[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-May-26, 03:18, said:

With doubles it is a bit trickier. Suppose that in some convoluted auction partner doubles a suit partscore and I decide that it must be penalty according to GBK. Should I alert?

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

[StevenG]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-26, 08:13, said:

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

What makes it impossible to follow are those situations where you have no explicit agreements.

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2015-May-26, 08:32, said:

What makes it impossible to follow are those situations where you have no explicit agreements.

If you have meta-agreements that guide you, base your alert on that.

Otherwise, follow the earlier-quoted rule: alert it unless you're sure it has the non-alertable meaning. If you don't have an explicit agreement, then you can't be sure that it's not alertable.

[mycroft]

Or more particularly: "we have no agreement" != "we have an agreement that the double is X", therefore it is Alertable (because it's Alertable unless the meaning is X).

I do see that this will lead to a lot of "useless Alerts" of doubles of MP partscore battle auctions; people will get used to it. I'm not sure the Alert will help differentiate between pairs playing The Matchpoint Double "I think we can make 2♠, so we're pushing for +200" (effectively, penalty) and those playing it as "DSIP" ("I don't know, pick based on your hand, but we're not selling out"). Is that a problem? Probably not.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-26, 08:13, said:

This question from a regular contributor these forums worries me. There is nothing in the EBU regulations about "GBK". there are no exceptions to the regulation about alerting doubles; that is what makes it easy to follow.

You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet, someone who plays regularly in the EBU, with a very analytical mind (a PhD in statistics if I recall correctly) and a regular contributor to the forums finds it far from easy. I consider that telling.

But don't believe me. Believe your own worries.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-May-26, 08:09, said:

Penalties is the unalerted meaning in those cases

Out of curiosity: What does a penalty double of a Jacoby 2NT (1♥-Pass-2NT-Dbl) look like?

Rik

[nige1]

In my experience the EBU regulation about "alerting doubles" is a mine-field e.g.
(2♦ Multi) Pass (2♠ P/C) Double

In Scotland, we don't alert any doubles or redoubles. IMO, that's even worse.

More sensible rules:

• You must alert partner's double unless it's penalty. OR
• You must announce partner's double as "penalty" or "take-out" as appropriate; and alert all other doubles.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 10:28, said:

Out of curiosity: What does a penalty double of a Jacoby 2NT (1♥-Pass-2NT-Dbl) look like?

Do you mean what kind of hand would make a penalty double of J2N? It's hard to imagine it -- maybe a hand with AKQ of trumps and a side Ace. But this seems dangerous, since they might be able to make 2NT (perhaps with an overtrick -- those might be the defense's only tricks). So you'd probably really need to hold a hand that you can have only if one of the opponents psyched.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-May-26, 10:45, said:

Do you mean what kind of hand would make a penalty double of J2N? It's hard to imagine it -- maybe a hand with AKQ of trumps and a side Ace. But this seems dangerous, since they might be able to make 2NT (perhaps with an overtrick -- those might be the defense's only tricks). So you'd probably really need to hold a hand that you can have only if one of the opponents psyched.

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

I was thinking of a solid six card suit or a semi-solid suit and the ace of their suit.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 10:50, said:

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

Really?

If someone bids Unusual 2NT, and next hand doubles, the usual penalty meaning is "interested in penalizing at least one of the suits they showed".

[helene_t]

I think it is ok that all sensible doubles on j2nt are alertable. I suppose that the standard meaning is t/o but that is not even obvious.

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-May-26, 10:59, said:

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

I suspect it doesn't work that way in practice, and it's probably closer to alerting unlikely meanings.

As this discussion has shown, the difference between DSIP and takeout is fuzzy. I suspect most people get away with treating DSIP as being more takeout-like, because they're not specifically penalty.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 10:27, said:

You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet, someone who plays regularly in the EBU, with a very analytical mind (a PhD in statistics if I recall correctly) and a regular contributor to the forums finds it far from easy. I consider that telling.

But don't believe me. Believe your own worries.

Rik

It is not at all a question of whether Helene understands or not. It is simply the fact that I am pretty sure that the principle of "alerting unless you are sure it is non-avertable" has been mentioned multiple times but Helene thought it was the opposite. Either of these principles is trivially simple to understand; it is just a question of which one applies.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-May-26, 10:59, said:

I think it is ok that all sensible doubles on j2nt are alertable. I suppose that the standard meaning is t/o but that is not even obvious.

On topic: it seems that we must alert all doubles unless we know that it has a non alertable meaning. This is fine but does it really work that way in practice? That undiscussed doubles which are probably dsip or such by gbk are routinely alerted? Not a retoric question, I play mostly at club level where people don't double much, so I honestly don't know.

The stronger players in the clubs I attend alert, and the rest sometimes. If you know the strength of a player you will know whether you need to ask.

At tournaments virtually everybody alerts correctly.

barmar, on 2015-May-26, 11:03, said:

I suspect it doesn't work that way in practice, and it's probably closer to alerting unlikely meanings.

As this discussion has shown, the difference between DSIP and takeout is fuzzy.

Yes it is, to the extent of "not at all, and not even close".

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-May-26, 10:57, said:

Trinidad, on 2015-May-26, 10:50, said:

No, you are doubling 2NT, not some heart contract. So it is a penalty double of 2NT.

Really?

If someone bids Unusual 2NT, and next hand doubles, the usual penalty meaning is "interested in penalizing at least one of the suits they showed".

The question is not about what would be a logical meaning. It is about what would be the non-alertable meaning.

The auction goes: 1♥-Pass-2NT (Jacoby)-Dbl

The alert regulation says that double is non-alertable if it is penalty. We are doubling 2NT, we are not doubling some heart contract. So, the non-alertable meaning is: "I think 2NT will go down." That means a hand that seems to be able to take 6 tricks against 2NT, not a hand that seems to be able to take 4 tricks against 4♥.

I agree with you that it is not sensible to play a non-alertable penalty double of Jacoby 2NT. With a solid six card suit, I would just bid my six card suit. But the double of 2NT is non-alertable if it says "I expect to take 6 tricks against a NT contract". (And with such a hand, nobody would double.)

Rik

[billw55]

I suspect that ambiguous doubles are pretty common even in regular partnerships. Of the many possible auctions, probably few will be the subject of a definite agreement.

If I ever play in EBU, I expect to do a lot of "alert, no agreement".

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2015-May-26, 12:30, said:

I suspect that ambiguous doubles are pretty common even in regular partnerships.

I do not find this to be the case even with my infrequent partnerships.

Quote

If I ever play in EBU, I expect to do a lot of "alert, no agreement".

Good for you.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-26, 11:06, said:

It is not at all a question of whether Helene understands or not. It is simply the fact that I am pretty sure that the principle of "alerting unless you are sure it is non-avertable" has been mentioned multiple times but Helene thought it was the opposite. Either of these principles is trivially simple to understand; it is just a question of which one applies.

I hope you agree with me that it is important that a regulation is understood by the players that need to abide by it.

Helene is one of the players in the EBU. She is not one of the dumbest (mild understatement ) and clearly has some interest in rules and regularions. Now, if she doesn't understand a regulation, that you think is so simple, then what will happen to those bridge players that are dumber than Helene (the vast majority of the EBU players) or have less interest in the rules?

They won't understand the regulation either. That means that the regulation may be simple (at least in your view), but it simply isn't simple enough.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

The particular area that caused me an issue was auctions like 1N-X(pens)-XX(single suited)-P-2♣(pass or bid your suit)-P-P-X, 2♣ was clearly an artificial bid, but the pass was a natural club bid, did this mean that the doubles in the two seats had different alerting requirements ? I think they eventually clarified it but not sure most players know what you're supposed to do.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-26, 23:16, said:

The particular area that caused me an issue was auctions like 1N-X(pens)-XX(single suited)-P-2♣(pass or bid your suit)-P-P-X, 2♣ was clearly an artificial bid, but the pass was a natural club bid, did this mean that the doubles in the two seats had different alerting requirements ? I think they eventually clarified it but not sure most players know what you're supposed to do.

No, takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both seats. BB 4H5:

Quote

The following doubles must not be alerted:
[...]
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.

This is because of the definition of "shows the suit bid" in 4B2: "it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it has been followed by two passes".