[WellSpyder]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-19, 13:36, said:

North played you.

The idea that they would run is a joke.

I happen to know the North player involved, and she is as honest as they come. I am therefore entirely confident that if North is clear that she would have redoubled, then that is what she believes. It doesn't follow, of course, that she actually would have done, which is inherently unknowable by anyone.

And I agree that redoubling would be a dubious action, which I would not expect to take myself on the hand. But, as Vampyr pointed out earlier, perhaps she has seen her partner's overcalls before - they have been playing together for a long time.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-19, 22:14, said:

One thing seems certain..I don't understand the EBU regulations per the alertability of doubles. So, if only to me, they don't make sense.

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

Vampyr, do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

[mjj29]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 07:54, said:

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

The alertability of doubles is very simple. There's one meaning for non-alert that's well defined in each case and everything else you should alert.

What's difficult is 'no agreement' cases. The regulations _don't_ _require_ you to alert those, but they do ask you to give the opponents as good a guess as you have. Thus, if you genuinely have no idea, then don't alert. If, however, you have a good guess that it's alertable case, then alert and say "we don't have an agreement, but ...".

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 07:54, said:

do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

You would be misinforming your opponents whenever the double was not alertable.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 07:54, said:

Same boat here, they don't entirely make sense to me either. "Alert - no agreement" or "alert - I don't know" just sounds weird to me, and fraught with UI dangers as well.

This does not apply only to doubles of course; this applies to all calls. If the meaning might be alertable, you alert. If they ask and you don't know, so be it. Maybe there are agreements for similar situations that can yield a comparison. How is this different from being asked about an agreement you don't have or are unsure of, without your having alerted?

Quote

Vampyr, do you get players who just alert all doubles regardless, to make certain they avoid penalties for failure to alert? I might do that if I find myself playing over there.

No, the alert regulation for doubles is basically:

Suit:not takeout = alert
Notrumps:not penalty = alert

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

Edit: Crossed several posts, so I thought I might add this:

mjj29, on 2013-February-20, 08:00, said:

Thus, if you genuinely have no idea, then don't alert. If, however, you have a good guess that it's alertable case, then alert and say "we don't have an agreement, but ...".

I am unsure about whether you should alert when you have no idea. In any case, the opponents don't always ask, and if you didn't alert and they asked you would still reply as immediately above. So it is not the alert that is the difficulty, it is the lack of agreement.

And the UI issue is symmetrical -- after all, you can't neither alert not not alert!

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 08:11, said:

the alert regulation for doubles is basically:

Suit:not takeout = alert
Notrumps:not penalty = alert

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

Oh dear, I don't play in England often but I thought it was

Natural suit: not takeout = alert
Artificial suit: not penalty = alert
Notrump: not penalty = alert

[billw55]

So Vampyr, I assume the regulations also contain a precise definition of "takeout" ?

[billw55]

Also:

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 08:11, said:

Not very complicated for most people to understand. The average three-year-old would have no trouble.

...

I am unsure about whether you should alert when you have no idea.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 08:25, said:

So Vampyr, I assume the regulations also contain a precise definition of "takeout" ?

Orange Book 4H6 Take-out doubles

Quote

A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to
describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit
doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant
extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on
a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for
his actions (if any) to date.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 08:11, said:

If [you don't know but] the meaning might be alertable, you alert.

That's what the rule ought to be. In fact, the current rule is: if you don't know but you intend to treat it as an alertable meaning, you alert.

I'm rather hoping the the L&EC will change that this year.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2013-February-20, 08:21, said:

[/size]
Oh dear, I don't play in England often but I thought it was

Natural suit: not takeout = alert
Artificial suit: not penalty = alert
Notrump: not penalty = alert

This is true, but some posters were having trouble with that, so I thought I'd just give the two "fundamental" rules and see whether they could cope.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-February-20, 08:37, said:

Orange Book 4H6 Take-out doubles

The clarity of that definition is rather spoiled by the later section which reads:

Quote

The following doubles must not be alerted:
(a) Any ‘negative’ or ‘responsive’ double played in a traditional manner, such as 1♣ (1♠) dbl showing 4 hearts, since these are examples of take-out double

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 08:26, said:

<drivel>

Right, so I said that the average three-year-old would understand the alert regulations, but that I am unsure about something entirely different, and this amused you?

Well, as Abraham Lincoln might have said if he'd had the internet: "Better to simply lurk and be thought a fool than to post messages and remove all doubt."

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-February-20, 08:48, said:

The clarity of that definition is rather spoiled by the later section which reads:

Yes, I think that negative-type doubles were considered to be neither fish nor fowl, and the decision was made to call them takeout because they are so common and alerting them, to be quite frank, was annoying.

I don't love the fact that 1m-(1♥)-X is not alertable if it promises four spades or if it is just generally takeout, but I can live with it. I am curious, though, about the status if the double promises at least four spades. You must know, Andy -- surely you play this with some partners! (Well, I know it is alertable but it is a curious thing).

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 08:48, said:

Right, so I said that the average three-year-old would understand the alert regulations, but that I am unsure about something entirely different, and this amused you?

So being uncertain whether or not to alert is "entirely different" from the alerting regulations, and your claim that they are completely clear?

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 08:59, said:

So being uncertain whether or not to alert is "entirely different" from the alerting regulations?

The regulations on alerting doubles is one thing, and it obviously applies when the agreement is known.

Whether to alert a call (not just a double) when you have no agreement and no good guess, but know that it might be alertable is another thing. If I knew the meaning of this call, especially if it was a double, I could tell you whether to alert it!

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 09:02, said:

The regulations on alerting doubles is one thing, and it obviously applies when the agreement is known.

Ah ok, this was actually not so obvious to me. Others were arguing that the double under discussion should be alerted, despite the lack of agreement.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-February-20, 09:07, said:

Ah ok, this was actually not so obvious to me. Others were arguing that the double under discussion should be alerted, despite the lack of agreement.

Yes, when agreement is lacking, the situation is a bit murky. In this case I think it is pretty clear that the double should be alerted, but other calls in other situations can be tricky.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2013-February-19, 17:05, said:

If East had alerted the double, this would have prompted North (assuming he was considering acting at all) to ask about the meaning of the double. He would have been told "no agreement". Hence any putative adjusted score should be on the basis of North assuming that E/W have no agreement about the double, not on the basis that it was agreed to be penalties.

I did actually phrase the question in that way: "What would you have done if you had been told they had no agreement about the double?", but they would actually have had a bit more to go on than that. They would have known from the alert and answer not only that EW had no agreement, but also that East was going to act in such a way as to allow for an alertable (i.e. non-takeout) interpretation (otherwise why alert?), and that might have persuaded them to start the rescue manoeuvres.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-20, 08:56, said:

I am curious, though, about the status if the double promises at least four spades. You must know, Andy -- surely you play this with some partners! (Well, I know it is alertable but it is a curious thing).

I think it's clearly alertable. It's neither a "takeout double" according to the definition quoted by Gordon, nor a "negative double played in a traditional manner".