[blml] Announce or alert?

[Collins Williams]

On Nov 14, 2007 6:01 PM, Guthrie <guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [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.

With a partner of whom you have any significant experience UI abounds.
It is impossible not to provide UI (especially in a non-screens environment).
Those same partner's are (one hopes) of the highest ethical standard and
so can deal with the UI problems (that occur on every hand) correctly.

Pairs who whether by intent or by subconscious incorporation of the UI
generated by questions or the lack thereof to their advantage are exhibiting
a behavior indistinguishable from that of a pair that cheats.

>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>