Fielded misbid?

[StevenG]

It's a double of a suit bid under 3NT that is not for takeout. Is that so hard? Experienced players have no trouble with this.

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

 

If, in an undiscussed sequence, your meta-agreement is takeout, but it has to be penalty due to bridge logic from the sequence, do you alert? If, however, it is unclear from the sequence, but you deduce from your hand it is penalty, do you alert?

 

Is the whole logic of alerting doubles different from that of alerting bids, where you disclose your agreements, not what you suspect the bid might mean?

 

Maybe established tournament partnershipss have agreements on doubles detailed enough to cope with the regulation, but lesser players, like me, are mostly just muddling through.

 

(I've been asking these questions ever since these regulations first came in, and I've never had an authoritative reply.)

[VixTD]

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

 

If, in an undiscussed sequence, your meta-agreement is takeout, but it has to be penalty due to bridge logic from the sequence, do you alert? If, however, it is unclear from the sequence, but you deduce from your hand it is penalty, do you alert?

 

Is the whole logic of alerting doubles different from that of alerting bids, where you disclose your agreements, not what you suspect the bid might mean?

 

Maybe established tournament partnershipss have agreements on doubles detailed enough to cope with the regulation, but lesser players, like me, are mostly just muddling through.

 

(I've been asking these questions ever since these regulations first came in, and I've never had an authoritative reply.)

The regulations state (BB2D2):

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

[RMB1]

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

 

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

[VixTD]

I thought this was the most toe-curling example of abuse of UI that I've seen for a long time. I didn't fine North (although he was experienced enough to know better), but I adjusted the score to 75% of 3♠X(S)-4 and 25% of 3♠X-3 to both sides. (This may be ungenerous to the non-offenders, but either score would be a top.) I'm horrified that anyone is trying to defend his actions.

 

He was all ready to appeal (on a somewhat vague basis) but thankfully thought the better of it after a night's sleep. I would have expected the deposit to be forfeit.

[aguahombre]

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

Wow, we should alert GBK and alert that we have no agreement. Pretty much the opposite over here, where we alert if we know a bid is alertable but don't remember which alertable meaning it has ---and alert highly unexpected agreements.

 

Or maybe it is highly unexpected in that jurisdiction for a pair which has each shown balance and strength to want to penalize an opponent's intervention rather than explore for a non-fit at the 4-level. Good red herring in this case, to mitigate the real issue of North/South's use of UI.

 

Equally in the "Duh" realm:

 

1H (2NT) Double (No alert, not a suit bid)

(3D) Double! ("Alert...shows desire to defend 3D")

[billw55]

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

So essentially .. "alert, no agreement"

 

Yes, I do find this strange. If playing under such a rule, I might end up alerting every call, just to be on the safe side. Have agreement? Alert. Don't have agreement? Also alert!

[StevenG]

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

So if the agreement is "takeout (unless it can't be)" I alert ALL our doubles? (other than the simplest negative double). They they ask and get constained by the UI. :lol:

[Trinidad]

No, it falls under wanting to have simple regulations without lots of exceptions. Of course if it's a situation no-one would misunderstand then you can't expect to get redress for a failure to alert.

I like simplicity, but simplicity is not the aim of the EBU regulations. They aim to make unusual meanings of bids alertable and they aim to be very accurate at that, going into lots of details. But when it comes to doubles this suddenly all vanishes, and they come with a simple blanket rule ("alert all doubles that are not for takeout") that completely ignores the fact that the alert regulation is build around "not having to alert the standard meaning".

 

So either go all the way and define calls with standard meanings that are not alertable, or take the simple route but then for all calls. Not simple for some, accurate for others.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

I like simplicity, but simplicity is not the aim of the EBU regulations. They aim to make unusual meanings of bids alertable and they aim to be very accurate at that, going into lots of details.

I simply don't think this is true. I think they aim to create simple regulations that distinguish between expected and unexpected meanings without needing lots of exceptions. So we alert a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening even though it's the most common meaning of the bid, because it fits in with the simple rule of alerting artificial ("not natural") calls. In fact the basic alerting rules for passes and bids are simpler than those for doubles (two rules instead of five), but the list of specific examples is longer for passes and bids than for doubles.

[Vampyr]

The EBU has got this right. Sorry, all you people who are jealous, and let's have no more sour grapes.

[aguahombre]

I simply don't think this is true. I think they aim to create simple regulations that distinguish between expected and unexpected meanings without needing lots of exceptions. So we alert a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening even though it's the most common meaning of the bid, because it fits in with the simple rule of alerting artificial ("not natural") calls. In fact the basic alerting rules for passes and bids are simpler than those for doubles (two rules instead of five), but the list of specific examples is longer for passes and bids than for doubles.

I guess that means it is unnatural to exact a penalty from the opponents when we have the majority of the power and no established fit of our own.

[Vampyr]

So if the agreement is "takeout (unless it can't be)" I alert ALL our doubles? (other than the simplest negative double). They they ask and get constained by the UI. :lol:

 

??? If it "can't be" takeout, you alert. If you don't alert the opponents are entitled to assume it is takeout. So there will be less asking than under other regulations, and if the opponents do ask about an alerted double which turns out to be penalty (the most common case) there will be less UI than in other cases -- largely because your actions over a penalty double contain less "I" of any sort.

 

Count your blessings. In some jurisdictions NO doubles are alerted. So you have to ask an awful lot, and the UI potential is much much greater.

[Vampyr]

I guess that means it is unnatural to exact a penalty from the opponents when we have the majority of the power and no established fit of our own.

 

Would you like to submit a list of which doubles should be alerted and which shouldn't? I shall be impressed if the list is comprehensive and can be explained in 30 seconds. I suspect that you will need only to start the task before realising the wisdom of the EBU's choice.

[WellSpyder]

Would you like to submit a list of which doubles should be alerted and which shouldn't? I shall be impressed if the list is comprehensive and can be explained in 30 seconds. I suspect that you will need only to start the task before realising the wisdom of the EBU's choice.

I think the EBU's choice is the worst set of rules for alerting doubles there is, except for any other choice they might have made.

[TMorris]

Regarding alerting doubles and the EBU I reckon I am one of about three people in my local club who alert doubles at all. At tournement level it is rather different of course but at club level my experience is that very few understand or apply these rules. Of course most of the time it is obvious if a double is for penalties so it is not an issue.

[StevenG]

??? If it "can't be" takeout, you alert.

But the point is that's it's "common sense" that makes you think (guess, even) it can't be takeout, not partnership understanding. (Maybe it's just table feel, when it seems clear to all at the table that opps are sacrificing.) And that's completely inconsistent with the whole concept of alerting understandings (explicit or implicit). As you suggest in a later post, it isn't really possible to enumerate all the competitive situations in which your side might double, so you're just working it out at the table.

 

(I often find that if I double "for takeout" in the hope that partner will realise I'd prefer it left in, my LHO has passed long before partner has worked out what might be going on, and then partner has no idea whether or not the double is alertable, nor, really, is she likely to even be considering the question, being too wrapped up in the actual bridge.)

[Vampyr]

But the point is that's it's "common sense" that makes you think (guess, even) it can't be takeout, not partnership understanding. (Maybe it's just table feel, when it seems clear to all at the table that opps are sacrificing.) And that's completely inconsistent with the whole concept of alerting understandings (explicit or implicit). As you suggest in a later post, it isn't really possible to enumerate all the competitive situations in which your side might double, so you're just working it out at the table.

 

(I often find that if I double "for takeout" in the hope that partner will realise I'd prefer it left in, my LHO has passed long before partner has worked out what might be going on, and then partner has no idea whether or not the double is alertable, nor, really, is she likely to even be considering the question, being too wrapped up in the actual bridge.)

 

I know, let's change the regulation to read that a double is only alertable if it deviates from its "common sense" meaning. Now [i}that[/] would be a regulation people could understand,,,

 

Seriously, if you are not sure whether a call is alertable:

 

A alert it

B that is your own problem

C if the regulations were otherwise, you would be alerting the opposite meaning, and would be in the exact same position if you were not sure.

[blackshoe]

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

Doesn't "common understanding of bridge logic" fall under "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

[RMB1]

Doesn't "common understanding of bridge logic" fall under "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

I meant understanding of bridge logic common to the two players in the partnership, not common to players generally.

 

Some players think that once your side doubles for penalties all doubles are penalties and that this is bridge logic.

 

Other players play forcing passing and a different meaning for double, once the opponents have been doubled for penalties. This is perfectly playable and shows that the first understanding is not universal bridge logic.

[blackshoe]

Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

 

If, in an undiscussed sequence, your meta-agreement is takeout, but it has to be penalty due to bridge logic from the sequence, do you alert? If, however, it is unclear from the sequence, but you deduce from your hand it is penalty, do you alert?

 

Is the whole logic of alerting doubles different from that of alerting bids, where you disclose your agreements, not what you suspect the bid might mean?

 

Maybe established tournament partnershipss have agreements on doubles detailed enough to cope with the regulation, but lesser players, like me, are mostly just muddling through.

 

(I've been asking these questions ever since these regulations first came in, and I've never had an authoritative reply.)

I can't give an authoritative reply for the EBU, other than to refer you to the EBU regulation Vix has already quoted, but I can try to give a general reply.

 

When you have an agreement that requires an alert, you alert. When you do not have a specific agreement about a call, but you have a meta-agreement that would require an alert, you alert. "What the double is actually intended to mean" would require you to read partner's mind, and you can't do that, so you don't alert on that basis. If partner has done something strange - for example the meaning of his call is undiscussed in your partnership, you alert (and absent any other partnership information, simply explain the call as "undiscussed").

 

"Bridge logic" does not require disclosure - after all, if it's "bridge logic" it's available to any player.

 

If partner makes an undiscussed call, and you have no information from partnership agreement or experience, you alert and explain "undiscussed". If you know a double is penalty solely from your hand, you do not explain it as penalty. I would think that would be rare, though.

 

The logic of alerting doubles is the same as the logic of alerting any other call, although some jurisdictions consider all or almost all doubles as "self-alerting". IAC, you don't explain "what you suspect the bid might mean" unless the suspicion comes from your partnership agreements or partnership experience (including, let it be said, mutual experience with a third party).

[blackshoe]

So if the agreement is "takeout (unless it can't be)" I alert ALL our doubles? (other than the simplest negative double). They they ask and get constained by the UI. :lol:

If your opponents generate UI for themselves by asking, that's their problem, not yours.

[blackshoe]

I meant understanding of bridge logic common to the two players in the partnership, not common to players generally.

 

Some players think that once your side doubles for penalties all doubles are penalties and that this is bridge logic.

 

Other players play forcing passing and a different meaning for double, once the opponents have been doubled for penalties. This is perfectly playable and shows that the first understanding is not universal bridge logic.

Okay, fair enough.

[barmar]

Would you like to submit a list of which doubles should be alerted and which shouldn't? I shall be impressed if the list is comprehensive and can be explained in 30 seconds. I suspect that you will need only to start the task before realising the wisdom of the EBU's choice.

 

Kind of like the rules many pairs have for determining which doubles are penalty, takeout, DSIP ("do something intelligent, partner", aka "cards"), etc. in the first place. There's little concensus except for the most common cases. Trying to make the alerting rules match the most common agreement in every case would result in a huge laundry list. Many players have enough trouble remembering the rules for their own partnerships, making them also have to keep track of which ones are alertable would be an excessive burden.

 

EBU has long had simplicity as a general strategy in their alerting rules. It's only been a few years since they changed it from essentially "If it's artificial, alert it" (so that Stayman was alerted).

[Vampyr]

EBU has long had simplicity as a general strategy in their alerting rules. It's only been a few years since they changed it from essentially "If it's artificial, alert it" (so that Stayman was alerted).

 

Well, an announcement is a sort of alert, is it not?

[helene_t]

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

I agree with this although I must add that I don't have that much experience with tournament play in EBU land. The alert regs for doubles look sensible on paper so I suppose they work OK at top level. But they don't work at all in the clubs I have played in.

 

There is a general EBU rule that says that if you don't know the meaning of partner's call you should alert (or not) depending on whether you base your own decision on the assumption that it has an alertable meaning. One problem with this is that it doesn't tell me what to do if I try to play safe and cater to multiple meanings, some of which are alertable. I suppose I should alert in such a case but there are grey areas. Another problem is that if I base my decision on what the double seems to mean based on my own holding, my alert (or not) says something about my own holding.

 

Then there are all those doubles which are somewhere take-outish but not quite take-out. Or those that are take-out but have more or less unusual shape restrictions. For example we play the negative double of 1♥ as denying spades, showing the unbid minor or some 3(433) hand without a stopper. I don't know if we should alert this.

 

Then I was told a few years ago that EBU had ammended the procedure so that you now also have to alert doubles that carry an unusual meaning. So if you preempt and partner subsequently double a 3bananas bid you should always alert, because a non-penalty double would be unusual. The LOLs and LOGs at my local club genrally assume doubles to be penalty in undiscussed situations (and most situations are undiscussed!) so this would mean that almost all doubles should be alerted.

 

Except maybe if my understanding that the double is penalty is based on general bridge knowledge and not a partnership agreement. But maybe this Common Bridge Knowledge principle shouldn't apply to doubles at all since there should be an inference that my failure to alert shows something specific, not merely that we haven't discussed it?

 

Alas, having played 2-3 times a week for seven years in EBU clubs I have only seen a correctly alerted double once. It was a serious young partnership who knew to alert partner's penalty double after a 1NT opening. So based on my experience, if a double at club level is alerted there is more than a 99% chance that it is not alertable. I am not exagerating: plenty of pairs alert negative doubles. Not just the recent immigrants from Ireland. But most alert no doubles. Not just the recent immigrants from Scotland.

 

All this said, WellSpyder is probably right to paraphrase Winston Churchill. It is easy to complain but there isn't any good alternative AFAICS.

 

Back to the OP: I don't think it matters what (if anything) the failure to alert the double means. Even if it can be assumed to be penalty, it doesn't necesarily show anything in spades. It could also mean that they are in a FP so without a spade stopper West prefers to defend.

 

Anyway, I agree with VicTD's ruling.