Hi Bill

I think that ruling STINKS
Provided there aren't any critical facts missing

I think Law 82C should apply
"Treat both sides as non-offenders in the case of a director's error"

This error was not that of the director officiating at that tournament
But rather the "big picture" director(s) who devised the alert procedure

Nick

Thanks Nick

Technically the ruling was correct.

The problem I have is that I don't know when to alert because I don't know what constitutes an unusual bid.

 Hey Bill, 

Obviously there's no perfect answer to your question - and have had many contradicting answers that extoll the need to never alert a self-alerting bid. As per the NZ Bridge Manual:

30.7 Delayed alerts
At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual features, particularly any unusual non-alerted calls. Upon enquiry, you must disclose fully, not only the specific meanings of all calls, but also any inferences you have drawn from the auction based on partnership experience (as distinct from general bridge knowledge). These explanations  may occasionally need to include negative inferences, such as hand types partner probably does not have for his/her bidding. Defenders must not, at this time, draw attention to their own calls, nor voluntarily offer explanations (they must of course fully disclose upon enquiry). Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert. If interested, the opening leader should enquire before leading, or his/her partner may enquire after the opening lead has been made face down.

Because your situation involved a takeout/negative style double - it's explicitly stated that this doesn't require a post-alert (note the word style here; they're not 100% prescriptive on what entails a take-out X). I'd deem that your double is of this style so it doesn't need a post alert. This also highlights the fact that these X's which may carry unusual meanings shouldn't be alerted and that it's the duty of the opposition to enquire either at the time of the bid; or at the end of the auction.

As a director I'd rule in line with the above. As a player I think this is obviously ridiculous and that any pair who seek to exploit the poor wording of the manual to further their own machinations has malicious intent for the future health of the game. Something like what happened to you, where you get screwed by a technicality just leaves everyone dissatisfied - maybe you'd switch to playing Go or Chess because the rules are less opaque and you don't get as frustrated because these things just don't happen there.

I also play some 'self-alerting' bids that have unusual meanings; and always alert them. Opponents that "know the rules" are alway so happy to inform me that I don't need to alert the bid; but are normally greatful of the opportunity to "safely" ask what a bid shows without conveying too much unauthorised information (anecdotally the same pair haven't asked about the same sequence when I was playing with a different partner; and they wouldn't be sure of the meaning of the bid).

Not that I've been perfect in this regard. Once I "sacrificed" in 1S after the opponents had the precision auction: 1C p 1H[ alerted]; and I failed to ask before overcalling my 5 card suit. Turns out that 1H was a transfer positive - but 1Sx was a cheap sac against 4S the other way. C'est la vie.

Thanks Brad

If you, as a director, are unsure when an alert is required then I suggest our alerting procedures DO need changing.

I understand that our alerting procedures were adapted (copied?) from Australia's. Enough said!!!

Hey Bill,

If we could replace the laws with "don't be a dick-head", it'd work better for the 90% of players who understand what they should and shouldn't be doing. 9% of players don't know their obligations in certain situations, and 1% are "actively malicious" 'rules lawyers' who seek every benefit they could be entitled to. (e.g. Baby revokes against a pair of learners -- what a good way to discourage people from playing bridge!).

There's a caveat that some seasoned tournament/national directors in New Zealand don't really know what they're doing. There was an appeal a few years ago at the Interprovincials which decided which team won the event. No-one saw anything wrong with having this appeal held without any of the players present - which is obviously is mud.

If you look at the NZ Bridge Manual around D73 you see:

> Every effort should be made to ensure that all the parties are present
> The party appealing should then be asked to state the reasons for its appeal.
> The other party involved should be asked to reply.
>  Both parties should be given the opportunity to make any points in rebuttal.
> The Appeals Committee may then wish to clarify any points of disagreement or evidence. 

Nevertheless; the national director saw fit to have this significant appeal held 10m from any of the players between rounds without any of them informed. I think the standards should be different for different levels of competitions; but anyone who "knows the laws" well enough to expect you to alert that X knows enough to either ask at the time or at the end of the auction about the meaning of that bid. 

Hi Bill.

I will concur that the ruling is a terrible one. The opposition should have checked what the double meant. I agree with your example in 2.

To answer number 5 the answer is no because a 4 card suit is still natural. But then so is a 3 card suit - but if you opened a 3 card major that would have to be alerted because, although natural, is very unusual. It should be pre-alerted also. On that note I was told by a National Director that a 2C response to 1H/S which could be as short as 3 needed to be alerted. I was then told by another National Director is didn't (I agree with the latter).

The alerting regualtions are a dog's breakfast. But the ruling made against you was woeful. I hope you brought it to the attention of NZB formally.

Regards

Ed

The infraction was a failure to pre alert. We didn't know that a take-out double, which in this case denied 4S, was so unusual as to need a pre-alert. 

In contrast, a bid of 1S, which may be only 4, is not alertable. To be consistent I think both bids should be pre alertable or not.

BTW the appellant, a very experienced player, didnt ask of the (self alerting) double at any time during the auction.

Hi Jena

Manual D60

30.5 Pre-alerts

 
At the start of a round or match, Pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their 1-level opening bids, the strength and style of their opening 1NT and any unusual self-alerting calls as defined above that may catch their opponents by surprise (e.g. doubles that are neither for penalty nor for takeout, or high-level transfer pre-empts).

My question is about the need (or not) to alert a double like a support double or redouble, or indeed a double showing weakness after invention following a strong 2C opener. These examples are doubles and redoubles with distinctive special meanings and maybe not so commonly used in NZ. The related question is am I prohibited (banned) from alerting any double/redouble as they are deemed self alerting? - I have heard that in some tournaments in Australia that is indeed the in case.

In a normal club setting with several less than expert opponents I believe it is in the spirit of the rules to alert bids with special meanings even if technically I may not be obliged to.

I would like to get a better handle on this in NZ as I have been playing mainly in Asia and they seem to interpret some things differently.

Hi John

Under no circumstances do you alert a double or redouble because, by definition of the Manual D59 it has already been alerted. You don't alert a bid twice. Like any other bid that is alerted by circling it, it is up to opposition to ask what it means. Nothing to do with "tecnically" - a cue bid or a double, by its very existence, has been alerted. 

An approach I have seen which I favour is a pre-alert card which says something like "Many of our doubles have unusual meanings, please ask". This is a good pre-alert IMO and now, if the opposition don't ask what a particular double means, that is their own funeral. So at club level, say "Please ask about our doubles as they may have a meaning you would not expect". As an experienced  TD (and hopefully soon to be ND!) I am happy with this as a pre-alert - I see no point taking time in giving a huge spiel pre-alerting when a)it probably won't come up and b)if it does come up you will have to explain it again.

Two incompatable quotes from this thread (Sep 13):

John Peppiatt:

 I believe it is in the spirit of the rules to alert bids with special meanings even if technically I may not be obliged to.

Ed Roggeveen:

Under no circumstances do you alert a double

I am with John here
The Manual says "Doubles should not be alerted"
There are three stronger alternatives to "should not" (shall not, may not and must not)
If "under no circumstances" applied then the wording "must not" would be used

If a player "illegally"  alerts a double how might the opponents be damaged?

Another quote (May 20)

Brad Johnston:

don't be a dick-head

Sorry Nick but you have have completely missed my point and the point of the Manual.

A double, like a cue bid, is automatically alerted as soon as it is made. Therefore there is no need to lean over and alert it. It has already been done.

I would penalise someone for alertinf a cue bid or double, although it is possible that by doing so they have reminded their partner that it has a special meaning and that they have mis-bid. With an established partnership this is highly unlikely.

I would penalise someone for alertinf[sic] a cue bid or double, although it is possible that by doing so they have reminded their partner that it has a special meaning and that they have mis-bid. With an established partnership this is highly unlikely.

And people may not wake up through their partner's alerts - it'd be an infraction of the partner to use this.

This is the type of place where the rules simply don't apply equally at all levels. Finals of the NZ Pairs/Teams; play by the letter of the book. A social club session - everyone should play in such a way that people feel encouraged to spend more time playing bridge as opposed to bingo.

If I was to be playing behind screens, I'd describe and alert any bid I make (even a cue or a X); as I don't have a partner to wake up. Doing anything different is really just discourteous to your screen-mate [using screens or bidding boxes in general means that the bids are removed before play of the hand; if an unalerted X suddenly becomes meaningful half-way through the defense why not already have the info on hand?]

I understand the intent of the law; demonstrably so after an American player in Aus earlier this year complained that they'd have picked up trumps in their doubled part-score if we had alerted a double as 'for take-out'. No, we didn't do anything wrong; and yes - that paradigm seems as alien to me as it does to you.

One could simply have the rule state something like:

• Doubles of suit bids below game are presumed to be for take-out.
• Doubles of NTs and of game bids are presumed to be for penalties.
• Any double which does not match with the above presumption or carries additional (potentially unexpected) meanings must be alerted.

Doesn't this provide an adequate base of assumption for people that it's not a dogs breakfast; while also ensuring that X's which should reasonably be alerted are?

I think Brad's suggested policy is very sensible

Something very similar applied years ago
Without any problems I am aware of

I ask again - anyone?

If a player "illegally"  alerts a double how might the opponents be damaged?

I feel beyond my skill level in terms of rules as I am not a director, nor have interest to be - so this is just feelings and opinion. I have played the game for over 40 years in 3 countries and have seen the alerting practices/policies vary over time and in different contexts. To me the game tries to encourage transparency of understanding to all parties and that is what I understand is the spirit of the rules.

It seems to me that alerting in general risks UI obviously, and can act to possibly wake up your partner to something they may miss. In my experience though in a mixed skill environment (most club play) it is appreciated by most players when all bids with meanings that are deemed unusual in the context of the players usual experience are alerted. As Ed said, maybe you just prealert, then maybe there is the option of just say we have several unusual bids and doubles do you want us to alert them? There has been many a time when I have been asked that and I have said ok, noted, don't alert we will ask  - especially when I know the pair tries out new systems / gadgets and are liable to make mistakes! Similar to when we chose to delay asking when we are unsure if the opposition knows what it is doing!

In the context of high level, hard nosed competitions then clear hard and fast rules with the minimum amount of vague judgemental terms are probably welcome and NEVER alert a double or redouble is easy to remember for sure  but I am not convinced it is the best policy for play and development at lower levels. Like most things, context matters.

Discussion of our unsuccessful auction. We discover opponents unalerted double shows any hand (lacking another descriptive bid) with at 4 spades and as little as 7 points. 1D X - 2S;    Do we have to ask if the X is a standard type? i.e. a T/O with at least about an opener. ... some variation dependent on shape.?