Alerting Doubles

[gordontd]

That is the traditional question when people want to poo poo the concept by citing an extreme.

A double on the first round of an auction is extreme? Is it not the most common case of a double?

[aguahombre]

A double on the first round of an auction is extreme? Is it not the most common case of a double?

Come on. You know I meant requiring an alert of that double, unless it carries some highly unusual message, is the extreme thing.

[gordontd]

Come on. You know I meant requiring an alert of that double, unless it carries some highly unusual message, is the extreme thing.

Then I wonder why you are proposing it as an improvement on the current regulation?

[nige1]

The simplest and easiest to understand rule is "Alert all doubles that aren't penalty" (because all are artificial).

It's simple and easy to understand, but I'm sure players would find it hard to follow. We already have a rule that's fairly simple and easy to understand, but players seem to find it hard to follow when it requires them to alert a call that they consider to be standard (eg a penalty double after a redouble, or a takeout double of a 1NT response). How much worse it would be that you want them to alert a takeout double of an opening bid.

Gordon's and my examples illustrate that the OB rule is not simple, or easy to understand, or easy to obey, or easy to enforce. However my other suggestion might remove some of the confusion.

A more convoluted rule (hence more in the spirit of the Orange Book) is "Announce penalty and takeout doubles. Alert all others."

[aguahombre]

Then I wonder why you are proposing it as an improvement on the current regulation?

I agreed with Nigel that it would be simpler, but wouldn't presume to propose anything to another jurisdiction. EBU might figure out all by itself that direct doubles of natural opening bids (thru?) are not applicable to the concept. Even, the ACBL mentions that issue.

[Vampyr]

...the OB rule is not simple, or easy to understand, or easy to obey, or easy to enforce.

 

It is all of those things.

 

However my other suggestion might remove some of the confusion.

 

I have considered this as well, and it has merit, but again announcing eg (1♠)-X would be really tedious.

[Vampyr]

In the routine negative double situation, people use them in so many different ways, an alert can't hurt.

 

A double here is alerted unless it is an ordinary takeout double, or after 1m-(1♥) it promises 4 spades. I think that the latter is the only exception to the three-(short)sentence regulation, and it is well-understood and accepted. LOL I personally don't like it!

[gordontd]

Gordon's and my examples illustrate that the OB rule is not simple, or easy to understand, or easy to obey, or easy to enforce.

I don't think they show that. I think they show that your attempt to simplify things would actually make them worse. And if you were to make exceptions for things that aguahombre thinks are obvious, then it would no longer be simpler.

[gnasher]

That is the traditional question when people want to poo poo the concept by citing an extreme. Certainly first-round direct doubles for takeout of opening bids are not what we are talking about.

Nigel can speak for himself, of course, but I am quite sure that he meant exactly what he said. I don't think anyone would ever accuse Nigel of sloppiness.

 

Perhaps you and Nigel are rather less in agreement than you say?

[mycroft]

Actually I wouldn't mind double anything that isn't penalty, even 1♠-X (shouldn't take any longer to get right than Announcement of 15-17NTs, right?). Of course:

 

1NT (10-12) - X "Equal strength or better" (yes, it's dumb, but people play it!) Penalty, or other?

4something-X "Takeout, but partner's going to pass a lot and hope it's less wrong than the alternative". Alert, or not?

...3something-MP X "DSI, partner, I'm protecting our +110" Penalty or not? Partner's not likely to pull it...

1♦-1NT (Raptor, 4cM + 5+♣)-2♥-X "Pass or correct". Penalty or other?

[nige1]

Actually I wouldn't mind double anything that isn't penalty, even 1♠-X (shouldn't take any longer to get right than Announcement of 15-17NTs, right?). Of course:

 

1NT (10-12) - X "Equal strength or better" (yes, it's dumb, but people play it!) Penalty, or other?

4something-X "Takeout, but partner's going to pass a lot and hope it's less wrong than the alternative". Alert, or not?

...3something-MP X "DSI, partner, I'm protecting our +110" Penalty or not? Partner's not likely to pull it...

1♦-1NT (Raptor, 4cM + 5+♣)-2♥-X "Pass or correct". Penalty or other?

With Mycrofts examples, we now have lots of cases where it is problematic as to how to interpret the EBU rule. IMO, for a game, simple rules that can be easily understood and applied are more appropriate than sophisticated unclear rules.

 

Aquahombre, I'm afraid one suggestion really was "All doubles should alerted unless they can be announced as Penalty or Take-out". Again, for simplicity, I think this rule should apply even to the first round of bidding. I suppose regulators might want exceptions for some doubles above 3N.

 

BTW, Aquahombre, after my EBU experience, I like announcements. But I think that each table should be provided with a card containing a matrix of common announcements. (e.g. for the EBU: Stayman, Hearts, Spades, Intermediate, Strong artificial, Strong forcing, Strong but not forcing, Weak, May have singleton, 10-12, 11-13, 11-14, 12-14, 13-15, 14-16, 15-17, 16-18, and so on). Players could simply put a coin on the appropriate square.

[aguahombre]

O.k., then. I am pretty sure that as long as those who advocate alerts of artificial calls include takeout doubles of natural opening bids in the mix, there will be something to pick on, laugh about, and forget about for the Laws committees.

[Vampyr]

With Mycrofts examples, we now have lots of cases where it is problematic as to how to interpret the EBU rule.

 

Even if that were true, how are your or aquahombre's suggestions an improvement? You figure out whether each double fits the nonalertable meaning, and if not you alert it. How does a change in regulation (including announcements or whatever) make a difference?

 

IMO, for a game, simple rules that can be easily understood and applied are more appropriate than sophisticated unclear rules.

 

That is why the EBU have such simple rules for alerting doubles. We had sophisticated rules before the current version, and now we don't.

 

(e.g. for the EBU: Stayman, Hearts, Spades, Intermediate, Strong artificial, Strong forcing, Strong but not forcing, Weak, May have singleton, 10-12, 11-13, 11-14, 12-14, 13-15, 14-16, 15-17, 16-18, and so on). Players could simply put a coin on the appropriate square.

 

As has been mentioned before, we have that already, and most people use it.

 

O.k., then. I am pretty sure that as long as those who advocate alerts of artificial calls include takeout doubles of natural opening bids in the mix, there will be something to pick on, laugh about, and forget about for the Laws committees.

 

Again, in the past we had sophisticated rules with all kinds of exceptions and lists of auctions; now the rules are very simple and can be understood and applied by anyone who is not covering their ears and singing "lalalala". Unfortunately there are a fair number of those.

[Vampyr]

In the routine negative double situation, people use them in so many different ways, an alert can't hurt.

 

An alert by whom? Everyone? That is the same as no one alerting.

[gordontd]

An alert by whom? Everyone? That is the same as no one alerting.

Actually it would be worse: it would mask the alerts of genuinely surprising treatments.

[Vampyr]

Actually it would be worse: it would mask the alerts of genuinely surprising treatments.

 

Yes, but what is the difference between everyone alerting and no one alerting?

[gordontd]

Yes, but what is the difference between everyone alerting and no one alerting?

That's not the choice. The options are that all such bids be alerted, or that only the unusual uses be alerted. I know which I think is better.

 

Remember the bad old days when Stayman was alerted? All 2♣ responses to 1NT were alerted, so no-one bothered asking and would occasionally get caught out when opponents were playing Keri or something.

[gnasher]

Remember the bad old days when Stayman was alerted? All 2♣ responses to 1NT were alerted, so no-one bothered asking and would occasionally get caught out when opponents were playing Keri or something.

Almost no one.

[gordontd]

Almost no one.

I'm happy to concede that you might have been the one who did. :)

[Vampyr]

That's not the choice. The options are that all such bids be alerted, or that only the unusual uses be alerted. I know which I think is better.

 

I know which one is better too; I thought that aquahombre was suggesting that they all be alerted.

 

What is interesting in this discussion is that no EBU member (except for Nigel, but he lives in Scotland) is dissatisfied with the EBU's alerting-of-doubles regulation, while everyone else is telling us how poor it is. LOL

[Trinidad]

... the OB rule is not simple, or easy to understand, or easy to obey, or easy to enforce. However my other suggestion might remove some of the confusion.

It is all of those things.

 

If you think that is true, why hasn't anybody (including you) answered Nigel's questions yet? I'll repeat them for your convenience:

 

The second rule might reduce the frequency of common mistakes. For example :( quick answer - no consulting the Orange Book :) In the following EBU auction, when is the double alertable?

 

1N "12-14" (Pass) 2♥ "Spades" (Pass)

2♠ (Double)

 

And what if 2♥ is alerted (usually ♠ but not always) and 2♠ denies four ♠?

I would say that Nigel's questions are easy to understand, so if the OB rule would be simple, easy to understand ... etc. it should be straightforward to come up with the answer, without looking in the OB.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

If you think that is true, why hasn't anybody (including you) answered Nigel's questions yet? I'll repeat them for your convenience:

 

 

I would say that Nigel's questions are easy to understand, so if the OB rule would be simple, easy to understand ... etc. it should be straightforward to come up with the answer, without looking in the OB.

 

Rik

The answer is that it's alertable if not for takeout. In both cases the 2♠ bid shows willingness in the context of the auction to play in spades.

[WellSpyder]

If you think that is true, why hasn't anybody (including you) answered Nigel's questions yet? I would say that Nigel's questions are easy to understand, so if the OB rule would be simple, easy to understand ... etc. it should be straightforward to come up with the answer, without looking in the OB.

I haven't looked in the OB (as requested by the examiner!). For the first Q I would expect any double other than a TOx of spades to be alerted, and I would expect this to be more or less universally understood by the people I play with and against. The second is slightly trickier, mostly because you haven't defined "usually", but I would expect the answer to be the same as in the first case.

 

Edit: I see Gordon has replied while I was drafting this. At least we are consistent, and I don't think this sort of auction generally causes the sort of problem in England that those asking the question implicitly seem to assume it does.

[Trinidad]

What is interesting in this discussion is that no EBU member (except for Nigel, but he lives in Scotland) is dissatisfied with the EBU's alerting-of-doubles regulation, while everyone else is telling us how poor it is. LOL

It's like

. I nominate Nigel for an Oscar for his role as the Ocean frog from Glasgow.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

I am not currently in the EBU and may not be up to date with the OB but I would think that 2♠ in the original auction is an offer to play in partner's suit and therefore natural - so any meaning other than takeout is alertable. Whereas 2♠ in the second example is a form of pass/correct and therefore artificial - hence any meaning other than showing spades is alertable. I am sure that regular EBU players can give a more definitive answer though.