[barmar]

When someone makes a takeout double, and their partner passes it, the usual meaning is that the partner thinks they can do better by defending than competing for their own contract. If the contract being doubled is at a low level (typically below the 4 level), bridge logic dictates that they have a trump stack.

This is no different in a canape system. The only difference is the likelihood that opener might have long spades when they open hearts. The opponents need to know that before they make the overcall. By the time opener passes the double, it's too late for an alert to do any good -- the meaning of the pass is obvious, not "highly unusual".

And when I say that they need to know about the canape system before overcalling, I'm not really sure what difference it really makes. What are you going to do, stop overcalling just because opener's longer suit might be the same as your suit? Even when the opponents play a natural system, there's a chance that you're overcalling in responder's long suit, but that doesn't stop people from overcalling.

[sanst]

That’s why I wrote that I don’t see damage, just an unlucky result. N might claim that he (or she) would have played differently had he known that W had 5 spades. But I think it’s more probable that NS are displeased - or foaming mad - about the result than anything else.

[blackshoe]

Heh. You may well be right about that.

What I said was that if you are passing because you play canapé, I think the pass fits "highly unusual". I think that because in this zone at least, canapé methods are IMO highly unusual. That's why you pre-alert them. If you're passing because you have nothing to say at the moment, irrespective of playing canapé, then it's not highly unusual, and does not require an alert.

The fact that you pre-alert something does not absolve you of a requirement to alert a particular call in the auction, if that call would require an alert. This is true even if it's been less than 10 seconds since you pre-alerted.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-07, 08:59, said:

If you're passing because you have nothing to say at the moment, irrespective of playing canapé, then it's not highly unusual, and does not require an alert.

No sane player passes a 1-level takeout double because they "have nothing to say at the moment". The only possible reason for passing is that they have a trump stack.

If the double is redoubled they might pass with equal length in the unbid suits, to give the choice to their partner.

[blackshoe]

Not all players are sane. And I'm tired, so I'm going to bed.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-07, 22:08, said:

Not all players are sane. And I'm tired, so I'm going to bed.

Well, if he's not sane he won't have a trump stack, so how would it help the opponents to alert and explain that you're playing canape, so he could have long spades?

Or do you mean that declarer might not be sane, so they won't make the obvious inference that pass = trump stack, and then missplay the hand as a result?

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-August-07, 10:35, said:

No sane player passes a 1-level takeout double because they "have nothing to say at the moment". The only possible reason for passing is that they have a trump stack.

More or less.
Either I'm happy to play doubled or I have nothing better to suggest and am willing to take the risk. Not that all partners agree on that
It's always a tricky bid to make.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-08, 15:10, said:

More or less.
Either I'm happy to play doubled or I have nothing better to suggest and am willing to take the risk. Not that all partners agree on that
It's always a tricky bid to make.

How can you have "nothing better to suggest" if you have a suit longer than the one being doubled? I suppose if the opponents have bid 2 suits, and your long suit is their other suit, so what you really want to do is curse your partner for doubling.

That's the kind of decision you make when doubling high-level contracts -- you don't need a trump stack to double a sacrifice. But cases where you would do it at the 1 or 2 level seem really unlikely. Can you give a specific example rather than just vague generalities?

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the case at hand. None of this is a matter of special partnership agreement that needs to be disclosed. The decision to pass the double is purely bridge logic: you think you're better off defending than declaring. You either have a trump stack or have nowhere to go. Why should partner have to alert this -- it means exactly what it seems to mean?

What would be unusual is if the agreement were that doubler has the trump stack. That would be alertable in most jurisdictions.