[jillybean]

Hi,
I'm back... and feeling a little sheepish about my outburst

Anyway, doubles - should this double be alerted as a penalty double?
E/W would not respond to my questions so I dont know what, if any agreements they had.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  1♣    1♥
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

Are all take out doubles natural and do only penalty doubles need to be alerted?

tyia
jb

[nickf]

jillybean2, on Nov 23 2005, 04:05 AM, said:

Are all take out doubles natural and do only penalty doubles need to be alerted?

I thought the only doubles were that natural were penalty doubles.

nickf
sydney

[Cascade]

I am with Nick Penalty doubles are natural and takeout doubles are artificial.

However this does not correspond with what is alertable.

Alert regulations vary by region. In some jurisdictions takeout doubles are alertable, in some no doubles are alertable, in others penalty doubles are alertable.

You will need to make some rules (or steal some) and use those. e.g. you could run your tourneys using ACBL rules or make a rule that all takeout doubles are alertable.

[Walddk]

The first question you need to answer is: could the double of 1♥ as penalty be a surprise for the opponents? In my opinion yes; therefore it's alertable. The next question you must ask is: has the missing alert damaged the non offending side?

It's for the TD to decide. If the answer is yes, the score should be adjusted. If no, the table result stands.

Roland

P.S. Nice to see you back jb

[Elianna]

jillybean2, on Nov 22 2005, 09:05 PM, said:

Are all take out doubles natural and do only penalty doubles need to be alerted?

I think that I may need a little background before I answer (but I shall attempt to supply it myself! )

If your alerting requirements are literally "alert all non-natural bids" then I would agree with nickf, and say that ALL takeout doubles should be alerted (as the natural meaning of double would be "this is going down, I want to defend this doubled"). So even (1h)-x should be alerted.

If you mean "alert all non-standard bids" this may prove problematic, as what is standard in one place may be non-standard in another. For example, the ACBL alert chart says alert doubles (and redoubles) "with highly unusual or unexpected meanings". (http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html) Now the problem is what's highly unusual or unexpected? In ACBL-land, I'd go with your example fitting this case, and say that it should be alerted.

As you can see, this definition of "standard" and "unusual" can be problematic. A simpler rule to implement is just to require all doubles to be alerted, but I'm not sure how practical this is.

Sorry that this is a long post that doesn't even quite answer your question. If I had to give a one word answer, I'd go with "dunno".

[helene_t]

Roland is right, in principle. However, since most players are used to playing f2f under jurisdictions where such a penalty double is not alertable, since it's unclear if EW had any agreements about this, and since some beginners (some of which rate themselves as intermediate or advanced) have never heard about negative doubles, I don't think you should adjust in this case. (Anyway, this is not a problem since NS can hardly have been damaged).

Cascade is right, you will have to state some rules. It's not an easy choise, though:

"Alert all artificial calls" is not realistic. Many tournaments state this and people still don't alert stayman and t/o-doubles. For some reason (language problems?) many people think "artificial" means "non-standard" or similar.

"Alert all non-standard calls" or "alert all calls that may otherwise be misinterpreted by opps" is nice in principle, but highly subjective.

An elaborate list about what specific agreements are alertable will not be read by manu people.

[Cascade]

Elianna, on Nov 23 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

If your alerting requirements are literally "alert all non-natural bids" then I would agree with nickf, and say that ALL takeout doubles should be alerted (as the natural meaning of double would be "this is going down, I want to defend this doubled"). So even (1h)-x should be alerted.

Nickf didn't say that ALL takeout doubles should be alerted only that penalty doubles are natural.

[Gerben42]

And since it was a penalty double you'd do what exactly?

Quote

E/W would not respond to my questions so I dont know what, if any agreements they had.

I have problems with this though. That's not really fair.

[Elianna]

Cascade, on Nov 23 2005, 02:12 AM, said:

Elianna, on Nov 23 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

If your alerting requirements are literally "alert all non-natural bids" then I would agree with nickf, and say that ALL takeout doubles should be alerted (as the natural meaning of double would be "this is going down, I want to defend this doubled").  So even (1h)-x should be alerted.

Nickf didn't say that ALL takeout doubles should be alerted only that penalty doubles are natural.

Right, he didn't.

I did.

I was agreeing that takeout doubles are not "natural", and then I added that if you are requiring players to alert ALL non-natural bids, they should really be alerting takeout doubles, and not alerting penalty doubles.

[Elianna]

Gerben42, on Nov 23 2005, 02:23 AM, said:

And since it was a penalty double you'd do what exactly?

Maybe they'd declare the hand differently (knowing which side has the long trumps, etc.)?

Unless you mean what would Jilly do as director.

Gerben42 said:

Quote

E/W would not respond to my questions so I dont know what, if any agreements they had.

I have problems with this though. That's not really fair.

I do, too.

I'm kind of curious how Jilly phrased the question, because looking at the hands, I know a few players who would pass a neg or take-out double with the East hand. Basically, they play in my 199er game (for non-ACBL players, this is a game for players with limited experience) and they always pass when they don't know what to do, and I can imagine a beginner being confused by the East hand. I also know players that would start with a double with the West hand, thinking that doubling then bidding is the way to show a big hand.

Now they've had this sort of accident happen, then a director comes along and asks them what happened. They have no clue, so don't reply.

Anyway, that would be my (extremely generous) idea of what happened on the hand.

I don't think that West has a penalty double, anyway.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies,

My tournament rules say: Alert & Explain all conventional bids & special partnership understandings. All systems are permitted if they are alerted and you provide full disclosure. Failure to alert may be penalized.

In practice it’s not 100% workable or enforceable but it’s the best I can come up with and I think gives me a good base to make any rulings.

I can’t remember seeing an alert for a double at the 1level and very few at any level. In this case perhaps I could have asked for an alert if it falls under “special partnership understandings”. It’s a very gray area.

Fwiw I did not adjust the board and E/W will not be playing in my tournaments again seeing as they can’t/won’t talk to me. They weren't beginners/intermediates, they are the players who usually cause the least problems.

JB

Elianna, I didn't get a chance to ask any questions, EW wouldnt respond to any hello's, can I talk to you about the last baord?, HELLO's!!

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-November-23, 12:58

[Brandal]

jillybean2, on Nov 22 2005, 11:05 PM, said:

E/W would not respond to my questions so I dont know what, if any agreements they had.

tyia
jb

Looking at East's hand,two alternatives comes to mind..

A: Agreement that X is for penalty ,or
B: No idea what they're doing...

I would consider this alertable,but let the result stand.
Contract is 1H,if "you" don't fancy playing there,or somewhere
else if partner bids,then don't bid 1H.

[Elianna]

jillybean2, on Nov 23 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

Elianna, I didn't get a chance to ask any questions, EW wouldnt respond to any hello's, can I talk to you about the last baord?, HELLO's!!

That is a question.

From being both a director I've noticed that there are too many people that respond to a director in any (or some combination of) these three ways:

1) Lie automatically about anything, even when the truth is beneficial to them. Their automatic reaction is to lie.

2) Keep repeating their points over and over, not let the other three players attest to what happened, and not listen to the director.

3) Refuse to believe that there could possibly be a problem, and thus refuse to interact positively with a director (either by not responding to the question or by not replying at all).

Some people do this out of belligerence, some from a deer-in-the-headlights affect. But just asking for people's attention produces this type of response in some.

[Mr. Dodgy]

Hi Jilly,

WBF alert regs: http://www.worldbrid...tems/alerts.asp

I'm fairly confident you've already read that though :-)

It's interesting to note If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: All doubles...

Whether playing on BBO qualifies as 'screens are not in use', I dunno. If not then the question becomes 'is the bid conventional?'

The gist seems to be that doubles are to be considered 'self-alerting' (hence do not require any alert), and thus the side which is doubled should be aware of the fact that it may have multiple meanings and ask for further information if they want clarification.

The ABF alert regs also state that all doubles are 'self-alerting' - no need to alert any doubles - or redoubles! (screens or not, it seems)

Such a blanket statement seems odd to me. For example I play that a double of a 1♣ opener shows less than 12 HCP, and promises 4 or more cards in both black suits. Surely that should be alerted, as should 'negative' doubles which promise the 2 unbid suits, and various other conventional doubles/redoubles.

I recall reading an article a while ago (in the ABF bulletin?) which made the argument that a double should not need to be alerted if all it really shows is 'values', as I suppose most 'takeout' doubles do, or one made by a strong hand who intends to bid again regardless of partner's response...and so on. That seems reasonable to me. Well I remember thinking it well-argued at the time.

On balance it would appear that doubles do not generally have to be alerted unless they are 'conventional'. Takeout would seem to bear the marks of a conventional bid - it's not natural - you don't actually want to play there - and therefore should be alerted. Unless you're not using screens, or in Australia.

The problem with this example is we have no idea whether this double is takeout converted or penalty - so it's impossible to make an informed decision as to whether it should be alerted or not. In any case it's difficult to see any damage arising from the failure (um, non-failure?).

Probably not a lot of help from me here I'm afraid, it's a curly question and I guess it's ultimately up to the organisers to decide upon specific CoC's for tourneys, But hopefully I've given you some food for thought?

[Gerben42]

Screens are in use on BBO. The decisive thing is if you can see your partner's alerts. Not sure that the ABF rules apply though as most of us are not in Australia.

[pigpenz]

i asked this same question from one of the ACBL directors and they told me only penalty doubles needed to be alerted in negative double situations. I dont really know since i havent been at a real bridge table for awhile

[Rebound]

I consider penalty doubles at the 1-level to be of sufficiently unusual character that they should be alerted. I believe they are alertable in ACBL land but I wouldn't swear to it. Of course, my belief that they should does not necessarily mean it is required by any SO.

[ack_hh]

Walddk, on Nov 23 2005, 10:32 AM, said:

The first question you need to answer is: could the double of 1♥ as penalty be a surprise for the opponents?

IMHO, the first question is: Is there a partnership agreement?