[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-February-21, 12:29, said:

I understand why it's done but I disagree with the principle behind it.

The principle behind alert regulations is to inform the opponents, not to promote a "standard" system. You say you have no data to support that the latter is the intention or even the unintended effect. Yet you continue to insist that it is the case. Ah, BBO Forums.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 09:21, said:

Is there some reason you quoted a question and answered a different one? I thought that if I quoted Andy, who named a regulation, and asked how he (or anyone who chose to answer) would change it, people would know that I was asking how to change that particular regulation. Sorry if I am assuming an ability to follow a chain of reasoning that is beyond you.

This is several times now that you have gone out of your way to be rude to me. I don't know why, and of course people will do as they wish on the internet forums. However, I will make no further attempts to converse with you.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-21, 12:53, said:

This is several times now that you have gone out of your way to be rude to me. I don't know why, and of course people will do as they wish on the internet forums. However, I will make no further attempts to misquote/take out of context your comments.

FYP

(Now maybe you can see why)

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 12:44, said:

The principle behind alert regulations is to inform the opponents, not to promote a "standard" system. You say you have no data to support that the latter is the intention or even the unintended effect. Yet you continue to insist that it is the case. Ah, BBO Forums.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was insisting it was the case. Maybe it was the phrase "my impression"? Or was it when I said "you may be right"? It could have been the "my feeling is that...".

As you say: Ah, BBO Forums.

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Stef. And no, you didn't start this thread. That it looks like you did is an artifact of the topic splitting procedure - unless I did it wrong.

[bluejak]

sfi, on 2013-February-21, 05:00, said:

If you're playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted, then not asking about the redouble (or about the double) is really poor. Even at club level here everyone will quickly check about what the double means if it's not totally obvious. Sometimes people ask about obvious ones too, and it doesn't detract from the flow of the hand.

The great problem with this is that it gives a very unfair advantage to people who play something strange. If the bidding goes

---

how many people will ask? But it is perfectly legal here - and in most jurisdictions, I fancy - to play it as a transfer to clubs.

sfi, on 2013-February-21, 05:00, said:

Pairs who play really strange meanings (X=transfer, penalty doubles over 1 level interference, etc.) will pre-alert the opposition.

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 05:18, said:

If I were playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted, I would ask about all doubles and redoubles in all auctions.

No, you wouldn't [in my opinion]. I have tried it in Scotland where the alerting regs are terrible. After the fourth or fifth time you ask [2♠, double, what's that? takeout; 1NT, double, what's that? penalties; 1♥, pass, 1♠, double, what's that? takeout; 2♥, double, what's that? takeout; 1NT, double, what's that? penalties] you get sick of it, and the bidding goes 2♠, double, you don't bother, and your auction is messed up by not knowing he showed clubs.

One of the things that people do not seem to really understand is that it matters when doubles occur. If you get an auction like

---

I am probably going to ask routinely, but the answer will be something along the lines of cards, penalties, strong and the like - and they all show much the same thing! If you want a rule I could live with make sure you have sensible alerting for doubles and redoubles through [that's up to and including for the English ] opener's rebid. Alerting is far less important after that.

[sfi]

bluejak, on 2013-February-24, 19:14, said:

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

In my experience, yes. It may not work in some jurisdictions, but in my experience in Australia it works quite well. Here I would say "our doubles over opening bids are artificial." At that point my partner and I can agree what a redouble should show and whether we treat the double of 1NT as penalty. That's just normal behaviour here.

And you don't have to mention all the quirks - just the ones against which the opponents might need to discuss a defence. Artificial doubles of opening bids are clearly in that category.

Over the past month my opponents' pre-alerts relating to doubles have included the following:

- 'our first step response to a take-out double is negative'
- 'we play lots of penalty doubles and few takeout doubles after we open the bidding'
- 'doubles in competition are rarely what they sound like and frequently transfers'

If they don't pre-alert adjustments can and have been given.

Not having experienced other jurisdictions where this doesn't work I can't suggest why the difference.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-February-24, 19:38, said:

Not having experienced other jurisdictions where this doesn't work I can't suggest why the difference.

Clearly in Scotland (as in England) there is nothing in the regulations about pre-alerts, so it is not normally done.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2013-February-24, 19:14, said:

No, you wouldn't [in my opinion].

Yes I would. In this case I think my opinion carries rather more weight than yours. I can be particularly bloody-minded about negating the effects of stupid rules.

I would make an exception if I already *knew* the meaning, as I might do if there was a rule that an artificial double had to be prealerted.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-24, 19:44, said:

Clearly in Scotland (as in England) there is nothing in the regulations about pre-alerts, so it is not normally done.

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. There are pre-alerts and it is normally done:

From the SBU System Policy:

2.2.2 At the start of each round, you should exchange convention cards with your opponents and inform them of

• Your basic method
  E.g. Natural with four-/five-card majors (specify the minimum length for one of a minor if fewer than four); Strong Club (specify minimum HCP for 1♣)
• The range of your opening 1NT, including any variations according to position and vulnerability
• The meaning of your two-level opening bids
  E.g. Strong Twos; Strong 2 , Game-forcing 2 , Weak Twos in the majors; Weak Twos in three suits; Multi 2♦ ; Two-suited Weak Twos in the Majors
• Any unusual aspects of your system
  E.g. Canapé (opening or responding in a shorter suit before a longer one); game-forcing two-over-one responses; weak jump shifts; unusual doubles (such as low-level penalty doubles; or a double of 1NT which is not penalty

List these items in a clearly identifiable area of your convention card.

I know David does not like these alerting regulations and has been damaged when a pair forgot to inform him that they played a non-penalty double of one notrump, but different regulations are all part of playing bridge in a foreign country.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-February-25, 02:10, said:

Yes I would. In this case I think my opinion carries rather more weight than yours.

Not necessarily. It's hard to be objective about oneself.

You may say now that you would always ask, but unless you've actually been in the situation and have done this I wouldn't believe you. You might even try for a while, but I suspect that after a while you'd find it tiresome and revert to old behavior. Believing that you could do it on a regular basis seems to me like an example of illusory superiority.

[paulg]

bluejak, on 2013-February-24, 19:14, said:

Yeah, right. The pre-alert thing is a demonstrable failure. Suppose a pair decides to play artificial doubles over every opening bid from 1NT upwards: do they really let opponents know, not to mention their other little quirks?

As far as I can tell most people in Scotland, including the English visitors, like the pre-alert regulations. I don't come across pairs who use the alerting regulations to hide their methods although, like in every country, people make mistakes.

bluejak, on 2013-February-24, 19:14, said:

If you want a rule I could live with make sure you have sensible alerting for doubles and redoubles through [that's up to and including for the English ] opener's rebid. Alerting is far less important after that.

I could live with this rule too. Now we just have to define 'sensible'.

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2013-February-25, 11:19, said:

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

Very sensible if you want to ask all the time. Otherwise, not so much.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2013-February-25, 11:19, said:

To be honest I am happiest with the ACBL alerting of doubles, far more sensible than the SBU and EBU.

Vampyr, on 2013-February-25, 12:14, said:

Very sensible if you want to ask all the time. Otherwise, not so much.

I'd understand your comment if I'd said WBF, but I said ACBL, where basically just 'unusual' doubles are alerted and it works pretty well most of the time.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2013-February-25, 13:01, said:

I'd understand your comment if I'd said WBF, but I said ACBL, where basically just 'unusual' doubles are alerted and it works pretty well most of the time.

I misunderstood; I had assumed that "most doubles" meant that neither penalty nor takeout doubles required an alert.

If that is not true, the problem is how do you define "unusual" and "unexpected"; this seems to require an auction-by-auction audit. The EBU regulations avoid this; for example (1♠)-P-1NT-X is alertable when it is takeout of spades, even though penalty would be a much more unusual meaning. So you could make this double non-alertable when it is takeout, and add a lot of complexity to an easily understandable regulation just with that one auction; and where does it end? 1♥-(X)-XX-(2♣); X. Which meaning is more unexpected? Takeout and penalty are both common. So which gets an alert and which does not?

This is the sort of thing that the EBU eliminated, and it is much better this way.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 18:27, said:

What should they change it to? It is a thorny issue, and I think that the regulation makes the best of a bad job, but I would be interested to know what you and Jeffrey think would be more appropriate.

The problem with 5B10 is that it is not consistent with the general principles of disclosure of partnership agreements. I like the principles outlined earlier in the Orange Book:

Quote

3B3[A player should explain only the partnership agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner’s call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how the player intends to interpret it.

3B4A player can find it difficult to strike a balance between giving opponents information to which they are entitled, and avoiding saying how the player intends to interpret a call or play which has not been specifically discussed. If the player believes that the meaning of partner’s call is affected by relevant partnership experience the answer should be along the lines of “we have not specifically discussed it, but we have agreements in analogous situations which may be relevant”. For example, an undiscussed situation might be analogous to something which has been discussed, so that both partners might expect that they would reach the same conclusion at the table. Opponents can then ask a supplementary question about the analogous situations if they wish to do so.

3B5If a player is asked for an explanation of a call in relation to which the pair has no agreement, either explicit or implicit, the player should say so, but bear in mind that the longer a pair has played together the more implicit agreements they are likely to have. (Law 75C)

Now let's look at Orange Book 5B10 which currently says:

Quote

[A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

Now when my partner makes a call about which we have no agreement, I am going to have to guess how to treat it, and my subsequent calls are likely to be consistent with that guess.

3B3 instructs that I must not make a statement as to how I interpret the undiscussed call. On the other hand, 5B10 tells me to effectively do the opposite, by virtue of whether I alert or not.

For example, LHO bids 3♥ (natural) is some auction and my first time partner doubles. I've no idea from the auction itself whether the double is penalties or take-out. I rate my chances of guessing as better than 50/50 solely because I can look at my hand.

Scenario 1. I have a singleton heart. I guess that double is penalties. Apparently I'm supposed to alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is penalties when I subsequently pass) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement".

Scenario 2. I have a trebleton heart. I guess that double is take-out. Apparently I'm supposed to not alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is T/O when I subsequently bid) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement"

So by following 5B10 I tell the opponents information about the contents of my own hand, but nothing about my agreements. That cannot be right..

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2013-February-25, 16:09, said:

Scenario 1. I have a singleton heart. I guess that double is penalties. Apparently I'm supposed to alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is penalties when I subsequently pass) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement".

Scenario 2. I have a trebleton heart. I guess that double is take-out. Apparently I'm supposed to not alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is T/O when I subsequently bid) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement"

So by following 5B10 I tell the opponents information about the contents of my own hand, but nothing about my agreements. That cannot be right..

You can avoid this problem by alerting in both cases, and in both cases answering "no agreement", but giving any information about other agreements or about hands that have come up earlier in the session that may be relevant and helpful.

[aguahombre]

I think I will stick with alerting agreements which might be alertable, and not alerting non agreements. Might be easier for those of us who know whether we have an agreement than for others.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-25, 18:37, said:

I think I will stick with alerting agreements which might be alertable, and not alerting non agreements. Might be easier for those of us who know whether we have an agreement than for others.

Do you think your opponents will win a ruling if both you and your partner assumed an alertable meaning?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-25, 18:54, said:

Do you think your opponents will win a ruling if both you and your partner assumed an alertable meaning?

That is from another planet. We alert agreements which we believe are alertable. We don't alert if there is no agreement. If someone thinks we have an agreement, where we don't, we will explain that we don't and expect the TD to understand that alerts are for agreements, not for guesses.

Don't confuse alerts with the other subject --answering questions about partnership experience in areas where we have no agreement, when asked.