[Tramticket]

This hand arose in a club duplicate in England. The result would not be greatly affected and the players are content to let the result stand, but I would interested to know how you would rule if more depended upon the ruling.

---

Three hearts is a weak jump overcall. There was no alert of the double of the three heart bid and no questions were asked. After the second double, North asked whether the first double had been for penalties and East replied that she didn’t know.

Playing in 4H doubled, South made 5 tricks. The (playing) director was called at the end of the hand, west confirmed that the double was intended as penalties. East / West did not have convention cards and it was not possible to ascertain their actual agreement (if any?). The ruling was deferred as play was already late.

How would you rule? Please also consider:
• Does east’s failure to alert constitute a mis-explanation?
• Should south have protected himself by asking about the first double before he raised hearts? If so, what is the effect on the ruling?
• Do you consider the four heart bid to be speculative? Does this affect the ruling?
• If you consider an assigned score appropriate, what results would you consider? (4D-4, 4Dx-4, 3Hx-4, 4D-3, 4Dx-3?).

[nige1]

TramTicket writes "This hand arose in a club duplicate in England. The result would not be greatly affected and the players are content to let the result stand, but I would interested to know how you would rule if more depended upon the ruling. Three hearts is a weak jump overcall. There was no alert of the double of the three heart bid and no questions were asked. After the second double, North asked whether the first double had been for penalties and East replied that she didn't know.Playing in 4H doubled, South made 5 tricks. The (playing) director was called at the end of the hand, west confirmed that the double was intended as penalties. East / West did not have convention cards and it was not possible to ascertain their actual agreement (if any?). The ruling was deferred as play was already late.

TramTicket: * How would you rule?
Adjust to 5♣=.
TramTicket:• Does east's failure to alert constitute a mis-explanation?
IMO Yes. The defenders had no agreement or played penalty doubles. In either case, the double should be alerted. (But regulations on alerting doubles make no sense, anywhere. Simpler and better would be: All doubles, except penalty doubles, should be alerted or announced).
TramTicket:• Should south have protected himself by asking about the first double before he raised hearts? If so, what is the effect on the ruling?
Negative is the common meaning, so, IMO, No. (In any case the "Protect yourself" rule is ridiculous -- it penalises non-offenders, whether or not they ask).
TramTicket: * Do you consider the four heart bid to be speculative? Does this affect the ruling?
IMO, No, (But the SEWOG rule is also silly and unnecessary).
TramTicket: • If you consider an assigned score appropriate, what results would you consider? (4D-4, 4Dx-4, 3Hx-4, 4D-3, 4Dx-3?)
IMO 5♣=. East claimed not to know what the double meant. So might well take 3♥X out.

---

[pran]

Alert rules are a matter of regulations and these can vary from place to place.

But the rules where I play state (simplified) that a Call which is not natural or which conveys additional information shall be alerted.

By definition a natural call shows willingness to play in the denomination named, or in the last denomination named.

According to this a double or redouble for takeout shall be alerted while a double or redouble for business shall not be alerted.

[RMB1]

In Kent (England), the double is alertable if the agreement is penalties (EBU Blue Book 4B2(a)) but the double is also alertable if they do not know if it is penalties (EBU Blue Book 2D2: "Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable he must alert.")

[Tramticket]

In England the regulation is (Blue Book):
4.b.2 (a) suit bids that show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double is for take-out.

[Tramticket]

RMB1, on 2016-November-22, 16:26, said:

In Kent (England), the double is alertable if the agreement is penalties (EBU Blue Book 4B2(a)) but the double is also alertable if they do not know if it is penalties (EBU Blue Book 2D2: "Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable he must alert.")

Thanks - my reply crossed with your more complete reply.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-22, 16:11, said:

Alert rules are a matter of regulations and these can vary from place to place.

But the rules where I play state (simplified) that a Call which is not natural or which conveys additional information shall be alerted.

By definition a natural call shows willingness to play in the denomination named, or in the last denomination named.

According to this a double or redouble for takeout shall be alerted while a double or redouble for business shall not be alerted.

As there are so many more takeout doubles than penalty doubles, this seems very impractical and possibly difficult to enforce. Do players really consistently alert eg doubles of 1-level suit openings?

The EBU regulations are more in line with what people actually do, so the number is alerts is far lower.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-23, 04:03, said:

As there are so many more takeout doubles than penalty doubles, this seems very impractical and possibly difficult to enforce. Do players really consistently alert eg doubles of 1-level suit openings?

The EBU regulations are more in line with what people actually do, so the number is alerts is far lower.

The purpose of an alert is to warn opponents that they might benefit from an explanation of the call.

A fact that there are so many different possible explanations for a takeout double makes it even more important to alert these calls than alerting a double for business (penalty) without any "extra information".

The frequency of alerts is as such irrelevant, the uncertainty of a call is the major reason for an alerting.

[VixTD]

Tramticket, on 2016-November-22, 10:49, said:

How would you rule? Please also consider:
• Does east’s failure to alert constitute a mis-explanation?
• Should south have protected himself by asking about the first double before he raised hearts? If so, what is the effect on the ruling?
• Do you consider the four heart bid to be speculative? Does this affect the ruling?
• If you consider an assigned score appropriate, what results would you consider? (4D-4, 4Dx-4, 3Hx-4, 4D-3, 4Dx-3?).

Yes, East's failure to alert constitutes misinformation.
No, there's no need for North (I presume you meant North) to protect himself by asking.
The 4♥ bid is certainly speculative, but that does not affect the ruling.
A number of outcomes are possible if the double were alerted and explained as "no agreement". North is less likely to raise hearts, but I don't see why he should bid diamonds either. An uncertain East might take out the double if it's passed round to him, but it looks as if there's a fair chance it was intended as a penalty double. I would think a weighted adjusted score would include some proportions of 3♥X(S)-4, 5♣=(E) and if you really think it's likely a small proportion of a diamond contract by North (I don't).

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-November-23, 07:16, said:

The purpose of an alert is to warn opponents that they might benefit from an explanation of the call.

I think the purpose is to warn opponents that the call might not mean what they think it means.

Quote

A fact that there are so many different possible explanations for a takeout double makes it even more important to alert these calls than alerting a double for business (penalty) without any "extra information".

The type of takeout double isn't what the opponents need to be warned about, it's whether or not it's takeout or penalty.

By your logic, we should probably alert ALL doubles, because there are so many possible meanings that the opponents need to be warned to ask. But if we alert all, we might as well not alert any, since the alert provides no additional information. Players should just know that they should ask since it could mean so many different things.

But in actual practice, there aren't really so many possible meanings. In the given case, it's basically a choice between penalty and negative double, just depending on how high the pair plays negative doubles. Since the common meaning is negative to fairly high levels, EBU simply declared that penalty is the meaning that warrants a warning.

[aguahombre]

A weighted adjustment is not called for. It is established that East knew West's double was penalty. If the jurisdiction says West should alert that they don't play a convention, then so be it. The remedy for failing to alert it is to adjust so that North didn't raise. That makes it 3♥Doubled, down whatever it is down.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2016-November-22, 11:32, said:

IMO Yes. The defenders had no agreement or played penalty doubles. In either case, the double should be alerted. (But regulations on alerting doubles make no sense, anywhere. Simpler and better would be: All doubles, except penalty doubles, should be alerted or announced).

Why is this simpler and better than "All doubles, except take-out doubles, should be alerted", which is essentially the case for the EBU in this auction? The EBU is also quite clear in the case where partner is unsure - the should alert if one or more of the potential meanings is alertable. That was the case here so it is clearly MI.

[wank]

nige1, on 2016-November-22, 11:32, said:

All doubles, except penalty doubles, should be alerted or announced

but there are more takeout doubles than penalty doubles.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-November-23, 10:12, said:

[...]
EBU simply declared that penalty is the meaning that warrants a warning.

Which means that if a vulnerable pair bids a small slam which appears cold and opponents (non-vulnerable) sacrifices ready to go down a couple of tricks then the obvious double (for penalty) must be alerted according to EBU?

Where is the logic?

[mycroft]

EBU Blue book said:

Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:
(a)Suit bids that show the suit bid - Alert, unless the double is for take-out.
(b)Minor suit openings which may be shorter than three cards but which may be natural and which do not promise a strong hand - Alert, unless the double is for take-out.
( c)No trump bids - Alert, unless the double is for penalties.
(d)Suit bids that do not show the suit bid - Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid.

[couple of minor clarifications omitted. Also: "take-out double" and "penalty double" are defined, and do not complete the continuum.]

Redoubles
A redouble to show general strength which partner will normally pass if the next hand passes is not alertable. All other redoubles are alertable.

Calls above 3NT
Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:
[omitting bids and passes]
( c) Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled (or redoubled)
(d) Doubles and redoubles of no trump contracts that call for a specific suit to be led.

That's the complete list. Yes, occasionally counterintuitive, but compared to the ACBL's "only Highly Unusual and Unexpected doubles are Alertable, here's some specific cases", easier once you learn it and consistent. And they don't have the problem that 1NT-(2♥)-X is not Alertable either if partner is expected to pass it or take it out. I don't know the Norwegian list, but I assume it's somewhere on the same line.

But no, once you get to game, you don't have to Alert partner's "They sacrificed" double. Nor partner's "I have QJT9 of trump" slam double. Nor partner's "I have one trick, how about you?" double. Nor partner's "I want to sacrifice." double. They were willing to get a little complicated to avoid mindlessly smelly Alerts.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2016-November-23, 17:19, said:

I don't know the Norwegian list, but I assume it's somewhere on the same line.

I take that as an invitation, and here is my attempt to translate the Norwegian alert regulation:

D: General: The purpose of alert is to "wake up" opponents to be aware that the call includes information beyond what can be expected from a natural call. [...] The rules are mainly based on "conventional/natural" rather than "common/unusual" (i.e. independent on the actual environment).

E: Alertable calls: All conventional calls shall be alerted.
This includes
- Natural calls that include significant additional information beyond what follows from their "natural" nature
- Natural calls where the understanding is significantly influenced by other partnership agreements
- Natural calls when there can be reasonable doubt about the demand level
- Pass, Double or Redouble showing other than willingness to play in the denomination named in the last previous bid.

F: The following calls shall not be alerted:
- Natural calls without significant additional information
- Calls above 3NT except Conventional calls up to (but not including) opener's second call.
(Alert shall be used all the way when playing with screens)

[VixTD]

aguahombre, on 2016-November-23, 10:12, said:

A weighted adjustment is not called for. It is established that East knew West's double was penalty.

Really? The information in the original post says:

Quote

After the second double, North asked whether the first double had been for penalties and East replied that she didn’t know.

[helene_t]

pran, on 2016-November-23, 16:16, said:

Which means that if a vulnerable pair bids a small slam which appears cold and opponents (non-vulnerable) sacrifices ready to go down a couple of tricks then the obvious double (for penalty) must be alerted according to EBU?

Where is the logic?

With a few exceptions, 4-level and higher doubles are not alertable. If you are talking about playing with screens then the rules are different anyway.

[mycroft]

I'm assuming that the last part of F: is [Do not alert] "calls above 3NT starting with opener's second call" [unless with screens].

I like this set of regulations, too, provided "other than willingness to play in the denomination named in the last previous bid." is clear. I assume "Do The Right Thing" (or "blame transfer") doubles are "other than willingness", but what about "cards" doubles, or "it's takeout, but partner will frequently pass", or "if you had penalty doubled this, pard, I'd have passed" protective?

It still means there are a lot of "unnecessary" Alerts - 1♥-X, anyone? - but at least it's simple, and we know about it. I assume you get the "aren't you going to say anything?" stares (that we used to get after 1NT-2♥ "no, it's not a transfer") against pairs who play negative doubles through 2♠ in auctions like 1♠-3♣-X. I also note that "WeaSeL runouts" against these penalty doubles will work well (immediate pass says "I'm happy to play here"; stare, ask, and pass says "feel free to rescue to a red suit"). But I'm a cynic.