[Vampyr]

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.)

[aguahombre]

I guess everyone but me knows what an unalerted double is supposed to mean in EBU on this auction.

In ACBL (or at least in my world), 3C (3d) double means the opponents have made a mistake. What does it mean that would be alertable over there?

[paulg]

aguahombre, on Jun 28 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

I guess everyone but me knows what an unalerted double is supposed to mean in EBU on this auction.

In ACBL (or at least in my world), 3C (3d) double means the opponents have made a mistake. What does it mean that would be alertable over there?

Penalty doubles of natural bids are alertable. That's the really simple bit.

On auctions like this it is easy to forget since the vast majority who double for penalty here have been doing so since time began and for most of that time it has not required an alert.

[aguahombre]

Ok, tks. When I am in EBU land, I will try to remember to alert a double of a weak NT, or of 7NT, or of an overcalled preempt.

[nigel_k]

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.

[paulg]

cardsharp, on Jun 28 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 28 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

I guess everyone but me knows what an unalerted double is supposed to mean in EBU on this auction.

In ACBL (or at least in my world), 3C (3d) double means the opponents have made a mistake. What does it mean that would be alertable over there?

Penalty doubles of natural bids are alertable. That's the really simple bit.

On auctions like this it is easy to forget since the vast majority who double for penalty here have been doing so since time began and for most of that time it has not required an alert.

Sorry, not quite simple enough.

Penalty doubles of natural suit bids are alertable.

[pran]

Vampyr, on Jun 28 2010, 05:21 PM, 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.)

A player that has had the opportunity to retract and replace his call because of misinformation should as a general rule not later be given any redress for that misinformation.

However a player that can show probable cause why he would have made a different call instead of one that no longer may be retracted is of course entitled to redress for possible damage from that misinformation.

(It is only the last call that has been made on the non-offending side at the time the Director is summoned to the table that may be retracted and replaced)

[aguahombre]

cardsharp, on Jun 28 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

Penalty doubles of natural suit bids are alertable.

Yeh, I really knew that much; was just being silly. A takeout double of 3D might be a bit more common than of 7NT --but probably not any more useful.

[helene_t]

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

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.

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.

Everyone knows this. I am not saying that the 3♦ bidder is necessarily lying. He could also have been "sleeping" at the moment that he passed, or changed his mind since then.

In this particular situation, the fact that double of an overcall over partner's preempt is penalty, is just general bridge knowledge, not a partnership agreement. So it is not obvious that this dbl is alertable.

[Vampyr]

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Everyone knows this. I am not saying that the 3♦ bidder is necessarily lying. He could also have been "sleeping" at the moment that he passed, or changed his mind since then.

The 3♦ bidder was the last to pass, and would not have changed his call. It was his partner who would have done something different at her first turn to call.

Quote

In this particular situation, the fact that double of an overcall over partner's preempt is penalty, is just general bridge knowledge, not a partnership agreement. So it is not obvious that this dbl is alertable.

It is alertable in the EBU.

[Vampyr]

pran, on Jun 28 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

However a player that can show probable cause why he would have made a different call instead of one that no longer may be retracted is of course entitled to redress for possible damage from that misinformation.

(It is only the last call that has been made on the non-offending side at the time the Director is summoned to the table that may be retracted and replaced)

errr, yes. Sorry if the original post did not make it clear that it was not the last person who passed who would have changed his call.

[Vampyr]

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.

The EBU regulation is very sane. The L&E Committee have, amazingly, done the right thing here by sacrificing some intuitive logic for simplicity and ease of comprehension.

[aguahombre]

So, penalty is alertable because the RA says so; and takeout is alertable because it has a highly unusual and unexpected meaning. Which reg did fourth chair think the opener was violating when he didn't alert?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Jun 28 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

So, penalty is alertable because the RA says so; and takeout is alertable because it has a higly unusual and unexpected meaning.  Which reg did fourth chair think the opener was violating when he didn't alert?

The double is not alertable if, and only if, it was for takeout. As I said above, this requires alerting in situations where the double could hardly be anything else except penalty; but it removes the need to define doubles in dozens of auctions. It is a sensible, practical approach.

[helene_t]

You don't alert highly unusual meanings of doubles.

You alert:
- penalty doubles of natural suit at the 3-level and lower. "Natural" includes nebolous minor suit openings but not purely artificial ones like precision 1♣.
- non-penalty doubles of notrump bids at the 3-level and lower
- doubles of artificial suit bids at the 3-level and lower if they do not show length/strength in the suit.
- doubles of suit bids at the 4-level and higher if they ask for a lead of a specific suit which is not the suit bid.

Whether the dbl has an "unusual" meaning is not a criterion.

This is very simple and, assuming that players can be expected to follow the regulations, it is enforceable. Unlike anything involving vague or subjective criteria like "unusual".

So I think it is a good regulation. Just a pity that (in my experience) it doesn't work in practice. Glad to hear that Stefanie's experience is different.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Jun 28 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

You don't alert highly unusual meanings of doubles.

You alert:
- penalty doubles of natural suit at the 3-level and lower. "Natural" includes nebolous minor suit openings but not purely artificial ones like precision 1♣.

This is close, but not correct. Over suit bids, you alert every double that is not takeout. The rest is correct.

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

[bluejak]

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.

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. Investigation showed that there seemed no chance of any logical alerting method working.

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?

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. But clearly that was a mistake, as people say so in a cheery fashion, because they know better. Having people understand alerting is pointless, yes, when we can make it more logical?

Nowadays, if you double a natural suit bid below 3NT, it is for takeout with no alert. Logical? Maybe not. Simple enough for people to understand, follow, and usually get right? Yes.

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

[iviehoff]

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

Quote

In this particular situation, the fact that double of an overcall over partner's preempt is penalty, is just general bridge knowledge, not a partnership agreement. So it is not obvious that this dbl is alertable.

It is alertable in the EBU.

I do not think that this situation has been definitively put to bed by the EBU. The difficulty is that the EBU regulation asks us to alert meanings, whereas the law says that we need only disclose partnership understandings.

Whilst it would be correct in the EBU to alert in this situation, some continue to argue that not alerting is equally correct. According to Law 40, especially L40B6, it is only partnership understandings that are disclosable. Alerting is a form of disclosure. Therefore, according to people who subscribe to this view, which I believe has not been definitively refuted by the EBU, it cannot be an irregularity to fail to alert in a situation where the meaning arises from bridge knowledge, rather than an understanding.

Therefore I incline to the view that a non-alert in this situation cannot be criticised, provided one is happy with the claim that there is no partnership understanding that has arisen through experience. In bidding situation of sufficient frequency that it is likely to have arisen a few times in the partnership, I would be sceptical of such a claim.

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on Jun 29 2010, 09:19 AM, said:

... The difficulty is that the EBU regulation asks us to alert meanings, whereas the law says that we need only disclose partnership understandings.

Whilst it would be correct in the EBU to alert in this situation, some continue to argue that not alerting is equally correct.  According to Law 40, especially L40B6, it is only partnership understandings that are disclosable.  Alerting is a form of disclosure.  Therefore, according to people who subscribe to this view, which I believe has not been definitively refuted by the EBU, it cannot be an irregularity to fail to alert in a situation where the meaning arises from bridge knowledge, rather than an understanding.

Therefore I incline to the view that a non-alert in this situation cannot be criticised, provided one is happy with the claim that there is no partnership understanding that has arisen through experience.  In bidding situation of sufficient frequency that it is likely to have arisen a few times in the partnership, I would be sceptical of such a claim.

I have a lot of sympathy with this view.

However, it is possible to require an alert when there is no partnership understanding, if only to signify that there is no understanding. The view of those responsible for the regulation is that doubles of natural suit bids are alertable if the meaning is penalties either from partnership agreement or from general bridge knowledge.

In effect, as if the regulation said alert such doubles if there is a partnership understanding that the double if not takeout or there is no partnership understanding but general bridge knowledge tells you the double is not takeout. To me this comes close to requiring players to say "how they are going to take" a call, something the regulators have been discouraging them from for decades.

[mjj29]

RMB1, on Jun 29 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

In effect, as if the regulation said alert such doubles if there is a partnership understanding that the double if not takeout or there is no partnership understanding but general bridge knowledge tells you the double is not takeout. To me this comes close to requiring players to say "how they are going to take" a call, something the regulators have been discouraging them from for decades.

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.

Matt