[Cyberyeti]

Had a hand at the weekend where I misplayed, but not sure about alerting so don't know if I got MI.

Opps play that a double of an opening 1♠ shows an opening hand that can't overcall at the 2 level pretty much regardless of shape and responder bids as if it's a takeout double.

So a 3244 or 4234 13 count will double.

Is this unusual enough to merit an alert ?

EBU if it matters.

[VixTD]

I think this is covered by Blue Book 3D2:

Quote

If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values (not just on hands that are short in the opponent’s suit or have substantial extra
values), this should be disclosed on the system card. Similarly the practice of doubling for takeout on unusually weak hands should be marked on the system card.

It should be in the box "aspects of the system the opponents should note" on the front of the card, but does not require an alert.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2016-March-23, 07:46, said:

I think this is covered by Blue Book 3D2:

It should be in the box "aspects of the system the opponents should note" on the front of the card, but does not require an alert.

OK, that's clear, it must be said in 2 board rounds in local events like this, with people still using the old convention cards without such a box or the scorecard/convention card hybrids which are also missing them, I think this should be looked at.

[pran]

I would say that a double in a takeout double position just showing opening values regardless of distribution is so unusual that it should be alerted.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2016-March-23, 10:11, said:

I would say that a double in a takeout double position just showing opening values regardless of distribution is so unusual that it should be alerted.

That was my view until VixTD quoted the local regulation

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-23, 07:49, said:

OK, that's clear, it must be said in 2 board rounds in local events like this, with people still using the old convention cards without such a box or the scorecard/convention card hybrids which are also missing them, I think this should be looked at.

Another problem in my experience is that the majority of people who play this are not aware that it is unusual. They think everyone does it. They have an opening bid but no suit to overcall, so they have to double. It wouldn't occur to them to pass.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2016-March-23, 12:02, said:

Another problem in my experience is that the majority of people who play this are not aware that it is unusual. They think everyone does it. They have an opening bid but no suit to overcall, so they have to double. It wouldn't occur to them to pass.

Yeah, and then they rebid 1NT, not realizing they've shown a hand much stronger than they have. And their partner fields it because he's seen him do this before.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, so my next question is, if your convention card doesn't have the "aspects of the system the opponents should note" section, should you then alert ?

This is very common in club bridge here where many pairs use their scorecard which has a rudimentary convention card on the back.

[blackshoe]

"You can even write your conventions on the back of your score card!" -- Alex Groner, Duplicate Bridge Direction, 1956.

Personally, I think it's an atrocious concept. Keep 'em separate!

That said, you should alert what your RA tells you to alert - and I don't think this requires an alert in England. I know it doesn't in North America.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 17:36, said:

"You can even write your conventions on the back of your score card!" -- Alex Groner, Duplicate Bridge Direction, 1956.

Personally, I think it's an atrocious concept. Keep 'em separate!

That said, you should alert what your RA tells you to alert - and I don't think this requires an alert in England. I know it doesn't in North America.

It doesn't require you to alert, but does require you to fill in a particular (non existent) section of your system card, so I'm asking what they should do to compensate for its absence.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-23, 18:14, said:

It doesn't require you to alert, but does require you to fill in a particular (non existent) section of your system card, so I'm asking what they should do to compensate for its absence.

That's a very good question for which I don't have an answer.

[ahydra]

How about a verbal pre-alert at the start of the round? It's not a legally recognized thing in EBU land, but is a practical solution.

ahydra

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2016-March-23, 07:46, said:

I think this is covered by Blue Book 3D2:

Quote

If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values (not just on hands that are short in the opponent’s suit or have substantial extra
values), this should be disclosed on the system card. Similarly the practice of doubling for takeout on unusually weak hands should be marked on the system card.

It should be in the box "aspects of the system the opponents should note" on the front of the card, but does not require an alert.

The Blue Book also says:

Quote

4B2 Doubles are also alertable if they convey a potentially unexpected meaning in addition to takeout
or penalties.

So if we think this is a potentially unexpected meaning it should be alerted as well as on the front of the card.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 16:38, said:

Yeah, and then they rebid 1NT, not realizing they've shown a hand much stronger than they have. And their partner fields it because he's seen him do this before.

Sorry Ed but this is just backwards thinking. They have not shown a stronger hand because they are not playing your system but their own. Their partner is not fielding but simply responding to a systemic call. I even played this myself as a junior. The reasoning you are applying would have almost every LOL in England "showing a weaker hand than they have" any time they opened 1NT. That is true regardless of whether you regard the "correct" meaning of a 1NT opening to be a SNT or Romex.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-23, 18:14, said:

It doesn't require you to alert, but does require you to fill in a particular (non existent) section of your system card, so I'm asking what they should do to compensate for its absence.

Nothing. You seem to be assuming that the logic is "X isn't alerted because it's on the system card, and the opponent should have studied this and learned the meaning." I don't think that's what the regulators were thinking, but rather it's "X isn't alerted because it's not unusual enough that the opponents need to be warned about it."

If your system card doesn't correctly describe your agreements, that's a totally separate issue. It doesn't change what you must alert.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-24, 15:58, said:

Sorry Ed but this is just backwards thinking. They have not shown a stronger hand because they are not playing your system but their own. Their partner is not fielding but simply responding to a systemic call. I even played this myself as a junior. The reasoning you are applying would have almost every LOL in England "showing a weaker hand than they have" any time they opened 1NT. That is true regardless of whether you regard the "correct" meaning of a 1NT opening to be a SNT or Romex.

I don't think so. We're not talking about opening 1NT here, we're talking about doubling and then bidding 1NT over partner's suit. In both Acol and SA — and for that matter in 2/1 and in Romex — that shows a hand stronger than a 1NT overcall, and *that* shows 15-18 or thereabouts.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2016-March-24, 16:08, said:

Nothing. You seem to be assuming that the logic is "X isn't alerted because it's on the system card, and the opponent should have studied this and learned the meaning." I don't think that's what the regulators were thinking, but rather it's "X isn't alerted because it's not unusual enough that the opponents need to be warned about it."

If your system card doesn't correctly describe your agreements, that's a totally separate issue. It doesn't change what you must alert.

In the UK, you're supposed to familiarise yourself with your opponents' basic system before starting the round. This would usually involve reading the "basic system" "NT range" and "bits opps should beware of" sections.

This is the equivalent of a pre-alert over here.

The regulation assumes a particular type of convention card that is used in tournaments but often not in local events and clubs.

This method is very unusual over here particularly in my local area, I've noticed it twice in 20+ years.

Surely you shouldn't be able to escape the intent of the regulation (that opps should be able to easily see that you play this and know in advance) simply by using an older style of convention card.

Even if it's buried somewhere else on the CC, it's not something you'd look for because it's so unusual.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-24, 17:00, said:

Surely you shouldn't be able to escape the intent of the regulation (that opps should be able to easily see that you play this and know in advance) simply by using an older style of convention card.

If that were the intent, they could have made the regulation say "either note that you play X on the system card, or alert it when it occurs during the auction", but they didn't, did they? Is there anything in the alert regulation that suggests that it's dependent on the system card regulation, or that you only need to follow its letter if you've also followed the SC regulation?

[StevenG]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-March-24, 17:00, said:

This method is very unusual over here particularly in my local area, I've noticed it twice in 20+ years.

Am I misunderstanding something? I would have thought it to be the normal method for weaker players. (My observation comes from bridge locally and in the BBO Acol Club).

[Cyberyeti]

StevenG, on 2016-March-25, 02:47, said:

Am I misunderstanding something? I would have thought it to be the normal method for weaker players. (My observation comes from bridge locally and in the BBO Acol Club).

I don't play BBO and most people locally (I thought all) wouldn't double 1♠ with 4♠2♥(43) and less than too much for a 1N overcall.