[VixTD]

RMB1, on Apr 25 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

For what its worth, I think some of these problems would be solved if take-out doubles of non-forcing suit bids (natural or not) were not alertable, including all protective doubles (of suit bids). So in the sequence (2♦=multi)-P-(2♥=pass or correct), double by either player (with opener passing) would be take-out of hearts if not alerted.

I think it would be much better if the regulations concerning bids which express some sort of willingness to play in the suit bid (even if the bidder is not actually promising any cards at all in that suit) were clarified, and those concerning pass-or-correct bids were left alone.

So a double of the completion of a transfer, or simple preference to 3♣ after an unusual no trump overcall should not be alerted if for takeout. At least the partnership has shown the transfer suit / clubs.

With the sequence 2♦[multi] (P) 2♥ (X) no one has promised any hearts, so let's make it alertable if it's for takeout of the suit no one has yet shown.

I think this will be intuitively easier for most players to grasp (although I admit that 90% of EBU players struggle to alert penalty doubles of even natural suit bids).

[campboy]

The 3♣ bid you mention is I believe already considered natural, as a preference bid (OB 5F1a). A simple rephrasing of that clause -- replace "preference bids and raises" with "bids of suits in which partner has shown length" -- might do what you want with minimal disruption.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Suppose we could rephrase the rules to:
- a double on a natural suit bid below 3NT is alertable if it is not t/o.

The actual wording is:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

and a couple of lines below that it says that such doubles are not alertable above 3NT.

I am not sure what this proposed change of wording would accomplish, since it doesn't seem very different from the existing regulation.

[helene_t]

Well maybe. This is obviously just semantics.

I thought a natural bid doesn't necessarily show the suit bid, it may also be an offer to play in the denomination named, based on partner's expected length in the suit. For example, I may raise partner's preempt to game with a void, that is still a natural bid.

[RMB1]

In the sequence (2♦)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X, the double is a double "of" 2♥ (which does not "show the suit bid") not a double of opener's pass (which does show hearts).

So the regulations require an alert of a take-out double here, just as they do for (2♦)-P-(2♥)-X.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on Apr 26 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

In the sequence (2♦)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X, the double is a double "of" 2♥ (which does not "show the suit bid") not a double of opener's pass (which does show hearts).

So the regulations require an alert of a take-out double here, just as they do for (2♦)-P-(2♥)-X.

I raised this issue a while back with reference to 1N-x-xx(single suited)-P-2C(forced)-P-P-X. Nobody ever gets the regulations on this one right unless they've had it pointed out to them.

[helene_t]

But what is "right"?

Opps have shown clubs and opps have decided to play in clubs. My p doubles their final clubs bid. I would say that it is within the spirit of the regulation that the non-alertable meaning of this double is t/o.

Arguing the opposite is, to me, playing a word-game. But OK, I can sorta respect the position that legal texts should generally be taken literally.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

But what is "right"?

Opps have shown clubs and opps have decided to play in clubs. My p doubles their final clubs bid. I would say that it is within the spirit of the regulation that the non-alertable meaning of this double is t/o.

Arguing the opposite is, to me, playing a word-game. But OK, I can sorta respect the position that legal texts should generally be taken literally.

Exactly, spirit of the law rather than letter, but in your world, this means that the double over the puppet bid before the partner of the 2C bidder passes to show clubs is alertable as takeout, but the protective one would be alertable as penalty.

It's a right PITA to frame these regulations simply so that people actually obey them.

[helene_t]

Dunno about the direct-seat double. I play that double as t/o with Manudude but as penalty in one other partnership. In a 3rd partnership I don't have an agreement.

When Shogi comes over I brief him about EBU alert rules. So he alerts all my alertable doubles. We are the only ones who do, though. Dunno why English people refuse to alert penalty doubles. In general, people are quite good at alerting. But not when it comes to doubles. Maybe they haven't noticed the change in regulations (I think before my time in England, negative doubles were alertable but penalty doubles in general not).

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Well maybe. This is obviously just semantics.

Improved semantics is what this discussion is about.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Apr 26 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

In general, people are quite good at alerting. But not when it comes to doubles.

My personal opinion is that this is the whole problem. The previous alerting rules on doubles were fairly sane. But people not only did not understand them, they refused to. Very strange. I remember a Premier Grand Master, when I tried to explain to him, saying "That is far too complicated for me". We then discussed playing Asptro, Redwood and Unpenalty Doubles!

While it may not have been the only reason, a large part in my personal view of the last change was to make the rule simple enough to understand. I believe we did that, and now alerting of doubles is better. An unfortunate side effect is that where a bid might or might not be considered natural the rule is so simple that it does not make it clear as to whether such positions are alertable, and this thread shows that.

Should we change it? No. Players can just about manage this rule: let us live with the imperfections and make no change. In that I agree with the EBU Club Committee who said something similar.

There is one bit of the rule which still causes problems. While it has been explained adequately in this thread let me repeat. There are several types of double. In any position one is not alertable, the rest are alertable. Assuming there are only two sorts of double is not correct.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Apr 27 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

Should we change it? No. Players can just about manage this rule: let us live with the imperfections and make no change. In that I agree with the EBU Club Committee who said something similar.

I agree with not changing the rules on doubles (or, possibly, changing 'shows the suit' to 'is natural'), but could we change the definition of 'showing the suit' or 'natural' such that transfer completions count. They are already not alertable.

[Trinidad]

mjj29, on Apr 27 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

bluejak, on Apr 27 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

Should we change it?  No.  Players can just about manage this rule: let us live with the imperfections and make no change.  In that I agree with the EBU Club Committee who said something similar.

I agree with not changing the rules on doubles (or, possibly, changing 'shows the suit' to 'is natural'), but could we change the definition of 'showing the suit' or 'natural' such that transfer completions count. They are already not alertable.

Why not tie the requirement to alert the double to the requirement to alert the previous bid? That would change the double alert rule to:

All doubles are alertable, except:
1) Takeout doubles of bids that are not alertable.
2) Penalty doubles of alertable bids.

Just an idea.

Rik

[helene_t]

I don't think that would work. It is very complicated to decide whether a bid is alertable or not. You don't want to investigate whether the opponents needed to alert a bid before deciding whether to alert partner's double or not. Opponents alert is by no mean evidence that the bid was alertable, and v/v.

One virtue of the current alert rules for doubles is that they are much simpler than the alert rules for bids.

Also, stayman and transfers are alertable in some situations and not in others. You don't want to make the alertability of the double depend on the situation in which stayman or transfer was made.

[nige1]

gordontd, on Apr 24 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

There aren't only  two types of doubles defined, but there's only one type of double in this situation (of a suit-bid below 3NT) that's not alertable - a take-out double.

gordontd, on Apr 24 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

When I play with a stranger with little discussion (which I do a lot), I alert such doubles and if asked say "we don't have a specific agreement, but I believe the normal meaning of this double to be alertable".

gordontd, on Apr 25 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

What's needed is for the L&E to say that the completion of a transfer bid is considered to "show the suit", and all is as we would (I think) wish.

• As usual, I tend to agree with Gordon Sorry, Gordon, if that is bad news
  
• The EBU defines a complete spectrum of doubles from penalty to take-out.
  
• It's common-sense to treat transfer-completion as natural because it's often the final contract.
  
• UK players regard the EBU announcement regulations as a major success -- apart from a few exceptions like this.
  
• A simple resolution of the double-alerting problem is to mandate that you
  • Announce penalty doubles as Penalty.
    
  • Announce take-out doubles as Take-out.
    
  • Alert other kinds of double.

[Echognome]

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but "non-forcing" doesn't quite work as a criteria. Consider a limited hcp transfer opening, e.g. 1♦ shows 4+♥ and 10-15 hcp. This bid is non-forcing as responder may pass with, e.g. xxx x xxxxxxx xx. Yet I don't think you would find anyone wanting to play double as "takeout of diamonds."

[StevenG]

nige1, on Apr 28 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

[*] The EBU defines a complete spectrum of doubles from penalty to take-out.

In competitive auctions, my preferred methods are that doubles are essentially pragmatic and could show a number of things. It is nearly always straightforward for partner to work out what is intended, given the negative inferences that can be made from the failure to make other bids, and from their own hand.

I can have a sequence where I know from my hand that partner intends the double as takeout. I can have exactly the same sequence and know from my hand that partner is sitting on a trump stack and intends the bid as penalties.

Where, in the spectrum of takeout to penalty, does a "do something sensible partner" double that can be either takeout or penalties fit?

(The interesting thing is that playing with my bridge contemporaries, i.e. people who started playing tournament bridge within the last five to ten years (or less), I find that they have usually developed the same sort of methods independently from me, yet when I've brought this subject up before, players with long expereience give the impression of finding the method much harder to understand.)

I read Jeremy's "English Bridge" articles on alerting of doubles with interest. In the first he mentions in passing that there is a problem with a situation where you have no agreement as to what the double shows. Unfortunately, nowhere in the rest of the two articles does he mention the problem again or clarify what the official position is. Since very few people understand the rules in complicated auctions, or, if they do, are capable of doing the mental gymnastics required at the same time as concentrating on trying to bid sensibly, it is impossible to rely on alerts or lack of alerts. This, to my mind, makes the regulation completely useless, except for the well-defined stuations in the first round or so of the auction.

[gordontd]

Echognome, on Apr 28 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but "non-forcing" doesn't quite work as a criteria. Consider a limited hcp transfer opening, e.g. 1♦ shows 4+♥ and 10-15 hcp. This bid is non-forcing as responder may pass with, e.g. xxx x xxxxxxx xx. Yet I don't think you would find anyone wanting to play double as "takeout of diamonds."

Without disagreeing with the first part of your post, I have known a number of good players who play that doubles of suits are takeout of that suit, whether or not the bid shows the suit. It has the advantage of not leaving you at the mercy of your opponents' lack of understanding of their own agreements.

[mjj29]

StevenG, on Apr 28 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

nige1, on Apr 28 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

[*] The EBU defines a complete spectrum of doubles from penalty to take-out.

In competitive auctions, my preferred methods are that doubles are essentially pragmatic and could show a number of things. It is nearly always straightforward for partner to work out what is intended, given the negative inferences that can be made from the failure to make other bids, and from their own hand.

I can have a sequence where I know from my hand that partner intends the double as takeout. I can have exactly the same sequence and know from my hand that partner is sitting on a trump stack and intends the bid as penalties.

Where, in the spectrum of takeout to penalty, does a "do something sensible partner" double that can be either takeout or penalties fit?

This is an optional double - which is always alertable at 3NT or below.

[iviehoff]

nige1, on Apr 28 2010, 01:21 AM, said:

[[*] A simple resolution of the double-alerting problem is to mandate that you

• Announce penalty doubles as Penalty.
  
• Announce take-out doubles as Take-out.
  
• Alert other kinds of double.

[/LIST]

What is more this leaves a fourth category, unalerted doubles, which can then mean "no agreement". So that the obvious case of the axe being wielded at the end of a complicated competitive auction where no one has any explicit agreement, over can be left unalerted, as people do.