[Cascade]

"DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert. "

Then the examples are very limited. In particular there are no negative double examples.

Is there a boundary where penalty doubles no longer need to be alerted:

1♣ (1♠) Dbl

1♣ (2♠) Dbl

1♣ (3♠) Dbl

[campboy]

The examples given of alertable doubles are:

Quote

1♠-P-4♣ (splinter bid)-Dbl
If this double asks for the lead of any suit other than clubs, an Alert is required.

1♥-Dbl or 1♦-P-1♠-Dbl
If either double is penalty or lead directing only, an Alert is required.

3♥-Dbl or 3♥-P-P-Dbl
If either double is penalty, an Alert is required

I think the intention is that anything significantly less unexpected than these is not to be alerted. In particuar I would imagine that this is intended to be pretty exhaustive so far as penalty doubles are concerned. But I have no experience of ACBL-regulated bridge.

[peachy]

I think in your cases that I here label 1, 2, and 3, takeout doubles are never alerted, penalty doubles alerted in cases 1 and 2, because it is both highly unexpected and highly unusual to not have a "standard" (don't you just hate that word) negative double available. In case 3, both penalty and takeout doubles are common so if somebody needs to know, he better ask the meaning of the Double. The base rule is indeed as you stated: Doubles, redoubles and passes are not alerted, except... etc.

Another example is 1NT (2D) Dbl. All of Penalty, Takeout, Card-showing, and even the hideous "Stolen Bid Double" are common among ACBL players and not alerted. Unexpected meaning IMO would be "Dbl shows spades and minor" or something else that is indeed unexpected, thus alerted.

Another example (2H) Dbl, where Dbl is penalty. This is unexpected in ACBL and alerted.

A shorter answer to your question is: there is no clear line drawn in the sand. But the spirit of the ACBL alert regulation - ctually, it is also the the letter because it is written in the regulation - requires an Alert, if in doubt whether a call is alertable or not.

[peachy]

campboy, on 2010-November-28, 17:26, said:

The examples given of alertable doubles are:


I think the intention is that anything significantly less unexpected than these is not to be alerted. In particuar I would imagine that this is intended to be pretty exhaustive so far as penalty doubles are concerned. But I have no experience of ACBL-regulated bridge.

On the contrary, the regulation explicitly says the examples are "not exhaustive".

[Siegmund]

It's one of several areas in the Alert Chart which was much better written pre-2005.

I would tend to assume that negative doubles don't need alerted at any level, and penalty doubles surely don't from the 3-level upward, but might well need alerted at the 2-level. (I wonder if there is deliberate flexibility, to allow a club with a lot of very old-fashioned players to deem all of 50s Goren not to be "highly unusual or unexpected.")

I still tend to assume that a takeout-oriented double when 3 suits have already been bid or after a notrump sequence should be alerted, but "all takeout all the time" is certainly popular on the forum and becoming more popular in real life too.

[Cascade]

I had a second related issue today.

1NT (Dbl) DONT

Does this need an alert.

I ruled that it was not highly unusual.

[barmar]

I think all conventional defenses to NT are alertable. I've never seen anyone fail to alert any of the bids in DONT. Even the natural 2♠ bid is usually alerted, so you can explain that there are two ways to show ♠ and this is the weaker variant (Dbl followed by 2♠ is the stronger one).

So even though DONT is not highly unusual, showing an unspecified single suiter is an unusual use of double. It's not penalty, takeout, lead-directional, or length in the suit being doubled.

[awm]

The ACBL regulations in this area are intentionally vague. It's "director's discretion" so there are not really right or wrong answers.

As someone who plays in face-to-face ACBL events, I have some idea of how real directors rule in these situations. My experience is that doubles which are "takeout" or "values" (generally requesting that partner bid) are considered not to require alerts. Doubles which are "penalty" or "showing/asking for the lead of the suit bid" (generally asking partner to pass) require alerts in very low-level auctions where "everyone" plays takeout (i.e. 1♥-X penalty or 1♥-1♠-X penalty) but do not require alerts in other auctions. Doubles which are neither of the above (such as a support double, or a DONT double, or double asking for the lead of another suit) are considered to require alerts by most directors.

However, it's also worth mentioning that ACBL policy is that players must "protect themselves by asking" in situations where alertable treatments are common. Thus even though almost all ACBL directors would agree that the DONT double requires an alert, they would virtually never adjust the result if there was a failure to alert this double (conventional defenses to 1NT are very common, so the non-offending side should protect themselves by asking).

As to why the ACBL regulations are vague (when in fact they were less vague in a previous version) or whether the ACBL policy about "protecting themselves" is reasonable... that is the topic of very many forum posts and probably not worth discussing again here.

[campboy]

peachy, on 2010-November-28, 21:26, said:

On the contrary, the regulation explicitly says the examples are "not exhaustive".

So what? I suggested that it might be intended as exhaustive only so far as penalty doubles are concerned; there are obviously lots of other cases where non-penalty doubles are alertable. Anyway, if they intended penalty doubles of overcalls to be alertable then they made a pretty poor job of writing examples, since historically at least (which is what we are supposed to consider when thinking about what is unexpected) a penalty double in any of those cases is much less unexpected than in any of the examples given.