[par31]

EBU alerting regulations. Under what circumstances (if any) should a double of an undiscussed suit bid by opponents be alerted if they do not know whether or not the bid shows the suit bid?

[Vampyr]

 par31, on 2014-October-02, 11:19, said:

EBU alerting regulations. Under what circumstances (if any) should a double of an undiscussed suit bid by opponents be alerted if they do not know whether or not the bid shows the suit bid?

This is a more serious problem than alerting; you and your partner have to agree on the meaning of their bid if you are to continue. Probably best to have a meta-rule here. If you don't have one... well, it's not legal but I would have sympathy for a player who asked the likes of "so it might (not) show the suit?"

Or you could just alert and say if asked "I don't know". You will get protection no matter what you do (well perhaps not if you do as I suggested above!"

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 12:02, said:

This is a more serious problem than alerting; you and your partner have to agree on the meaning of their bid if you are to continue. Probably best to have a meta-rule here. If you don't have one... well, it's not legal but I would have sympathy for a player who asked the likes of "so it might (not) show the suit?"

Or you could just alert and say if asked "I don't know". You will get protection no matter what you do (well perhaps not if you do as I suggested above!"

The simple meta-rule is to agree with your partner that a double of an alerted bid shows the suit, and a double of a non-alerted bid is takeout. This avoids giving UI by having to ask what the alert is for. Opponents played 1NT-(dble)-Pass*-(Pass)-Redble*-(Pass)-2C* as showing any (4333). My partner and I were unsure whether double was now takeout (because the bid promised three clubs), and was therefore natural, or penalties, because 2C was alerted. The easiest method is to play that double of an alerted bid shows that suit. If they don't know what the bid means but alert, it also gets round that problem. If they wrongly alert, as happened to me at Brighton, then there is also no problem.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 12:02, said:

This is a more serious problem than alerting; you and your partner have to agree on the meaning of their bid if you are to continue. Probably best to have a meta-rule here. If you don't have one... well, it's not legal but [...]

Why is it illegal not to have an agreement?

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 12:02, said:

This is a more serious problem than alerting; you and your partner have to agree on the meaning of their bid if you are to continue. Probably best to have a meta-rule here. If you don't have one... well, it's not legal but I would have sympathy for a player who asked the likes of "so it might (not) show the suit?"

Or you could just alert and say if asked "I don't know". You will get protection no matter what you do (well perhaps not if you do as I suggested above!"

 RMB1, on 2014-October-02, 12:16, said:

Why is it illegal not to have an agreement?

I think she was saying it's illegal to ask that question.

[helene_t]

If opps doubles our undiscussed bids I will be so grateful that they relieve me from the pressure of passing (or not) a bid which may or may not be forcing. So I wouldn't make an issue of it even if they forget to alert their Ken Rexford style agreement about the meaning of the double.

[weejonnie]

If you don't know whether you should alert or not - see EBU blue book

"Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call."

"It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to alert and explain the partnership understanding accurately, but this information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

(So if you explain partner's bid incorrectly and he grimaces, then you are perfectly at liberty to work out from the grimace that you have given an incorrect explanation of partnership agreement, deduce the correct explanation and give it to the opponents - but you cannot use your knowledge gained - instead you have to bid on your original understanding - and partner must assume you are bidding on correct partnership understanding. To save time just accept your -1400 with good grace.)

Thus you alert and when asked say "not sure if I should alert or not."

Opponents must call the director who will take you away from the table while partner explains what the double shows.

Once the director comes back to the table, he should caution the person who made the double that the fact that his partner doesn't know what it means is unauthorised information.

[blackshoe]

"I didn't say I don't know what it means, I said I didn't know if it required an alert."

[FrancesHinden]

 par31, on 2014-October-02, 11:19, said:

EBU alerting regulations. Under what circumstances (if any) should a double of an undiscussed suit bid by opponents be alerted if they do not know whether or not the bid shows the suit bid?

I think this is possibly somewhat more of a philosophical question than a practical one.

If you want a serious answer, then
- if you have no idea what the double means either, then don't alert it (you don't know if you are going to treat it as avertable or not)
- if the meaning is "take-out if it shows the suit, penalties if it doesn't show the suit" don't alert
- if you know what the double means and either (i) it doesn't depend on the meaning of the suit bid, or (ii) it would always be alertable then you may as well alert it. After all, alerts are supposed to tell the opponents that the meaning is unexpected as far as they are concerned; and if you know what the double means then that will probably be unexpected!

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-02, 16:01, said:

- if you have no idea what the double means either, then don't alert it (you don't know if you are going to treat it as avertable or not)

This is the opposite if what the regulation requires. See the quoted portion above.

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 17:26, said:

This is the opposite if what the regulation requires. See the quoted portion above.

Yes I agree. You alert unless you know it is not alertable. However, the opponents are entitled to conclude that it has been correctly alerted or not alerted.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2014-October-03, 06:13, said:

Yes I agree. You alert unless you know it is not alertable. However, the opponents are entitled to conclude that it has been correctly alerted or not alerted.

Subject always to the proviso that experienced opponents have a duty to protect themselves (subject to UI considerations)

[nige1]

 par31, on 2014-October-02, 11:19, said:

EBU alerting regulations. Under what circumstances (if any) should a double of an undiscussed suit bid by opponents be alerted if they do not know whether or not the bid shows the suit bid?

EBU Blue Book, quoted by weejonnie, with comments said:

"Unless a player knows that his partner's call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner's call."
"It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to alert and explain the partnership understanding accurately, but this information must not be used to help in the bidding and play. (So if you explain partner's bid incorrectly and he grimaces, then you are perfectly at liberty to work out from the grimace that you have given an incorrect explanation of partnership agreement, deduce the correct explanation and give it to the opponents - but you cannot use your knowledge gained - instead you have to bid on your original understanding - and partner must assume you are bidding on correct partnership understanding. To save time just accept your -1400 with good grace.)
Thus you alert and when asked say "not sure if I should alert or not." Opponents must call the director who will take you away from the table while partner explains what the double shows.
Once the director comes back to the table, he should caution the person who made the double that the fact that his partner doesn't know what it means is unauthorised information.

Great in theory! In practice, an opponent often says "not sure.." but I remember no instance where the director asked the other opponent to explain their agreement.

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-02, 16:01, said:

I think this is possibly somewhat more of a philosophical question than a practical one.

IMO, in the EBU, whether to alert is a common practical problem.

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-02, 16:01, said:

If you want a serious answer, then
- if you have no idea what the double means either, then don't alert it (you don't know if you are going to treat it as avertable or not)
- if the meaning is "take-out if it shows the suit, penalties if it doesn't show the suit" don't alert
- if you know what the double means and either (i) it doesn't depend on the meaning of the suit bid, or (ii) it would always be alertable then you may as well alert it. After all, alerts are supposed to tell the opponents that the meaning is unexpected as far as they are concerned; and if you know what the double means then that will probably be unexpected!

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-02, 17:26, said:

This is the opposite if what the regulation requires. See the quoted portion above.

 lamford, on 2014-October-03, 06:13, said:

Yes I agree. You alert unless you know it is not alertable. However, the opponents are entitled to conclude that it has been correctly alerted or not alerted.

 weejonnie, on 2014-October-03, 07:48, said:

Subject always to the proviso that experienced opponents have a duty to protect themselves (subject to UI considerations)

One problem with local regulations is that so few understand them but I guess that weejonnie, vampyr and lamford have got this one right. Still - what a sophisticated mess

[RMB1]

 lamford, on 2014-October-03, 06:13, said:

Yes I agree. You alert unless you know it is not alertable. However, the opponents are entitled to conclude that it has been correctly alerted or not alerted.

But a call may be corrected alerted although the intended meaning is not alertable.

If the alerter does not know the meaning, or the meaning is undiscussed, or there is no agreement;
but the alerter thinks a possible meaning is one that should be alerted;
then she/he is right to alert.

(At least, this is the intention of Blue Book 2D2 and 4A6.)

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2014-October-03, 07:48, said:

Subject always to the proviso that experienced opponents have a duty to protect themselves (subject to UI considerations)

I think that "duty" is too strong a word.

Blue Book 2A2:

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the opposition), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2014-October-03, 09:36, said:

Great in theory! In practice, an opponent often says "not sure.." but I remember no instance where the director asked the other opponent to explain their agreement.

If the director is called this will usually happen.

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2014-October-03, 10:06, said:

But a call may be corrected alerted although the intended meaning is not alertable.

If the alerter does not know the meaning, or the meaning is undiscussed, or there is no agreement;
but the alerter thinks a possible meaning is one that should be alerted;
then she/he is right to alert.

(At least, this is the intention of Blue Book 2D2 and 4A6.)

4A6 says: If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding.

This strongly implies that the opponents can assume an alerted bid falls into an alertable category, rather than having been alerted because the alerter does not know the meaning. The alerter should only alert if he "believes it is required".

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2014-October-03, 11:35, said:

4A6 says: If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding.

This strongly implies that the opponents can assume an alerted bid falls into an alertable category, rather than having been alerted because the alerter does not know the meaning. The alerter should only alert if he "believes it is required".

No, 4A6 strongly implies that the opponents can assume an alerted bid might fall into an alertable category. It implies that it might be a good idea for the opponents to ask if they want to know more.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2014-October-03, 11:35, said:

4A6 says: .... The alerter should only alert if he "believes it is required".

What are you quoting? Not BB4A6, which says they the player must alert if he believes there is a possibility that the double might be alertable.

[par31]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-02, 16:01, said:

I think this is possibly somewhat more of a philosophical question than a practical one.

I was actually more interested in the question from a practical point of view, i.e. what should I do as director if this situation arises and I'm called by one side objecting to the other's omitting to alert a double? But the responses from whatever perspective have been interesting, so thanks to everyone.

The question arises from an actual situation at a club duplicate that I've been informed about but did not witness personally.