[paulg]

Trinidad, on Mar 11 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do.  This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them.

Although a fine ideal in practice the devil is in the detail. How do you know what your opponents will expect? One problem is that the 'general' knowledge of BBF poster (whatever their skill level) is far, far greater than your average club player - to my mind this means that 'reasonable' alerting strategies appear far more reasonable in this forum than they would in real life.

For example, even in the very short list above you will find a lot of disparity in the UK over the meaning of a double of a jacoby transfer.

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

Paul

[david_c]

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

They certainly said that they preferred not to change. It's unclear whether they actually said they preferred the current rules. Indeed it's unclear whether the CC actually knows what the current rules are.

[Trinidad]

Gerben42, on Mar 11 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

Quote

You could try to come up with a specific definition, but I agree with David that that will be very hard to do.

This is what I want! If we together can come up with this definition, then we can go to our NBO and ask them to think about adopting it.

I know this is what you want. And believe me, we are very much on the same side. We share a very strong feeling that "special doubles" should be alerted. We also both know exactly what those "special doubles" are. So there, we are in complete agreement.

In a case like this, you can follow two strategies:

1) You can formally describe what a "special double" is (or alternatively describe what a not "special" double is).

2) You can make a vague rule saying that "special doubles" need to be alerted, without saying much more. (I used the idea of a "meaning that your opponents may not expect" or something similar.) You give some examples and hope that everyone knows what is meant.

You and I are beta scientists. We believe strongly in exact logical or even mathematical descriptions of everything around us, including bridge conventions. Our first instinct is to go with strategy 1, the formal description.

But not every bridge player is like you and I. For many players and directors it will be easier to understand the more "intuitive" "definition". (Just imagine that a definition might be intuitive! YUCK!! )

Even for the two of us, mathematically disturbed geeks , an intuitive definition works. You just wrote a few lines in a posting (definitely not a definition). Imagine that someone comes up with a list of 100 doubling situations and an intended meaning for the double and asks both of us whether it should be alertable. I am pretty sure that we would come up with the same answer on at least 98 of them. We may well come up with the same answer on all 100. Without any formal definition.

Everybody knows what "special doubles" are, but I think a formal definition will be hard (if not impossible) to come up with. And if you can come up with a formal definition, it will be incomprehensible for many players. To me, it is similar to defining "water". Everyone knows what it is, but how do you define it?

Therefore, I think it is wiser to go with strategy 2: The "we all know what it is" definition. (If it looks like a special double, walks like a special double and quacks like a special double, it probably is a special double.) Not because I am in favor of this kind of definition in general, but because I think it works best in this case.

Rik

[Trinidad]

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 11 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

For me it is perfectly clear that the regulations should make Instead, I would go with the "vague definition strategy": Alert all doubles where you can expect that your opponents will assign an other meaning to it than you do.  This makes normal takeout doubles, normal style negative doubles, penalty doubles of 1NT openings and lead directing doubles of Jacoby transfers not alertable (at least where I play). After all, this is the meaning that I expect my opponents to assign to them.

Although a fine ideal in practice the devil is in the detail. How do you know what your opponents will expect? One problem is that the 'general' knowledge of BBF poster (whatever their skill level) is far, far greater than your average club player - to my mind this means that 'reasonable' alerting strategies appear far more reasonable in this forum than they would in real life.

For example, even in the very short list above you will find a lot of disparity in the UK over the meaning of a double of a jacoby transfer.

However, David's NBO, the EBU, did propose such an alerting rule but a new body, the Club Committee, that represents the constituent clubs threw it out saying they preferred the current list of doubles.

Paul

But quite obviously, the list of alertable doubles should depend on where you are playing. All alert regulations depend on where you are playing. After all, the general idea behind alerting is that you alert bids that you think your opponents may not understand properly without additional information.

As an example, a Polish club opening should be alertable in the USA. But probably not in Poland (I have never played in Poland, but you get my idea). A 1♠ opening that is frequently bid on a four card suit might be alertable in the USA, but not in the UK. In China, a 1♥ opening that could be made on 20 points might be alertable (if "everyone" is playing a strong club system), etc.

So in The Netherlands (where I play) most players will treat a double of a Jacoby transfer as lead directing (I don't, which is why I put it in my list). But if in the UK the opinions are divided on the meaning of the double, it is clear that opponents will not expect your meaning of the double regardless what it means. Therefore alert.

Rik

[ArtK78]

You may be able to come up with a complete list of which doubles should be alertable and which should not be alertable, but, unfortunately, you will find that each situation that presents itself in the auction is different.

You would need a list of alertable doubles in direct seat over each possible opening bid.

You would need a list of doubles by opener's partner over each possible overcall of an opening bid.

You would need a list of doubles by fourth seat over each possible response to each possible opening bid without interference.

Etc.

While it is clear that there are a finite number of bidding situations, the number is very large. So a definitive list of which doubles are alertable and which are not may not be practical.

Many bidding situations can be lumped into groups (direct one-level overcalls of opening bids) so as to reduce the number of possible lists, but, unfortunatly, the number of possibilities will still be quite large, and the groupings of bidding actions may not be accurate for all doubles.

Hence, you will have to deal with some "fuzzy" rule such as has been proposed above. I worded the rule as alert any double that has a meaning that a significant majority of players would not expect. It is hard to phrase the rule more specifically, but as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said when referring to pornography, "I know it when I see it."

[Gerben42]

According to this rule, do you alert

(4♠) Dbl if it's penalty, or if it is take out?

[ArtK78]

Gerben42, on Mar 11 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

According to this rule, do you alert

(4♠) Dbl if it's penalty, or if it is take out?

I would say that if a partnership had a 100% agreement that a double of 4♠ was a takeout double, that would be alertable. If a partnership had a 100% agreement that the double of 4♠ was for penalty, that would be alertable. Both of these agreements would be unexpected. But if the double of 4♠ means what it means to most players - a good hand which is unwilling to pass 4♠, expects to go plus against 4♠ doubled but is not based on trump tricks and has no clear call - then it would not be alertable.

If you look over the various forum posts dealing with high-level doubles, you get a variety of answers to the question of how to handle these situations. But all of the posts agree on one thing - the "standard" meaning of a double of 4♠ is penalty, but that doesn't mean that the double is based on trump tricks. Any other specific partnership agreement of the meaning of the double would be unusual and should be alerted.