Alerting Doubles

[Liversidge]

I am relatively new to bridge and play at an EBU registered club level in the UK, with a mix of members from novice to intermediate level. Partner and I have an understanding that a double of a natural suit on the first round of bidding is for takeout, up to the 3 level, but have not discussed what happens as the bidding develops – we don’t double nearly as often as we should!

I was pulled up by an opponent last week for not alerting after partner doubled a suit bid on the second or third round of bidding (can’t remember how it went). I was unsure what the double meant but decided it was for penalty and said so to my opponent when he asked. When he said I should have alerted my partner said that when he doubled he wasn’t sure how I’d take it but was quite happy if I left it in or took it out.

I have checked up since and according to the EBU Blue Book 2013, the rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double is for take-out.

 

(b) Minor suit openings which may be shorter than three cards but which may be natural and which do not promise a strong hand Alert, unless the double is for take-out.

 

© No trump bids: Alert, unless the double is for penalties.

 

(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid

 

I take this to mean that no matter how the bidding has gone, including passes or No Trump bids along the way, if partner doubles a natural suit bid then I have to assume it is a takeout request, and if I want to convert it to a penalty I just pass, without saying anything, and presumably I should have a hand that justifies my pass (i.e. good cards in the doubled suit). And if my opponent asks what partner’s bid meant I say ‘takeout’.

 

So, to give an example, if partner opens 1H and the bidding goes 1H (1S) 2H (2S) 3H (3S) x (P) P then my partner has to alert it to be a penalty double (which it obviously is from the bidding – we are only interested in hearts!!). And if I know he was doubling for penalties but he forgets to alert, what next?

[wank]

if it's a double of notrumps and it's penalties, don't alert. if it's a double of no-trumps and take-out do alert.

if it's a double of a natural suit bid and it's penalties, do not alert. if it's a double of a natural suit bid and it's penalties, do alert.

if it's a double of a non-natural suit bid and it shows the suit (de facto penalties), do not alert. if it's a double of a non-natural suit and it doesn't show the suit, alert.

 

do not alert anything above 3nt. if you don't know, safer to alert anyway.

 

what the double means isn't about assuming anything. it's a matter of agreement with your partner. you can play meanings that are alertable or not. if you wanted you could play penalty doubles of opening bids (and alert them).

 

if you decide to pass a take-out double because you have a lot of their suit, don't alert the pass, just follow the rules above for the double.

[StevenG]

what the double means isn't about assuming anything. it's a matter of agreement with your partner.

Yes, but as soon as the bidding gets difficult, you don't have agreements. Or you have meta-agreements that don't fit the hand. Is an undiscussed "do something sensible, partner" double alertable if you can deduce the intent? If you would deduce a different intent if you had a different hand? If you can't deduce the intent?

 

These rules are designed for tournament partnerships with detailed system cards and lengthy post-mortems, not once-a-week club partnerships.

[Vampyr]

do not alert anything above 3nt.

 

At least as far as the general rules are concerned.

[Vampyr]

Yes, but as soon as the bidding gets difficult, you don't have agreements. Or you have meta-agreements that don't fit the hand. Is an undiscussed "do something sensible, partner" double alertable if you can deduce the intent? If you would deduce a different intent if you had a different hand? If you can't deduce the intent?

 

These rules are designed for tournament partnerships with detailed system cards and lengthy post-mortems, not once-a-week club partnerships.

 

The rules are for everyone. If a double is "do something sensible" it requires an alert.

[StevenG]

The rules are for everyone. If a double is "do something sensible" it requires an alert.

If a double is "do something sensible", you don't really have an agreement - and you only alert agreements - right?

[gordontd]

If a double is "do something sensible", you don't really have an agreement - and you only alert agreements - right?

That's an agreement to "do something sensible", which is not takeout, not penalty.

[StevenG]

That's an agreement to "do something sensible", which is not takeout, not penalty.

But it still shows a hand which cannot find a natural bid, which is almost invariably one with an unbiddable 4-card suit. That normally looks like take-out to me.

 

I can't be bothered to look at the Blue Book right now. The Orange Book used to fail to define sensibly a take-out double, but clearly said a negative double was take-out. Yet a negative double is exactly what I mean by a "do something sensible" double - a hand with no natural bid, but with values and with length in the unbid suits. After all, with other hand types you normally either have a sensible bid or a clear pass.

[gordontd]

But it still shows a hand which cannot find a natural bid, which is almost invariably one with an unbiddable 4-card suit. That normally looks like take-out to me.

 

I can't be bothered to look at the Blue Book right now. The Orange Book used to fail to define sensibly a take-out double, but clearly said a negative double was take-out. Yet a negative double is exactly what I mean by a "do something sensible" double - a hand with no natural bid, but with values and with length in the unbid suits. After all, with other hand types you normally either have a sensible bid or a clear pass.

Are you arguing that there's no agreement or that the agreement is "takeout"?

[StevenG]

Are you arguing that there's no agreement or that the agreement is "takeout"?

Both, probably. No explicit agreement, and implicit agreement takeout. But, obviously, sometimes the bidding only makes sense if partner has a trump stack, so you make an ostensibly takeout double knowing it will be converted. And, sometimes on this forum, I see a double that I'd play as takeout described as one that "everybody plays as penalties". So do I have an implicit agreement that it's for penalties if I choose to convert, even though the sequence is undiscussed, and I've never seen it before? That's why I've never understood it.

 

And how the hell do I bid in tempo if it takes me several minutes to decide what my partner's double is, and whether it's alertable?

[blackshoe]

You don't.

[weejonnie]

Both, probably. No explicit agreement, and implicit agreement takeout. But, obviously, sometimes the bidding only makes sense if partner has a trump stack, so you make an ostensibly takeout double knowing it will be converted. And, sometimes on this forum, I see a double that I'd play as takeout described as one that "everybody plays as penalties". So do I have an implicit agreement that it's for penalties if I choose to convert, even though the sequence is undiscussed, and I've never seen it before? That's why I've never understood it.

 

And how the hell do I bid in tempo if it takes me several minutes to decide what my partner's double is, and whether it's alertable?

 

Obviously you can't - it isn't an irregularity for you to think for several minutes, however partner is then under an obligation to ignore that pause and continue to bid/ call under the assumption that his double meant what he intended it to mean and your response is also based on your knowing what he intended the double to mean. Sometimes this can lead to positions where you have to explain to the opponents that your partner's bid meant what it actually did mean under partnership agreement however you have to keep bidding on the basis of what you thought the bid actually meant.

 

I can recommend the series 'Director Please' that appeared in the EBU magazine, where many of the situations that can occur were resolved (under EBU guidelines obviously). Google "site:view.pagetiger.com "english bridge" Director please"

[barmar]

"takeout" means that partner is expected to bid something, unless he happens to have a hand that looks better for defending (usually a stack in the opponent's suit). I think a DSIP double falls under that -- it's not showing something specifically artificial (like a support), and it's not showing specific interest in penalizing the opponents (i.e. length in their suit).

 

In fact, normal, first-round takeout doubles could be considered "DSIP". You're just saying "I have strength, but no long suit to overcall with, do something intelligent with this information." And the most intelligent thing is usually for him to bid his longest suit.

[Vampyr]

"takeout" means that partner is expected to bid something, unless he happens to have a hand that looks better for defending (usually a stack in the opponent's suit). I think a DSIP double falls under that -- it's not showing something specifically artificial (like a support), and it's not showing specific interest in penalizing the opponents (i.e. length in their suit).

 

In fact, normal, first-round takeout doubles could be considered "DSIP". You're just saying "I have strength, but no long suit to overcall with, do something intelligent with this information." And the most intelligent thing is usually for him to bid his longest suit.

 

I don't really understand how "do something intelligent" means the same thing as "take this double put".

[blackshoe]

I don't really understand how "do something intelligent" means the same thing as "take this double put".

Not sure I do either. Seems to me "takeout" says "I have support for the unbid suits, pick one, or pass for penalties" and "do something intelligent" says "I've told you all I can about my hand, I have nothing specific to say now, but I don't want to pass. Do what you think is best." So the former double says something about the doubler's hand, while the latter says only that he's unwilling to pass.

[StevenG]

Not sure I do either. Seems to me "takeout" says "I have support for the unbid suits, pick one, or pass for penalties" and "do something intelligent" says "I've told you all I can about my hand, I have nothing specific to say now, but I don't want to pass. Do what you think is best." So the former double says something about the doubler's hand, while the latter says only that he's unwilling to pass.

What does "takeout" mean when there is only one unbid suit? Or if every suit has been bid? Does "takeout" mean "I have support for the unbid suits" or "I can tolerate you bidding any of the unbid suits"? If you do it on the same hands, then it's the same thing, even if your logic behind it is different.

[helene_t]

As I understand it, there is a general EBU rule that if you are not sure what a call means then you have to alert it if and only if the meaning you assume the call to have is alertable.

 

But I suppose it is still so that if we have no agreements about a specific call other than GBK then we don't alert.

 

For bids this isn't much of a conflict. I may take 2♣ as Stayman even if not discussed but that is not really because it is GBK but rather it is part of the system we agreed to play so it is an implicit agreement. So I announce or alert (whichever applies).

 

With doubles it is a bit trickier. Suppose that in some convoluted auction partner doubles a suit partscore and I decide that it must be penalty according to GBK. Should I alert? I am not supposed to teach opps GBK but on the other hand, failure to alert may suggest an (unusual) agreement to play that double as take-out.

[VixTD]

As I understand it, there is a general EBU rule that if you are not sure what a call means then you have to alert it if and only if the meaning you assume the call to have is alertable.

This has been replaced by regulation 2D2 in the Blue Book:

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

So if you're in any doubt you should alert.

[Cyberyeti]

One I found out over the weekend, if a double shows values but is not particularly T/O or pens, it is definitely alertable.

 

nitpick -

 

if it's a double of notrumps and it's penalties, don't alert. if it's a double of no-trumps and take-out do alert.

 

This is certainly true for natural no trump bids, but not sure what the unalertable meaning of 1♥-(2N)-X is if 2N is unusual or the X of a jacoby 2N raise.

[Lanor Fow]

Penalties is the unalerted meaning in those cases

[Vampyr]

With doubles it is a bit trickier. Suppose that in some convoluted auction partner doubles a suit partscore and I decide that it must be penalty according to GBK. Should I alert?

 

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

[StevenG]

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

What makes it impossible to follow are those situations where you have no explicit agreements.

[barmar]

What makes it impossible to follow are those situations where you have no explicit agreements.

If you have meta-agreements that guide you, base your alert on that.

 

Otherwise, follow the earlier-quoted rule: alert it unless you're sure it has the non-alertable meaning. If you don't have an explicit agreement, then you can't be sure that it's not alertable.

[mycroft]

Or more particularly: "we have no agreement" != "we have an agreement that the double is X", therefore it is Alertable (because it's Alertable unless the meaning is X).

 

I do see that this will lead to a lot of "useless Alerts" of doubles of MP partscore battle auctions; people will get used to it. I'm not sure the Alert will help differentiate between pairs playing The Matchpoint Double "I think we can make 2♠, so we're pushing for +200" (effectively, penalty) and those playing it as "DSIP" ("I don't know, pick based on your hand, but we're not selling out"). Is that a problem? Probably not.

[Trinidad]

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet, someone who plays regularly in the EBU, with a very analytical mind (a PhD in statistics if I recall correctly) and a regular contributor to the forums finds it far from easy. I consider that telling.

 

But don't believe me. Believe your own worries.

 

Rik