[mycroft]

Remember I am speaking from a Canadian perspective. I, too, would not double first with x KJxxx AQxxx xx - that's a 2H call. But I would with x QJxxx KQxxx xx - call me a Walrus, but that's not "10 and 5", and it's not enough defence when it doesn't go 1C-1S-2H-p, but 1C-1S-2H-4S - and in the real auction, I don't think letting them sit for 2S undoubled is right, and without 2NT scrambling, I guess I have to double again. If partner passes, then partner passes - West's stuck his neck out in a misfit auction, and we're going to try to take our plus here. But I doubt he will - he'll bid something, probably whichever 3-card red suit he has.

British style may be different enough that I am talking out of my hat.

Edit: meant to say this, too. I think I am the one that brought up "fielded misbid", which, to me, was sort of a sidelight. If they play this double as "purely takeout" according to the OB definition, rather than the Alertable "action" or "competitive", then they misbid. If they don't, they've given MI. The nice part about the fielded misbid regulation is that it doesn't matter which - you said it meant X, you bid as if it meant Y, partner happened to have Y, we don't care why you "guessed right", here's what we by regulation do (the bad part about the regulation is that it's arguably unLawful, and the argument for it being Lawful references Laws that don't mention "misbid", and therefore are arcane to the punter. But I'm not putting myself on either side of that discussion, as I don't have to live or rule with it; I'm just saying that since it's there, it sometimes makes things easier).

I also said that there are "green" fielded misbids, too - I certainly wasn't putting this case into "adjustable" territory, just mentioning that the toy does make a ruling in this case, if the TD on exploration comes to the judgement that there, their implied agreement was that this double is action, easier than without it.

[FrancesHinden]

dburn, on 2011-April-05, 19:52, said:

if I were playing with jallerton I would contemplate the paucity of my trump stack and bid 2NT (an obvious scramble showing three, if not four or five, places to play);

If you were playing with jallerton I hope you would pass, because he also thinks it is a penalty double.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-April-06, 02:39, said:

Anyway, you seemed to be saying that it is a takeout double because partner will only pass if he expects this to work out best opposite a typical takeout double, which is circular

I am not quite sure I follow this. Perhaps the regulation is circular, in that it says a takeout double is one that the doubler expects his partner to take out. It says a lot of other nonsense as well - try telling Brogeland that when he doubles a 1♥ opening with ♠AJxx ♥Jxx ♦Axx ♣Qxx that he isn't playing this as a takeout double according to the English Bridge Union, so his partner had better alert.

More formally, then:

there is some finite set S of hands with which a player will open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ after a takeout double of 1♠;

for any hand h, the presumption is that both members of the North-South partnership can say whether h is a member of S;

a subsequent double of 2♠ is played by the partnership as, and should be described by the partnership as, a "takeout double" iff a sufficiently large percentage of the hands in S would bid over the second double.

The present sample (of one such hand h) does not provide anything like enough evidence to support the notion that the percentage of hands in S that would bid over the second double is insufficiently large to fulfil the criterion above.

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-April-06, 13:48, said:

If you were playing with jallerton I hope you would pass, because he also thinks it is a penalty double.

Oh, I know he's a sensible enough fellow really, even if he does live in Surrey. At university we used to play a convention called DPOI, which our opponents always thought was a misprint. It wasn't: it meant that if the bidding went such as 1♠ - pass - pass - double - 2♠, advancer's double was responsive unless opener was stupid (if we hadn't heard of you, you were presumed stupid, as indeed you generally were if we had). The acronym stood for Double Penalty Of Idiots.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-April-07, 03:50, said:

The present sample (of one such hand h) does not provide anything like enough evidence to support the notion that the percentage of hands in S that would bid over the second double is insufficiently large to fulfil the criterion above.

I don't agree with that, since it is reasonable to assume that if South passes with a particular hand she would also pass with any hand at least as suitable for defending. I believe that a significant proportion of hands fit that definition (not a majority by any means, but "expected to take out" suggests to me that only a small minority should be passing, particularly in the context of the other definitions in 4H1-6).

Further, if you are going to pass with any hand which expects pass to be the winning action if partner has something like ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦AKQx ♣xx, as you say, then I think that you will be passing reasonably frequently, and so you would do better to describe the double as "competitive".

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-April-07, 04:02, said:

I don't agree with that, since it is reasonable to assume that if South passes with a particular hand she would also pass with any hand at least as suitable for defending. I believe that a significant proportion of hands fit that definition (not a majority by any means, but "expected to take out" suggests to me that only a small minority should be passing, particularly in the context of the other definitions in 4H1-6).

Further, if you are going to pass with any hand which expects pass to be the winning action if partner has something like ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦AKQx ♣xx, as you say, then I think that you will be passing reasonably frequently, and so you would do better to describe the double as "competitive".

Well, at least we are now agreed to a large extent on the semantics. Bidding judgement is a matter on which we may never agree, and of course it is not easy to place oneself in the position of this North-South pair and say what they might do on any given collection.

But I have just dealt myself 200 hands on which I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ over a double of 1♠. They include, on the evidence of the actual hand, weak no trumps with five clubs and no spade guard - it occurred to me to wonder what this South would have rebid with a low spade instead of a low club, but I did not actually modify the simulation to include 3=3=3=4 hands. I would certainly pass my own second double on exactly four of the 200; I might pass it on another eight but only with the opponents vulnerable at matchpoints. I would certainly take out the double on the remaining 188 hands. How "expected" is "expected"?

[campboy]

Ok, that sounds pretty convincing. I suspect my error was in forgetting that a lot of hands which would want to pass here would have rebid 1NT, as you suggest.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-April-07, 08:21, said:

But I have just dealt myself 200 hands on which I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ over a double of 1♠. They include, on the evidence of the actual hand, weak no trumps with five clubs and no spade guard - it occurred to me to wonder what this South would have rebid with a low spade instead of a low club, but I did not actually modify the simulation to include 3=3=3=4 hands. I would certainly pass my own second double on exactly four of the 200; I might pass it on another eight but only with the opponents vulnerable at matchpoints. I would certainly take out the double on the remaining 188 hands. How "expected" is "expected"?

What assumptions did you make about the West and North hands in this simulation?

[PeterAlan]

mycroft, on 2011-April-06, 10:40, said:

I think I am the one that brought up "fielded misbid", which, to me, was sort of a sidelight.

You weren't - that was bluejak on page 1, in what I thought was an astonishingly judgmental, if not prejudiced, post that appeared to infer all kinds of iniquity on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. My various posts have largely been in reaction to that stance - always assuming, of course, that there's no evidence of any UI, since there's been no suggestion of any such evidence.

mycroft, on 2011-April-06, 10:40, said:

If they play this double as "purely takeout" according to the OB definition ...

There ain't no such thing, in my view, for the reasons previously given. Indeed, in an earlier post you accepted that the OB definitions of "competitive" and "takeout" overlap. The assumption that there is then leads you to a dichotomy that for this reason now fails.

Actually, OB defines 10 (!) categories of double, namely "penalty", "co-operative", "optional" [or "card/value-showing"], "competitive" [or "action"], "take-out", "protective or re-opening", "lead-directing", "doubles that show specific hands or specific features", "doubles of artificial bids", and the catch-all "other doubles". Later on, "negative" and "responsive" doubles make an appearance, but fortunately they are subsets of take-out doubles.

This taxonomic detail is important: players must be careful that "The meaning of a double should be on the convention card, a post facto account of it being insufficient. The convention card should also be clear as to the circumstances in which the double is used with the meaning described." So when one has considered the full range of sequences (and holdings) in which the meaning of a double must be clarified - and the case in point highlights just how important it is to have decided every such sequence in advance - one then has to summarise the results on the card in rather less than the few hundred pages that at first blush might seem to be needed.

Then one has to consider just what the alerting rules require one to do. For the case in point - a double of a suit bid that shows the suit bid - the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Does "not alertable" mean "must not be alerted", the stern command that applies to negative doubles "since these are examples of take-out doubles"? Does one extrapolate from this remark that all take-out doubles "must not" be alerted, and if not in what circumstances should one alert a "not alertable" double? Does a double "for take-out" mean the same as the defined term "take-out double", and if not what are the differences?

Finally, I note that no-one's yet mentioned OB 5B10: "A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement". It's some measure of the regulatory mish-mash we have that we're now at page 5 of the thread before this has even been raised, but of course even this doesn't have the straightforward application that it might appear to have. For example, at the time N doubles for the second occasion, S doesn't know how he is going to act on it, since that is likely to depend on whether E bids or not.

You have a few seconds to sort all this out within the auction of a hand that you're expected to play in 7 minutes. Woe betide you if your judgment differs from the TD's, or you'll get a fielded misbid ruling from someone who, instead of resorting to Law 74A, "would find it difficult to blame [your table opposition] if I got a very unfortunate reply like 'I don't know, I just don't like cheating opponents.'"

This is hardly satisfactory, is it? Let's please bring some common sense to bear, and not rush to prejudicial judgment.

[mycroft]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-07, 18:59, said:

There ain't no such thing, in my view, for the reasons previously given. Indeed, in an earlier post you accepted that the OB definitions of "competitive" and "takeout" overlap. The assumption that there is then leads you to a dichotomy that for this reason now fails.

I disagree with you on my "acceptance". Doubles are on a continuum, and I accept that there are borderline cases. I think what I did say was that if you worked hard, you could bend things enough that this hand was a takeout double; but that it was a stereotypical hand for "competitive". Therefore, if that's what South expected, they were playing the "obvious" competitive double, not the "look at it just right and it could fit" takeout double.

Quote

Actually, OB defines 10 (!) categories of double, namely "penalty", "co-operative", "optional" [or "card/value-showing"], "competitive" [or "action"], "take-out", "protective or re-opening", "lead-directing", "doubles that show specific hands or specific features", "doubles of artificial bids", and the catch-all "other doubles". Later on, "negative" and "responsive" doubles make an appearance, but fortunately they are subsets of take-out doubles.

And it also says that doubles of a suit that aren't clearly "takeout" are Alertable. So, when an unAlerted double hits the table, I can ignore the other however many cases, can't I? Unless, of course, the opponents are going to make "grey area" doubles that they will leave in more closer to "more suitable" than "very suitable". Hmm, maybe it is in a different category, and I should have been warned about it, neh?

Quote

Finally, I note that no-one's yet mentioned OB 5B10: "A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement". It's some measure of the regulatory mish-mash we have that we're now at page 5 of the thread before this has even been raised, but of course even this doesn't have the straightforward application that it might appear to have.

Please stay in the UK then, and never play here in LeftPondia. You'll be wishing for the "regulatory mish-mash" of the OB. Having said that, "not mentioned" and "assumed as read in argument" are two different things; but they look the same without context.

Quote

For example, at the time N doubles for the second occasion, S doesn't know how he is going to act on it, since that is likely to depend on whether E bids or not.

Irrelevant. South has information and experience, if not specific agreement, as to what hands North is going to have for the double. If that experience means that this double fits in the "competitive" or "action" territory, then he has to Alert it, whether or not he knows whether he's going to pass, with South's particular hand, if East passes.

It's good to know that with my regular partners, we have discussed this and we have a (meta-)agreement.

Quote

You have a few seconds to sort all this out within the auction of a hand that you're expected to play in 7 minutes. Woe betide you if your judgment differs from the TD's, or you'll get a fielded misbid ruling from someone who, instead of resorting to Law 74A, "would find it difficult to blame [your table opposition] if I got a very unfortunate reply like 'I don't know, I just don't like cheating opponents.'"

Well, your partner has a 4441 in an auction where he's likely (according to the information the opponents are entitled to have) to be 2551 or 1453. You choose to pass the double with a random 2335 with three QT (one of which might be waste paper) and zero slow tricks. If you guessed right, great. If you guessed right because you expected more like the hand partner had to the hand I posted last, then you misinformed the opponents (sorry if you didn't realize that at the time, you do now; no damage, just do the right thing from now on). You're still entitled to guess right, but so are they, and in other cases, they might have to their profit.

Quote

This is hardly satisfactory, is it? Let's please bring some common sense to bear, and not rush to prejudicial judgment.

Unfortunately, judgement is part of being a director, and a part of judgement rulings (of which misinformation is one). It's not intended as prejudicial; it's just judgement.

[PeterAlan]

Mycroft, I don't suppose that I'm really very far apart from you on the question of whether the double has from N's viewpoint a competitive flavour, but instead of a starting point of trying to find a regulatory reason to hang S, I'm an ordinary punter trying to put myself in his shoes. I think that he's in what is, let's face it, a non-standard auction - look what happened at my table - which, I'm pretty sure, he and his partner have not discussed in detail and where he's just as (OK, I'll bend a bit, very nearly as) unsure as his opponents just what his partner has in his hand. And let's not forget that we're only here because W, vulnerable at pairs, is bidding like an idiot, with the result that S is wondering just who has the extra points / other values that appear to be in this pack, and is trying to decide whether to believe his partner or the opposition.

mycroft, on 2011-April-08, 14:03, said:

Doubles are on a continuum, and I accept that there are borderline cases.

Yes, they are. It's a characteristic of regulation the world over, and area of regulation over, that the regulators see problem areas as being the fault of the regulated, and the regulated see the problem areas as arising from a poor fit of regulation to the real world. Try the other side's viewpoint (then I might too).

mycroft, on 2011-April-08, 14:03, said:

And it [OB] also says that doubles of a suit that aren't clearly "takeout" are Alertable.

Where? I may be wrong, but as far as I know it says no more on this than what I quoted: the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Hence the supplementary questions I posed.

mycroft, on 2011-April-08, 14:03, said:

South has information and experience, if not specific agreement, as to what hands North is going to have for the double.

This is just the sort of area where you and I differ: I'd be very surprised if he has, because I don't suppose that this kind of auction / holding combination occurs more than once in a fairly blue moon. Even if it had with this pair, my money would be on them not remembering it.

mycroft, on 2011-April-08, 14:03, said:

Well, your partner has a 4441 in an auction where he's likely (according to the information the opponents are entitled to have) to be 2551 or 1453.

Neither I nor you know N/S's methods in detail, but a common treatment would be that the first negative double distinguishes a 4-card ♥ holding from 5, which would rule out 2=5=5=1. And I don't know about you, but by the time my partner had bid ♣ twice, and shown no interest in anything else, especially my ♥, I might have raised him on 3 (or suggested NT by whatever methods we have) rather than doubled again, which suggests that 1=4=5=3 might not be there either.

[Actually, my partner and I would have opened 1 weak NT on the S hand, from which all roads seem to lead to 3NT and a peaceful life.]

mycroft, on 2011-April-08, 14:03, said:

Unfortunately, judgement is part of being a director.

And I'm suggesting that condoning a comment about opponents "cheating" without any evidence to back it is not good judgment.

[Vampyr]

Mycroft said: And it [OB] also says that doubles of a suit that aren't clearly "takeout" are Alertable.

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-08, 18:38, said:

Where? I may be wrong, but as far as I know it says no more on this than what I quoted: the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Hence the supplementary questions I posed.

What is the difference here? The fact that Mycroft used the word "clearly" and the Orange Book doesn't?

[aguahombre]

Shakespeare.....Much ado about nothing. Still no damage, still they got the penalty they deserved.

[PeterAlan]

Vampyr, on 2011-April-08, 20:05, said:

What is the difference here? The fact that Mycroft used the word "clearly" and the Orange Book doesn't?

Well, yes. It's quite an important distinction in an unclear situation.

In a simplistic nutshell, my view is that this is "just bridge" and I think there's been an OTT reaction from those who contend that it's "not bridge". But I agree with aguahombre, and the sun's shining outside.

[campboy]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-08, 18:38, said:

Mycroft, I don't suppose that I'm really very far apart from you on the question of whether the double has from N's viewpoint a competitive flavour, but instead of a starting point of trying to find a regulatory reason to hang S, I'm an ordinary punter trying to put myself in his shoes. I think that he's in what is, let's face it, a non-standard auction - look what happened at my table - which, I'm pretty sure, he and his partner have not discussed in detail and where he's just as (OK, I'll bend a bit, very nearly as) unsure as his opponents just what his partner has in his hand. And let's not forget that we're only here because W, vulnerable at pairs, is bidding like an idiot, with the result that S is wondering just who has the extra points / other values that appear to be in this pack, and is trying to decide whether to believe his partner or the opposition.

It is, of course, completely legitimate to not have clear agreements (or any agreements) in this situation. And if you have no agreement, implicit or explicit, the double is not alertable. But in this case, if asked, you must not describe an agreement you don't have.

[mycroft]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-08, 18:38, said:

Mycroft, I don't suppose that I'm really very far apart from you on the question of whether the double has from N's viewpoint a competitive flavour, but instead of a starting point of trying to find a regulatory reason to hang S, I'm an ordinary punter trying to put myself in his shoes. I think that he's in what is, let's face it, a non-standard auction - look what happened at my table - which, I'm pretty sure, he and his partner have not discussed in detail and where he's just as (OK, I'll bend a bit, very nearly as) unsure as his opponents just what his partner has in his hand. And let's not forget that we're only here because W, vulnerable at pairs, is bidding like an idiot, with the result that S is wondering just who has the extra points / other values that appear to be in this pack, and is trying to decide whether to believe his partner or the opposition.

I'm not trying to hang South - I would be trying to ascertain what they thought they were doing, and if it were not a takeout double under the requirements, explain so and their responsibilities, so that the next, more belligerent or rule-bound set of opponents don't go all nutty on them when it happens again. Having said that:

Quote

Where? I may be wrong, but as far as I know it says no more on this than what I quoted: the double "is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise". Hence the supplementary questions I posed.

Orange book 5G4c:

Quote

[The following doubles must be alerted:] Any ‘competitive’, 'co-operative’ or ‘optional’ double, since these are not takeout doubles (see 4 H).

Looks pretty clear to me.

Quote

This is just the sort of area where you and I differ: I'd be very surprised if he has, because I don't suppose that this kind of auction / holding combination occurs more than once in a fairly blue moon. Even if it had with this pair, my money would be on them not remembering it.

Well, that seems to be a cultural thing, because it would never occur to me to pass this "clear -670" hand (see below). My bridge area just doesn't work that way, and if people made doubles at the two level that were safe to pass with this hand, they'd have discussed it.

Quote

Neither I nor you know N/S's methods in detail, but a common treatment would be that the first negative double distinguishes a 4-card ♥ holding from 5, which would rule out 2=5=5=1.

That again looks cultural - around here, 1C-(1S)-2H specifically promises "10 and 5", and if I don't have 10 and 5, I'm doubling (unless I'm WJSing, I guess). Therefore my last example hand.

Quote

And I don't know about you, but by the time my partner had bid ♣ twice, and shown no interest in anything else, especially my ♥, I might have raised him on 3 (or suggested NT by whatever methods we have) rather than doubled again, which suggests that 1=4=5=3 might not be there either.

Again, I don't see that, although it is arguable. If I have a hand that's playable in more places than one, even opposite partner's clubs-and-not-4-hearts (and in my world, 1C-(1S)-X; 2D would still imply extras), shouldn't I try to find it?

Quote

And I'm suggesting that condoning a comment about opponents "cheating" without any evidence to back it is not good judgment.

Context, please? I'm not suggesting anything about my opponents, and I am also not suggesting anything about the C word. I was saying that if it is ruled a "fielded misbid", even a red fielded misbid, that it means that they provided information by omission that was incorrect, given what both of them decided to take it as, even if it was correct by explicit agreement. Whether that be due to MI or CPU or what, I don't know. I certainly don't think it was in either of their minds to deliberately do anything. If we judge that they violated regulations, we rule against them; if we judge that they violated regulations in a way where it is "sufficient to find unauthorized understanding", we rule and apply a PP. We certainly don't think anything here is cheating (OB 6B1 and 6B2 make that clear). If it gets to the point where we are, in fact, going to lay a cheating charge, things escalate in a real hurry; luckily that doesn't have to happen very often (even when the preponderance of the evidence is that they are cheating; two or three "we don't think you were trying to do this, but someone who was trying to game the system would have done the same thing, so the (laws|regulations) say that we are forced to rule in your case the same way we would someone who tried it on deliberately", and most people smart enough to play bridge clue in and stop.)

[mycroft]

Short Mycroft, as the above seems more argumentative than I intend:

No, I don't think we're as far apart in the context of what North thought as we may look. I don't think we're as far apart in what South expected as we may look. I do think that if North thought that was a "double and double again", and if South expected that for a "double and double again", that they aren't playing the agreement they explained to E-W, and this needs to be corrected. If North didn't have an agreement about this auction and made a best-guess effort, and if South didn't have an idea about this auction and made a best-guess effort, and they both guessed right, then they now have an agreement (because they'll make the same guesses next time); and that agreement is Alertable.

I don't think that's a bad thing; it's certainly not going to get them into any more trouble than the people out here who don't realize that WJS in a non-competitive auction are Alertable (I ascertain what they thought they were doing; I explain that that is Alertable; I explain that it didn't cause a problem on this hand, but it could have, and if they don't Alert it in future, they may get ruled against when it does), and that's a clear agreement.

I think a lot of the rest of the issues stem from my being here, and steeped in a Standard American-based bidding world (where many more bids are forcing, and therefore require strength, not just shape), and others coming out of a Crowhurst-style Acol tradition, where many more bids are simply descriptive.