Alerting Doubles

[gordontd]

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.

Usefully, in the Orange Book we are told:

5E(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise

.

and:

In 5E2(a) and 5E2(d) the word ‘show’ is defined as follows:

‘it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it

is followed by two passes’.

That deals with the situations under discussion.

[Vampyr]

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

1N "12-14" (Pass) 2♥ "Spades" (Pass)

2♠ (Double)

 

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

Rik

 

Right. In that first auction the double is not alerted if it is takeout of spades; if it is anything else it is alertable.

 

In the second meaning of the auction you are have most likely agreed to treat the sequence as showing spades and still if your double is takeout of spades it will not be alertable. Maybe you have agreed that it is showing spades though. Or general values. Then you alert. None of this required looking at the Orange Book.

 

I do not know what regulation is supposed to be more effective when the opponents' auction is potentially ambiguous. You have to assume something, and your doubles and other calls will be based upon that assumption.

 

EDIT: Sorry if it is a bit redundant; had it open a long time and crossed several posts, starting with 122 B-) .

[Vampyr]

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.

 

The 2♠ bid looks a lot more like an acceptance of a transfer, since that, apparently, is what the what the auction usually means. But again, a different regulation does nothing to solve the difficulty here.

[gnasher]

If you think that is true, why hasn't anybody (including you) answered Nigel's questions yet?

I didn't reply because it didn't please me to do so. But I did know the answer, because I have read the rules that we're discussing.

[Trinidad]

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.

A 1♠ opening, overcall, or response to 1m shows a willingness to play in spades.

 

A raise, a preference bid or even a false preference bid shows a willingness to play in spades -in the context of the auction.

 

To me, and most other players, accepting a Jacoby transfer to spades does not show willingness to play in spades, and it certainly doesn't when the context of the auction comes into play.

 

• 
   
  
• Opener normally has shown at least a doubleton spades by opening 1NT, which -I suppose- shows a certain willingness to play in spades.
  
• Then responder's 2♥ shows responder's willingness to play in spades.
  
• By accepting the transfer opener doesn't show any additional willingness to play in spades. So, in the context of the auction, 2♠ does not show willingness to play in spades.
  

1NT showed willingness to play in spades, 2♥ did that even more, but 2♠ is the only bid in the auction that doesnot show any willingness to play in spades. Keep in mind that I can only show my own hand, I can't show partner's hand.

 

If anything, 2♠ denies (or tends to deny) willingness to play in spades - in the context of the 1NT opening. Many players will make some other bid if they want to show willingness to play in spades, that is: more willingness than they have shown in the context of the 1NT opening. Nigel's second case dealt specifically with that: a 2♠ rebid that denied showing willingness to play in spades.

 

So, depending on the partnership agreements and style, 2♠ either shows that you don't have any willingness to play in spades or it doesn't show anything at all. But it never shows a willingness to play in spades (and certainly not in the context of the auction).

 

What you mean to say is that 2♠ is a bid that -due to the context of the auction- may well designate the denomination of the final contract or may well be passed out with the opener's side landing in at least a 7 card fit. But that is entirely different from "showing a willingness to play in spades".

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

In the second meaning of the auction you are have most likely agreed to treat the sequence as showing spades and still if your double is takeout of spades it will not be alertable.

So:

• if you have agreed to treat the opponents' sequence -which is not showing spades- as showing spades anyway, then double for takeout of spades is not alertable.
  
• if you have agreed to treat the opponents' sequence -which is not showing spades- as not showing spades, then double for penalty of spades is not alertable?
  

 

Isn't your alert or non-alert supposed to inform the opponents what you have agreed? If your non-alert can be either takeout or penalty, depending on how you agreed to treat the opponents' sequence, then that is not very informative to the opponents, is it?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Isn't your alert or non-alert supposed to inform the opponents what you have agreed? If your non-alert can be either takeout or penalty, depending on how you agreed to treat the opponents' sequence, then that is not very informative to the opponents, is it?

 

Sorry? You alert or don't alert according to your agreements. Of course. And if your agreement is that double is not takeout of spades, you alert. I don't know how you managed to misinterpret what I wrote previously.

 

I am curious about what your preferred regulation would stipulate.

[Trinidad]

I don't know how you managed to misinterpret what I wrote previously.

 

In the second meaning of the auction you are have most likely agreed to treat the sequence as showing spades and still if your double is takeout of spades it will not be alertable.

I guess I was to fast finishing your post for you. You could finish your above post yourself to clarify things, starting with the sentence:

"If you didn't agree to treat the sequence as showing spades, i.e. you treat the sequence as artificial, and your double is penalty of spades then..."

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I am curious about what your preferred regulation would stipulate.

I think that I sketched at great length that I want it as short as possible. Some posts in this thread: #3, #60, #65

 

From #79:

2) A short, concise regulation that is easy to understand for every player. This will come with a grey area (which is easily solved by "when in doubt, just alert since it encourages the opponents to find out").

 

It is clear that I opt for the second one: a regulation that is easy to understand for everyone. Why? Because bridge is intended for everyone and not only for visitors of bridge laws forums.

and from #82:

..., something like:

"Alert when you expect that your opponents might attach a different meaning to partner's call. When in doubt you alert."

 

Rik

[gordontd]

What you mean to say is that 2♠ is a bid that -due to the context of the auction- may well designate the denomination of the final contract or may well be passed out with the opener's side landing in at least a 7 card fit. But that is entirely different from "showing a willingness to play in spades".

The 2♠ bid is made in the context of an auction where it may well be the final call. Of course it shows willingness to play in spades, just as it would if I gave preference to a singleton, or responded to a Multi 2♦ in my void. If I weren't willing to play there, I'd have to bid something else.

[Vampyr]

I guess I was to fast finishing your post for you. You could finish your above post yourself to clarify things, starting with the sentence:

"If you didn't agree to treat the sequence as showing spades, i.e. you treat the sequence as artificial, and your double is penalty of spades then..."

 

You still misunderstand. The 2♥ bid "usually" showed spades, so you treat 2♠ as a normal completion of a transfer for the purposes of alerting. If, however, you have decided that your double will be something besides takeout of spades, you alert.

 

In short: double=takeout of spades, no alert; double=anything else, alert.

 

"Alert when you expect that your opponents might attach a different meaning to partner's call. When in doubt you alert."

 

Right. And this is a) easier to obey and b) more helpful to the opponents than the above. Not.

[nige1]

Sorry? You alert or don't alert according to your agreements. Of course. And if your agreement is that double is not takeout of spades, you alert. I don't know how you managed to misinterpret what I wrote previously. I am curious about what your preferred regulation would stipulate.

Broken record:

1. Alert non-penalty doubles OR
2. Announce doubles that are penalty or take-out. Alert others.

Such regulations are short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce. They are likely to achieve the intended efficacious effect, efficiently.

[Vampyr]

Broken record:

1. Alert non-penalty doubles

 
Alerting negative doubles was tedious. Alerting first-round takeout doubles will be more so.
 

ORAnnounce doubles that are penalty or take-out. Alert others.

Such regulations are short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce. They are likely to achieve the intended efficacious effect, efficiently.

 

Again, the most common doubles will be announced, and it will be annoying.

 

Is "Alert non-penalty doubles of NT bids, non-takeout doubles of natural suit bids, doubles of artificially bid suits that don't show the suit, and unusual doubles above 3NT" really that long and difficult to understand?

 

I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually read the above can imagine that it is not "short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce".

 

Well, "simple" needn't apply only to regulations.

[nige1]

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

Vampyr may have overlooked gnasher's view (shared by many)

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).

Anyway, IMO, you are allowed to express an opinion even if you aren't an EBU member. This kind of problem is common to all local jurisdictions. Analogous instances, IMO:

• How ACBL Stop-card regulations work in practice seems bizarre. (but most ACBL members seem happy with their fool's paradise).
• Local System-card and Disclosure regulation is harmful to the game. Thus, Australian LOLs enjoy playing multi and so on although other legislatures seem to adopt a chauvinistic spoil-sport attitude. (But EBU members like Gnasher and Vampyr endorse such protectionist policies)
• The Having none rule flouts the principle that communication between partners be confined to calls and plays. (But players in most jurisidictions are increasingly following American practice -- switching to attitude rather than count signals).
• Bidding cards should be left face-up until after the opening lead is faced. (It's hard to understand how anybody can object to this).
• There are other similar examples on-line. (If the law-book contained sensible default laws, we could begin to eradicate these anomalies}.

[nige1]

Is "Alert non-penalty doubles of NT bids, non-takeout doubles of natural suit bids, doubles of artificially bid suits that don't show the suit, and unusual doubles above 3NT" really that long and difficult to understand? I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone who has actually read the above can imagine that it is not "short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce". Well, "simple" needn't apply only to regulations.

:) The regulation is unclear to simple-minded players like me :( It is hard enough to define take-out and penalty, without unnecessary controversy as to what is natural and artificial.

[Trinidad]

If I weren't willing to play there [in spades], I'd have to bid something else.

 

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

 

Rik

[gordontd]

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

 

Rik

I don't need to bid something else, because in the context of the auction I always will be willing to play in spades.

 

In contrast, if I broke the transfer and bid 3D to show that I liked spades, in the context of that auction my bid of diamonds would not be showing a willingness to play in diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Can you clarify something for me please Gordon. When I was last in England, pass/correct bids, such as a 2M response to a Multi 2♦ opening, were considered artificial and required an alert. From my understanding of your recent posts it sounds like this has now changed to be natural - willingness to play in the denomination named. Is this correct? If it is then I am not sure it is a step forward, even if it would make the alerting rules on doubles in that context more logical for the opponents. Having said that, perhaps I should just look up the current OB and end this (slightly silly) part of the discussion.

 

Edit: I see from 5G5d that pass/correct bids are indeed now considered natural. It seems to me that the auction 2♦ - 2♠, showing hearts, would be a potentially unexpected meaning for any players unfamiliar with Paradox responses...but what do I know? I am sure the EBU defined things this way for a good reason. The examples make it very clear that takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both cases being addressed here.

[gordontd]

Can you clarify something for me please Gordon. When I was last in England, pass/correct bids, such as a 2M response to a Multi 2♦ opening, were considered artificial and required an alert. From my understanding of your recent posts it sounds like this has now changed to be natural - willingness to play in the denomination named. Is this correct? If it is then I am not sure it is a step forward, even if it would make the alerting rules on doubles in that context more logical for the opponents. Having said that, perhaps I should just look up the current OB and end this (slightly silly) part of the discussion.

For the purpose of alerting there was a desire to formulate something simple that covered the difficult cases: when the last bid showed nothing new about the hand, as in completing a transfer; when preference is shown which might not indicate much length in the suit; when it was a pass/correct call and the bidder may or may not have length in the suit; and when an artificial bid is passed by the bidder's partner, presumably indicating length in that suit by passing.

 

The formulation adopted, which was suggested by a member, seems to cover everything so that everyone (or almost everyone) knows where they are with which doubles to alert.

[gnasher]

IMO, you are allowed to express an opinion even if you aren't an EBU member.

Nobody suggested that you should be disallowed from expressing your opinion. But in considering your opinion, we are allowed to take into account the relevance of your views.

 

Local System-card and Disclosure regulation is harmful to the game. Thus, Australian LOLs enjoy playing multi and so on although other legislatures seem to adopt a chauvinistic spoil-sport attitude.

Earlier in this thread I said that nobody would ever accuse you of being sloppy. I'm reconsidering that opinion. How on earth does the second sentence follow from the first?

 

(But EBU members like Gnasher and Vampyr endorse such protectionist policies)

I endorse allowing people to play bridge under rules that suit them, rather than having the rules dictated to them by someone who lives on the other side of the world.

[PeterAlan]

Broken record:

1. Alert non-penalty doubles OR
2. Announce doubles that are penalty or take-out. Alert others.

Such regulations are short, simple, easy to understand, easy to obey, and easy to enforce. They are likely to achieve the intended efficacious effect, efficiently.

2. is pointless as it stands: the information content of the alert is zero once a double hasn't been announced.

[WellSpyder]

To me, and most other players, accepting a Jacoby transfer to spades does not show willingness to play in spades, and it certainly doesn't when the context of the auction comes into play.

Although there are obviously semantic arguments that can be made (not unreasonably), the fact remains that everyone who plays in England seems to have understood the regulations consistently, and the semantic complications suggested do not cause confusion in practice.

[helene_t]

If I make a 2H bid that usually shows spades but could be other things, and opps now double partner's 2S bid, I wouldn't make any inference from the lack of an alert. Our agreement is sufficiently unusual that I wouldn't assume opps know what their agreement is, let alone if it is alertable .

This isn't a problem.

[Vampyr]

The Having none rule flouts the principle that communication between partners be confined to calls and plays.

 

Something sensible -- well done. I think that the EBU dropped the ball on this one -- ince apparently they were powerless in influencing the new laws, they could simply have introduced a regulation that made this question an automatic PP.

 

Thankfully, where I play the practice hasn't caught on, and it is only dummies who say "having none".

[Vampyr]

I am confused. Could you please tell me what "something else" would be the bid in your system to show that you aren't willing to play in spades (after 1NT-(pass)-2♥-(Pass); ??) ?

 

I think Gordon would need a few more details about this "transfer-or-not" method before he can answer any questions about it!