Alerts of doubles at the 3-level
(Note: I have complained about this before, but events today reminded me that this is still an ongoing problem that needs correction. So I'm going to try again, using today's bridge as an example to clarify things, and trying to set out my argument as clearly as I can.)
A bridge session I played in today had an unusually large number of three-level suit contracts being doubled. Here's the bidding on each of the boards in question:
- (P), 1H, (P), 1S; (2D), 2H, (3D), X penalty, (P); 3S, AP. (No alerts)
- 1S, (2H), X negative, (P); 3D, (3H), X penalty, AP. (Second X alerted by me)
- (P), 2S weak, (3C), 3S; (P), P, (X penalty), AP. (No alerts; 2S was announced)
- P, (P), 1S, (X takeout); P, (2C), 2S, (3H); P, (P), 3S, (X penalty); AP. (No alerts)
- 2D weak, (X takeout), 2NT ask, (3S); P, (P), X penalty, (P); 4C, (4S), X penalty, AP. (2D announced; 2NT alerted; second X alerted by me)
It's rare for penalty doubles at the 3 level to come up five times in 20 boards, but when they do, you really notice that almost everyone is disregarding the rules for alerting them:
- The three unalerted penalty doubles at the 3 level were made by three different players, and thus left unalerted by three different players. My experience is that for doubles like the first and third above, which are "obviously" penalty to the typical player, very few players ever alert; the only times I've seen these alerted are by me, my partner when he remembers, and by one EBU tournament director. The fourth was also left unalerted despite not (at least to me) being obviously for penalty (although I play this double for penalty, and so did the table opponents, there are other reasonable agreements).
- On the fifth board, my alert of the penalty double of 3S really seemed to disconcert the opponents, who asked about it repeatedly. (Admittedly, the board in question was hard to believe, which is why the bidding looks so weird; all four players did have their bids, but there was likely a suspicion among several players that someone was psyching or had forgotten agreements.)
This is still a real problem in the current alerting rules. According to the alerting rules, for a 3-level suit contract, an unalerted double is for takeout, and other doubles (e.g. penalty) get alerted. However, in practice, it's incredibly rare for these penalty doubles to get alerted, despite what the rules say; this means that the inference that the an unalerted double must be takeout is invalid, because in practice it's frequently a penalty double with a missed alert. (It's worth noting that even I have missed this alert in practice, on at least one occasion – it is very hard to remember to alert a natural call that has the expected meaning.)
The alerting rules are being counter-productive here because it's creating a situation where if you want to know what a 3-level double means, you have to ask – regardless of whether the double is for penalty, for take-out, or something else. (If the double is alerted, you have to ask because there's more than one reason a double might be alerted. If it isn't alerted, you have to ask because it is in practice usually a forgotten alert, so the lack of alert gives no information about whether the double is for penalty or for takeout.) Having this sort of "always ask" situation on an unalerted call is problematic because many players don't have the discipline to ask every time the position comes up, to avoid giving away unauthorised information about what they hold. (My regular partner and I have agreed a list of bidding sequences to always ask about, to try to ensure that whether we ask or don't ask about any particular call has no correlation to the content of our hands, but I think this sort of system is rare among bridge players. The list includes all alerted calls, all sequences on which an alert or announcement would be expected but no alert nor announcement was given, 2-of-a-suit responses to 1NT openings, and doubles and 2-level overcalls of our 1NT opening, in addition to doubles of 3-level suit contracts. We also ask about 1C openings unless the opponents specified a precise meaning at the start of the round.)
There's also the problem that players may be reluctant to ask (e.g. because they haven't established a pattern of consistently asking and the meaning doesn't affect their own bidding), and then discover that the meaning of the double becomes relevant in the play. (Takeout and penalty doubles give very different implications about honour locations, so the exact meaning of the double is quite likely to affect guesses, but it's too late to ask during the play once you realise it's relevant!)
As such, I think the rule needs changing. The current rule is simple and easy to remember, but the rule is widely ignored, and the rule relies on everyone knowing and following it to give any benefit at all. As it is, the rule has proven to be too hard for the majority of players to follow; it is too difficult for the typical player to notice that the one situation in which a natural call with the expected meaning is meant to be alerted has occurred (and I suspect that many players look up the alerting rules only for calls which differ from the traditional Acol meanings). The rule is therefore non-functional, because it relies on being generally understood and complied with to achieve its intended purpose, and yet that isn't happening.
I would be fine with any of "doubles are never alertable", "doubles are always alerted", or "penalty and takeout doubles are announced, other doubles are alerted". Presumably these would apply to all doubles below 3NT to keep the rules simpler, although the 3-level is where the problems with the current rules generally occur in practice. (For online games with self-alerting, it would make sense for almost all doubles to be alerted. The only sequences where a double is sufficiently clear-cut as takeout that an alert might be a waste of time are doubles of an opening suit bid, and doubles of a suit overcall of partner's suit opening bid, and even then some pairs will play the double as penalty if it happens at the 3 level (and many will play the double as penalty at the 4 level). The rule chosen for face-to-face bridge might be different.)
Comments
I think this issue has been raised before but the problems with your proposed solutions are:
1. Jurisdictions where no doubles are alertable have found doubles being used for obscure purposes whose only value seems to rest on their unexpected meanings;
2. Always alerting is almost as bad as people will stop asking;
3. Many doubles don't neatly fall into the penalty category and I suspect that anyone who has problems alerting three-level penalty doubles at present would have as much trouble alerting any co-operative or values-showing doubles under your proposal.
I've asked for this to be discussed at next week's L&E meeting, though I'm not sure we'll agree on a solution since it has been discussed before.
The trouble with alerting or announcing Doubles is that it has to be done immediately.
Often when my partner Doubles at the three level, I have to think. The next player generally passes or bids and I'm still thinking. I may take a minute or two and then alert.
I think many players are the same. When I ask about a Double the response is often a long pause followed by: "I think ..."
My advice to players would be always to ask about opposition Doubles if you are unsure, whether or not they are alerted.
Alan
I agree that there is a problem with the current regulation and few in their right mind would rely on an alert/failure to alert. Asking gives potential UI especially F2F. One past member of the L&E used to start discussions by saying "it is perfectly simple" It may be but in 15 years it has not sunk into the consciousness of many players. Sometimes they forget/don't know/advance the argument that it is "obvious". The main problem however is how to replace it with something that it is reasonably effective and not more complex. I agree with Gordon that the "never alert any double" is unsatisfactory not only for the reason he gives but also for the plethora of questions that will result. Asking, assuming you care, is probably the best current solution.
Alerting of doubles has been my pet peeve ever since the current rules were originally proposed (2007ish?). I still hold out hope that one day we will get something that actually works.
I feel strongly that the general rule should be either "no doubles alertable" or "no doubles on the spectrum between take-out and penalty are alertable" (ie. including "optional", "value-showing", "action" etc.), for all the reasons explained above in this thread.
But also, there should be some specific exceptions to that general rule on the first round of the auction. For opening bids, you'd want to keep the current rule. I think it's fine to have exceptions like this in situations where the alertable meanings are unusual enough that, in practice, no-one actually has to worry about them.
I reckon that the underlying problem with the current rules is the attempt to have the same set of rules apply to every auction. The rules are optimized for opening bids, but they are incredibly counter-intuitive after the first round of the auction. These are completely different situations with different expectations. Making the rules the same did keep the rules short - but I think the authors failed to appreciate the difference between brevity and simplicity.
I think that the English alerting rules for Doubles are probably the best in the world. The reason that they have remained as they are is that it is not possible to have a set of rules with fewer requirements for alerts across all pairs other than no alerts which just means always ask.
Most tournament players understand and implement the rules. Most club players do not. I am generally in favour of aiming the alerting and announcing rules at the club player but I do not think there is another formula which would work better for them.
Everything else would be worse so let's stick with what we have.
I agree with Paul. I hardly ever have rulings involving whether doubles should be alerted or not.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live