Alerting Doubles

[Vampyr]

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.

 

My understanding is that pass-or-correct bids are still alertable; it is the double of such a bid that is not alertable if the meaning is takeout of the suit that was bid.

 

I don't know what Paradox responses are, but a 2♠ bid (as commonly played over here) over a Multi is artificial, so the unalerted meaning of the double would show spades. Is this correct, Gordon?

[gnasher]

My understanding is that pass-or-correct bids are still alertable; it is the double of such a bid that is not alertable if the meaning is takeout of the suit that was bid.

 

I don't know what Paradox responses are, but a 2♠ bid (as commonly played over here) over a Multi is artificial, so the unalerted meaning of the double would show spades. Is this correct, Gordon?

I'm going to give Trinidad some ammunition by saying that a takeout double of Multi-pass-2♠ is not alertable, and a spade-showing double is alertable.

 

As I understand it, "Paradox" is a synonym for "pass or correct".

[Cyberyeti]

I'm going to give Trinidad some ammunition by saying that a takeout double of Multi-pass-2♠ is not alertable, and a spade-showing double is alertable.

 

As I understand it, "Paradox" is a synonym for "pass or correct".

Is this correct, as 2♠ is not a true pass/correct in that it's pass/correct or show your strong hand. It actually says "I have short spades and longer hearts and I'll grudgingly play in 2♠ if you have 6 of them" for many people.

[Trinidad]

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.

Good that we have that misunderstanding out of the way.

 

Out of interest, I looked this situation up in the Orange Book. To me, this seems to be a clear case of 5E2(d):

Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.

The OB is not dealing with bids that "usually" show spades. It deals with bids that "show" spades and bids that "do not show" spades (meaning, of course, that they could have spades, but don't have to). That means that "usually showing spades" must fall under "not showing spades" (but not denying them either).

 

Conclusion:

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

 

I can't help it, I didn't write this regulation, but it says so pretty clearly.

 

Of course, it makes perfect sense to treat bids that "usually" show spades as if they are showing spades. So it would seem to make sense to write an exception to the rule 5E2(d), let's call it 5E2(d){2}.

 

The problem is that the whole regulation is filled with detailed rules and exceptions. The more detailed rules you get, the more exceptions there are and there will be exceptions to the exceptions.

 

A regulation is like a sieve: No matter how detailed you make the regulation, it will have holes. The only thing that you can control is the number and size of the holes: If the regulation is detailed, the holes are small, but there are many of them. If the regulation is coarse, the holes are big, but there are few of them.

 

The OB philosophy is that all holes in a sieve can be plugged if we fill them all with new sieves. But that is an illusion: You will only end up with more, smaller holes and a forest through which nobody can see the trees.

 

I prefer a regulation with one big hole. Everybody knows that this hole exists. It is in plane view and not in a corner of page 26 of an OB. This hole can be plugged by adding one rule: "When in doubt: alert." and the general awareness that the perfect regulation doesnot exist.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

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

Exactly. So how does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades? It doesn't have anything to do with your willingness to play in spades. (And if it does have something to do with willingness to play spades, it shows reluctance, rather than eagerness.)

 

My skin color is white. It has been white since I was born. Last Summer I went on vacation in India. My skin color is still white. Does the fact that I went on vacation in India make my skin any whiter than it was when I was born? It doesn't. My vacation in India has nothing to do with my whiteness.

 

I opened 1NT (showing 2-5 spades). Partner transfers and I bid 2♠ (showing 2-5 spades or 2-3 spades). Does the 2♠ bid show any willingness to play in spades over the willingness that I have already shown by opening 1NT? It doesn't. The 2♠ bid has nothing to do with my willingness to play spades.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Good that we have that misunderstanding out of the way.

 

Out of interest, I looked this situation up in the Orange Book. To me, this seems to be a clear case of 5E2(d):

 

The OB is not dealing with bids that "usually" show spades.

 

Correct. These methods are not popular in England, so the omission is understandable.

 

 

It deals with bids that "show" spades and bids that "do not show" spades (meaning, of course, that they could have spades, but don't have to). That means that "usually showing spades" must fall under "not showing spades" (but not denying them either).

 

...

 

Of course, it makes perfect sense to treat bids that "usually" show spades as if they are showing spades. So it would seem to make sense to write an exception to the rule 5E2(d), let's call it 5E2(d){2}.

 

I don't know that an exception is actually needed; I think that people would treat a bid that "usually" shows spades as showing spades. Especially since they will not be aware of the opponents' agreement until it comes up. Without discussion, there seems no other course than to go with the frequencies.

 

The problem is that the whole regulation is filled with detailed rules and exceptions. The more detailed rules you get, the more exceptions there are and there will be exceptions to the exceptions.

 

There aren't exceptions, just examples and clarifications.

 

A regulation is like a sieve: No matter how detailed you make the regulation, it will have holes. The only thing that you can control is the number and size of the holes: If the regulation is detailed, the holes are small, but there are many of them. If the regulation is coarse, the holes are big, but there are few of them.

 

The OB philosophy is that all holes in a sieve can be plugged if we fill them all with new sieves. But that is an illusion: You will only end up with more, smaller holes and a forest through which nobody can see the trees.

 

I prefer a regulation with one big hole. Everybody knows that this hole exists. It is in plane view and not in a corner of page 26 of an OB. This hole can be plugged by adding one rule: "When in doubt: alert." and the general awareness that the perfect regulation doesnot exist.

 

These exact words don't appear in the Orange Book, but the idea that one should, when in doubt, alert, is clearly contained in the regulations. Therefore all holes in the regulation are plugged, agreed? So are there further grounds for discussion?

[Trinidad]

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.

My point precisely. If you realize that it is impossible to get the semantics correct, why would you strive for increasingly correct (but also increasingly complicated) regulations.

 

Accept from the start that the perfect regulation doesn't exist and don't make it worse by making it imperfect as well as lengthy, detailed and complicated.

 

Suppose now that somebody who alerts the way everybody in England consistently understands the regulations meets somebody who understands the alert regulation as it is written. Misinformation is alledged and the TD needs to rule. Does he rule as everybody in England consistently understands the regulations or does he rule according to the regulation as it is written?

 

The point is that you simply shouldn't want to go there. One should realize that the more one writes, the more one writes wrong.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Exactly. So how does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades? It doesn't have anything to do with your willingness to play in spades. (And if it does have something to do with willingness to play spades, it shows reluctance, rather than eagerness.)

 

My skin color is white. It has been white since I was born. Last Summer I went on vacation in India. My skin color is still white. Does the fact that I went on vacation in India make my skin any whiter than it was when I was born? It doesn't. My vacation in India has nothing to do with my whiteness.

 

I opened 1NT (showing 2-5 spades). Partner transfers and I bid 2♠ (showing 2-5 spades or 2-3 spades). Does the 2♠ bid show any willingness to play in spades over the willingness that I have already shown by opening 1NT? It doesn't. The 2♠ bid has nothing to do with my willingness to play spades.

 

In England it is very popular to play that over (1♠)-P-(1NT) double is takeout of spades. This treatment will no doubt seem bizarre to you, because the 1NT bid (normally not forcing, so it doesn't conceal a raise) does not express the desire to play in spades at all. Th hand may have a singleton or void in spades. But the principle of doubling for takeout a suit the opponents' partnership have shown is universally accepted. So this informs our actions over acceptances of transfers and similar.

 

Obviously you do not play this way, and where you play such doubles would not be for takeout. Hopefully this brief explanation can help you to understand why the regulations under discussion are appropriate for the bridge environment for which they are intended.

[Vampyr]

The point is that you simply shouldn't want to go there. One should realize that the more one writes, the more one writes wrong.

 

Then stop already!

 

Yes, you could remove the examples and the alert-of-doubles regulation will be one sentence, and people will almost always get it right. Those of us who play under the OB regulations are happy that the examples offer guidance, should we wish to avail ourselves of it, in cases where there might be double due to the meaning of the opponents' bids. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

And what is your local regulation that is so much better (sorry if you've quoted it before)?

[nige1]

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.

Gordon, just to make sure that I understand you correctly:

1. You hold ♠ - ♥ K Q x x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x and partner partner opens 2♦ showing a weak 5-6 card major.. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♠ (pass/correct) on such hands. The opposing side are certain to have more ♠ than your side. Does the EBU consder 2♠ to be natural and unalertable?
2. At favourable vulnerability, you hold ♠ x x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x ♣ x x x x. Partner opens a weak no-trump and RHO doubles. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♦ on such hands, intending to redouble if opponents double. Of course they are delighted to play undoubled in 2♦. Does the EBU consider 2♦ to be a natural and unalertable?

Whatever its decision, does the EBU really believe that we simple-minded players will arrive at the same conclusion?

[gordontd]

Gordon, just to make sure that I understand you correctly:

1. You hold ♠ - ♥ K Q x x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x and partner partner opens 2♦ showing a weak 5-6 card major.. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♠ (pass/correct) on such hands. The opposing side are certain to have more ♠ than your side. Does the EBU consder 2♠ to be a natural and unalertable?
2. At favourable vulnerability, you hold ♠ x x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x ♣ x x x x. Partner opens a weak no-trump and RHO doubles. Some partnerships agree to bid 2♦ on such hands, intending to redouble if opponents double. Of course they are delighted to play undoubled in 2♦. Does the EBU consider 2♦ to be a natural and unalertable?

Whatever its decision, does the EBU really believe that we simple-minded players will arrive at the same conclusion?

Neither of them is natural and unalertable, but that is not the question under discussion. The question is which doubles of those bids should be alertable, and for those purposes the EBU treats doubles of these may-or-may-not-have bids the same as doubles of natural bids.

[nige1]

[Alerting doubles that are neither penalty nor take-out] is pointless as it stands: the information content of the alert is zero once a double hasn't been announced.

True, although some jurisdictions insist that you alert artificial calls. The alert does confirm that the double is artificial in some way (and neither penalty nor take-out). Hence, If an opponent is waiting for an announcement, alerting could save time.

[Zelandakh]

duplicate, please delete

[Zelandakh]

Rik, you missed out an important addition to 5E2 which is somewhat relevant:-

 

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.

 

This is the wording that means that 2♠ after the "probable transfer" is treated as natural for the purposes of alerting doubles. This has the strange effect of making the call possibly artificial for the purposes of alerting but natural for the purposes of alerting a double over it. In the clearer case of the (2♦) - P - (2♠) auction that I mentioned before, this does seem to be the case. I agree that this feels a little unnatural but now that I know how it works I cannot see why it would cause a problem if I was playing in the EBU regularly.

[gnasher]

Gordon, just to make sure that I understand you correctly:

You hadn't.

 

Whatever its decision, does the EBU really believe that we simple-minded players will arrive at the same conclusion?

The EBU probably assumes that anyone who wants to understand the rules will start by reading them. Have you done that?

[nige1]

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.

A game is its rules. Local jurisdictions have created different versions of "Bridge". I would prefer global rules, so we could play the same game, the world over, with minimal local advantage.

The EBU probably assumes that anyone who wants to understand the rules will start by reading them. Have you done that?

I try to keep up with the Orange book. In this and other topics, I admit I find it hard to understand much of it.

[Vampyr]

A game is its rules. Local jurisdictions have created different versions of "Bridge". I would prefer global rules, so we could play the same game, the world over, with minimal local advantage.

 

Perhaps it would be better to recognise the difference between the laws of the game and the local regulations.

 

The laws stipulate that disclosure will be made and systems can be allowed or disallowed, while the regulations define how.

 

The content of the regulations depends on the local bridge culture. The allowed systems and alert rules are based upon what the players prefer, and I'm sorry but this is not the same all over the world.

 

Let us say that in Poland Polish Club is very common and is not alerted (I have no idea whether this is true, but it is just an example). In England Polish Club is alertable, and in the US it is not permitted except at high levels at which most players don't have the opportunity to play. If these three regulations were randomly switched around, who would be happy? No one. Because the writers of the regulations took the players' wishes into accounts when writing the regulations. I know that it doesn't always seem that way, but in general terms regulations are appropriate to the populations for whom they are intended.

 

Maybe people should be forced beyond their comfort levels? Sure, if we want the majority of players to abandon clubs and tournaments and play at home instead; or just find some other form of enjoyment.

 

People who frequently play in different countries (or in jurisdictions such as the EBL and WBF) are almost always the more experienced players, who can handle any sets of regulations and are motivated to find out which ones apply.

 

Nigel, you have never specified who is being harmed by the different regulations in different NBOs.

[blackshoe]

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".

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

[gnasher]

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

I think it woud be entiely legal. Something like: "Under Law 61B3, defenders may not ask each other whether they have any cards left of the suit led."

[Vampyr]

Interesting suggestion. However, I think such a regulation would be illegal. See Law 80B2(f).

 

I don't see the problem. If the regulatory prohibits the practice, presumably they can attach any penalty they wish.

 

I also don't know what was wrong with the old law.

[gnasher]

I also don't know what was wrong with the old law.

Under the old law, more scores included a revoke penalty. That made the game slightly more a test of mechanical and observational skills, and slightly less a test of analytical skills.

 

Of course, the change in the laws had a disadvantage in that it increased the transmission of UI, and I agree that this disadvantage probably outweighs the advantages.

[Trinidad]

Rik, you missed out an important addition to 5E2 which is somewhat relevant:-

 

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’.

No, I didn't miss that. I have read it several times.

This is the wording that means that 2♠ after the "probable transfer" is treated as natural for the purposes of alerting doubles.

The point is that, in my version of English, this addition doesn't mean that at all. A completion of a transfer doesn't show willingness to play in the suit. It either shows nothing at all, or it shows that one is not willing to play in this suit, but partner wants to play in the suit.

 

The partnership may be willing to play in the suit. But the partnership doesn't bid 2♠. There is only one individual player who bids 2♠. And this individual player shows his opinion, based on his hand, by bidding 2♠. And the question is whether this 2♠ bid in the context of the auction shows willingness to play in spades. It doesn't. If it says anything it is: "I have to play in spades but I'd rather not.".

 

Think of the face of a four year old when he is eating brussels sprouts. A good parent will make sure that these sprouts get eaten -just like responder will make sure that opener will rebid 2♠ after the transfer- but the kid's face does not show willingness to eat brussels sprouts and neither does the 2♠ bid show willingness to play in spades.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

I guess it is important to define whether an opening bid which shows a balanced hand indicates willingness to play in any strain ---and whether doing what partner asks you to do shows a willingness to do what partner asks you to do.

 

I hope you folks get that resolved.

[nige1]

Perhaps it would be better to recognise the difference between the laws of the game and the local regulations. The laws stipulate that disclosure will be made and systems can be allowed or disallowed, while the regulations define how. The content of the regulations depends on the local bridge culture. The allowed systems and alert rules are based upon what the players prefer, and I'm sorry but this is not the same all over the world. Let us say that in Poland Polish Club is very common and is not alerted (I have no idea whether this is true, but it is just an example). In England Polish Club is alertable, and in the US it is not permitted except at high levels at which most players don't have the opportunity to play. If these three regulations were randomly switched around, who would be happy? No one. Because the writers of the regulations took the players' wishes into accounts when writing the regulations. I know that it doesn't always seem that way, but in general terms regulations are appropriate to the populations for whom they are intended. Maybe people should be forced beyond their comfort levels? Sure, if we want the majority of players to abandon clubs and tournaments and play at home instead; or just find some other form of enjoyment.

Bridge thrives in less restrictive jurisdictions with simpler rules.

:). People who frequently play in different countries (or in jurisdictions such as the EBL and WBF) are almost always the more experienced players, who can handle any sets of regulations and are motivated to find out which ones apply. Nigel, you have never specified who is being harmed by the different regulations in different NBOs.

I hope I have specified that local regulation fragments the game and harms players who would prefer a level playing field. I have little new to say on this issue. Bridge is a great game. IMO it would be better if the rules were universal, comprehensive, simpler, and clearer. Bridge regulators seem reluctant to poll members on such topics -- The opinion of younger players may differ from that of the establishment.

[mycroft]

One Note: in the US (well, and Canada; ACBL here), Polish Club is just fine. There are a couple of calls that may need a bit of tweaking to be GCC legal in the basic system, but a multi-meaning 1♣ with natural other openings is okay.

 

What isn't okay - even at the highest levels of ACBL play - is the Wilkosz 2♦ showing 5-5, any two suits except both minors. Whether you're playing it in a Polish Club or K/S framework, or even (hush) 2/1.

 

[Edit: I reread what you said, Vampyr, and it was a theoretical, which is fine; but there are way too many people around my area who *do* think that PC is not GCC legal. I'd rather not make any more converts, even with a theoretical.]