Alerting Dble

[euclidz]

Reading through some appeals rulings I read . .

The alerting regulations require a double to be alerted if it is competitive, cooperative, optional or penalty (i.e. any meaning other than takeout).

Checking that against the Blue Book

4B2 . . (paraphrasing) . . Alert all penalty doubles except NT then alert if it is a take out double.

 

Q1. I take from this, that (except NT) all penalty doubles should be alerted?

Q2. If a pair are not regular partners and do not have any agreement on this, should they alert a double indicating that they have no agreement i.e. alerting that it could be a PD?

[robert2734]

Q1: Penalty doubles are alerted only if it is an unusual meaning for the bid. i. e. most people play that bid as not a penalty double.

 

Q2: Never alert any bid where the explanation is we don't have an agreement. It's possible the opponents asks what a bid means, the correct explanation of the partnership agreement could be we don't have one.

[pran]

Q1: Penalty doubles are alerted only if it is an unusual meaning for the bid. i. e. most people play that bid as not a penalty double.

 

Q2: Never alert any bid where the explanation is we don't have an agreement. It's possible the opponents asks what a bid means, the correct explanation of the partnership agreement could be we don't have one.

Q2 cannot possibly be correct.

 

When you don't alert such a call it gives your opponents the information that you know the call does not require an alert.

 

Now if you don't have an agreement, have forgotten your agreement or are unsure about the agreement then you cannot possibly know for sure whether the meaning of the call requires an alert.

 

Thus failing to alert such a call gives your opponents the misinformation that the call has some meaning not requiring alert.

 

Consequently: Whenever you do not know for sure the meaning of your partner's call you should alert it!

[Vampyr]

Q2 cannot possibly be correct.

 

When you don't alert such a call it gives your opponents the information that you know the call does not require an alert.

 

Now if you don't have an agreement, have forgotten your agreement or are unsure about the agreement then you cannot possibly know for sure whether the meaning of the call requires an alert.

 

Thus failing to alert a call gives your opponents the misinformation that the call has some meaning not requiring alert.

 

Consequently: Whenever you do not know for sure the meaning of your partner's call you should alert it!

 

I don't know where Robert is from, but the Blue Book is explicit on the matter.

[VixTD]

Q1. I take from this, that (except NT) all penalty doubles should be alerted?

Q2. If a pair are not regular partners and do not have any agreement on this, should they alert a double indicating that they have no agreement i.e. alerting that it could be a PD?

Q1. All penalty doubles of suit bids up to and including the three level should be alerted if the bid shows that suit*.

 

Q2. If there's a possibility that a double could have an alertable meaning you should alert it. This includes situations where you have no agreement if there's any uncertainty about the intended meaning.

 

BB2D2 (a fairly new addition to the regulations) says:

Unless a player knows that his partners 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 partners call. See also 4A6

 

(*"If the bid shows the suit" has a fairly liberal interpretation, e.g. if your opponent overcalls 2NT to show the minors, their partner is forced to choose one and your partner doubles, alert unless this is for takeout, even though the bidder hasn't shown more than one or two cards in the suit. If your opponents open a multi-2♦ and get a major-suit response, you should not alert if your partner's double is for takeout, even though the bidder has if anything denied the suit bid.)

[euclidz]

Now if you don't have an agreement, have forgotten your agreement or are unsure about the agreement then you cannot possibly know for sure whether the meaning of the call requires an alert.

 

Thus failing to alert such a call gives your opponents the misinformation that the call has some meaning not requiring alert.

 

Consequently: Whenever you do not know for sure the meaning of your partner's call you should alert it!

 

Thanks - I couldn't find that in the Blue Book but it makes sense.

[barmar]

ACBL has something similar: "Players who remember that a call requires an Alert but cannot remember the meaning must still Alert."