[dickiegera]

Is a double of a 1NT opening an alertable bid if it shows a NT opening also?

Any difference if NT is 15-17 or 10-12?

[RunemPard]

Depends on where you are playing...(I believe)

In Sweden no doubles are alertable.

Edit: Didn't see the small text in title...I don't know about the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

If double of 1NT shows a strong NT, it does not require an alert. If double shows a balanced hand with an unusual high card strength (eg, it shows a normal 2NT opener, about 20 HCP, or it shows "equal value" so that double of a 10-12 NT shows a 10-12 NT) then it requires an alert.

[TylerE]

What if it shows 15-17, but is explicitly takeout?

(Yes, I've actually seen (bad) pairs playing it that way).

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2013-October-16, 19:05, said:

What if it shows 15-17, but is explicitly takeout?

(Yes, I've actually seen (bad) pairs playing it that way).

That is interesting. Indeed, some club pairs agree that a double of 1NT is for takeout ---for all four suits --- which makes it a balanced hand. These pairs would also have no clue to alert it (it isn't strange to them); but, if it is an instruction to partner to bid something, it should be alertable. The implication that the double must have a lot of points, or they wouldn't dare try it doesn't seem relevant. It is a convention of sorts.

[Endymion77]

Doubles aren't alertable in many places regardless of their meaning, so first check that. If doubles are indeed alertable where you play, then artificial doubles should be alerted and penalty should not (as they are natural). If a double of NT shows a strong NT hand (ie it's mostly penalty in nature although it can of course be taken out), then it shouldn't be alertable.

[Zelandakh]

Endymion77, on 2013-October-17, 04:05, said:

If doubles are indeed alertable where you play, then artificial doubles should be alerted and penalty should not (as they are natural).

You are on a bit of a slippery slope with this. In the EBU for example, there are many situations in which penalty doubles must be alerted. The question here though is really whether a double of a natural NT call showing strength and a balanced hand is a form of penalty double or not.

[ArtK78]

dickiegera, on 2013-October-16, 16:55, said:

Is a double of a 1NT opening an alertable bid if it shows a NT opening also?

Any difference if NT is 15-17 or 10-12?

Not in the ACBL.

If the double of a 10-12 1NT opening shows 15-17, it is not alertable. If it shows 10-12, then it is alertable (and is also very silly).

From ACBL Alert Procedures on the ACBL website:

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

Since strength showing doubles of 1NT opening bids have been played since before I was born (did bridge exist then?), a double showing 15-17 is not a highly unusual or unexpected meaning for that double.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-17, 07:54, said:

Since strength showing doubles of 1NT opening bids have been played since before I was born (did bridge exist then?), a double showing 15-17 is not a highly unusual or unexpected meaning for that double.

Ed's post and your restatement are all true, but Tyler's question goes beyond. His scenario is that the Double shows a balanced 15+ as in your post and as such would not be alertable. But their silly agreement is that partner should virtually always take it out.

That is the highly unusual or unexpected meaning --and should be alerted but won't be known to be unexpected by that level of player, thus won't be alerted. At the table you might have to rule against that pair, but good luck explaining why. You don't have time to teach them Bridge.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-17, 08:30, said:

Ed's post and your restatement are all true, but Tyler's question goes beyond. His scenario is that the Double shows a balanced 15+ as in your post and as such would not be alertable. But their silly agreement is that partner should virtually always take it out.

That is the highly unusual or unexpected meaning --and should be alerted but won't be known to be unexpected by that level of player, thus won't be alerted. At the table you might have to rule against that pair, but good luck explaining why. You don't have time to teach them Bridge.

I am responding to the OP. No mention of taking out the double was made in the OP. That was in a later post.

If the double shows strength, but the partnership agreement is that it should be taken out, then I believe it is alertable. I would consider the partnership agreement to be highly unusual (and there are a few other words I could use, but that is not the issue). I have run into "takeout doubles" of 1NT before. When I get that explanation, I just dismiss it as stark raving mad even if it is, in fact, the partnership agreement.