[StevenG]

mjj29, on Apr 28 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

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.

I thought an optional double was one where the doubler was ambivalent about whether it was taken out or left in.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Apr 28 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

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.

No, it is not an Optional double, which typically shows a hand which is suitable for any action from partner, often balanced with something like Qx or Jxx in partner's suit.

It seems to me to be an either/or double. With my regular partner I play them specifically in a couple of cases:

1♦ - p - 1nt - p
p - dbl

1♦ - p - 1nt - p
2♦ - dbl

Both of these show either a penalty double, say 4+ diamonds and 16+ points or a poor takeout double, say 4-4 in the majors, 3-2 in the minors, and 10-12 points. But of course we alert them.

Trinidad, on Apr 27 2010, 01:18 PM, said:

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.

It's clever, and I like it.

helene_t, on Apr 27 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

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.

I do not think that a valid objection. You do not rely on whether they should alert their bid but on whether they do alert it, correctly or otherwise.

[campboy]

The problem with that is that a wide range of bids which do show the suit bid are alertable because of a special meaning. Do you really want to be alerting the following takeout doubles?

1♦ (alert: possible canape) dbl
2♠ (alert: weak spades+minor) dbl
1♦ 1♠ 2♣ (alert: non-forcing) dbl
1♦ pass 3♦ (alert: pre-emptive) dbl

[bluejak]

I am amazed at the number of people who worry about the appropriateness of alerting certain doubles, and then find the rules difficult. The answer is of course I do if it means people get alerting right.

[campboy]

My point is that it would cease to matter if people get them right here, as the alert wouldn't be any use. Your partner opens 1♦ (possible canape), doubled by RHO, alerted (of course). Do you ask every time in case this is the one pair in a hundred who play power double and 1NT for takeout?

Incidentally I do not find the alerting rules difficult, and didn't find the previous alerting rules difficult either. Unfortunately most bridge players can't be bothered to find out what the rule is, however simple it may be.