[awm]

1♣-(1♥)-Dbl. Assume the 1♣ and 1♥ calls are natural. Which of the above possible meanings of double should be alertable? I'm not necessarily so interested in what the alert regulations are in a particular place (but feel free to comment), but rather which meanings you think "deserve" an alert.

[JLOGIC]

IMO anything that is not exactly 4 spades, since all of them are highly unusual. It will also be highly relevant in the play or defense, so if another one of them wasn't alertable then people would have to ask what the double meant every single time, alert or not, which sucks and defeats the purpose of the alert system. I often play X as 4-5 spades and always alert it fwiw.

[Cyberyeti]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-26, 23:04, said:

IMO anything that is not exactly 4 spades, since all of them are highly unusual. It will also be highly relevant in the play or defense, so if another one of them wasn't alertable then people would have to ask what the double meant every single time, alert or not, which sucks and defeats the purpose of the alert system. I often play X as 4-5 spades and always alert it fwiw.

Also is this a "shows" or "guarantees" or "partner bids as if".

Some pairs say it shows 4 spades, but would do it on KQx, xxx, KQx, xxxx (opposite a maybe <4 club) or xxxxx, xx, AKQx, xx, some are rigid about the exactly 4 spades.

I think takeout but may or may not have 4 spades is the most common meaning in the UK, so I'd not want to have to alert that. The corrolary is which meanings of 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ should be alertable, 4+ cards, 5+ cards ...

[mrdct]

In the absence of local alerting regulations, I think each of those meanings of double would be alertable unless one of those treatments was the ubiquitous standard in that particular club, country or event. In Australia, where our (silly imho) regulations prohibit the alerting of any doubles, redoubles, bids of opps' suits and above 3NT, none of those treatment would be alertable during the auction but you would probably pre-alert the "shows 4+ spades" under a generic pre-alert of "we play transfers in low level competitive auctions and sometimes doubles and redoubles are transfers which won't be alerted so it might pay to ask".

[JLOGIC]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-27, 01:52, said:

Also is this a "shows" or "guarantees" or "partner bids as if".

Some pairs say it shows 4 spades, but would do it on KQx, xxx, KQx, xxxx (opposite a maybe <4 club) or xxxxx, xx, AKQx, xx, some are rigid about the exactly 4 spades.

I think takeout but may or may not have 4 spades is the most common meaning in the UK, so I'd not want to have to alert that. The corrolary is which meanings of 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ should be alertable, 4+ cards, 5+ cards ...

Good question. I also would sometimes make a negative X with only 3 spades playing standard methods on the usual problem hand types (such as your first example). I still would say my negative X shows 4 spades, or perhaps "almost always 4 except with a problem hand type" and explain if asked. My partner bids as if I have 4 spades, etc. I think it is an error when you almost always have 4 spades to say something like "takeout may or may not have 4 spades" even though you are trying to be accurate, it is misleading. It would be like me saying my 1N opener does not promise a balanced hand, because with 1435 and a 16 count and a stiff K of spades I open 1N.

All of this is imo I am not a laws or semantics expert.

[fromageGB]

I think the whole concept of the alert is on shaky ground if it means "not what you might expect" (as it seems to be in many cases) as what might seem normal to you could be pretty unusual to me. Most people will assume the hand has to have some sort of spade holding, but opinions differ on whether it must have diamonds.

This is a good candidate for "announcing", so opener can say "normally shows 4 or 5 spades", or "shows just spades and exactly 4", or whatever.

[Free]

I find this a very annoying situation in my country. We're not allowed to alert any doubles. Whether this shows ♠ or not, or even if it's penalty, that doesn't matter. Obviously this can cause a big misunderstanding, or if you have to ask each time you might create some sort of UI.

There are many new treatments around (2 popular ones: transfer with 4+♠ / takeout Dbl with less than 4♠) and opps won't suspect a thing (especially beginners who expect it to be a 4 card ♠). Imo the best way to handle such situation is to take a survey to see what is considered standard. Everything else should be alerted. The biggest difficulty with this approach is that standards differ regionally.

[gnasher]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-27, 01:52, said:

I think takeout but may or may not have 4 spades is the most common meaning in the UK,

Really? I think about 90% of players use it as showing exactly four spades.

[gnasher]

 Free, on 2011-August-29, 02:06, said:

I find this a very annoying situation in my country. We're not allowed to alert any doubles. Whether this shows ♠ or not, or even if it's penalty, that doesn't matter. Obviously this can cause a big misunderstanding, or if you have to ask each time you might create some sort of UI.

If you make a point of asking every time, you avoid creating any UI.

There are a few similar problems caused by the alerting rules in England - for example
    1NT pass 4♥ (transfer)
is not alerted or announced, even though playing this as a transfer is fairly rare. Some players solve the problem by reaching for their alert card and then guiltily withdrawing their hand. Others just ignore the rules and alert it.

[mgoetze]

 gnasher, on 2011-August-29, 03:59, said:

There are a few similar problems caused by the alerting rules in England - for example
    1NT pass 4♥ (transfer)
is not alerted or announced, even though playing this as a transfer is fairly rare. Some players solve the problem by reaching for their alert card and then guiltily withdrawing their hand. Others just ignore the rules and alert it.

In Germany, the first round of bidding is specifically exempted from the "don't alert above 3NT" rule, which is, I believe, rather sensible. I have had people try to tell me I shouldn't be alerting an immediate splinter raise of partner's major opening, but oh well...

[JLOGIC]

 mgoetze, on 2011-August-29, 04:10, said:

In Germany, the first round of bidding is specifically exempted from the "don't alert above 3NT" rule, which is, I believe, rather sensible. I have had people try to tell me I shouldn't be alerting an immediate splinter raise of partner's major opening, but oh well...

Same in USA

[Free]

Over here it's not allowed to alert anything above 3NT as well. But there has been discussion about passes when the auction is above 3NT, because technically a pass is not a bid, so how can it be above 3NT?

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2011-August-29, 03:52, said:

Really? I think about 90% of players use it as showing exactly four spades.

This is probably true, but this meaning should be alerted. According to the regulations, which I think are sensible, this double should always be alerted unless it is purely takeout, which it obviously is not if it promises something specific in a particular suit.

[blackshoe]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-29, 05:07, said:

Same in USA

True, although it's not "no alert", but "delayed alert". If the call was otherwise alertable, but above 3NT at or after opener's second bid, it should be alerted after the final pass of the auction, but before the opening lead is chosen. I sometimes wonder if anyone besides me is aware of that.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2011-August-29, 05:32, said:

This is probably true, but this meaning should be alerted. According to the regulations, which I think are sensible, this double should always be alerted unless it is purely takeout, which it obviously is not if it promises something specific in a particular suit.

That may be what it says in one part of the regulations, but another part reads:

EBU Orange Book said:

5 G 5 The following doubles must not be alerted:
(a) Any 'negative' or 'responsive' double played in a traditional manner, such as 1♣ (1♠) dbl showing 4 hearts, since these are examples of take-out doubles.

I agreee with you that a double which shows a specific suit and says nothing else isn't a "takeout" double, but it seems that the L&EC think otherwise.

[fromageGB]

 gnasher, on 2011-August-29, 07:58, said:

I agreee with you that a double which shows a specific suit and says nothing else isn't a "takeout" double, but it seems that the L&EC think otherwise.

I agree, and have queried this and had it confirmed that even if it shows exactly 4 cards in the non-bid major, and nothing else, it is still a "takeout" and not alerted. "Playable in the other suits" (eg say 3 cards in any specific non-bid suit) is also "takeout" and not alerted. I think the EBU when they say takeout, mean "non-penalty". However, maybe "5+ in the other major" would be a specific takeout that is not "normal" so maybe that should be alerted. Very murky.

If we can't have free announcements, then I favour a natural alerting policy, ie if it invites partner to pass with a balanced (in the context of the bidding so far) no-extra values hand then it should NOT be alerted. And when something is alerted, there should be no UI associated with any questions about the alert.

[paulg]

 blackshoe, on 2011-August-29, 07:03, said:

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-29, 05:07, said:

Same in USA

True, although it's not "no alert", but "delayed alert". If the call was otherwise alertable, but above 3NT at or after opener's second bid, it should be alerted after the final pass of the auction, but before the opening lead is chosen. I sometimes wonder if anyone besides me is aware of that.

Technically, but I think it's important, it is only if a BID was otherwise alertable as passes, doubles and redoubles requiring an alert must always be alerted immediately, whatever the level.

[blackshoe]

 paulg, on 2011-August-29, 09:17, said:

Technically, but I think it's important, it is only if a BID was otherwise alertable as passes, doubles and redoubles requiring an alert must always be alerted immediately, whatever the level.

True.

[nige1]

 awm, on 2011-August-26, 19:56, said:

1♣-(1♥)-Dbl. Assume the 1♣ and 1♥ calls are natural. Which of the above possible meanings of double should be alertable? I'm not necessarily so interested in what the alert regulations are in a particular place (but feel free to comment), but rather which meanings you think "deserve" an alert.

IMO the law should mandate that partner

• Announces takeout and penalty doubles.
• Alerts other kinds of double (for example action, co-operative, competitive, support, lead-directing, and so on). Also doubles with specific requirements (for instance take-out doubles that promise or deny four or five spades).

Opponents should have the power to stop you making any further alerts or announcements, against them. Anyway, at the end of the auction, the meaning of such calls should be explained --

• The declaring side should do this automatically.
• The defenders should do so, on request.

[aguahombre]

I disagree about any more "announcements" than we already have, and dislike the (abuse of) labels "takeout" and "penalty" so much I never use them during disclosure.

My ideas on alerting nearly every double which isn't an offer to defend will never fly, so I have given up on advocating the concept. Someone always brings up a direct double of an opening suit bid, claiming that I advocate alerting it --so proud that they have laid waste to my position.