[blackshoe]

Split off, at Nigel's request, from "Alerting Doubles". Actually, he requested the poll, and I couldn't figure out how to do that in the original thread.

Now to see if I can get his post back in the original thread (it's not needed here, because it just says what the poll says.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-24, 15:14, said:

Split off, at Nigel's request, from "Alerting Doubles". Actually, he requested the poll, and I couldn't figure out how to do that in the original thread.

Now to see if I can get his post back in the original thread (it's not needed here, because it just says what the poll says.

Thank you, Blackshoe. If there are other suggestions, I think you can add them to the poll with the "full editor"

[aguahombre]

Even though I voted for the ACBL choice, my real preference would be:

Alert a double with an unusual or unexpected meaning if it is the doubler's first call other than Pass.

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2013-April-24, 16:32, said:

Thank you, Blackshoe. If there are other suggestions, I think you can add them to the poll with the "full editor"

Probably.

[ahydra]

I'd like to see more announcing of stuff in general to save time. For example, you could announce the entire first round of the auction (since people know what they're doing there... hopefully), e.g.

1♣-1NT-X-2♦
"could be short" - "15-17" - "penalty" - "diamonds and spades"

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

ahydra

[WellSpyder]

I voted for the current EBU regulation, which seems to work fairly well. However, my second choice would be Nigel's proposal of announcing take-out and penalty doubles and alerting the rest. In theory I think this is probably a better approach than the one we currently have in the EBU, but in practice I fear there would be more UI floating around.

[Vampyr]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-25, 08:44, said:

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

Not sure whether I like this or not, but it is miles better than Nigel's idea, since it requires less than half the number of announcements.

[paulg]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-25, 08:44, said:

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

And for 'no agreement' you say something else?

[nige1]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-25, 08:44, said:

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

Ahydra's suggestion is better than current protocols. IMO, It's worth adding to the poll.

 Vampyr, on 2013-April-25, 08:50, said:

Not sure whether I like this or not, but it is miles better than Nigel's idea, since it requires less than half the number of announcements.

Ahydra's suggestion does have that advantage. IMO, it has a possible drawback: if you don't alert or announce partner's double, opponents may be unsure whether you have a penalty double or if you've just forgotten the rule. Hence, it might result in unnecessary questions and delays. Also, most other meanings seem to be unusual and worth an alert. I made a similar point in the previous thread.

If, instead, the rule is "Announce penalty and take-out doubles. Alert the rest." then, if you do nothing, opponents know you've forgotten the rule and can ask immediately.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2013-April-25, 09:24, said:

It's alternative to an announcement is usually an alert.

Except when the unannounced/unalerted meaning is natural, I think.

The reason doubles are tricky is because some the various types of takeout have become so common that they're considered practically natural. And I think this may be behind RA's reluctance to use announcements for them -- do we really want actions that are likely to occur every 2-3 boards to require announcements?

I think I'd be OK with announcing takeout/penalty doubles starting with the second round of the auction after the first bid -- it just seems silly to require announcements of (1♥)-X.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2013-April-25, 09:40, said:

Except when the unannounced/unalerted meaning is natural, I think.

The reason doubles are tricky is because some the various types of takeout have become so common that they're considered practically natural. And I think this may be behind RA's reluctance to use announcements for them -- do we really want actions that are likely to occur every 2-3 boards to require announcements?

I think I'd be OK with announcing takeout/penalty doubles starting with the second round of the auction after the first bid -- it just seems silly to require announcements of (1♥)-X.

Oh dear Barmar quoted me before I deleted that bit about "EBU experience and practice."
My fault Sorry
Anyway barmar is right that announcing 1st round doubles is a bit of a chore. I just think simple rules are best. Players seem to have adapted to announcing notrump openers

[WellSpyder]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-25, 08:44, said:

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

I did realise that when I gave my second-round vote to Nigel's suggestion. I happen to think it is better to have some redundancy in the system than to have uncertainty over whether or not someone has remembered the relevant regulations.

There are already areas where (in the EBU) we deliberately don't use a no alert/announcement option. For example, we announce the strength of all 1NT openings, not just those other than a specific range. And all 2-level suit openings are either alertable (if not natural) or announceable ("weak", "strong, forcing", "strong, non-forcing", "intermediate" or whatever) if natural. This seems to me quite clearly to work better than have a single meaning that is neither alertable nor announceable, because there are still in practice many cases where there is neither an alert nor an announcement, and one is saved from making an erroneous assumption about the meaning by knowing with the current regulations that this has to be the result of forgetfulness rather than being deliberate.

[akwoo]

 nige1, on 2013-April-25, 09:49, said:

Anyway barmar is right that announcing 1st round doubles is a bit of a chore. I just think simple rules are best. Players seem to have adapted to announcing notrump openers

Not in the US they haven't. Below regional tournament level, the de facto rule is that 15-17 does not have to be announced, and anything else is. This makes sense; it has happened that me and my partner are the only ones in a room of 30 tables playing something other than 15-17.

[jeffford76]

 akwoo, on 2013-April-25, 12:05, said:

Not in the US they haven't. Below regional tournament level, the de facto rule is that 15-17 does not have to be announced, and anything else is. This makes sense; it has happened that me and my partner are the only ones in a room of 30 tables playing something other than 15-17.

I think this depends on where you are in the US. In the clubs games I play in around Seattle, announcements are common and expected.

[aguahombre]

Yes, our goal here is to prep new players so that they will fit in when they go to tournaments, not pamper them into developing bad habits.

[campboy]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-25, 08:44, said:

Announcing all T/O and PEN doubles is unnecessary because you still have "no alert/announcement" available to represent a meaning (if you get what I mean). So you could, e.g. announce all penalty doubles (including "optional" penalty), say nothing for T/O, and alert anything else.

I disagree. IMO the chief problem with the current (EBU) rules is that players often do not have clear agreements about doubles, and this would be largely solved by announcing "penalty" or "takeout" and saying nothing for "who knows?"

[FrancesHinden]

There's an option missing on the poll. "I don't care as long as you don't change the current rules where I play"

The EBU carried out approximately this poll a couple of years ago (the options were a little different as they included my preferred regulation which isn't in your poll) and the overwhelming vote was not to change the rules. From comments received it was clear that this wasn't because the voters necessarily thought the current regulation is the best one possible (or even any good at all) but the majority opinion was that absolutely the worst thing to do was to change things.

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-25, 14:26, said:

There's an option missing on the poll. "I don't care as long as you don't change the current rules where I play" The EBU carried out approximately this poll a couple of years ago (the options were a little different as they included my preferred regulation which isn't in your poll) and the overwhelming vote was not to change the rules. From comments received it was clear that this wasn't because the voters necessarily thought the current regulation is the best one possible (or even any good at all) but the majority opinion was that absolutely the worst thing to do was to change things.

What is your preferred option, Frances? Is a link to the poll and results available for EBU members?

[CamHenry]

My objection to the SBU approach is that it places the burden of UI on the non-doubling side. For example, consider the start 1NT-(X). By EBU rules, this is alerted if anything other than penalty. That way, the opening side have information; they can then play their system after 1NTX without worrying about UI. However, if it's silent and could be anything, there's the trap of always having to ask: many pairs play something entirely different over a distributional double (including whether pass or redouble is stronger).

It seems to me that the burden of dealing with UI should be on the side that makes the call. I know that, as a player, I find it much easier when oppo describe their agreements clearly, and announcing/alerting is part of that. The rules should support that.

[mycroft]

 akwoo, on 2013-April-25, 12:05, said:

Not in the US they haven't. Below regional tournament level, the de facto rule is that 15-17 does not have to be announced, and anything else is. This makes sense; it has happened that me and my partner are the only ones in a room of 30 tables playing something other than 15-17.

Seems to be an Arizona thing (among other places). Every spring, we get snowbirds coming back who say "we were told we don't have to Announce 15-17 any more", and need to be retrained.

I tell them that there is a defence to an unAnnounced NT that works really well (which is, in fact, why Announcements were extended to strong NTs in the first place), and that some opponents are actually using (unintentionally, but they are) on them. I wish my ethics were flexible enough to continue past that and deliberately *use* it (no I don't; but it would get the point across a lot faster).