DONT alertable ?

[Jim Hall]

I was recently playing at the club when the opponents doubled my (15-17pts) 1NT without alerting it. I assumed it just showed a hand of similar strength to mine but it turned out that the opponents used DONT as a conventional defense to a 1NT opening, so they explained at the end of the hand that it showed a long suit.
They insisted it wasn't alertable and that I had to ask what the double of 1NT meant.
I can't see anything in the alerting regulations that supports their argument and would appreciate an unbiased opinion.
Thanks in advance.

[Gidi]

Hi Jim
According to ABF alerting regulations, doubles (and redoubles) are self-alerting and are never alerted during the auction. They may need to be pre-alerted (did you check the opponents' system card?). Further, the regulation says: "Players should be aware that such calls by opponents may not mean what they assume, and ask if necessary." In other words, your assumptions are your problem. These provisions are also in the QBA regulations, and probably in other states.
In fact, under the Laws (16B1, 73C1) alerting when an alert is not required can be considered UI. In your example, if the double was alerted, you would be within your rights to suggest to the director (at the end of the play) that the alert served to remind the doubler that they are playing DONT, and/or to inform the doubler that his partner interprets it as a DONT call.
Gidi Azar

[Matthew McManus]

Self-alerting is the concept that there are certain types of call that could have so many different meanings that they will almost always be alerted. By regulation, calls which fall into this category include any doubles or redoubles, any bids of a denomination already bid or shown by the opponents, most calls (other than opening bids) above the level of 3NT. To give an example, trying to generate rules for which types of doubles should be alerted is fraught. For instance, you could say: alert doubles which are for penalty, but don't alert doubles for takeout. But there is whole host of other calls that don't neatly fall into either category: optional doubles, values doubles, honour third doubles, etc. It is much better to say that all doubles are considered alerted and it is up to the opposition to ask if it is important to know what they mean. Having directed both before and after the self-alerting concept was introduced, I can tell you that they have significantly reduced the number and ferocity of complaints when calls are or are not alerted!   

I think that the best way of explaining the concept of self-alerted calls (such as doubles) is not that the calls are not-alertable, but they don't NEED an alert - they are considered to be automatically alerted. If pairs are playing methods which attach an unexpected meaning to some of these self-alerting calls, then that needs to be explained in the pre-alert stage at the start of each round.

So, in response to the original post. It is correct that they don't need to alert the double and you should have asked about it, but also they have failed in their duty to explain that they play that convention in the pre-alert stage.