we have not specifically discussed it, but we have agreements in analogous situations which may be relevant”. For example, an undiscussed situation might be analogous to something which has been discussed, so that both partners might expect that they would reach the same conclusion at the table. Opponents can then ask a supplementary question about the analogous situations if they wish to do so.

 

3B5If a player is asked for an explanation of a call in relation to which the pair has no agreement, either explicit or implicit, the player should say so, but bear in mind that the longer a pair has played together the more implicit agreements they are likely to have. (Law 75C)

 

Now let's look at Orange Book 5B10 which currently says:

 

[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.

 

Now when my partner makes a call about which we have no agreement, I am going to have to guess how to treat it, and my subsequent calls are likely to be consistent with that guess.

 

3B3 instructs that I must not make a statement as to how I interpret the undiscussed call. On the other hand, 5B10 tells me to effectively do the opposite, by virtue of whether I alert or not.

 

For example, LHO bids 3♥ (natural) is some auction and my first time partner doubles. I've no idea from the auction itself whether the double is penalties or take-out. I rate my chances of guessing as better than 50/50 solely because I can look at my hand.

 

Scenario 1. I have a singleton heart. I guess that double is penalties. Apparently I'm supposed to alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is penalties when I subsequently pass) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement".

 

Scenario 2. I have a trebleton heart. I guess that double is take-out. Apparently I'm supposed to not alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is T/O when I subsequently bid) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement"

 

So by following 5B10 I tell the opponents information about the contents of my own hand, but nothing about my agreements. That cannot be right..

[Vampyr]

Scenario 1. I have a singleton heart. I guess that double is penalties. Apparently I'm supposed to alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is penalties when I subsequently pass) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement".

 

Scenario 2. I have a trebleton heart. I guess that double is take-out. Apparently I'm supposed to not alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is T/O when I subsequently bid) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement"

 

So by following 5B10 I tell the opponents information about the contents of my own hand, but nothing about my agreements. That cannot be right..

 

You can avoid this problem by alerting in both cases, and in both cases answering "no agreement", but giving any information about other agreements or about hands that have come up earlier in the session that may be relevant and helpful.

[aguahombre]

I think I will stick with alerting agreements which might be alertable, and not alerting non agreements. Might be easier for those of us who know whether we have an agreement than for others.

[Vampyr]

I think I will stick with alerting agreements which might be alertable, and not alerting non agreements. Might be easier for those of us who know whether we have an agreement than for others.

 

Do you think your opponents will win a ruling if both you and your partner assumed an alertable meaning?

[aguahombre]

Do you think your opponents will win a ruling if both you and your partner assumed an alertable meaning?

That is from another planet. We alert agreements which we believe are alertable. We don't alert if there is no agreement. If someone thinks we have an agreement, where we don't, we will explain that we don't and expect the TD to understand that alerts are for agreements, not for guesses.

 

Don't confuse alerts with the other subject --answering questions about partnership experience in areas where we have no agreement, when asked.

[Vampyr]

Don't confuse alerts with the other subject --answering questions about partership experience in areas where we have no agreement.

 

I am not confusing anything, and have not commented directly on the latter topic at all. The regulation that is being discussed is alerting when there is no agreement. This regulation seems to me to suggest that one must alert if there is no agreement; Andy thinks that it does not and should be changed so that it does say this. Both of us believe that if there is no alert, the opponents are entitled to assume the non-alertable meaning. This seems so obvious; I am surprised that there are people who disagree.

[aguahombre]

To me, the regulation is just fine. The only problem is people thinking any non agreement has anything to do with alerts and then twisting what is written to justify that thinking.

[Vampyr]

Here are the relevant regulations:

5 B 4 Alert or announce any of partner’s calls believed to be alertable or announceable even

if the meaning cannot be explained.

 

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.

 

5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been

no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences

drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected

meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see

section 3 A 2) must be alerted.

 

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.

 

Perhaps a person who believes that these regulations demonstrate that a "non-agreement has anything to do with alerts" is twisting their meaning, but I don't think so. They do need to be beefed up a bit, with 5B5 and 5B10 rewritten as per Andy's suggestions.

 

If players cannot assume a non-alertable meaning when there is no alert, then the alerts are useless. Also, "being on the same wavelength" is closer to having an agreement than not having one. To take a simple example, suppose the auction goes 2♥(weak)-(3♦)-X. You and partner have never played before and never discussed this double. It would be very unusual where you play for this double to be anything but penalty. You must alert a penalty double of a naturally bid suit only if you have an agreement about it. Do you alert?

 

IMO, if you don't you are misinforming the opponents.

[Siegmund]

Latecomer to the thread, but chiming in anyway:

 

I am strenuously opposed to the "don't alert any doubles" idea. It leaves you feeling silly about asking 99% of the people how they play them, and leaves you without redress against the 1% who do something odd.

I dislike the ACBL approach, because even from one region to the next within the ACBL there is big variation in what is 'highly unusual and unexpected' vs. merely a minority treatment.

 

It's a thorny problem, but the closest thing to an answer I actually liked was (with the pre-2007 definition of convention) "alert all conventional doubles except the simple takeout double." I could have been persuaded to extend it a little further, perhaps to doubles which imply all unbid suits (making the old-fashioned negative double not alertable either) but in years past, having both negative and penalty X non-alertable was an issue for integrating beginners into the club game.

 

This solves most of the common issues like making most 1NT-P-2D-X=diamonds not alertable but colorful etc alertable; making Rosenkranz, Support, etc alertable. It does make a few more things alertable than you might really wish were, but I think that's better than making too few things alertable.

[aguahombre]

To take a simple example, suppose the auction goes 2♥(weak)-(3♦)-X. You and partner have never played before and never discussed this double. It would be very unusual where you play for this double to be anything but penalty. You must alert a penalty double of a naturally bid suit only if you have an agreement about it. Do you alert?

 

IMO, if you don't you are misinforming the opponents.

This example is simple because it is defined as alertable over there; in a jurisdiction where a double that any sane person knows to be penalty still must be alerted, I would alert just to appease the Secretary Birds.

 

Yes, it is an agreement, just as the existence of air is agreed. EBU wants it alerted. Who would even think to discuss it in advance? Undiscussed does not mean no agreement.

 

You cannot give an example where I should alert, and then say "no agreement", when asked.

[blackshoe]

Stefanie suggests "If players cannot assume a non-alertable meaning when there is no alert, then the alerts are useless." I would say that the first article in that sentence needs to be replaced with "the", because if there is more than one non-alertable meaning, then the non-alerts are just as useless as the alerts. Given that, perhaps it is better to define the single non-alertable meaning of calls, and then everything else requires an alert. For example: "penalty doubles do not require an alert; all other doubles require an alert". Don't like that? How about "simple takeout doubles (define these carefully please!) do not require an alert; all other doubles require an alert". If that's too simple or results in too many alerts for your taste then perhaps you'll need to divide things up somehow, e.g., direct doubles after an opening bid*, protective doubles after an opening bid, doubles by responder after an overcall, and so on.

 

* as far as I'm concerned, "opening bid" here means exactly what it says. It does not mean "opening bid in a suit at the one level", which is the way many people seem to use the phrase. If you want to use it that way in a regulation, fine, but make sure the regulation makes it clear, and make sure other opening bids are covered as well.

[Trinidad]

This is the sort of thing that the EBU eliminated, and it is much better this way.

It is much worse this way since you don't get it for free. It all comes at the expense of having an alert regulation that is thicker than most pairs' system book.

 

Other NBOs can have alert regulations that fit on half a page and that work fine.

 

Remember that it may be relatively easy to learn which bids in your own system require an alert. That is a one time excercise. But when it comes to the opponents' bidding this excercise needs to be repeated on every single board. If this is difficult to master, the alert regulation serves no purpose.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

This example is simple because it is defined as alertable over there; in a jurisdiction where a double that any sane person knows to be penalty still must be alerted, I would alert just to appease the Secretary Birds.

 

Yes, it is an agreement, just as the existence of air is agreed. EBU wants it alerted. Who would even think to discuss it in advance? Undiscussed does not mean no agreement.

 

You cannot give an example where I should alert, and then say "no agreement", when asked.

1

♦

pass 1

♥

2

♣

dbl

Playing with a randomly selected English tournament player, this could be intended as takeout, support or penalties. In England, if you don't alert this, the opponents will assume that it's for takeout.

[gnasher]

It is much worse this way since you don't get it for free. It all comes at the expense of having an alert regulation that is thicker than most pairs' system book.

 

Other NBOs can have alert regulations that fit on half a page and that work fine.

I don't think this is true. The reason that the EBU's alerting regulations are long is that they go into a lot of detail, contain plenty of examples, and address questions that other NBOs choose not to address. If I rewrote the EBU's alerting regulations, but using the same level of detail as, for example, the ACBL's, they would be less than 100 words:

 

You should alert only:

- Conventional calls at or below 3NT.

- Artificial opening bids.

- Lead-directing passes.

- Lead-directing doubles and redoubles that relate to a suit other than the suit doubled or redoubled.

- Other calls at or below 3NT that have a potentially unexpected meaning.

For this purpose:

- Suit-bids that promise three or more cards in the suit and say nothing about any other suit are natural.

- Takeout doubles of natural suit bids, penalty doubles of natural notrump bids, and negative doubles of direct-seat overcalls are natural. All other doubles are conventional.

 

Remember that it may be relatively easy to learn which bids in your own system require an alert. That is a one time excercise. But when it comes to the opponents' bidding this excercise needs to be repeated on every single board. If this is difficult to master, the alert regulation serves no purpose.

This certanly isn't true. In England, if an opponent's action is not alerted, I immediately know what the systemic meaning is (if any). That doesn't require any special expertise, because the rules about what is alertable are very simple - basically almost no more than "Alert artificial calls below 3NT".

Edited February 26, 2013 by gnasher

[bluejak]

In my experience, yes. It may not work in some jurisdictions, but in my experience in Australia it works quite well. Here I would say "our doubles over opening bids are artificial." At that point my partner and I can agree what a redouble should show and whether we treat the double of 1NT as penalty. That's just normal behaviour here.

 

And you don't have to mention all the quirks - just the ones against which the opponents might need to discuss a defence. Artificial doubles of opening bids are clearly in that category.

Sure. So I say "We play Acol with artificial twos and threes, a variable no-trump including the mini no-trump, a 1NT overcall for takeout, doubles of various openings may be artificial, ..." and we have told them nothing. We give some idea of what twos and threes we open and what artificial doubles and we have already lost a board and they will not remember it.

 

There are pre-alerts and it is normally done:

I would rate that as "sometimes" not "normally". I also note that you have coloured stickers on the SCs. When I played at Peebles there were three pairs, only three, with coloured stickers: naturally we were one of the three pairs.

 

It is not just a question of playing in a foreign country as suggested, it is a question of playing in a foreign country where the regulations do not work or are not followed.

 

The main reason it is not too bad in Scotland is not that pre-alerting works, or is done, or anything like that: it is because few people play much stuff.