Blue Book 4B2a

"Suit bids that show the suit bid:
Alert, unless the double is for take-out."

Here are a couple of bidding sequences from boards I played recently (! means alert):

a) 1!h, (P), 1!s, (2!d); 2!h, (P), P, (3!d); 3!h, (X), 3!s, all pass.
b) 1NT, (2!c!), 2!h, (2!s); 3!h, (X), all pass. 2!c meant both majors. 2!h and 3!h were natural.

Notice anything missing in the bidding?

In both cases, takeout isn't a remotely sensible meaning for the double, and pairs with no particularly agreements about the double will play it as penalty. In both cases, it was obvious to everyone at the table that the double was penalty. In case a), I was the doubler, and had to mention the lack of alert at the end of the hand (not that it ended up mattering); my opponents were surprised to learn that the double was alertable, given how obvious the meaning is. In case b), the doubler's partner was a qualified Director (although was not directing that night), and insisted that the double was not alertable (again, it didn't end up mattering, because I asked the meaning of the unexpectedly unalerted double at my next turn to call; I was pretty sure it was penalty, but (to avoid UI) always ask in cases where all possible calls should be alertable given the bidding sequence).

The purpose of alerts is to let players know that there's something that they might want to ask about, and to make sure that players aren't mislead by the meaning of their opponent's calls. However, in bidding sequences like the ones above, this seems to really fall short. In many cases where a penalty double of 3 of a suit is made, the bidding sequence up to that point makes it clear that the double can't be takeout – players generally consider the "non-alertable" meaning in such sequences to be penalty, regardless of what the rules say. So you get players being surprised that the double is alertable, and indeed insisting that the double is not alertable.

The problem with this, of course, is that when players are habitually not alerting penalty doubles at the 3 level, this leads to misinformation abounding in cases where a double actually has an unusual meaning. It wouldn't surprise me if many players thought that takeout doubles are alertable in sequences like those above (under the "potentially unexpected meaning" clause 4B1b, or because "penalty obviously isn't alertable, so takeout has to be alerted!"); they aren't, because 4B1b doesn't apply to doubles (4B2 has a similar clause but it explicitly doesn't apply to pure-penalty or pure-takeout doubles). This gives something of a disadvantage to players who actually know the alerting rules for doubles, as they'll be interpreting an alert, or lack of it, with the opposite meaning that most players use: it's as if club players in general have an understanding about what needs to be alerted, but the rules say something different. (Of course, I understand how helpful it is to have a rule as simple as the rule we actually have, rather than a much more complex "penalty is non-alertable if takeout doesn't make sense" rule that requires you to understand the context of the bidding so far. But a rule that is ignored by everyone but a small minority of players is worse than useless.)

It's also worth noting that a rule that exists, but hardly anyone follows, gives an easy opportunity for near-undetectable UI transmission: you can convey an extra piece of information by whether you alert a double or not, and it looks innocent whether you follow the de-facto alerting rules or the de-jure rules. I think it's unlikely that this will be exploited consciously, but can imagine a partnership gaining some advantage from it subconsciously (e.g. I suspect a penalty double is more likely to be alerted when the double is unexpected given the context of the doubler's partner's hand). The ACBL ended up abandoning the Stop card under similar circumstances (usage of the Stop card for non-pre-emptive jump bids was low enough that many players could tell whether their partner was pre-empting or not by whether or not they remembered to use the Stop card).

I think we therefore need to review the Blue Book rule 4B2a, basically because it isn't doing its job: the intent of the rule is clearly to differentiate between penalty and take out doubles, but with the majority of players (IME) alerting in a way that doesn't match the rule, it fails to actually differentiate (because you don't know, without asking, whether the player who just alerted, or just didn't alert, is following the Blue Book rules or the de-facto double alerting rules of "alert if the double has an unusual meaning"). I'd like to give a selection of alternative double alerting rules, all of which I believe would be better than the current situation:

1. 4B2 A double must be alerted if it carries a specific message about a suit (other than the doubled strain), or if it has a potentially unexpected meaning. Other doubles need not be alerted.
2. 4B2 Below 3NT, a double must be announced as "penalty" if for penalty (or if they suggest playing in the doubled strain), and announced as "take-out" if for take-out. Other doubles must be alerted.
3. 4B2 Doubles must be alerted if they are lead-directing for a specific suit (other than the doubled strain). Other doubles need not be alerted.

These rules are all even simpler than the current rule 4B2. Rule 1 is effectively a codification of current practice, and is the most similar to rule 4B1 (which is likely what the majority of players are remembering with their alternative "when to alert a double" rules). Rule 2 carries the same information as present, but replaces the alert/non-alert messaging (for which players don't remember, or are surprised at, which way round it goes) with two announcements (thus saving any need to remember which meaning is the non-alertable one in any given context). Rule 3 is a "UI-reduction" alternative which gives the opponents more freedom in whether or not they ask the meaning of a double or not.

I'd be happy with adopting any of these alternative rules (even "(non-weird-lead-directing) doubles are not alertable above 2NT would be an improvement"), but at present, it feels like something has to change; our double-alerting rules aren't having the desired effect and are having some unfortunate negative consequences. If everyone's disregarding a rule, it needs to be changed; and this seems like a very clear example of that.