Alerting Doubles

[Trinidad]

Penalties is the unalerted meaning in those cases

Out of curiosity: What does a penalty double of a Jacoby 2NT (1♥-Pass-2NT-Dbl) look like?

 

Rik

[nige1]

In my experience the EBU regulation about "alerting doubles" is a mine-field e.g.

(2♦ Multi) Pass (2♠ P/C) Double

 

In Scotland, we don't alert any doubles or redoubles. IMO, that's even worse.

 

More sensible rules:

• You must alert partner's double unless it's penalty. OR
• You must announce partner's double as "penalty" or "take-out" as appropriate; and alert all other doubles.

[barmar]

Out of curiosity: What does a penalty double of a Jacoby 2NT (1♥-Pass-2NT-Dbl) look like?

Do you mean what kind of hand would make a penalty double of J2N? It's hard to imagine it -- maybe a hand with AKQ of trumps and a side Ace. But this seems dangerous, since they might be able to make 2NT (perhaps with an overtrick -- those might be the defense's only tricks). So you'd probably really need to hold a hand that you can have only if one of the opponents psyched.

[Trinidad]

Do you mean what kind of hand would make a penalty double of J2N? It's hard to imagine it -- maybe a hand with AKQ of trumps and a side Ace. But this seems dangerous, since they might be able to make 2NT (perhaps with an overtrick -- those might be the defense's only tricks). So you'd probably really need to hold a hand that you can have only if one of the opponents psyched.

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

 

I was thinking of a solid six card suit or a semi-solid suit and the ace of their suit.

 

Rik

[barmar]

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

Really?

 

If someone bids Unusual 2NT, and next hand doubles, the usual penalty meaning is "interested in penalizing at least one of the suits they showed".

[helene_t]

I think it is ok that all sensible doubles on j2nt are alertable. I suppose that the standard meaning is t/o but that is not even obvious.

 

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

[barmar]

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

I suspect it doesn't work that way in practice, and it's probably closer to alerting unlikely meanings.

 

As this discussion has shown, the difference between DSIP and takeout is fuzzy. I suspect most people get away with treating DSIP as being more takeout-like, because they're not specifically penalty.

[Vampyr]

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

 

It is not at all a question of whether Helene understands or not. It is simply the fact that I am pretty sure that the principle of "alerting unless you are sure it is non-avertable" has been mentioned multiple times but Helene thought it was the opposite. Either of these principles is trivially simple to understand; it is just a question of which one applies.

[Vampyr]

I think it is ok that all sensible doubles on j2nt are alertable. I suppose that the standard meaning is t/o but that is not even obvious.

 

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

 

The stronger players in the clubs I attend alert, and the rest sometimes. If you know the strength of a player you will know whether you need to ask.

 

At tournaments virtually everybody alerts correctly.

 

I suspect it doesn't work that way in practice, and it's probably closer to alerting unlikely meanings.

 

As this discussion has shown, the difference between DSIP and takeout is fuzzy.

 

Yes it is, to the extent of "not at all, and not even close".

[Trinidad]

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

Really?

 

If someone bids Unusual 2NT, and next hand doubles, the usual penalty meaning is "interested in penalizing at least one of the suits they showed".

The question is not about what would be a logical meaning. It is about what would be the non-alertable meaning.

 

The auction goes: 1♥-Pass-2NT (Jacoby)-Dbl

 

The alert regulation says that double is non-alertable if it is penalty. We are doubling 2NT, we are not doubling some heart contract. So, the non-alertable meaning is: "I think 2NT will go down." That means a hand that seems to be able to take 6 tricks against 2NT, not a hand that seems to be able to take 4 tricks against 4♥.

 

I agree with you that it is not sensible to play a non-alertable penalty double of Jacoby 2NT. With a solid six card suit, I would just bid my six card suit. But the double of 2NT is non-alertable if it says "I expect to take 6 tricks against a NT contract". (And with such a hand, nobody would double.)

 

Rik

[billw55]

I suspect that ambiguous doubles are pretty common even in regular partnerships. Of the many possible auctions, probably few will be the subject of a definite agreement.

 

If I ever play in EBU, I expect to do a lot of "alert, no agreement".

[Vampyr]

I suspect that ambiguous doubles are pretty common even in regular partnerships.

 

I do not find this to be the case even with my infrequent partnerships.

 

If I ever play in EBU, I expect to do a lot of "alert, no agreement".

 

Good for you.

[Trinidad]

It is not at all a question of whether Helene understands or not. It is simply the fact that I am pretty sure that the principle of "alerting unless you are sure it is non-avertable" has been mentioned multiple times but Helene thought it was the opposite. Either of these principles is trivially simple to understand; it is just a question of which one applies.

I hope you agree with me that it is important that a regulation is understood by the players that need to abide by it.

 

Helene is one of the players in the EBU. She is not one of the dumbest (mild understatement ;) ) and clearly has some interest in rules and regularions. Now, if she doesn't understand a regulation, that you think is so simple, then what will happen to those bridge players that are dumber than Helene (the vast majority of the EBU players) or have less interest in the rules?

 

They won't understand the regulation either. That means that the regulation may be simple (at least in your view), but it simply isn't simple enough.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

The particular area that caused me an issue was auctions like 1N-X(pens)-XX(single suited)-P-2♣(pass or bid your suit)-P-P-X, 2♣ was clearly an artificial bid, but the pass was a natural club bid, did this mean that the doubles in the two seats had different alerting requirements ? I think they eventually clarified it but not sure most players know what you're supposed to do.

[campboy]

The particular area that caused me an issue was auctions like 1N-X(pens)-XX(single suited)-P-2♣(pass or bid your suit)-P-P-X, 2♣ was clearly an artificial bid, but the pass was a natural club bid, did this mean that the doubles in the two seats had different alerting requirements ? I think they eventually clarified it but not sure most players know what you're supposed to do.

No, takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both seats. BB 4H5:

The following doubles must not be alerted:

[...]

A take-out double of a ‘pass-or-correct’ bid such as (2♦ Multi) pass (2♠) dbl since this is deemed to show the suit bid.

This is because of the definition of "shows the suit bid" in 4B2: "it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it has been followed by two passes".

[Liversidge]

What is GBK? ;)

[helene_t]

What is GBK? ;)

General Bridge Knowledge.

 

The idea is that you don't have to explain to the opponents that a double on 7NT is penalty and that a fourth seat preempt won't be very weak because those things are GBK rather than partnership-specific agreements.

[Vampyr]

I hope you agree with me that it is important that a regulation is understood by the players that need to abide by it.

 

Helene is one of the players in the EBU. She is not one of the dumbest (mild understatement ;) ) and clearly has some interest in rules and regularions. Now, if she doesn't understand a regulation, that you think is so simple, then what will happen to those bridge players that are dumber than Helene (the vast majority of the EBU players) or have less interest in the rules?

 

They won't understand the regulation either. That means that the regulation may be simple (at least in your view), but it simply isn't simple enough.

 

Rik

 

Helene had thought that the regulation was "when in doubt, don't alert". The actual regulation is "when in doubt alert". Surely it has to be one or the other! And it escapes me why you think that one is more difficult to understand than the other.

 

Being misinformed is not at all the same as not understanding.

[helene_t]

Well I didn't think it was "when in doubt, don't alert". I is just that if it is a situation that isn't covered by any agreements, implicitly or otherwise, I wouldn't be sure if I had to alert or not. This is different from "we might have an agreement but I am not sure".

 

Anyway, I understand now, I think. Thanks.

 

I don't think it is easy to get alert regulations to sink down to ordinary club players, regardless of what they say. Last friday I played in Amsterdam, my p (who is a Dutch tournament director) alerted my lead-directing double on a transfer. I asked why. Then he thought for a while and said "yeah I suppose you are right, I shouldn't alert this". This could happen everywhere in the World. Maybe slightly less likely in Germany where no doubles whatsoever are alertable, but you never know.

 

We could simplify things by getting rid of alerts but that is ridicolous. Mostly it works ok. It might cause less issues in Yorkshire than in Amsterdam but that is not (mainly) because of the regulations but just because Yorkshire people are more easy-going and play fewer conventions.

 

At the end of the day there isn't much difference between Dutch and EBU alert regulations. Both essentially say that you have to alert artificial and/or potentially unexpected meanings. Then the EBU gives more examples of what "unexpected means", and some of those are different. Negative freebids are unexpected in EBU but not in NBB, Walsh is the opposite. And EBU has anouncements.

 

The fundamental difference is wrt doubles. Suppose it goes 1NT-(2♠)-X.

NBB, no alert: Probably not explictily agreed as "stolen bid" but other than that I would draw no inference.

EBU, no alert: Probably not explictily agreed as "stolen bid" but other than that I would draw no inference unless I know the players to be familiar with the regulation in which case I would know that it is takeout.

NBB, alert: No inference.

EBU, alert: No inference exept that if I know the players to be familiar with the regulation it is probably not generic takeout.

[Cyberyeti]

To Campboy - The auction goes 2♦ (multi)-P-P-X where the second pass is a diamond stack with the multier never intending to play diamonds, is this different to the example I gave earlier ? If so then the law's an ass.

[VixTD]

To Campboy - The auction goes 2♦ (multi)-P-P-X where the second pass is a diamond stack with the multier never intending to play diamonds, is this different to the example I gave earlier ? If so then the law's an ass.

The same principle applies: the double should not be alerted if it is a takeout of diamonds, because the 2♦ bid has been followed by two passes. You can think of this as the partnership (rather than the 2♦ bidder) showing willingness to play in diamonds if you like, and you may think it asinine, but I find it more sensible than the earlier example of 2♦ (multi) - P - 2♠ - X where neither member of the partnership has shown any inclination to play in spades.

 

I can understand that the EBU might have thought that players would find this easier ("don't alert takeout doubles of suit bids where there is a reasonable possibility that it will end up as their trump suit"). I'm not saying I agree with them.

[Cyberyeti]

The same principle applies: the double should not be alerted if it is a takeout of diamonds, because the 2♦ bid has been followed by two passes. You can think of this as the partnership (rather than the 2♦ bidder) showing willingness to play in diamonds if you like, and you may think it asinine, but I find it more sensible than the earlier example of 2♦ (multi) - P - 2♠ - X where neither member of the partnership has shown any inclination to play in spades.

 

I can understand that the EBU might have thought that players would find this easier ("don't alert takeout doubles of suit bids where there is a reasonable possibility that it will end up as their trump suit"). I'm not saying I agree with them.

 

It gets silly when the chance of it being natural or a wish to play is quite small.

 

Eg we met a pair that played 1N-X-XX as 6 or so meanings one of which was clubs, but various 2/3 suiters without clubs were also involved and used redoubles on the way while being prepared to dial 50s and play in a non fit, partner's 2♣ was more a relay and the pass of it didn't show clubs if it wasn't doubled.

[helene_t]

I don't think this matters. Whatever the regulation may say, if opps play some nf relay to an obscure megamulticonvention and you fail to alert partner's double, they aren't going to get an adjusted score in their favour anyway.

[barmar]

The question is not about what would be a logical meaning. It is about what would be the non-alertable meaning.

 

The auction goes: 1♥-Pass-2NT (Jacoby)-Dbl

 

The alert regulation says that double is non-alertable if it is penalty. We are doubling 2NT, we are not doubling some heart contract.

It says it's non-alertable if it's penalty. It doesn't say what it's penalty of, though. In the case of an artificial NT bid, why would you interpret that to mean penalty of a NT contract?

[Trinidad]

It says it's non-alertable if it's penalty. It doesn't say what it's penalty of, though. In the case of an artificial NT bid, why would you interpret that to mean penalty of a NT contract?

Because that is the bid that has been doubled and it is the contract that we will play if the double would be passed out (which is the main characteristic of a penalty double: "partner, please pass").

 

You cannot force the opponents to play 4♥X by doubling 2NT.

 

Rik