Should we alert?

[Jeremy69A]

I seem to remember sequences like 2♦(multi)-P-2♥(P/C)-P-P-X and 1N-X-XX(single suit)-P-2C-P-P-X cause problems where the bid is artificial, but the partner of the bidder confirms he holds the suit, I'm sure many people don't know what the rule is for this.

 

Yes. There are difficult situations but nonetheless if players remembered three rules then about 98% of all difficulty would go away. In your two example whether there was or was not an alert I would expect there to be a check before it was, say, passed out.

 

I don't believe this is an accurate generalization of current regulations. I also don't think you can lump all the cases where an opponent opens, overcalls, raises, balances, or whatever --and all the different levels these things occur --- together and make any alerting rule about a Double to cover all of them.

 

I think the rule, albeit a generalisation, does cover doubles whether the opponents bid is an opening, response, overcall, raise or balance. I can conceive there might be exceptions and above 3NT it is slightly different however as above if players alerted according to what you categorise as generalisations I believe we would all be better off

[helene_t]

I think it has been clarified a few times here that p/c bids are considered natural for this purpose. Anyway, if I were playing stuff like this I wouldn't make any assumptions regarding the meaning of opps (non)-alert. On the other hand, opps can also just follow the general advice to alert whenever in doubt.

 

So I don't think this is a problem. The problem I have with the EBU alert rules is that I sometimes make undiscussed doubles. Then I don't want to receive UI from partner's (non)alert.

[gnasher]

I think it has been clarified a few times here that p/c bids are considered natural for this purpose.

It's also stated in the regulations.

[Cyberyeti]

It's also stated in the regulations.

 

I know that, but I suspect a lot of people don't, that was the point I was making.

[blackshoe]

So I don't think this is a problem. The problem I have with the EBU alert rules is that I sometimes make undiscussed doubles. Then I don't want to receive UI from partner's (non)alert.

Nobody wants to receive UI from partner. Sometimes it can't be helped. In this case, when you make an undiscussed double, do you 1) expect an alert, 2) expect no alert, 3) it depends on the bidding sequence? If your partnership has a documented agreement that 1 always applies, or that 2 always applies, you should be okay. If 3 applies, then you would have to list the circumstances under which it is 1 and the circumstances under which it is 2. Most pairs don't go into so much detail, and then there might well be a UI problem. I guess you have to live with it, or refrain from making undiscussed doubles. :ph34r:

[nige1]

I still can't remember which of the following doubles are alertable in the EBU

A.Transfer

(1N) _P (2♦) _X

(2♥) _X

- 1N = Weak

- 2♦ = Artificial - a variety of meanings, often with four or more ♥.

- 2♥ = Conventionally denying more than 2 ♥

- First double shows ♦.

- Second double is T/O of ♥ (it assumes that the 2♦ bidder has 5+ ♥)

 

B. Pass/correct

(2♦) _P (2♥) _X

- 2♦ = Multi - A variety of meanings, often a weak two in either major.

- 2♥ = Pass or correct (i.e. an artificial but passable relay enquiring about hand type).

- Double = T/O of ♥ (it assumes that opener has the weak variety with ♥)

Given the regs are:

1. If the opponents bid a suit naturally then double is deemed to be take out. If ANYTHING else alert

2. If the opponents bid NT naturally then double is deemed to be penalty. If ANYTHING else alert.

3. If opponents bid a suit artificially double is deemed to be the suit. If ANYTHING else alert

 

then I don't think this is very difficult. Of course if people decide that a sequence such as 3D (3S) x is so obviously penalty that they won't alert it it is hard to deal with although frankly unlikely to do much damage. Whilst you can say there is a bit more to the regs than what is above (above 3NT for example) the basic set is fairly simple and should not be too hard to get used to even for those who don't want to read the regulations.

Which of the doubles in my examples should be alerted? Should players like me alert whenever in doubt, rather than go wrong? :(

[gnasher]

Which of the doubles in my examples should be alerted?

Neither of your doubles of 2♥ is alertable. Jeremy's first rule should have been "If the opponents bid a suit naturally (including pass-or-correct actions), then double is deemed to be take out."

 

Should players like me alert whenever in doubt, rather than go wrong?

If you know the meaning of a call but don't know whether the meaning is alertable, it's better to alert than not. It's almost impossible for an opponent to be misled by an erroneous alert, because the alert in itself doesn't tell him anything specific about the meaning. If he asks and receives an answer, there's no misinformation; if he doesn't ask he can't have been very interested in the meaning, so is very unlikely to have been damaged.

 

The main problem with alerting a non-alertable call is that your partner may have taken the trouble to read the alerting rules, so he may think you're having a misunderstanding when you're not, and he may take an inferior action because he believes himself to be constrained by the UI laws.

 

The best thing for players like you is, of course, to read the rules. That's better than asking people on online forum to tell you what the rules are, because you may not get a correct or complete answer. You seem to have plenty of time available for criticising the EBU's alerting rules; when did you last read them?

 

In this case I do have some sympathy with your complaint, because the section about doubles under "Basic alerting rules" is rather cumbersomely worded, and it doesn't make it clear the status of doubles of pass-or-correct bids. For that you have to look at the examples. On the other hand, the relevant example isn't very hard to find. You just have to search for "pass-or-correct". Or you could look in the index under "Alerting, doubles".

[helene_t]

If you don't need to know, you could switch off announcements. Why does helene_t feel that announcing natural calls would generate enormous amounts of UI?

Suppose I make a freebid at the 3-level which is obviously forcing for at least one round. Let's say I hold a decent 10 count so not quite enough to force to game. Partner announces my bid as gameforcing. Now partner rebids his suit and I have no clue if that would be forcing or not opposite a forcing-for-one-round freebid:

1♠-(2♥)-3♣-(pass)

3♠

 

However, since his announcement makes it less attractive to pass, I will have to pass now if that is an LA. Without the UI I might have chosen to bid on just in case partner meant his bid as forcing.

 

Then again, if I pass and it works out well the SB opps might be able to convince the TD that partner's announcement told me that partner was forced to bid and therefore doesn't need extra values for his 3♠ bid which makes pass suggested.

 

So whatever I do I am screwed. Of course it could be that the TD says that he has no clue what the announcements suggests in terms of pass vs bidding on so I can do what I want. In that case the SB will feel that whatever I do he is screwed.

 

And in any case we have wasted the TD's time for no good reason. Just make any natural 3♣ bid (Dutch regulations) or any forcing natural 3♣ bid (EBU) non-alertable and we wouldn't have this mess.

[nige1]

Suppose I make a freebid at the 3-level which is obviously forcing for at least one round. Let's say I hold a decent 10 count so not quite enough to force to game. Partner announces my bid as gameforcing. Now partner rebids his suit and I have no clue if that would be forcing or not opposite a forcing-for-one-round freebid:

1♠-(2♥)-3♣-(pass)

3♠

However, since his announcement makes it less attractive to pass, I will have to pass now if that is an LA. Without the UI I might have chosen to bid on just in case partner meant his bid as forcing. Then again, if I pass and it works out well the SB opps might be able to convince the TD that partner's announcement told me that partner was forced to bid and therefore doesn't need extra values for his 3♠ bid which makes pass suggested.

So whatever I do I am screwed. Of course it could be that the TD says that he has no clue what the announcements suggests in terms of pass vs bidding on so I can do what I want. In that case the SB will feel that whatever I do he is screwed.

And in any case we have wasted the TD's time for no good reason. Just make any natural 3♣ bid (Dutch regulations) or any forcing natural 3♣ bid (EBU) non-alertable and we wouldn't have this mess.

Such problems are more likely to occur with current alerting rules. In many jurisdictions, your partner should alert if thinks that your 3♣ bid is game-forcing, when opponents might not expect it to be. Under the proposed rules, announcements would usually be UI to you. The recommended way of "announcing" is to point to the relevant entry on your system-card. This may seem a radical change but I believe that it was Jeff Rubens who first suggested that your explanations should be UI to partner. This would also reduce the strain on the mind-reading skills of TDs.

[nige1]

Neither of your doubles of 2♥ is alertable. Jeremy's first rule should have been "If the opponents bid a suit naturally (including pass-or-correct actions), then double is deemed to be take out."

It's not "natural" to bid a suit of which you and partner might have fewer than 3 cards between you. This can happen over multi and non-promissory transfers.

If you know the meaning of a call but don't know whether the meaning is alertable, it's better to alert than not. It's almost impossible for an opponent to be misled by an erroneous alert, because the alert in itself doesn't tell him anything specific about the meaning. If he asks and receives an answer, there's no misinformation; if he doesn't ask he can't have been very interested in the meaning, so is very unlikely to have been damaged. The main problem with alerting a non-alertable call is that your partner may have taken the trouble to read the alerting rules, so he may think you're having a misunderstanding when you're not, and he may take an inferior action because he believes himself to be constrained by the UI laws.

See reply to helene_t

The best thing for players like you is, of course, to read the rules. That's better than asking people on online forum to tell you what the rules are, because you may not get a correct or complete answer. You seem to have plenty of time available for criticising the EBU's alerting rules; when did you last read them?

Before Brighton but I don't understand them and I'm in good company

In this case I do have some sympathy with your complaint, because the section about doubles under "Basic alerting rules" is rather cumbersomely worded, and it doesn't make it clear the status of doubles of pass-or-correct bids. For that you have to look at the examples. On the other hand, the relevant example isn't very hard to find. You just have to search for "pass-or-correct". Or you could look in the index under "Alerting, doubles".

To me, the regulations seem complicated, self-contradictory, and unnecessary. But Thank you, anyway.