[VixTD]

---

The first double was not alerted, negative (takeout).
The second double was not alerted, and on enquiry explained as "asking me to bid".

Result: 2♠X(W)-3, NS +800

The director was called at the end of play by West, who queried the description of the second double as "takeout". Both North and South said that their agreement was that the second double was for takeout.

How should the director proceed?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2011-March-29, 07:25, said:

How should the director proceed?

Ask E/W what infraction has occurred and how they have been damaged.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2011-March-29, 07:52, said:

Ask E/W what infraction has occurred and how they have been damaged.

Indeed! You might also ask S why they passed the double if it was for take-out, but if the answer is that there was no attractive bid and it seemed like there was a good chance there were enough tricks to beat 2♠, then it is not clear there has been any infraction. Even if the way they play the second double is really more value-showing than take-out, with an expectation that it will be left in a reasonable amount of the time there there may have been MI but there is no obvious sign of damage - do E/W think they would have bid something else if they had thought the double was more penalty-orientated, and that if they had then they would have got a better score?

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2011-March-29, 09:13, said:

do E/W think they would have bid something else if they had thought the double was more penalty-orientated, and that if they had then they would have got a better score?

I would be more tactful and ask E-W whether they preferred 3DX-7 or 3HX-7, when they wouldn't feel too grand, although they would score -2000. 3CX-5 for -1400 is the other option.

[bluejak]

This smells. If North has a perfectly normal 2443 hand with 14 points 6♣ and 2♠ might both be making. No doubt it is technically true that the TD should ask E/W how they had been damaged but I would find it difficult to blame them if I got a very unfortunate reply like "I don't know, I just don't like cheating opponents."

Of course it is perfectly possible that there was merely MI. One of the strangenesses of bridge in this country is that some people despite all their experience still think only two types of double exist - penalties and takeout - so if partner makes a double which is neither by their agreements they still call it one or the other without intending to mislead.

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.

If, as seems more likely, it is merely MI, then a lecture on the importance of informing opponents fully and freely seems indicated.

Thinking about it further, the TD must really investigate, because another explanation for the sequence has occurred to me: UI. Perhaps North's demeanour convinced South that this might be the time to pass?

[lamford]

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

This smells. If North has a perfectly normal 2443 hand with 14 points 6♣ and 2♠ might both be making.

Indeed they might. But if we move North's two smallest spades to East and two of East's clubs to North, then we cannot even make Five Clubs, and yet we are still collecting 500 from 2SX without a trump trick. It is true we can make 4♥ in the Moysian, but only because North has the ten of hearts.

North's second double is indeed played by most pairs as takeout, and, I expect, by this pair. South has a normal pass when North shows extra values holding AK, A and partner unlikely to have primary club support. North might have bid 3NT instead, but he is quite entitled to try double first.

Now if there is was a gesture, mannerism or the like which suggested to South that he passes, I would agree with you entirely. As 73B2 states, it is the gravest possible offence.

[TMorris]

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

One of the strangenesses of bridge in this country is that some people despite all their experience still think only two types of double exist - penalties and takeout - so if partner makes a double which is neither by their agreements they still call it one or the other without intending to mislead.

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.

[shintaro]

lamford, on 2011-March-29, 09:46, said:

I would be more tactful and ask E-W whether they preferred 3DX-7 or 3HX-7, when they wouldn't feel too grand, although they would score -2000. 3CX-5 for -1400 is the other option.

agree with Paul offer E/W a 'Higson'

[ahydra]

If I was E or W and you offered me -2000, I'd say "i'll redouble for 4000, it's a bottom anyway "

Odd that N would make a takeout double with a non-takeouty shape. Wonder how many others would've bid 3NT instead? Hopefully North didn't bid X and then somehow indicate unlawfully to his partner that he meant it as penalty.

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.

ahydra

[PrecisionL]

lamford, on 2011-March-29, 10:10, said:

North's second double is indeed played by most pairs as takeout, and, I expect, by this pair. South has a normal pass when North shows extra values holding AK, A and partner unlikely to have primary club support. North might have bid 3NT instead, but he is quite entitled to try double first.

Really? I don't think so, North has already doubled and his partner said he had a one suited hand. The second double is for PENALTY!

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-March-29, 10:10, said:

North's second double is indeed played by most pairs as takeout, and, I expect, by this pair. South has a normal pass when North shows extra values holding AK, A and partner unlikely to have primary club support. North might have bid 3NT instead, but he is quite entitled to try double first.

Now if there is was a gesture, mannerism or the like which suggested to South that he passes, I would agree with you entirely. As 73B2 states, it is the gravest possible offence.

Is it really? I play it as penalties in every partnership.
The other 'trendy' meaning is to play it as asking for a spade stop.

[barmar]

PrecisionL, on 2011-March-29, 13:57, said:

Really? I don't think so, North has already doubled and his partner said he had a one suited hand. The second double is for PENALTY!

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.

[jallerton]

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

This smells. If North has a perfectly normal 2443 hand with 14 points 6♣ and 2♠ might both be making. No doubt it is technically true that the TD should ask E/W how they had been damaged but I would find it difficult to blame them if I got a very unfortunate reply like "I don't know, I just don't like cheating opponents."

Of course it is perfectly possible that there was merely MI. One of the strangenesses of bridge in this country is that some people despite all their experience still think only two types of double exist - penalties and takeout - so if partner makes a double which is neither by their agreements they still call it one or the other without intending to mislead.

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.

If, as seems more likely, it is merely MI, then a lecture on the importance of informing opponents fully and freely seems indicated.

Thinking about it further, the TD must really investigate, because another explanation for the sequence has occurred to me: UI. Perhaps North's demeanour convinced South that this might be the time to pass?

I agree with this. There are several possible explanations, some entirely innocent, of this sequence having occurred. The TD needs to be very careful and tactful in his questioning, to try to ascertain what was going through South's mind.

[PeterAlan]

jallerton, on 2011-March-29, 15:57, said:

There are several possible explanations, some entirely innocent, of this sequence having occurred. The TD needs to be very careful and tactful in his questioning, to try to ascertain what was going through South's mind.

I agree with this. Even with my limited experience, I've seen enough to realise that jumping to conclusions about what might have happened is asking to be wide of the mark.

As it happens, I was interested in this board (Board 23 of the first session), and looked up the traveller. It was played 125 times: N/S played in game 91 times, and in partscore 6 times. Of the 28 times it was played E/W, 23 were in 2♠X by W, 3 in 3♠X and just once in 2♠ undoubled. I can imagine that there were plenty of WJOs, but I don't suppose that all 21 of the other 2♠X arose from N passing S's re-opening double.

If you're not just reading along, you'll see that I've given 27, not 28, E/W contracts. At our table, S opened the sort of nebulous 1♣ that says "I'm here" but not much more, my partner overcalled 1♠, and N passed, presumably waiting for a re-opening double or something. He's still waiting; we played in 1♠ making 5 tricks for -200.

PeterAlan

[dburn]

VixTD, on 2011-March-29, 07:25, said:

How should the director proceed?

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

[gordontd]

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, the EBU splits up doubles of suits into takeout and others, not takeout and penalty.

[StevenG]

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 mee.

[gordontd]

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

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"?

A double does not stop being for takeout simply because partner might choose to convert it to penalty - indeed that's a feature of all takeout doubles.

[TMorris]

gordontd, on 2011-March-30, 03:36, said:

No, the EBU splits up doubles of suits into takeout and others, not takeout and penalty.

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.

[StevenG]

gordontd, on 2011-March-30, 05:12, said:

A double does not stop being for takeout simply because partner might choose to convert it to penalty - indeed that's a feature of all takeout doubles.

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. But at the table I have no idea - after all, we're both just muddling through, trying to find the best score on this particular hand.