[Bugbear]

Hi,

A disagreement as regards interpretation of an EBU alerting regulation between two people who should be agreeing.

Thoughts please ...

N E S W

1S 2C X P
3N All Pass

The double "showed values" but promises clubs (do not know how many but is not restricted to a particular number either).

View a) The x is simply a mechanism for ensuring that N bids. Although it does promise the suit bid, it is "ostensibly" for t/o although partner can convert it. It is thus not alterable. It is not specifically intended for penalties

View b) This is not a t/o x because it promises clubs and thus i) partner has information that the opponents are unlikely to expect about the shape of the hand (if not alerted) and ii) N can pass it knowing safely that S has clubs and also values (certainly with apppropriate vulnerability). This more as an optionable double than a take out double and thus it is alertable.

A similar scenario as well ....

1S X This double shows any shape, it does not deny Spades and indeed the person doing the double can have a 4+ cd spade suit. All it states is that "I have an opening hand". I also think that this is alertable as it is again more of an optionable double than specificallly for take out. Others disagree. In an actual event the bidding went 1C X and the doubler had a 6 cd club suit and an opening hand. Although an extreme (but real) example, to my mind, this is why it is alertable surely ?

Views are appreciated - thank you.

Regards,

Bugbear

[helene_t]

the first one is clearly alertable. The only point of agreeing that it shows clubs is that it allows p to pass it much more often than he would pass a t/o double.

The second one is less clear since partner is expected to take it out just as he would take out a normal t/o double. I still think it is alertable since it is a highly unexpected meaning. But players who play that kind of doubles are generally not so knowledgeable about bridge theory so they probably don't know the alert rules either.

[jallerton]

helene_t, on 2011-July-30, 04:33, said:

The second one is less clear since partner is expected to take it out just as he would take out a normal t/o double. I still think it is alertable since it is a highly unexpected meaning. But players who play that kind of doubles are generally not so knowledgeable about bridge theory so they probably don't know the alert rules either.

Even many players knowledgeable about bridge theory don't know the alert rules! Under the "simple" rule which has been in force for the last five years, a double of a natural 1-level bid is only alertable if "not for take-out". It currently makes no difference if the double has a highly unexpected meaning.

However, the good news is that your answer will be the correct one very soon. With effect from 1st August 2011, doubles which have a highly unexpected meaning will become alertable even if they are also for take-out.

[gordontd]

The first one is not a takeout double, so it's alertable.

As has been pointed out by Jeffrey, under the current regulations the unexpectedness of the meaning of a double does not affect its alertability. So, if the second one is described as a takeout double (but may be off-shape) then I don't think it's currently alertable. If they don't claim it's a takeout double though, and the original post suggests that to be the case, then it is alertable.

However, next month when the regulation changes, it would seem to me to become alertable, even if it's a takeout double, because its meaning is unexpected. Since it's a new regulation, there may yet be discussion about precisely how it's enforced in practice.

[jallerton]

If players think about the basic principle explained in paragraph 5B1 of the Orange Book:

Quote

The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw the opponents’ attention to any call by partner that may have a special meaning.

then there shouldn't be too many problems.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2011-July-30, 11:09, said:

So, if the second one is described as a takeout double (but may be off-shape) then I don't think it's currently alertable. If they don't claim it's a takeout double though, and the original post suggests that to be the case, then it is alertable.

I don't understand this. Surely the alertability must depend on the meaning the pair has assigned to it, not which convention name they use to describe it? The question is: the definition "any 12+ hands (possible except for those hands that could make an IJO or a 1NT overcall", does that meet (for alerting purposes) the definition of a take-out double? Suppose we play a double of 1m as 5+ in an unknown major. Partner is expected to take it out. That doesn't make it a take-out double, though. So we alert it.

[gordontd]

jallerton, on 2011-July-30, 11:51, said:

If players think about the basic principle explained in paragraph 5B1 of the Orange Book:



then there shouldn't be too many problems.

It's probably not quite that simple, since in addition to that admirably straightforward basic principle there are five more pages of further explanation and special cases.

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2011-July-30, 15:20, said:

I don't understand this. Surely the alertability must depend on the meaning the pair has assigned to it, not which convention name they use to describe it?

Yes. So if the meaning is "please bid partner, on the assumption that I have something like an opening hand with tolerance for all the unbid suits", then it's not alertable. If the meaning is "please feel free to pass on the assumption that I'll have a hand that's useful in defence", then it's not a takeout double, so it's alertable. Note that a number of hands that would fit into the first meaning would also fit into the second meaning.

helene_t, on 2011-July-30, 15:20, said:

The question is: the definition "any 12+ hands (possible except for those hands that could make an IJO or a 1NT overcall", does that meet (for alerting purposes) the definition of a take-out double?

Did the original post specify IJOs? I would have thought that hands that can make a simple overcall are also excluded from the double. This seems to me to make the double into what I believe the ACBL describes as a "minimum off-shape takeout double", and I'm not sure that they are alertable under our current regulations, though as of tomorrow they probably will be in certain fields. Note that playing takeout doubles like this has a long history among the strongest Italian players, and more recently among the strongest Norwegian players - as well as among many ordinary players who aren't aware that they are doing anything strange. This is why I don't think it's necessarily a "potentially unexpected meaning".

helene_t, on 2011-July-30, 15:20, said:

Suppose we play a double of 1m as 5+ in an unknown major. Partner is expected to take it out. That doesn't make it a take-out double, though. So we alert it.

That's correct: if it's not a takeout double you alert it.

However, you could play a takeout double as promising a five-card major (not that I recommend it!) Then it would be a takeout double, and I don't think would currently be alertable, but as from tomorrow it would be alertable because I think that is a "potentially unexpected meaning".

[mjj29]

gordontd, on 2011-July-31, 10:08, said:

That's correct: if it's not a takeout double you alert it.

Of course, if it's neither a takeout nor a penalty double, it's not clear to me you're allowed to play it direct over a natural 1 level suit bid. Is it just me, or is the only permission in the OB "Levels 2, 3 and 4 doubles of a natural 1 level suit bid may be takeout or penalties" (11N3 in my slightly out of date but hand-updated copy). Of course, from responder's first call "all responses and continuations are allowed", at least at level 4.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2011-July-31, 10:08, said:

That's correct: if it's not a takeout double you alert it.

However, you could play a takeout double as promising a five-card major (not that I recommend it!) Then it would be a takeout double.

I don't quite see the distinction between the above and helene_t's:

Suppose we play a double of 1m as 5+ in an unknown major. Partner is expected to take it out.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-31, 18:31, said:

I don't quite see the distinction between the above and helene_t's:

Suppose we play a double of 1m as 5+ in an unknown major. Partner is expected to take it out.

I read Helene's post as saying the double shows a 5-card major (not necessarily takeout shape). Mine was saying takeout shape, but including a 5-card major.

[gordontd]

mjj29, on 2011-July-31, 17:54, said:

Of course, if it's neither a takeout nor a penalty double, it's not clear to me you're allowed to play it direct over a natural 1 level suit bid. Is it just me, or is the only permission in the OB "Levels 2, 3 and 4 doubles of a natural 1 level suit bid may be takeout or penalties" (11N3 in my slightly out of date but hand-updated copy). Of course, from responder's first call "all responses and continuations are allowed", at least at level 4.

Good point. The full text says:

Quote

11 N 3 Doubles
(a)
(b) Doubles of natural responses may be played as either take-out or penalty.
These may be played as either take-out or penalty. This includes the practice of
doubling on balanced hands with (near) opening values or with 3+ cards in any unbid
major(s) without any other distributional constraints.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2011-July-31, 10:08, said:

Did the original post specify IJOs? I would have thought that hands that can make a simple overcall are also excluded from the double.

No, I am not assuming that this pair plays IJO nor that they don't, hence "possibly".

But if hands that can make a simple overcall are also excluded from the double then we are very close to a normal t/o double. We might double with 4-4-2 in the unbid suits and we may play ELC but I still think it is ok to call it a t/o double, although of course the qualification "possibly offshape" would be helpful.

What I thought we were talking about (but I may be wrong about this) was the agreement that simple overcalls are limited to 11/12 points so that a double could, for example, be based on 5-5-2-1 with one of the five card suits being opp's suit.

Some pairs who play this play herbert negative in which case your requirement that partner bids under the assumption that doubler has support for all unbid suits is not fulfilled so they should alert it.

But most pairs who play this simply haven't worked out their system so it is not clear what they are playing. They wouldn't say that responder assumes that doubler has t/o shape because they know that that is not a safe assumption, on the other hand responder will actually bid his longest suit so they bid as if they made that assumption.

But maybe I misunderstood. If a dbl is usually t/o shape but occasionally a little offshape then it still qualifies as a variant of a t/o double, I suppose.

As for my example with the dbl showing 5+ in a major: I gave that example because it is an agreement that has no resemblance to t/o double what so ever (the system would force you to double with 7-0 in the majors for example) and still partner takes it out (usually by bidding hearts as pass/correct) because doubler has not implied any desire to defend. I assumed that such an agreement is alertable (well it is today but I assumed it was yesterday also).

[gordontd]

It sounds like we would need to get a bit more information from the pair in question