[nige1]

Consider these auctions...

• 2♦ (Pass) 2♥ (Double)...
• 2♦ (Pass) 2♠ (Double)...

where...

• 2♦ = Weak 2 in a major (5-9 HCP).
• 2♥/♠ = Pass or correct.
• Double = Takeout of the suit bid.

Under EBU regulations...

• Is the 2♥ reply alertable?
• Is the 2♠ reply alertable?
• Is the double alertable?
• Are these regulations logical?

[paulg]

Nigel

A quick search of the Blue Book for 'pass or correct' soon finds the answers.

4 H 1 Because they are not natural, players must alert (unless excepted by 4B4 above):
[c] Any 'pass or correct' bids


4 H 5 The following doubles must not be alerted:
[c] A take-out double of a 'pass-or-correct' bid such as 2♦ Multi – pass – 2♠ – dbl since this is deemed to show the suit bid.

These seem consistent with the EBU regulations and, as such, logical. More importantly, they are explicitly covered in the regulations.

[pescetom]

I take it for granted that the regulations are as quoted.
4. I don't find it logical that a takeout of a pass or correct bid should show the suit bid.

[Cyberyeti]

I have less of a problem with the regs on these auctions but say 1N-X-XX-P-2♣ where responder has shown a 5 card suit and clubs is 1 in 4 to be their suit rather than 1 in 2 it seems odd to treat it as natural until responder passes it, but it is at least clear.

[lamford]

Am I bovvered

[helene_t]

It is arguably a bit inconsistent that P/C bids are alertable but nevertheless treated as natural for the purpose of alerting of a double of a P/C bids. Nevertheless, the regulations are what I would prefer them to be.

In practice, I don't think many people draw conclusions from opps' alert or lack of alert of a P/C bid. You rarely need to know what it means (during the auction, that is) but if you do, you can always ask.

[steve2005]

In ACBL they are also alertable as they are a non-forcing bid after a opening 2-bid.
I don't know if the other EBU things apply to ACBL but as they are artificial I would assume so.

[Tramticket]

The first two seem logical.

I am surprised by the third - but in practice I would always ask if opps doubles our P/C response to the multi as the double can have a large variety of meanings.

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2018-October-15, 11:17, said:

4 H 5 The following doubles must not be alerted:
[c] A take-out double of a 'pass-or-correct' bid such as 2♦ Multi – pass – 2♠ – dbl since this is deemed to show the suit bid.

It dawns on me that "this is" maybe refers to the p/c bid and not to the t/o double as I first read it. As we are "deeming" something we know to be untrue I would still consider the double highly unusual.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-October-16, 02:48, said:

It dawns on me that "this is" maybe refers to the p/c bid and not to the t/o double as I first read it. As we are "deeming" something we know to be untrue I would still consider the double highly unusual.

The point about pass or correct bids is that they might end the auction. That's why takeout is the default meaning of a double of them.

If Nigel intended the poll to promote his idea that regulations are complicated, poorly understood and inconsistently implemented, the results of this poll so far don't seem to show that.

[Tramticket]

gordontd, on 2018-October-16, 03:32, said:

If Nigel intended the poll to promote his idea that regulations are complicated, poorly understood and inconsistently implemented, the results of this poll so far don't seem to show that.

To be fair to Nigel, I would have got the third one wrong at the table. I was only able to get the correct result by reading the blue book and it does feel inconsistent with the first two. I also regularly alert the 2♣ bid in Cyberyeti's example, so I guess that I haven't understood that one.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-October-16, 02:48, said:

It dawns on me that "this is" maybe refers to the p/c bid and not to the t/o double as I first read it. As we are "deeming" something we know to be untrue I would still consider the double highly unusual.

That's how I interpreted it as well. A double that shows the suit bid is not considered a takeout double, so the rule would be contradicting itself under your initial interpretation.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2018-October-16, 03:32, said:

The point about pass or correct bids is that they might end the auction. That's why takeout is the default meaning of a double of them.

Lots of artificial bids "might end the auction". Cyberyeti gives an example.

gordontd, on 2018-October-16, 03:32, said:

If Nigel intended the poll to promote his idea that regulations are complicated, poorly understood and inconsistently implemented, the results of this poll so far don't seem to show that.

Fair enough. That so many knew the answer to 3rd question came as a relief and a surprise. I confess that I didn't know until Gordon told me

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2018-October-16, 09:43, said:

Lots of artificial bids "might end the auction".

That's true, but I imagine that Gordon's point is that the fact that the pass/correct bid might end the auction testifies that it is probably the suit which opener really holds.
There is an analogy with a transfer here, in that double of the completion of a transfer would normally (I think) be takeout, even though the completion was artificial and opener might be short in the suit. Although in that case the EBU doesn't (I believe) alert the artificial bid.
I'm half convinced

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-October-16, 10:05, said:

That's true, but I imagine that Gordon's point is that the fact that the pass/correct bid might end the auction testifies that it is probably the suit which opener really holds.
There is an analogy with a transfer here, in that double of the completion of a transfer would normally (I think) be takeout, even though the completion was artificial and opener might be short in the suit. Although in that case the EBU doesn't (I believe) alert the artificial bid.
I'm half convinced

In the case of a transfer, the opponents are "known" to have at least a 7-card fit, so it's unlikely to be a place that your side wants to play, and takeout is logical.

That's not the case for pass/correct bids. I think players have simply found that treating it as natural works out better in the long run, so the double should be takeout, and regulators have put their stamp on this as the "normal" meaning that's not alertable. And it doesn't hurt that it's consistent with most other low-level doubles.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2018-October-17, 08:25, said:

In the case of a transfer, the opponents are "known" to have at least a 7-card fit, so it's unlikely to be a place that your side wants to play, and takeout is logical.

Nitpick: you're known to hold 6, opening a "natural" 1N with a singleton is legal (and announceable) here

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-October-17, 08:36, said:

Nitpick: you're known to hold 6, opening a "natural" 1N with a singleton is legal (and announceable) here

That's why I put it in quotes, nothing is guaranteed. Maybe "presumed" would have been a better word -- even though opener might have a singleton, it's not likely for most pairs.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-October-17, 08:25, said:

In the case of a transfer, the opponents are "known" to have at least a 7-card fit, so it's unlikely to be a place that your side wants to play, and takeout is logical.

That's not the case for pass/correct bids.

True, but there is still some analogy I think.
After a multi pass/correct bid they are not "known" to have a 7+card fit in the bid suit, but it's fairly likely - and if not, you are probably looking at the same suit in your own hand, with no reason to takeout anyway.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2018-October-17, 10:15, said:

True, but there is still some analogy I think.
After a multi pass/correct bid they are not "known" to have a 7+card fit in the bid suit, but it's fairly likely - and if not, you are probably looking at the same suit in your own hand, with no reason to takeout anyway.

Just as likely to have a three-card "fit" in my experience.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-October-17, 12:03, said:

Just as likely to have a three-card "fit" in my experience.

pescetom, on 2018-October-17, 10:15, said:

you are probably looking at the same suit in your own hand, with no reason to takeout anyway.