[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-February-20, 12:08, said:

The real answer is for the L&EC to change this ill thought-out rule (5B10, I mean - the rest of the alerting rules are fine).

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.

[billw55]

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.

Personally, I would prefer that the regulation said to never alert doubles, and put the responsibility on the ops to ask. At least it would be 100% unambiguous. I recognize that I won't get much following for this view though.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 19:34, said:

Personally, I would prefer that the regulation said to never alert doubles, and put the responsibility on the ops to ask. At least it would be 100% unambiguous. I recognize that I won't get much following for this view though.

You have a lot of following for that view. For years it has been forbidden in The Netherlands to alert doubles. The reason is that there is a huge range of doubles on a sliding scale penalty - suggestion to penalize - card showing - action to negative - takeout and it is not reasonable to pick one meaning that is not alertable. (If penalty is not alertabe, is "suggestion to penalize" alertable? And when is it merely a suggestion to penalize? When it is left in in 99%, 90%, 80% of the cases?) Furthermore, with the increase of artificial bids it gets more and more complicated. Are we talking about a penalty double of the suit bid or a takeout double of the suit shown?

Essentially, the Dutch bridge league reasoned that (almost) every meaning for a double would have to be alerted and that for doubles the alert procedure had no purpose. Therefore, it was simply forbidden to alert doubles and opponents were encouraged to ask on a general basis.

This regulation didn't work well at the time. Apart from this range of penalty - takeout doubles, there are a bunch of conventional doubles with a very specific meaning, e.g.:

• Support
  
• Rosenkrantz
  
• Lightner
  
• DOPI
  
• DONT

I play colorful cuebids against transfers of 1NT (e.g. 1NT-Pass-2♦[♥]-Dbl shows diamonds and spades). If you are not allowed to alert this double you will get strange effects. In practice, everybody assumes that it shows diamonds, since that is how everybody (-2) plays it. It looks very suspicious when advancer bids 3♠ on a four card suit and finds a dummy with five card support, yet didn't raise to game. Even if questions are asked when dummy comes down (the best case), there will be a general feeling with all four players that this is so unexpected that it should have been alerted.

So, now the Dutch bridge league has the regulation that the "vague" penalty - takeout doubles are not alerted, but the specific doubles (support, etc.) are. IMO, this is by far the best alert regulation of doubles that I have played under.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

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

What should they change it to?

Are the issues that Andy is raising not covered by 5B9 to some extent? It seems to me that if an undiscussed call has a possible meaning that would be alertable then it will generally come under "but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning." What I suspect Andy wants is something along the lines of: "A player who is not sure of the meaning of a call should alert if any of the potential meanings would be alertable. Potential meanings may arise from implicit partnership understandings, partnership experience or practise, or general bridge inferences."

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-21, 02:11, said:

It looks very suspicious when advancer bids 3♠ on a four card suit and finds a dummy with five card support, yet didn't raise to game. Even if questions are asked when dummy comes down (the best case), there will be a general feeling with all four players that this is so unexpected that it should have been alerted.

The regulation Bill suggests is worse than this. It can actively prevent you from getting disclosure as well as the opps not getting a warning that there is something they should know. An auction I had at a tournament in Germany (where no doubles or redoubles may be alerted) was:
1NT - X - XX - 2♣, I think followed by 3 passes.

The 1NT bid was alerted, since it can contain a singleton. Double and redouble were not alerted. On asking about strength of the 2♣ bid, the answer was something along the lines that after a 1NT opening, a double and a redouble, there were not enough points left for it to be anything but weak. Great, except that XX showed a weak hand. No alerts, no asks. We were defending so no way of telling the opps what was going on. This has been my general experience of the "never alert (re)doubles" regulation. At first I did alert this redouble anyway but was told not to. Noone has ever asked without an alert. To my mind, the EBU are way ahead of the game on this one.

[sfi]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-21, 04:51, said:

The 1NT bid was alerted, since it can contain a singleton. Double and redouble were not alerted. On asking about strength of the 2♣ bid, the answer was something along the lines that after a 1NT opening, a double and a redouble, there were not enough points left for it to be anything but weak. Great, except that XX showed a weak hand. No alerts, no asks.

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.

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

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-21, 02:21, said:

What I suspect Andy wants is something along the lines of: "A player who is not sure of the meaning of a call should alert if any of the potential meanings would be alertable. Potential meanings may arise from implicit partnership understandings, partnership experience or practise, or general bridge inferences."

Yes, something like that would do. We'd also have to change 5B5 to something like "If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that, through agreement or general bridge knowledge, the bidder's partner believes that the intended meaning does not fall into an alertable or announceable category."

[gnasher]

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

[aguahombre]

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.

Do you play somewhere where no cuebids are alerted? IMO, the only difference is a cuebid probably isn't for penalty and people would like an extra "out" if the opponents fail to alert their penalty doubles.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-21, 06:53, said:

Do you play somewhere where no cuebids are alerted?

No, but if I did I would always ask. Is there such a jurisdiction?

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 19:34, said:

Personally, I would prefer that the regulation said to never alert doubles, and put the responsibility on the ops to ask. At least it would be 100% unambiguous. I recognize that I won't get much following for this view though.

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.

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 05:16, said:

Yes, something like that would do. We'd also have to change 5B5 to something like "If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that, through agreement or general bridge knowledge, the bidder's partner believes that the intended meaning does not fall into an alertable or announceable category."

Is this a lot different from:

Quote

If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no
agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

Your potential wording for 5B5 and 5B10 may well be better; I will think about it.

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.

Me too, and this seems unimaginably tedious.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 07:32, said:

No, but if I did I would always ask. Is there such a jurisdiction?

I think there are jurisdictions which alert cuebids only if they are natural. I am also pretty sure that in Australia they do not alert them ever.

EDIT:

Quote

There are five different types of self-alerting calls, viz.
•Doubles
•Redoubles
•Cue bids of an opponent’s denomination/suit
•All calls at the four-level or higher, except conventional opening bids
•Any 2♣ response to a 1NT opening bid in an uncontested auction.
These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 07:32, said:

No, but if I did I would always ask. Is there such a jurisdiction?

ACBL comes very close. From the Alert Regs:
"4) CUEBIDS

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert."

Some of us still alert Cuebids which carry more than one message. Example:

1C (1S) 2S! In addition to showing L.R.+ for clubs, it denies a spade stop, where 2C would be inverted with a spade stop.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-February-21, 10:58

[WellSpyder]

Quote

Do you play somewhere where no cuebids are alerted?

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 07:32, said:

No, but if I did I would always ask. Is there such a jurisdiction?

Do you always ask in England, where in practice almost all cuebids are alerted? (equivalent, in information terms, of course, to no cuebids being alerted)

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 09:23, said:

I think there are jurisdictions which alert cuebids only if they are natural. I am also pretty sure that in Australia they do not alert them ever.

Indeed. The principle behind the Australian regulations that I really like is that there is not a "default" system from which deviations are alerted. Mostly, if your bid is artificial then it is alertable. The self-alert component is an extension of that, with the idea that all these bids frequently have unusual meanings.

Many common sequences seem to have more variation in Australia, so it's less clear what the standard should be if one were to alert only some meanings. For instance:

(1C) - 2C is often 5/5 with spades and another
1NT - 2C is very frequently not Stayman

It's also worth noting that unusual self alerting calls need to be highlighted at the end of the auction, so the opponents should know about it before the opening lead anyway. This doesn't always happen of course.

Some bids are still commonly alerted, such as a 2C response to 1NT (even if it's Stayman). But people are getting used to that recent change in the regs and it happens less frequently.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-February-21, 10:44, said:

Indeed. The principle behind the Australian regulations that I really like is that there is not a "default" system from which deviations are alerted. Mostly, if your bid is artificial then it is alertable.

Yes, this is the principle in the EBU as well, if you replace "mostly" with "nearly always".

Quote

1NT - 2C is very frequently not Stayman

In the EBU Stayman is the most common meaning, so it is announced where other meanings (apart from weak takeout) are alerted. This might be a good approach in Australia if there is a majority treatment of the bid.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 10:52, said:

In the EBU Stayman is the most common meaning, so it is announced where other meanings (apart from weak takeout) are alerted. This might be a good approach in Australia if there is a majority treatment of the bid.

We simply don't have the concept of announcements here, for better or worse. But the idea of "a majority treatment of the bid" being the standard and then only alerting if there are departures from that is the principle I don't like in regulations. First, it's confusing for new and visiting players. Second, it goes some way to enshrining one system in the local culture and I think this is a bad thing. My feeling is that the ABF approach (primarily the loose system restrictions but also the alerting regs) support the greater variety of systems I see here compared to the ACBL, and I think this is positive for the game.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-February-21, 11:08, said:

We simply don't have the concept of announcements here, for better or worse. But the idea of "a majority treatment of the bid" being the standard and then only alerting if there are departures from that is the principle I don't like in regulations. First, it's confusing for new and visiting players. Second, it goes some way to enshrining one system in the local culture and I think this is a bad thing. My feeling is that the ABF approach (primarily the loose system restrictions but also the alerting regs) support the greater variety of systems I see here compared to the ACBL, and I think this is positive for the game.

I don't think that the announcing of Stayman and the alerting of all other artificial meanings promotes Stayman in any way, any more than the non-alertable/announceable nature of the weak club takeout contributes to its popularity (it has little). In fact I don't really believe that alerting/announcing regulations have a lot to do with proliferation of systems; bidding theorists and mad scientists will be aware of the regulations.

The ACBL have very restrictive systems regulations, but alert regulations which are very close to the Australian ones.

FOR THE RECORD: I did not start this thread.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 11:53, said:

I don't think that the announcing of Stayman and the alerting of all other artificial meanings promotes Stayman in any way, any more than the non-alertable/announceable nature of the weak club takeout contributes to its popularity (it has little). In fact I don't really believe that alerting/announcing regulations have a lot to do with proliferation of systems; bidding theorists and mad scientists will be aware of the regulations.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. It's not the theorists and people who play strange systems I was thinking about - as you say they will know and apply the regulations mostly correctly. It's the club players who will learn that there is a standard way, which might then be seen as the "right" way. But I have no data to support this impression.

Quote

The ACBL [...] alert regulations which are very close to the Australian ones.

Sort of. They have exceptions though (although fewer than I remember). Looking through I find things like:

1C - 2S is alertable unless strong
2C opening is not alertable if strong, but is if natural and limited
2C - 2D is not alertable if neg/waiting
2x - 2NT asking is not alertable

I understand why it's done but I disagree with the principle behind it. As such, I prefer the ABF alert regulations - opponents even find it strange when we alert our Precision 2C (which we do because of the implications relating to a 4 card major rather than the basic meaning).

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-February-21, 10:04, said:

Yes, it's different when the bid is not discussed but may be intended as alertable.

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that, through agreement or general bridge knowledge, the bidder's partner believes that the intended meaning does not fall into an alertable or announceable category."
If it's not discussed, you alert.

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category."
If it's not discussed, you don't alert.

You are right, this is better. This has been moved from the other thread per blackshoe's wishes.