[RMB1]

mjj29, on Jun 29 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

I think the difference here is, were you asked "what is the double" (whether you alerted or not), would you reply "no agreement" or "we haven't specifically discussed it, but it looks a lot like other situations in which it's penalties". I would say you should alert in the latter case.

As I understand the L&E position, if you are confident enough to leave in the double (with a non-descript hand) then you should alert because you are taking it as penalties.

Other opions are possible, YMMV, etc.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

So "unusual" doubles will, in fact, be alerted, with, as Helene notes, no need to try to define what these are.

Your original post gives an example of an auction where a highly unusual meaning is not alertable; indeed, that is the whole problem in this thread.

[helene_t]

campboy, on Jun 29 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

So "unusual" doubles will, in fact, be alerted, with, as Helene notes, no need to try to define what these are.

Your original post gives an example of an auction where a highly unusual meaning is not alertable; indeed, that is the whole problem in this thread.

No I don't think that's the problem, or even a problem.

If opps fail to alert a call in which the universal agreement is alertable, you can always ask.

Like if someone responds 2♣ to a 1NT opening and partner doesn't announce it. You may or may not obtain redress if 2♣ turns out to be Stayman and you were damaged by the non-announcement, but since you are 99% sure that it was Stayman, it is better to ask than to assume the highly unusual but non-anouncable meaning.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 10:39 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 28 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

I am the only person at our club who alerts penalty doubles of natural suit bids. Some alert t/o doubles, most don't alert any doubles.

I am surprised. At our club this is not the case; but we made a big effort towards education when the new regulations came out. The pair in the OP had not been to the club, and had probably not played any duplicate, for many months.

My experience is similar to Helene's, although in my case I can usually rely on my partner to get the alerting rules right as well.

Vampyr said:

Helene_t said:

Even in tournaments, most people don't alert penalty doubles of natural suit bids. I alert them but that is confusing to many people who would expect the opposite of the regulation, namely that alert means t/o and non-alert could mean penalty or optional or just not mean anything.

I am again surprised. this has not been my experience.

Bluejak said:

Now, I am sure that the people who continuously carp about non-logical alerting would be very happy to have alerting that was neither understood nor followed. They think it is alright to increase the number of rulings, the number of arguments. They think it is alright to make the game less enjoyable for people because, hey, which is more important, that people enjoy bridge, or that alerting must seem logical to people who do not play under English rules?

Again my experience is similar to Helene's. When I last played, there were several sequences where I made a take-out double is a sequence where the traditional meaning is penalties. In each case, my partner (correctly) did not alert, but it was apparent from the conversation at the end of the hand that an opponent was expecting me to have length and strength in the suit I had doubled.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

The EBU tried a fairly simple set of alerting rules for doubles that were fairly logical. No-one - please let us not have the obvious pointless interjections - got them right, no-one understood them, no-one could rely on them.

The only solution seemed to be to simplify them to the level at which people could understand them. So that was done, and now they are so simple that people are actually starting to get them right pretty consistently.

I am sorry if you consider this to be a "pointless interjection" but most people I speak to believe the complete opposite.

The pre-2006 alerting rules were well understood; in 99% of situations they translated to "the double is alertable if it does not have the traditional rubber bridge meaning". This practice did lead to alerts being more common than non-alerts in sequences such as 1♣-1♠-dbl, but the requirement to alert was very well understood and adhered to.

Under the "simple" new rules most players do not alert penalty doubles and one can certainly not rely on an unalerted double to be take-out by agreement.

[mjj29]

jallerton, on Jun 29 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

The pre-2006 alerting rules were well understood; in 99% of situations they translated to "the double is alertable if it does not have the traditional rubber bridge meaning". This practice did lead to alerts being more common than non-alerts in sequences such as 1♣-1♠-dbl, but the requirement to alert was very well understood and adhered to.

Under the "simple" new rules most players do not alert penalty doubles and one can certainly not rely on an unalerted double to be take-out by agreement.

I'd rather have an unambiguous law which is currently badly observed than a law in which edge cases can be ambiguous in whether they should be alerted, let alone whether people think they should be alerted. After all, while a lot of them may be obvious as to whether they used to be alertable, this isn't neccessarily true for those of use who haven't played 40 years of rubber bridge and it certainly isn't the case in a significant minority. Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope we can at least gradually retrain people to alert correctly. At least this time I can explain it in under a minute...

[nigel_k]

bluejak, on Jun 29 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jun 28 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

IMO the director should never give redress. The idea that the next player is entitled to assume the double is takeout unless alerted is just science fiction. The fairest approach is that opponents just have to ask every time, or until the regulators are replaced with sane people.

It is jolly easy to criticise from a position of ignorance.

Yes, the current rules for alerting doubles in the EBU are not particularly logical. That does not mean they are wrong.

...

Bring back sane regulators: we need people who will spoil the game so that foreigners can see alerting is logical.

I did consider saying something more polite but it didn't seem adequate.

I am not suggesting a complex set of rules. For example, a rule that no doubles are alerted would be an improvement. At least the innocent pair who made an entirely normal penalty double in the opening example would not be at risk of having their good result wiped out. A rule that penalty or takeout doubles are not alerted, but other doubles are alerted, would IMO be the best rule and is still very simple.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Jun 29 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

campboy, on Jun 29 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

So "unusual" doubles will, in fact, be alerted, with, as Helene notes, no need to try to define what these are.

Your original post gives an example of an auction where a highly unusual meaning is not alertable; indeed, that is the whole problem in this thread.

No I don't think that's the problem, or even a problem.

Indeed it is not. The OS were not taking a stand on the alertability of the double; nor were they knowledgeable enough to make the argument that the penalty double was not alertable because it was not unusual; they just did not know the regulation.

Quote

If opps fail to alert a call in which the universal agreement is alertable, you can always ask.

Like if someone responds 2♣ to a 1NT opening and partner doesn't announce it. You may or may not obtain redress if 2♣ turns out to be Stayman and you were damaged by the non-announcement, but since you are 99% sure that it was Stayman, it is better to ask than to assume the highly unusual but non-anouncable meaning.

Right. That is the situation I faced; should a player be given redress when she assumed that the double was takeout even though this was very unlikely. Of course, it is easy to be "taken in" and not give the matter much thought when a call is not alerted. But there have to be limits.

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on Jun 30 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

I am not suggesting a complex set of rules. For example, a rule that no doubles are alerted would be an improvement. At least the innocent pair who made an entirely normal penalty double in the opening example would not be at risk of having their good result wiped out. A rule that penalty or takeout doubles are not alerted, but other doubles are alerted, would IMO be the best rule and is still very simple.

I think that both of these "improvements" are horrible. And the innocent pair were unlikely to have their result wiped out; this was the point in the OP.

[campboy]

mjj29, on Jun 30 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

I'd rather have an unambiguous law which is currently badly observed than a law in which edge cases can be ambiguous in whether they should be alerted, let alone whether people think they should be alerted. After all, while a lot of them may be obvious as to whether they used to be alertable, this isn't neccessarily true for those of use who haven't played 40 years of rubber bridge and it certainly isn't the case in a significant minority. Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope we can at  least gradually retrain people to alert correctly. At least this time I can explain it in under a minute...

The old rule was equally unambiguous if you read the actual OB wording. The two rules take about the same amount of time to explain.

Of course, it doesn't matter that they take about the same amount of time to explain if no-one is listening when you explain them. The great thing about the previous rule was that lots of people who didn't know what the rule was managed to get alerting right anyway.

[blackshoe]

The laws define "alert" as

Quote

A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation.

That's all. There is no implication that players might, or should, infer some meaning to the call based on the alert. IMO it is folly to make such an inference. I know that's the practice in England (and probably other places). It's still folly. Let's keep it (sort of) simple: if a player alerts, and his opponent does not ask for an explanation, the opponent continues at his own risk. If a player does not alert, and it later turns out that [a] the call required an alert, [b] the opponents did not get an explanation of the call, and [c] they were consequently damaged, then they are entitled to redress. There should be no support for an argument that "he alerted, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress".

Now if the alert regulation has a hole in it, such that some meanings which don't require an alert may be unexpected, well, I guess the only recourse a player has is to ask for an complete explanation of any auction in which such a call comes up. Maybe it's time consuming, and maybe it's a pain in the ass. And just maybe, if the RA hears enough complaints about the situation, they'll change the rules.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on Jun 29 2010, 08:10 PM, said:

There should be no support for an argument that "he alerted, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress".

I don't think anyone has suggested this, have they?

What may be suggested, though, is supporting the argument that "he didn't alert, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress."

[CamHenry]

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

I was called to the table when an auction which had started (3♣)3♦(X)was about to be passed out in some contract or other. It turned out the the double had not been alerted. I offered the last passer the opportunity to change his call, which he did not wish to do; it was his partner who volunteered that she would have done something different if the double had been alerted. (The OS had not played for awhile and were unaware that a double in this auction requires an alert).

I spent a while wondering what I would do if called back to the table with a claim of damage (thankfully, I was not). My question is, would redress be offered to an experienced player based on the non-alert of a double in this situation? (3♣ was an ordinary preempt.)

Replying to the actual question here, rather than to the debate about alerting-of-doubles.

I am not an expert player, yet I would take it as bridge logic that the double is penalties and would be surprised when it wasn't alerted. If I was going to run away from a penalty double, I would ask what the double was. If I'm told it's penalties, I say something like "Oh, it's alertable then - but don't worry this time".

As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed. I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise. The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Jun 30 2010, 01:44 AM, said:

The old rule was equally unambiguous if you read the actual OB wording. The two rules take about the same amount of time to explain.

I don't have a copy of the old Orange Book; can someone post the regulation?

Anyway, the old regulation may have been simple to explain, but it was difficult to put into practice. And there were worse problems than ambiguity -- for instance, the alerting of negative doubles. Is anyone going to ask every time in this situation in case the double is something exotic?

In my experience things tended to get particularly murky later in the auction.

Quote

The great thing about the previous rule was that lots of people who didn't know what the rule was managed to get alerting right anyway.

How? By guesswork? The old regulation was in place for a long time, so for the most common situations were well known.

I think it is unfortunate that Jeffrey's experience with the new regulation has been similar to Helene's. I have not found this to be the case at my usual clubs; people here have been willing to learn and apply the new regulations. This seems to confirm my belief that English people live either in London or in some "primitive elsewhere". Sorry bluejak.

[campboy]

The old rule was (paraphrased)

+ In most situations double is not alertable if penalty, alertable otherwise
+ If the bid doubled was a natural suit bid below 3NT and doubler's partner has not previously bid, doubled, redoubled or made a value-showing pass (such as a penalty pass of a t/o double), double is not alertable if for takeout, alertable otherwise.

I imagine the reason people got it right was essentially that Jeffrey suggests. But really the only situation where it differed from player's expectations was 1suit (suit overcall) dbl, and that was so common people got used to it.

The drawback with the new one is that pretty much no-one is going to get it right unless they actually know what the rule is, because there are so many counterintuitive situations. Now the two rules are pretty similar in terms of level of complexity, but the problem has always been that most people have no interest in finding out what the rule is (the rest will get it right anyway).

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on Jun 30 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

What may be suggested, though, is supporting the argument that "he didn't alert, so I assumed it was X, and it turned out to be Y, so I should get redress."

If Y does not require an alert, then no, "you" shouldn't.

[bluejak]

campboy, on Jun 30 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

The old rule was (paraphrased)

+ In most situations double is not alertable if penalty, alertable otherwise
+ If the bid doubled was a natural suit bid below 3NT and doubler's partner has not previously bid, doubled, redoubled or made a value-showing pass (such as a penalty pass of a t/o double), double is not alertable if for takeout, alertable otherwise.

I imagine the reason people got it right was essentially that Jeffrey suggests. But really the only situation where it differed from player's expectations was 1suit (suit overcall) dbl, and that was so common people got used to it.

The drawback with the new one is that pretty much no-one is going to get it right unless they actually know what the rule is, because there are so many counterintuitive situations. Now the two rules are pretty similar in terms of level of complexity, but the problem has always been that most people have no interest in finding out what the rule is (the rest will get it right anyway).

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. The reason the current rule is so much simpler is that [considering doubles of suit bids below 3NT] it says alert if not takeout. The old rule said alert if not takeout in some situations, alert if not penalties in other situations. When the situation was not completely standard players got it wrong, often saying something like that they could not be bothered with very complicated rules that changed every year.

Both rules were counter-intuitive to many people, since many people think that if you play it the way "I" do it should not need an alert, any other way should. But the new rule is easier, and when push comes to shove, that is why it is better.

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Jun 30 2010, 08:35 AM, said:

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. The reason the current rule is so much simpler is that [considering doubles of suit bids below 3NT] it says alert if not takeout. The old rule said alert if not takeout in some situations, alert if not penalties in other situations.

The new rule is much simpler to understand, but not easier for the majority of bridge players to adopt. I expected players to need some time to settle in to the new set of regulations, but I have to admit nothing prepared me for the widespread resistance to alerting of penalty doubles of suit bids. The EBU decreed that breaches of the alert regulations would be dealt with leniently for a period of about one year while players get used to them. Here we are four years on and there is little sign that players are getting used to them.

Why this should be is a matter for speculation. Perhaps players are too used to the notion of an alert carrying the message: "this call has an unexpected / artificial meaning", or "you may want to ask the meaning of this call". (So they ask the meaning of an alerted double in (3♣) - 3♦ - (X) and are told "penalties". Thanks for the warning!)

I don't disagree with Bluejak that the old rule was imperfect and needed changing, but I think it is futile to suppose that the day will soon dawn when the number of players who routinely alert penalty doubles of natural suit bids even creeps into a majority.

[VixTD]

CamHenry, on Jun 30 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed. I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise. The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

I was going to try to formulate a reply to the original question (something people seem reluctant to do), and this is basically the approach I would take. There is certainly no automatic right of redress for the non-offenders - they would have to show that they either had good reason to believe it was a takeout double, or show that they could not ask without putting their side's interests at risk.

That said, the side who failed to alert are the offending side who have caused the problem. As Bluejak says, the new rule on alerting of doubles is easy to understand. They should be given a stern warning, to be backed up by a procedural penalty if they don't make some effort to change their ways.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jun 30 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

I completely disagree with you on the matter of complexity. 

I am with Bluejak here; I think that to say that the new and old regulations are equivalent in complexity seems almost to be taking the piss.

I think that one reason that people are "resistant" to alerting doubles of suit bids below 3NT is that these doubles come up very infrequently. Low-level doubles are usually takeout, and people have quite easily adapted to not alerting takeout doubles of all sorts. The more common situations will always be more readily recognised.

I hope that mjj's optimism is justified. Many of us in this forum and in our clubs started playing bridge at the kitchen table/in a university dorm room, etc. But these days, most new duplicate players are not moving over to it from rubber bridge. One of the first conventions new players are taught, in bridge lessons, is the one-level takeout double. This double is never alerted. So it will likely seem more natural to these new players that a penalty double of a low-level suit bid will require an alert.