[blml] Announce or alert?

[Guthrie]

[Collins Williams]
Wouldn't the announcing of doubles help the doubling side get them
right more often? Perhaps it is just me (or my parochialism) but I 
find myself in auctions where the meaning of a double is in doubt far 
more often than the bidding of a red suit after partner's NT is ambiguous.

[Jerry Fusselman]
Agreed.  As a rule of thumb, a regulation for announcing should only
be in effect if the announcement will almost never give surprise UI to
partner.  Doubles are certainly not anywhere near routine enough for
this condition to be met. Announcements are best for very well-defined 
and limited situations.

[Nige1]
When LHO alerts RHO's call, I assume that Collins and Jerry opt for 
strategy [A] below ...
[A] *Sometimes* ask.
[B] *Always* ask now.
[C] *Never* ask until the end of the auction.

IMO option [A] should be illegal. If you adopt option [A] then you are 
likely to convey unauthorised information. Poor partner must try to 
avoid those options suggested by that unauthorised information. It 
disadvantages an ethical partner who will frequently be inhibited from 
taking the best action. This option deliberately subjects players to 
avoidable temptation.

If you adopt strategy [B], you may as well have announcements instead 
of alerts -- because announcements are then about twice as quick as 
alerts -- announcements save the time taken
-- for an opponent to wave an alert card around and
-- for you to ask a question.

You can save even more palaver and unauthorised information, if (as I 
advocate) a new rule allowed you to *switch them off*. This is roughly 
equivalent to option [C] but eliminates more unauthorised information.

I concede that, to begin with, this rule might result in half-alerts 
(or half-announcements) -- from habit -- that the director would have 
to treat as unauthorised information.

Manifestly, however, it eliminates far more unauthorised information 
than it engenders.