[jallerton]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-29, 10:27, said:

I disagree with this, if this auction has no psyches in it and 2♦ is natural, S's 3♠ shows diamonds as well as he can only have a maximum of about an 8 count given the 1N/2N and the N hand (and whether it should be or not, stuff like this is often not alerted when it should be once a misbid has happened).

Suppose that you held ♠AQJ10xxx as South. Would you not want to bid 3♠, even if you suspected that the opponents had a few more high cards than your own side? If nothing else, a spade lead could be necessary to beat 3NT.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 08:49, said:

Doubly agree with BillW55

BTW, if West's Double after this previous auction should have been alerted, I would never get the hang of EBU regulations either.

It's a double of a suit bid under 3NT that is not for takeout. Is that so hard? Experienced players have no trouble with this.

[MrAce]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-29, 13:01, said:

This hand pretty much doesn't exist, either it's weak enough it's not going to stop opps, or strong enough it bids 4♠.
.

I see you do not have the experience to ever seen 3♠ or even 4♠ can make, even when opponents hold 25 hcp. I also see you have not experienced where someone bids his 7 card suit, heading with AK, white, MP, at 3 level. Who would guess? This bid exists and it is nonsense at best to say one must bid either 4♠ or pass at MP. Here is a hand, of course you are entitled to claim that this hand should pass or just blast 4♠. But unfortunately for you this is not a topic to find the best bid. 3♠ will be in chosen by some number of players if not majority. What are you even talking about?

You are so out of it that you suggest N, who has shown a suit like QT9876 at 2 level, can bid it all by himself at 4 level w/o UI. Is this really how you play bridge? Or as MikeH said repeatedly did you confuse the topic and trying to find best spot for NS when seeing both hands?

---

You can change couple cards, and EW will make 3 NT while you make 3♠ or go off in 3-4 ♠ doubled -1 -2 -3. I can even make it consistent with the double of 3♠ if that is what you want, it won't change the fact that S will hold hands that can bid 3♠. (I also assume you have never seen anyone doubling for penalties when they have 25 hcps thinking that opponents are speeding, even without any trump tricks, I did) Outcome is unknown and dependent to what pd and opponents hold, but do not try to convince anyone sane that S will NEVER hold a hand that can bid 3♠ and N can bid his 6 card suit headed by only Q at 4 level w/o UI. It is beyond laughable to me.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 18:02, said:

It's a double of a suit bid under 3NT that is not for takeout. Is that so hard? Experienced players have no trouble with this.

Yes. It is hard to imagine anyone playing that double in that scenario for takeout, and even harder to imagine a jurisdiction having that intent in their alert procedures. That would fall under blindly writing or reading regulations without engaging brain.

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 19:53, said:

Yes. It is hard to imagine anyone playing that double in that scenario for takeout, and even harder to imagine a jurisdiction having that intent in their alert procedures. That would fall under blindly writing or reading regulations without engaging brain.

No, it falls under wanting to have simple regulations without lots of exceptions. Of course if it's a situation no-one would misunderstand then you can't expect to get redress for a failure to alert.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 18:02, said:

It's a double of a suit bid under 3NT that is not for takeout. Is that so hard? Experienced players have no trouble with this.

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

If, in an undiscussed sequence, your meta-agreement is takeout, but it has to be penalty due to bridge logic from the sequence, do you alert? If, however, it is unclear from the sequence, but you deduce from your hand it is penalty, do you alert?

Is the whole logic of alerting doubles different from that of alerting bids, where you disclose your agreements, not what you suspect the bid might mean?

Maybe established tournament partnershipss have agreements on doubles detailed enough to cope with the regulation, but lesser players, like me, are mostly just muddling through.

(I've been asking these questions ever since these regulations first came in, and I've never had an authoritative reply.)

[VixTD]

 StevenG, on 2014-April-30, 05:44, said:

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

If, in an undiscussed sequence, your meta-agreement is takeout, but it has to be penalty due to bridge logic from the sequence, do you alert? If, however, it is unclear from the sequence, but you deduce from your hand it is penalty, do you alert?

Is the whole logic of alerting doubles different from that of alerting bids, where you disclose your agreements, not what you suspect the bid might mean?

Maybe established tournament partnershipss have agreements on doubles detailed enough to cope with the regulation, but lesser players, like me, are mostly just muddling through.

(I've been asking these questions ever since these regulations first came in, and I've never had an authoritative reply.)

The regulations state (BB2D2):

Quote

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

[RMB1]

 StevenG, on 2014-April-30, 05:44, said:

I find it hard. Do you alert accoriding to your agreements, your meta-agreements or what the double is actually intended to mean? If you only alert based on tangible agreements, what do you do in undiscussed sequences?

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

[VixTD]

I thought this was the most toe-curling example of abuse of UI that I've seen for a long time. I didn't fine North (although he was experienced enough to know better), but I adjusted the score to 75% of 3♠X(S)-4 and 25% of 3♠X-3 to both sides. (This may be ungenerous to the non-offenders, but either score would be a top.) I'm horrified that anyone is trying to defend his actions.

He was all ready to appeal (on a somewhat vague basis) but thankfully thought the better of it after a night's sleep. I would have expected the deposit to be forfeit.

[aguahombre]

 RMB1, on 2014-April-30, 06:35, said:

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

Wow, we should alert GBK and alert that we have no agreement. Pretty much the opposite over here, where we alert if we know a bid is alertable but don't remember which alertable meaning it has ---and alert highly unexpected agreements.

Or maybe it is highly unexpected in that jurisdiction for a pair which has each shown balance and strength to want to penalize an opponent's intervention rather than explore for a non-fit at the 4-level. Good red herring in this case, to mitigate the real issue of North/South's use of UI.

Equally in the "Duh" realm:

1H (2NT) Double (No alert, not a suit bid)
(3D) Double! ("Alert...shows desire to defend 3D")

[billw55]

Quote

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

So essentially .. "alert, no agreement"

Yes, I do find this strange. If playing under such a rule, I might end up alerting every call, just to be on the safe side. Have agreement? Alert. Don't have agreement? Also alert!

[StevenG]

 RMB1, on 2014-April-30, 06:35, said:

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

So if the agreement is "takeout (unless it can't be)" I alert ALL our doubles? (other than the simplest negative double). They they ask and get constained by the UI.

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2014-April-30, 02:05, said:

No, it falls under wanting to have simple regulations without lots of exceptions. Of course if it's a situation no-one would misunderstand then you can't expect to get redress for a failure to alert.

I like simplicity, but simplicity is not the aim of the EBU regulations. They aim to make unusual meanings of bids alertable and they aim to be very accurate at that, going into lots of details. But when it comes to doubles this suddenly all vanishes, and they come with a simple blanket rule ("alert all doubles that are not for takeout") that completely ignores the fact that the alert regulation is build around "not having to alert the standard meaning".

So either go all the way and define calls with standard meanings that are not alertable, or take the simple route but then for all calls. Not simple for some, accurate for others.

Rik

[gordontd]

 Trinidad, on 2014-April-30, 09:09, said:

I like simplicity, but simplicity is not the aim of the EBU regulations. They aim to make unusual meanings of bids alertable and they aim to be very accurate at that, going into lots of details.

I simply don't think this is true. I think they aim to create simple regulations that distinguish between expected and unexpected meanings without needing lots of exceptions. So we alert a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening even though it's the most common meaning of the bid, because it fits in with the simple rule of alerting artificial ("not natural") calls. In fact the basic alerting rules for passes and bids are simpler than those for doubles (two rules instead of five), but the list of specific examples is longer for passes and bids than for doubles.

[Vampyr]

The EBU has got this right. Sorry, all you people who are jealous, and let's have no more sour grapes.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2014-April-30, 09:36, said:

I simply don't think this is true. I think they aim to create simple regulations that distinguish between expected and unexpected meanings without needing lots of exceptions. So we alert a strong, artificial and forcing 2C opening even though it's the most common meaning of the bid, because it fits in with the simple rule of alerting artificial ("not natural") calls. In fact the basic alerting rules for passes and bids are simpler than those for doubles (two rules instead of five), but the list of specific examples is longer for passes and bids than for doubles.

I guess that means it is unnatural to exact a penalty from the opponents when we have the majority of the power and no established fit of our own.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2014-April-30, 07:39, said:

So if the agreement is "takeout (unless it can't be)" I alert ALL our doubles? (other than the simplest negative double). They they ask and get constained by the UI.

??? If it "can't be" takeout, you alert. If you don't alert the opponents are entitled to assume it is takeout. So there will be less asking than under other regulations, and if the opponents do ask about an alerted double which turns out to be penalty (the most common case) there will be less UI than in other cases -- largely because your actions over a penalty double contain less "I" of any sort.

Count your blessings. In some jurisdictions NO doubles are alerted. So you have to ask an awful lot, and the UI potential is much much greater.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-April-30, 09:50, said:

I guess that means it is unnatural to exact a penalty from the opponents when we have the majority of the power and no established fit of our own.

Would you like to submit a list of which doubles should be alerted and which shouldn't? I shall be impressed if the list is comprehensive and can be explained in 30 seconds. I suspect that you will need only to start the task before realising the wisdom of the EBU's choice.

[WellSpyder]

 Vampyr, on 2014-April-30, 10:01, said:

Would you like to submit a list of which doubles should be alerted and which shouldn't? I shall be impressed if the list is comprehensive and can be explained in 30 seconds. I suspect that you will need only to start the task before realising the wisdom of the EBU's choice.

I think the EBU's choice is the worst set of rules for alerting doubles there is, except for any other choice they might have made.

[TMorris]

Regarding alerting doubles and the EBU I reckon I am one of about three people in my local club who alert doubles at all. At tournement level it is rather different of course but at club level my experience is that very few understand or apply these rules. Of course most of the time it is obvious if a double is for penalties so it is not an issue.