Alerting Doubles

[aguahombre]

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.

Is that supposed to be an example of where I should alert and then explain "no agreement"?

 

I have an agreement about it. You gave an example of a problem someone else might have, but what an opponent will assume doesn't change whether someone has an agreement with his partner.

 

If I don't alert, what the EBU opponents should "assume" is what 5B5 says...that there is no AGREEMENT which falls into the alertable or announceable category.

[gnasher]

Is that supposed to be an example of where I should alert and then explain "no agreement"?

 

I have an agreement about it.

 

Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. I was joining in this conversation (which I've edited down to the highlights):

Vampyr: The regulation that is being discussed is alerting when there is no agreement.

Aguahombre: To me, the regulation is just fine.

Vampyr: If players cannot assume a non-alertable meaning when there is no alert, then the alerts are useless.

Aguahombre: Undiscussed does not mean no agreement. You cannot give an example where I should alert, and then say "no agreement", when asked.

 

As I understand it, we're discussing what should happen when a partnership doesn't have an agreement, but there are multiple plausible interpretations including one that would be alertable and one that would not. If you're telling us that there are no such situations for you when playing with your regular partner, then I believe you, but I don't see why it's relevant.

 

You gave an example of a problem someone else might have, but what an opponent will assume doesn't change whether someone has an agreement with his partner.

But we're not discussing whether a partnership has an agreement. We're discussing what an alert (or non-alert) should mean.

 

At present, in the EBU, a reasonable interpretation of the rules is:

- A non alert means "Either it's not alertable, or we haven't discussed it but I'm going to bid as though it's not alertable."

- An alert means "Either it's alertable, or we haven't discussed it and I'm going to bid as though it's alertable."

 

Vampyr and I think the rules should instead be:

- A non alert means "I know it's not alertable."

- An alert means "Either it's alertable, or we haven't discussed it and one possible meaning is alertable."

Edited February 26, 2013 by gnasher

[Zelandakh]

Andy, I think you mean "it is alertable" on the second line of your interpretation section. And I also agree with you on what the regulation should be. Indeed I thought that was the regulation and the special case about treating it as having an alertable meaning was just highlighting a specific case of this where you will be ruled against. But if you say it is the other interpretation in practise then I believe you.

[barmar]

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.

Which is better depends on what you think the goal of the alert regulation should be. If it should be easy to learn and interpret, the short "alert anything that's artificial" rule works well.

 

But most NBOs, and I think many players, think that the goal should be to provide useful information to the opponents. An alert should mean "there's a decent chance you don't know the meaning of the call, so you should ask." Alerting calls with common meanings dilutes the benefit of the alert system. Players will get out of the habit of asking about these alerts, and then when a pair with an actually unusual agreement alerts, the opponents won't know that they really should ask in this case.

 

Before they introduced announcements, ACBL tried out a system of "special alerts". The bids that are now announceable were just alerted, but if you used those bids for something else you would say "special alert". No one liked it, and that's when they came up with announcements.

[Jeremy69A]

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.

 

In my Orange Book(2012 edition) it is 5 pages. In the new version in August it will likely be 4. More than half a page I grant you but not as much as your exaggerated phrase would suggest.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Yes; this is the way it is done in the EBU, and perhaps I should have said "the"; I was trying to generalise.

[Vampyr]

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

 

Here's an auction I gave upthread: 1♥-(X)-XX-(2♣); X. Would you know how your pickup partner meant this double?

 

Is that supposed to be an example of where I should alert and then explain "no agreement"?

I have an agreement about it. You gave an example of a problem someone else might have, but what an opponent will assume doesn't change whether someone has an agreement with his partner.

 

If you never play with first-time or pickup partners, then OK, you probably do have an agreement. But others of us set up games with friends or random people, play with hosts, or otherwise get into partnerships where we simply have not discussed this sort of thing. Sometimes the discussion before the game runs to the length of major openings and the strength of an opening 1NT.

 

If I don't alert, what the EBU opponents should "assume" is what 5B5 says...that there is no AGREEMENT which falls into the alertable or announceable category.

 

Right; this is the problem with the regulation. It is negated a bit by 5B10, but not enough. Better would be:

possibility that it falls into the alertable or announceable category.

[gnasher]

Andy, I think you mean "it is alertable" on the second line of your interpretation section.

Thanks, fixed it.

 

And I also agree with you on what the regulation should be. Indeed I thought that was the regulation and the special case about treating it as having an alertable meaning was just highlighting a specific case of this where you will be ruled against. But if you say it is the other interpretation in practise then I believe you.

No, actually I prefer your interpretation, and I intend to go on doing what I have always done, which is to alert all undiscussed bids that might be intended as alertable. I would justify it as I explained here:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58629-unalerted-double-ebu/page__view__findpost__p__707208

However, I'm worried by these two posts:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58629-unalerted-double-ebu/page__view__findpost__p__707161

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58629-unalerted-double-ebu/page__view__findpost__p__707202

which suggest that I may be wrong.

[jallerton]

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.

 

Yes, you can avoid the problem (of tipping off information about the contents of your own hand) by alerting in both cases but then you are not following the regulation.

[Trinidad]

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.

Aahhh, refreshing... A simple soul like me can understand this. Less is good. Now, why doesn't the EBU write it up like that? Then their alert regulation would be remarkably similar to most alert regulations.

 

The way it is, you get the impression that the authors of the regulation got paid for every letter they wrote. (I suppose they didn't get paid at all, but you get the idea.)

 

Rik

[billw55]

Now, why doesn't the EBU write it up like that? Then their alert regulation would be remarkably similar to most alert regulations.

It is possible you answered your own question.

[Trinidad]

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".

This seems to be cutting corners given campboy's post in an other thread. (This post said that 3♣ in the auction 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable if it is natural and forcing. He added that few people are aware that this is alertable.)

 

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Yes, you can avoid the problem (of tipping off information about the contents of your own hand) by alerting in both cases but then you are not following the regulation.

 

I will do the same as Andy, and be more helpful to the opponents than the regulation requires. With the longer-term aim of getting it changed.

[campboy]

This seems to be cutting corners given campboy's post in an other thread. (This post said that 3♣ in the auction 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable if it is natural and forcing. He added that few people are aware that this is alertable.)

 

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

No, they really are simple. The basic alerting rules are just over a page of A5, and say much the same thing as any other countries' rules. It is just that the orange book actually bothers to give examples of how to interpret the basic rules. Is this meaning alertable in the ACBL? I have no idea. It depends whether it is "about the expected strength and shape", whatever that means.

[Trinidad]

No, they really are simple. The basic alerting rules are just over a page of A5, and say much the same thing as any other countries' rules. It is just that the orange book actually bothers to give examples of how to interpret the basic rules. Is this meaning alertable in the ACBL? I have no idea. It depends whether it is "about the expected strength and shape", whatever that means.

They are not simple since they specify that 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable when it is natural and forcing, though the basic rules would indicate that this would not be alertable (natural and not unexpected).

 

I don't know whether it is alertable in the ACBL. I have never declared my love for the ACBL alert regulations.

 

I did write that I like the current alert regulations in The Netherlands. I know it is not alertable there since 1) it is natural and 2) this meaning is not unexpected. Simple... Less is good.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

 

“Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

[jallerton]

I will do the same as Andy, and be more helpful to the opponents than the regulation requires. With the longer-term aim of getting it changed.

 

If you really want this regulation changed, I suggest that you write to the Secretary of the Laws & Ethics Committee as soon as possible. The Orange Book is currently subject to a major review and next month's L&EC meeting will be considering any proposed changes.

[Vampyr]

If you really want this regulation changed, I suggest that you write to the Secretary of the Laws & Ethics Committee as soon as possible. The Orange Book is currently subject to a major review and next month's L&EC meeting will be considering any proposed changes.

 

Thank you, I will do this.

[gnasher]

Could it actually be so that the EBU regulations are not that simple after all?

Why not see for yourself?

http://www.ebu.co.uk...Book%202012.pdf

Section 5E.

 

They are not simple since they specify that 1NT-2♦-3♣ is alertable when it is natural and forcing, though the basic rules would indicate that this would not be alertable (natural and not unexpected).

 

I don't know whether it is alertable in the ACBL. I have never declared my love for the ACBL alert regulations.

 

I did write that I like the current alert regulations in The Netherlands. I know it is not alertable there since 1) it is natural and 2) this meaning is not unexpected. Simple... Less is good.

 

Rik

 

This is the relevant EBU rule:

5 G 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert

..

(d) A non-jump natural response to an opening natural 1NT bid if forcing whether in competition or otherwise

So, in England, the ACBL and the Netherlands you are required to alert bids whose strength is unexpected. In the ACBL and the Netherlands, players are expected to guess use their judgement as to what constitutes "unexpected". In the EBU, the rule-makers have provided examples to assist the players.

 

Apparently you don't agree with this particular example, but surely you must agree that it's better to provide examples than not?

 

As for why this is meaning is treated as "unexpected", I expect it's because in England this sequence is traditionally played as non-forcing. Last time I played rubber bridge (admittedly a while ago) it was non-forcing. My 1980 copy of Crowhurst's Acol in Competiton says it's non-forcing. The EBU's Standard English system (page 17) says it's non-forcing. If I didn't play Lebensohl or anything similar, I would want to play 3♣ as non-forcing.

 

That doesn't necessarily make it correct for the EBU to make a forcing 3♣ bid alertable. Given the prevalence of Lebensohl, it's not very unexpected. But it is at least understandable that they chose to interpret the basic rule in this way.

[helene_t]

....

(d) A non-jump natural response to an opening natural 1NT bid if forcing whether in competition or otherwise

....

If I didn't play Lebensohl or anything similar, I would want to play 3♣ as non-forcing.

....

Hmmm I am not sure, I rememember a discussion we had about 1NT-(3♦)-3♥, and Cascade was pretty much alone when he argued that it should be NF. This is similar I think. To be honest I wasn't aware that a forcing 3♣ is alertable. If an advanced pair bid it without alert I would expect it to be forcing, if an avaerage club pair bid it I would expect opener not to know whether it is forcing or not. But OK, Standard English apparently says nonforcing. I didn't know that.

 

Natural jump overcalls are non-alertable whether weak or intermediate. Many club players would expect IJO and some alert (or anounce, sigh) WJO. Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt? Some Acol textbooks prescribe negative freebids without mentioning that they are alertable (maybe they were written in times of different alert rules?). Inverted minors is not alertable (I think) but probably more unexpected to the average club pair than the forcing 3♣ bid in question.

 

But cudos to EBU and the OB for providing so many examples, it does make it a lot clearer. Of course you can never make everybody happy.

[gnasher]

Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?

I think that's "potentially unexpected", so yes that's alertable.

 

Inverted minors is not alertable (I think)

No, they're alertable. 5G2: "Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert ... ( c)(3) If the next hand passes or overcalls, a pre-emptive raise to three ... (5) A forcing raise."

[Vampyr]

Am I supposed to alert non-forcing shifts in response to partner's preempt?

 

Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level. We learnt this to our detriment a few years ago at Easter when a pair had been inclined to alert but told not to.

 

This is perhaps another thing that could be changed in the next OB.

[Trinidad]

Why not see for yourself?

http://www.ebu.co.uk...Book%202012.pdf

Section 5E.

 

Thanks for the link. I had it already and I sometimes do look there when there is a discussion on English regulations.

 

Apparently you don't agree with this particular example, but surely you must agree that it's better to provide examples than not?

As it is I certainly do not agree.

 

It is a good idea to give one or two examples to illustrate what the rule means. But, no matter what the first line of section 5E says, the "examples" in the Orange book are neither examples nor interpretations. They are specifications. And it is a long list of specifications. I certainly think that it is much better to leave this long list of specifications out. Less is good.

 

It may be English culture to think that a rule works better if it is specified in more detail. The EBU has managed to write a whopping 21 (twenty one!) pages on how players should disclose their system. And then I am not counting the pages about fielding of psyches. Does the EBU remember that their publications are not merely meant to be written but also meant to be read? We are in the 21st century now. I think an alert regulation should be at most 140 characters. ;)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

It may be English culture to think that a rule works better if it is specified in more detail.

 

It depends. If people want to be able to obey the rule, then yes.

[campboy]

Surprisingly, no, not if the preempt is at the two-level. We learnt this to our detriment a few years ago at Easter when a pair had been inclined to alert but told not to.

 

This is perhaps another thing that could be changed in the next OB.

There may already have been a change since that occurred. I can't find anything specific in the current OB about responses to pre-empts, so I think it comes down to a judgement as to whether it is unexpected. I guess quite a lot of people play that a new suit opposite a weak two is constructive but NF, though I have no real idea how many as it's not a sequence I see from oppo often enough. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone who was alerting it to stop!