[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-March-29, 15:43, said:

Most play that the first double shows hearts, and South has simply said that he lacks 4 hearts. He could have 4 diamonds and 5+ clubs, and the second double allows them to find the diamond fit.

This is how I play it, but FrancesHinden's method may be better. I asked five of my club members last night and three had not discussed it, and I had one vote each for takeout and penalties. I suspect I might get a similar result if I cast my net in deeper waters. This hand is a clear plus for playing it as penalties, while swapping over four black cards with East to give Q10 KQxx AKxx xxx makes playing it as takeout better. We can collect 500 with no game on, when partner is a follower of burn not bluejak (good to see them disagreeing again, by the way). And if we are prepared to risk a fielded misbid we can collect 800 here.

My guess, now, is that the correct explanation was "undiscussed". And the 2-4-5-2 or 3-4-5-1 10-11 count is the hand that is very hard to bid if double is penalties, so I now think that takeout is perhaps better on reflection.

[RMB1]

StevenG, on 2011-March-30, 05:42, said:

But, surely there becomes a point at which, despite the meta-agreement, the probability is high enough that it should be described as (per the OB) competitive, or maybe even optional. In which case, they are "not takeout" and therefore alertable.

In some circles, you could alert "no explicit agreement about this sequence, our general agreement is take-out, but there comes a point at which it is more competitive or even optional".

In other circles, opponents will assume that that quote describes an unalertable "takeout" double.

[aguahombre]

The problem is with the explanation of the second double, not the double itself. It is not clear in the OP exactly when the second double was explained, but it doesn't matter. East had already done their side's damage by walking into the buzz-saw with the second spade bid.

Logic tells us the second double is not the same as:

1C (1S) X (2S)
P (P) X where the second double simply shows more strength, and 2NT would have shown more shape.

In the given auction, opener has already given his response to a normal negative double. If responder had club support, he could bid clubs. If responder had more serious distribution in the red suits, he could bid 2NT. This double suggests strongly defending 2SX.

I cannot see how e/w getting a correct explanation of the 2nd double would help them in the auction or in the play.

If the EBU requires an alert of penalty doubles, so be it. Still no damage.

[Poky]

bluejak, on 2011-March-29, 09:51, said:

I think the TD needs to be careful here to find out what is going on. But if they really claim to play it as takeout without further definition except that he wants me to bid then rule it as a fielded misbid.

How do you exactly define a 'fielded misbid'?
I mean, what are the bases of fielding? Because, I always meant there should be some prearragned agreement around that (implicit or explicit).

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-March-29, 19:38, said:

By asking South why, if North was "asking South to bid", South didn't bid.

Not that South should bid, of course - this is a routine pass. But South should try not to express open contempt for bluejak's view that it isn't, however strongly and justifiably that contempt might be felt, lest some ridiculous "fielded misbid" charge be laid against him.

Of course, if North stood on his chair when he doubled 2♠, I might... no, I might not. This is still a pass, even if jallerton won't ever have me on his team again for thinking so. I could have queen-jack sixth of clubs and a bunch of king-quacks; instead, I have only five clubs and ace-king-ace by way of defensive values. And I rebid 2♣, not 1NT, so partner isn't counting on me for anything at all in spades when he doubled in the knowledge that it might go all pass.

Well it depends on what your idea of a "take-out double" is.

EBU Orange Book said:

4 H 5 Competitive doubles
A competitive double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete further, without being certain of the best place to play, which may include defending the doubled contract. Partner is usually expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand more suitable for defence than his actions to date might indicate. In some situations competitive doubles may be called ‘action’.
4 H 6 Take-out doubles
A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

If you consider a common hand type for North's 2nd double to be a 1543 or 1552 shape (as the definition of a "take-out double" in 4H6 would suggest), then I'd be amazed if you were to pass on this hand.

Perhaps you consider that it doesn't make sense for the doubler to have a singleton spade on this auction (on the basis that he could always bid something else on the 1st or 2nd round with such a hand). Fair enough, but then you are playing the double as what the Orange Book defines as one of "competitive", "optional", "co-operative" and "penalties"; all of these meanings are alertable, as Gordon explains.

I know that you have pledged not to agree with Bluejak for the next two weeks, but the basic principle of what he says is correct. The TD should investigate the facts, which in this case involves trying to ascertain what was going through South's head, consult if necessary, and rule accordingly.

dburn, on 2011-March-29, 19:38, said:

When in the name of mercy will I ever pass this double, if not now?

♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

[bluejak]

TMorris, on 2011-March-29, 10:55, said:

As the EBU pretty much split up doubles into takeout and penalty as part of their alerting rules is it really that surprising if people split up doubles in this way ie into alertable and non-alertable doubles which (barring a few exceptions) are penalty and non-penalty.

No, they have not. They have made the simplest alerting rules that are possible by splitting doubles into takeout and the rest for one regulation, and penalties and the rest for another.

ahydra, on 2011-March-29, 13:18, said:

bluejak, could you explain whether you would penalise NS for this fielded misbid? Certainly South fielded it, but he doesn't really have any idea (assuming no UI) that North misbid. West could easily have some of North's HCPs.

As a matter of regulation in England you cancel the board and give Ave+/Ave- if you judge it is a fielded misbid.

StevenG, on 2011-March-30, 05:02, said:

The problem is that the EBU has offered no guidance as to what is alertable in more complex situations. Jeremy's articles for English Bridge only covered the very basic situations and skirted carefully around anything more difficult.

I usually find that if partner doubles a low-level contract we will have no agreement about the specific sequence - after all, we have probably never doubled before in that sequence. We will however have a meta-agreement that it is takeout. But then the negative inferences from the fact that partner doubled rather than find a bid will add some very strong distributional constraints to partners hand, effectively making the double a constructive bid.

So, what then? Do I ponder for ten minutes or so trying to work out the probability that, over all possible deals that fit this particular sequence, I might choose to convert it to penalty? Or that partner could work out that I might choose to convert it to penalty? Just so that I can alert the bid as "not quite takeout"? Do I heck! After all, I know no more than the opponents.

Sorry EBU, but it is just too difficult for me.

No doubt it is, which is why no-one suggests you do such a complicated and unnecessary procedure. When he doubled did he expect you to take it out? If so, it is takeout, if not, it isn't. Whether you do take it out is irrelevant. Slightly complicated by artificial doubles, which are alertable, but most people would understand that.

TMorris, on 2011-March-30, 05:35, said:

Well I did say "pretty much". I appreciate that there are a few cases that are neither take out or penalty but from where I am sitting the vast majority are either take-out (almost never alerted especially post August) or penalty (alerted if of a suit contract) [ignoring doubles over 3NT except again for a few special cases].

If the EBU splits things up differently from this then I would be grateful for a review of how.

I think if you asked 90%+ of EBU members they would say penalty of suit (alertable) or take-out (not alertable) & not be aware of any exceptions.

In many situations when you double you neither expect partner to take it out, nor expect him to leave it in. In such situations you are not surprised what he does dependent on his hand. Such doubles are neither takeout nor penalty.

[bluejak]

Poky, on 2011-March-30, 09:02, said:

How do you exactly define a 'fielded misbid'?
I mean, what are the bases of fielding? Because, I always meant there should be some prearragned agreement around that (implicit or explicit).

Pre-arranged and implicit do not really go together.

My guess is that South knew something about this hand more than that partner has a pure takeout double. He is prepared to defend 2♠ when the opponents have got a 7-3 spade fit - why?

If people like Burn think that the opponents would not bid this way with a 7-3 spade fit then they have not played in the Portland Pairs recently.

The most obvious reason is that this is not a pure takeout double. Either they have an implicit agreement that partner will have a few spades, so MI, or they have an explicit agreement it is pure takeout but South is using his experience that North would not bid this way despite their agreement - and that is fielding.

Ok, Burn thinks bidding is mad. I hope he likes opponents making doubled part-scores.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-March-30, 13:11, said:

Pre-arranged and implicit do not really go together.

My guess is that South knew something about this hand more than that partner has a pure takeout double. He is prepared to defend 2♠ when the opponents have got a 7-3 spade fit - why?

If people like Burn think that the opponents would not bid this way with a 7-3 spade fit then they have not played in the Portland Pairs recently.

The most obvious reason is that this is not a pure takeout double. Either they have an implicit agreement that partner will have a few spades, so MI, or they have an explicit agreement it is pure takeout but South is using his experience that North would not bid this way despite their agreement - and that is fielding.

Ok, Burn thinks bidding is mad. I hope he likes opponents making doubled part-scores.

Burn gave excellent reasons why passing is normal, and I completely agree with him. South will have answered what he thought the pair's agreements are, and I can quite believe that there was no agreement, so if that is established South should be advised to answer more accurately next time, but there is clearly no damage from the MI. I play that double is takeout, but would still double en route to 3NT, and I would pass on the South hand. The double certainly shows extra values, and if partner does not have club support, he is very likely to have two or three spades. If I knew that partner was 2-4-5-2 I would still pass on the South hand.

And matchpoints is certainly the medium in which conceding an unlikely doubled part-score is most palatable.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-30, 12:29, said:

♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

Would you rebid 2C on this hand? And left-hand opponent really does have a poor suit now.

And the definition of the take-out double seems to fit the North hand to a tee, so you are hoisting yourself on your own petard by quoting it:

"A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete (he clearly does not want to defend 2S undoubled here), and invites partner to describe his hand (which partner did by defending for +800). Take-out doubles are frequently (but not always) based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. (here North does have significant extras to offset his lack of shortage)". (all parenthetical additions mine).

So, in summary, according to the OB, if North will systemically double on this hand it is not alertable. But I agree with finding out all the facts of course.

[mycroft]

Lamford, reading the EBU definitions further, I believe your last argument falls through.

You have quoted and commented on OB 4H6. However, OB 4H5 has this definition, which further prescribes 4H6 by contrast (emphasis mine):

Quote

A competitive double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete further, without
being certain of the best place to play, which may include defending the doubled
contract. Partner is usually expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand more
suitable for defence than his actions to date might indicate.

And as far as alertability goes, OB 5G4:

Quote

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

This further makes clear that 4H6 is to be read in contrast to 4H5 and the even "closer-to-penalty" doubles.

If partner is doubling, expecting you to bid, that's takeout. If you pass, that's your lookout, and if it leads to -670, it's totally your fault (unless the only other options were -800 and up, of course). If partner is doubling, and will not be surprised to hear you pass, then it's competitive and Alertable (in either "takeout or other" or "penalty or other" situations, if I'm reading it right).

But I'm a LeftPondian, and I have a totally different set of rules to live by, so I Could Be Wrong.

[nige1]

dburn, on 2011-March-29, 19:38, said:

Not that South should bid, of course - this is a routine pass. But South should try not to express open contempt for bluejak's view that it isn't, however strongly and justifiably that contempt might be felt, lest some ridiculous "fielded misbid" charge be laid against him.
Of course, if North stood on his chair when he doubled 2♠, I might... no, I might not. This is still a pass, even if jallerton won't ever have me on his team again for thinking so. I could have queen-jack sixth of clubs and a bunch of king-quacks; instead, I have only five clubs and ace-king-ace by way of defensive values. And I rebid 2♣, not 1NT, so partner isn't counting on me for anything at all in spades when he doubled in the knowledge that it might go all pass. When in the name of mercy will I ever pass this double, if not now?

If partner's second double were take-out, I'd pass with say ♠ KQJx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQxxxxx
I play North's second double as penalty, however, so I would pass with the actual South hand.
Edit : Jallerton seems to have a similar Idea of what a penalty pass of a takeout double might look like.

[StevenG]

It seems to me that, on this hand, South can deduce that North's second double is essentially competitive, rather than purely takeout. However, if South held a different hand (with, say, a couple more spades), he might be totally confident that the double was genuinely takeout. This isn't about agreements, but about bridge logic. Are we supposed to alert agreements, or to alert on the basis of what we can deduce about a double?

A different question. I sometimes make a double that is unambigously takeout, because I can deduce that partner will convert it to penalties, which is, of course, what I really want to do but systemically can't. If I don't expect partner to bid again, then, by the OB definition, it's not a takeout double. So, what sort of double is it?

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-March-30, 14:30, said:

Lamford, reading the EBU definitions further, I believe your last argument falls through.

You have quoted and commented on OB 4H6. However, OB 4H5 has this definition, which further prescribes 4H6 by contrast (emphasis mine):


And as far as alertability goes, OB 5G4:

This further makes clear that 4H6 is to be read in contrast to 4H5 and the even "closer-to-penalty" doubles.

If partner is doubling, expecting you to bid, that's takeout. If you pass, that's your lookout, and if it leads to -670, it's totally your fault (unless the only other options were -800 and up, of course). If partner is doubling, and will not be surprised to hear you pass, then it's competitive and Alertable (in either "takeout or other" or "penalty or other" situations, if I'm reading it right).

But I'm a LeftPondian, and I have a totally different set of rules to live by, so I Could Be Wrong.

The level of surprise, or what you expect partner to do, is irrelevant. If I had AKQxxx none AKJx xxx, as I did a few nights ago, and it went 1S - (2H) - Pass - Pass, I would expect partner to pass my takeout double around 65% of the time, based on simulations. But it is still clearly a takeout double. (Footnote: Partner had none KJ9xxxx Q10x J10x and declarer was cold for an overtrick, but I am still confident I was making a takeout double). It seems that both the competitive double and the takeout double can suggest that the best result might be to defend the doubled contract, but the latter usually when there is a trump stack. I am a simple soul. The North hand, Q10xx KQ10x AKxx x includes three of the requirements for the takeout double - ability to play in other suits, extra values, and a desire to compete further. There is no requirement in the OB for it to show short spades at all. It says it EITHER shows short spades OR extra values. If the OB is wrong, that is another matter, but on the wording therein, the North hand is a takeout double. It fulfils many of the requirements of the competitive double (or penalty double) too, but that is irrelevant. A hand can be suitable for more than one bid.

[lamford]

.sorry I somehow posted twice - accidentally, before jallerton comments that this is not unusual.

[campboy]

Why are you arguing about whether it is a takeout double, a competitive double, or both? The player didn't say use any of these words when asked about the double; he said "asking me to bid". Do you really think that is an adequate description of a double that might be passed on a fairly normal hand with two cards in the suit doubled?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-March-30, 16:08, said:

Why are you arguing about whether it is a takeout double, a competitive double, or both? The player didn't say use any of these words when asked about the double; he said "asking me to bid". Do you really think that is an adequate description of a double that might be passed on a fairly normal hand with two cards in the suit doubled?

No, I believe that the correct explanation was likely "no agreement" and I am using "likely" in the sense of greater than 50%. We are told that both North and South (we are not told if they were kept at separate police stations) stated that the agreement was takeout, so the need to establish whether the North hand conforms with the OB definition of a takeout double is paramount, as then we can move on to the "fielding a systemic misbid" question if we decide it doesn't! At least if I am paraphrasing bluejak correctly.

And I suggest you re-read the OP if you don't think the players used the word "takeout".

[lamford]

nige1, on 2011-March-30, 14:49, said:

If partner's second double were take-out, I'd pass with say ♠ KQJx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQxxxxx

I might also venture a pass with that hand if partner's second double was penalties, although others might no doubt be worried about the occasional -670.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-March-30, 16:14, said:

And I suggest you re-read the OP if you don't think the players used the word "takeout".

My point was that in the OP that word was not used until after the board was completed, too late to affect whether there was MI. But I didn't realise you were trying to argue that there was no misbid, rather than that there was no MI.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-March-30, 13:28, said:

Burn gave excellent reasons why passing is normal, and I completely agree with him. South will have answered what he thought the pair's agreements are, and I can quite believe that there was no agreement, so if that is established South should be advised to answer more accurately next time, but there is clearly no damage from the MI. I play that double is takeout, but would still double en route to 3NT, and I would pass on the South hand. The double certainly shows extra values, and if partner does not have club support, he is very likely to have two or three spades. If I knew that partner was 2-4-5-2 I would still pass on the South hand.

And matchpoints is certainly the medium in which conceding an unlikely doubled part-score is most palatable.

Suppose partner is 1=4=5=3?

I know, you don't think he is. Nor do I, but I don't think it is a takeout double. If it is a takeout double I would take it out, for the excellent two reasons that I expect a better score on balance, and partners tend to get a little cross at masterminding penalty passes with no trumps.

[dburn]

jallerton, on 2011-March-30, 12:29, said:

I know that you have pledged not to agree with Bluejak for the next two weeks, but the basic principle of what he says is correct. The TD should investigate the facts, which in this case involves trying to ascertain what was going through South's head, consult if necessary, and rule accordingly.

Indeed. This is why I remarked that the Director should proceed by asking South why, if North was asking South to bid, South did not bid.

jallerton, on 2011-March-30, 12:29, said:

♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

True. With the ace of spades in addition, South would be on still firmer ground.