[ehhh]

The ACBL I understand makes penalty doubles below 4♥'s alertable.
I have not been able to find reference to this in the Laws or alert publications.
Can someone verify this and give the refernces that show this.

[bluejak]

As far as the Laws are concerned, this has nothing to do with them. When and whether to alert is a matter of Regulation for the local authority, the RA or TO, in this case the ACBL. Rules about alerting differ in different jurisdictions.

[barmar]

ACBL's alert regulations can be found at:

http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html

Section IV describes the procedures for doubles and redoubles. It never says a specific level below which penalty doubles are alertable, it just says that only doubles with highly unusual meanings are alertable. Since almost all players play that doubles of opening bids below 4♥ are takeout, that implies that penalty doubles below this are highly unusual, hence alertable.

[Xiaolongnu]

I am somewhat quizzical about this, actually. The rationale behind alerting is to warn your opponents of a bid or call that has a potentially highly unexpected meaning. Generally, alertable doubles come from systems like 1♣ (1♦) X = 4 card heart 6+ unlimited, for example. On one hand, a penalty double on its own is no way unexpected. On the other hand, a penalty double at a low level is indeed unexpected.

However, what about blatantly obvious (I think it is blatantly obvious anyway) sequences like 1♣ - 2♣! (2♥) X = penalty, where 2♣ is inverted minor, strong hand, and obviously 2♥ looks like it is asking for a beating. I mean, I can't see any natural logical reason for the X in this situation to be meaning "I have good defence and a trump stack. I am doubling them with absolute certainty." and that is precisely the precise definition of a (pure) penalty double. I think it looks like the only logical possibility given the bidding, isn't it? Isn't it bridge common sense that such a double "should", primarily at least, be for penalty?

Opinions and discussion are most welcome.

Edit: I should rephrase with a more exact word, a penalty double on its own is not HIGHLY UNUSUAL. It is most certainly unexpected in situations implied by the OP, at least by popular demand.

[helene_t]

I wonder how many pairs are aware that they assign highly unusual meanings to doubles.

Consider for example
1banana-x-1orange-x*

this is penalty in standard methods. Many pairs play it as t/o. Arguably so many that t/o is not unexpected at all. But even if it were unexpected to a particular opp, it makes no sense to require it to be alerted. Because most of those pairs who play it as t/o don't know that standard is penalty.

I think that if I were playing in the acbl I would alert our DONT doubles but not any other doubles. Unless, of course, the TD or some other relevant authority told me to alert some specific doubles.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2012-March-28, 04:45, said:

I wonder how many pairs are aware that they assign highly unusual meanings to doubles.

Consider for example
1banana-x-1orange-x*

this is penalty in standard methods. Many pairs play it as t/o. Arguably so many that t/o is not unexpected at all. But even if it were unexpected to a particular opp, it makes no sense to require it to be alerted. Because most of those pairs who play it as t/o don't know that standard is penalty.

I think that if I were playing in the acbl I would alert our DONT doubles but not any other doubles. Unless, of course, the TD or some other relevant authority told me to alert some specific doubles.

Ever heard about "responsive doubles"?

That is what I would assume unless we had any specific agreement for a different meaning of the second double in your example. And I suspect "responsive double" is the most common understanding here (you may still name it t/o!).

("Responsive double" shows some values, preferably in the two unbid suits both of which should contain 4 cards.)

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2012-March-28, 07:42, said:

Ever heard about "responsive doubles"?

Just shows the value of making clear that a name is never sufficient to provide complete disclosure. I can't speak for helene, of course, but I have certainly heard of "responsive doubles", and this sequence certainly isn't an example of what the term means to me - that would require bananas and oranges to be the same thing. 1 banana - x - 2 bananas - x would be a responsive double, and is, of course, often played as take-out. You may well believe and/or agree that 1 banana - x - 1 orange - x should also be played as take-out, but that doesn't make it a responsive double as far as I'm concerned.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-28, 07:51, said:

Just shows the value of making clear that a name is never sufficient to provide complete disclosure. I can't speak for helene, of course, but I have certainly heard of "responsive doubles", and this sequence certainly isn't an example of what the term means to me - that would require bananas and oranges to be the same thing. 1 banana - x - 2 bananas - x would be a responsive double, and is, of course, often played as take-out. You may well believe and/or agree that 1 banana - x - 1 orange - x should also be played as take-out, but that doesn't make it a responsive double as far as I'm concerned.

Well, it does to me. (And it is immaterial whether there are two or three "unbid" suits at the time of the second double.)
Which corroborates the fact that a convention name is not neccessarily an acceptable disclosure, and is also the reason why I added my understanding of "responsive doubles".

[Vampyr]

Xiaolongnu, on 2012-March-27, 23:03, said:

Isn't it bridge common sense that such a double "should", primarily at least, be for penalty?

Bridge "common sense" is not as common as you might think, and regulations have to recognise this. The EBU, for example, have made the very good decision that there is generally one non-alert/announceable meaning for a call. Below three notrumps, the non-alertable meanings for doubles are takeout if the last bid was in a suit and penalty if the last bid was in notrumps.

The result is that sometimes the alerts are non-intuitive and fly in the face of "common sense", but this is a small cost compared to having a catalogue of auctions for the purpose of defining which doubles are alertable and which aren't.

"I knows it when I sees it" is not a very good basis for alert regulations.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-28, 07:51, said:

Just shows the value of making clear that a name is never sufficient to provide complete disclosure. I can't speak for helene, of course, but I have certainly heard of "responsive doubles", and this sequence certainly isn't an example of what the term means to me - that would require bananas and oranges to be the same thing. 1 banana - x - 2 bananas - x would be a responsive double, and is, of course, often played as take-out. You may well believe and/or agree that 1 banana - x - 1 orange - x should also be played as take-out, but that doesn't make it a responsive double as far as I'm concerned.

+1

However, I've heard players refer to this takeout double as responsive, because they don't know the meanings of terms. This is one of the reasons that ACBL doesn't approve of using convention names as explanations.

[bluejak]

The problem seems to be that players decide to change names which are set up to mean a specific thing. I have read the books discussing the idea that a responsive double, which is specifically after a raise, should be takeout. These were written at a time when the only takeout doubles were of opening bids. So (1X) x (1Y) x is definitely not a responsive double.

But see what happens? People change the meaning, and then people who understand the original meaning get confused.

As to the standard, to me (1X) x (1Y) x shows 4+ cards in Y, basically penalties, and I consider it standard and expect all good players to play it. It came as a shock to discover this usage is unheard of in North Wales, and not completely standard amongst good players in Merseyside.

It is also the reason why I think the current EBU alerting regulations for doubles are correct. Where natural suit bids below 3NT are concerned, you alert if double is not for takeout. So no-one needs to know what the standard is [nor what the name is] for (1X) x (1Y) x to know that if it shows four cards in Y it is alertable, if it is for takeout it is not.

[mycroft]

In a few years, after "responsive doubles" like 1X-x-1Y-x become "standard", I'm going to start responding in my 2-card suits. If they can't double me, and they can't play in my short suit, it should be good.

I might even play it by system. 1♣-x-1♥! "please explain" "either natural, 4+hearts, or the shorter major with two places to play." I can, you know - I can play *any constructive defence* to an artificial call.

[barmar]

I often hear threats like that, but not much followup. Do you make short-suit overcalls over 1NT when playing against pairs that play Stolen Bid Doubles, since they can't penalize you easily?

Also, I think there's general agreement that you're not allowed to vary your system based on the opponents' defense to your system, because it results in a circularity (if you make garbage overcalls, we play penalty doubles, otherwise we play stolen bid doubles).

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-March-29, 08:39, said:

It is also the reason why I think the current EBU alerting regulations for doubles are correct. Where natural suit bids below 3NT are concerned, you alert if double is not for takeout. So no-one needs to know what the standard is [nor what the name is] for (1X) x (1Y) x to know that if it shows four cards in Y it is alertable, if it is for takeout it is not.

I think I am fairly clued up on the alerting rules, and take both the Orange Book and Tangerine Book to church every Sunday in case the sermon is boring. However, I found last night that I failed to alert 1♣-(1♥)-Double which my partner and I play as takeout but tending to deny four spades, as 1♠ would only promise four. I am sure our advice that this is alertable was right, as it came from an eminent source, but I could not find the specific example in the OB. The following is not alertable:

5G5(a) Any ‘negative’ or ‘responsive’ double played in a traditional manner, such as 1♣ (1♠) dbl showing 4 hearts, since these are examples of a take-out double.

I presume therefore that the double of 1♥ is alertable because it has a potentially unexpected meaning, but it is not enough to just know that you alert if double is not for takeout.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2012-March-29, 11:05, said:

Also, I think there's general agreement that you're not allowed to vary your system based on the opponents' defense to your system, because it results in a circularity (if you make garbage overcalls, we play penalty doubles, otherwise we play stolen bid doubles).

Uhm... general agreement amongst which group of people?

(A) 1♣*-(1♥)-1♠-(2♣*)-X
(B) 1♣*-(1♥)-1♠-(2♣*)-X

In both cases 1♣ was artificial, showing perhaps 2+ clubs. In auction (A) advancer's 2♣ showed a heart raise, whereas in auction (B) advancer's 2♣ showed 6+ clubs, nonforcing.
Are you seriously suggesting that opener's double must mean the same in both auctions?

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-March-29, 11:05, said:

I often hear threats like that, but not much followup. Do you make short-suit overcalls over 1NT when playing against pairs that play Stolen Bid Doubles, since they can't penalize you easily?

I was playing against two players who looked and sounded like little old ladies but I did not know them in a lesser event at an American Nationals. 2NT by RHO and I made a filthy overcall of 3♦. Double by LHO. "Whoops," I thought, that's bad news.

RHO thought for an age before bidding 3♠, LHO glared at her and bid 3NT, and I led a diamond for one off and about 90% of the matchpoints.

The ensuing argument as to whether the double was Stayman or a transfer to hearts was a shock to my nervous system!

barmar, on 2012-March-29, 11:05, said:

Also, I think there's general agreement that you're not allowed to vary your system based on the opponents' defense to your system, because it results in a circularity (if you make garbage overcalls, we play penalty doubles, otherwise we play stolen bid doubles).

There is no general agreement over this. How you are allowed to vary your system depends on your RA and TO, who set the rules. Ok, there is a regulation about this in the ACBL, but not necessarily elsewhere.

Furthermore, it depends on how and what. Sure, there is a so-called circle, but I am not sure it always matters.