[PeterAlan]

I really don't buy this "fielded misbid" idea. It seems to me that before you can have a fielded misbid you have to have a misbid, and I just don't see how N's second double can be characterised that way. Yes, their agreement may be that it's for takeout, but what else is he supposed to do? S's already just repeated his ♣ in response to N's negative double, so he's not interested in ♥ and won't have a second ♦ suit either. It seems to me that bidding ♣, ♦, ♥ and (unless stopper-showing) ♠ are all out, bidding 2NT is obviously wrong (unless forcing), and 3NT isn't attractive with just a singleton in partner's suit and no alternative trick source. Pass is a recipe for playing in 2♠ undoubled, which can't be right. What's left for N to do to show extra values?

Yes, the second double obviously has some "competitive" overtones, but surely that's just bridge? If I was sitting W, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear it passed (though I hope I wouldn't have gone twice to the well, vulnerable, on that hand). And with an AK in his suit opposite a partner who has no interest in it, and an outside A, I'm not going to criticise S for converting it.

I've already endorsed relevant remarks about further enquiry. Having said that, in the absence on any evidence whatsoever of UI (and we've been given none), a jump to "nasty smell" conclusions and references to "cheating" just lead me to jump to "pre-judged" conclusions. But maybe I'm just naive.

[bluejak]

Either it has competitive overtones, in which case it is alertable, or it is pure takeout. Personally I play it as pure takeout. I do not see that you are allowed to misinform the opponents by not following the alerting rules and claim "It's just bridge" as a defence.

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2011-March-31, 08:51, said:

Either it has competitive overtones, in which case it is alertable, or it is pure takeout.

But how does South know which it is? Their agreement is takeout. You told me upthread not to worry about these things.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-March-31, 08:51, said:

Either it has competitive overtones, in which case it is alertable, or it is pure takeout. Personally I play it as pure takeout. I do not see that you are allowed to misinform the opponents by not following the alerting rules and claim "It's just bridge" as a defence.

Orange Book 4H6 said:

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 we're going to be that forensic, let's look at N's second double against this test.

• "A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand."
  
  N certainly doesn't want to play in 2♠ undoubled, but doesn't yet have enough information to decide himself on where to go. Tick.
  
  
• "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."
  
  N surely has significant extra values for his bidding to date, and is prepared for both ♥ and ♦ contracts (though S has shown no inclination to go there). Tick.
  
  
• "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."
  
  Partner has said in response to the query that he's been asked to bid, but his hand is indeed very suitable for defence etc. and he has chosen to pass. Tick.

So the double meets the take-out test. OB 5E2[a] instructs that a takeout double of this 2S bid is not alertable.

You seem to be following the remark in OB 5G4[c] that a double can not be both "takeout" and "competitive"; it would seem from the above and this thread that this is erroneous, and it can be just that. I don't see that S can be penalised for failing to resolve such discrepancies in OB wording at the table, especially when it's perfectly clear to everyone just what's going on.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-March-31, 08:51, said:

Either it has competitive overtones, in which case it is alertable, or it is pure takeout. Personally I play it as pure takeout. I do not see that you are allowed to misinform the opponents by not following the alerting rules and claim "It's just bridge" as a defence.

But they are not claiming this. They both stated it was takeout, and South stated "asking me to bid". Let us say that 50% of the world play it as takeout, and the other half play it as penalties - roughly what I am finding as I ask people, discounting the "don't know" majority. North cannot lose anything by doubling on this hand - he will be delighted if his partner passes. Even if you decide that the North hand is not a takeout double (although it conforms with the specifications for such in the OB), North is still entitled to make the bid, and South is still entitled to pass it unless there is a CPU, or some mannerism conveyed that North had more trumps than South might expect.

And we are often encouraged to assume that all pertinent facts have been presented in the OP. There is no point "asking South" on the forum - he or she has long left the playing area. But he will probably answer the question "why did you pass the takeout double?", with "because I thought it was a good idea at the time" - the same reason as most of making most bids. The idea of a "fielded misbid" is, quite frankly, laughable.

[mycroft]

If I have a 1-5-5-2 or 2-5-5-1 and the auction goes 1C-1S to me, I'm doubling if I don't have the strength for 2H. If it then goes p;2C-2S to me, I'm doubling again (of course, my partner and I have an explicit agreement - undiscussed 2-level doubles are takeout (undiscussed 3-level doubles are "action")). Yeah, partner might pass a clear massive misfit - the KQJx x xx AQJxxx above, or rebid his 8-card suit again; but I'm expecting him to bid a red suit. Yeah, I'll be happy if he decides to pass - because he'll have the hand in the previous sentence, knowing that I'm a big red hand. But if he passes on the hand in the OP, we're going for -670 into -100, -200 if I'm really unlucky.

Why did South pass this? "because it felt right". Why did it feel right? Almost certainly because he's seen his partner's "second round takeout" doubles before, and they look like this - no support for my suit, and not massively other-handed, so he can count on some trumps in the other hand. In fact, there's a good chance that it will be able to go CAK ruff and still get any trump trick we're entitled to. Which means that North is likely to be known (to South) to make doubles in this case with "action"-type hands, and South with pure defensive cards, but no known misfit feels safe floating this, knowing they don't have 6 trumps and a couple of long tricks (or even 7 trumps and a long club!) And South knows this, from experience, even if he can't consciously "know" it; and particularly even though they've never discussed it. No, I can't know that for certain, but I can (at the table) ask the questions that may lead me to find out.

Yes, you can shoehorn North's hand into the OB definition of "takeout", but it's almost an example hand for the OB definition of "competitive". South's hand, similarly, is a lot closer to "more suitable for defence" (than the auction shows) than "very suitable for defence" (in the context of the auction) - like Burn's example hand.

I'm happy to note that the explanation, such as it was, didn't cause any damage (-800 is the best they were getting); so I'd investigate why South felt this hand was "very suitable for defence" in the context of a one-suiter clubs facing an unlimited (mostly) red hand. If I found out that he expected the kind of hand that North had, then I'd tell them that that's a competitive, or "action" double, not (purely) takeout, according to the OB definitions; and that these action doubles are Alertable, and that they probably didn't realize that, and that they should do so in future (and possibly, discuss which ones are which explicitly). No damage, no rectification, do things right in future, carry on.

I've always thought that the concept of "fielded misbid" is misnamed, but the concept is valid. It has at its heart not "misbids", but a CPU/Implied PU ruling - "our agreement is X, but I'm going to bet that he has Y, because (I've seen it before|he's forgotten the last two times|'it feels right' - anything short of 'it's obvious to one of your students that he can't have X')" and voila, he does have Y. Some of it is a regulatory issue - "our agreement is X, but we don't have a hand for Y, but if I bid X and then do this, partner will figure it out" doesn't work if "X or Y" is an illegal agreement under the regulations, but if the pair does it anyway - and partner gets it - what do you do? Some of it is experience people don't feel like giving the opponents. Some of it is experience people can't give their opponents. Like fielded psychic, the traffic light system is a judgement of culpability, and "green" is allowed.

The big problem is that most of this isn't "misbid", it's undisclosed partnership understanding, knowledge or experience (even if the undisclosed experience is "he's been known to misbid in this auction". Sometimes it's undisclosable, because the person doesn't consciously know they know it. It is, however, not legal to base your judgement on information about your partner the opponents don't have, no matter what level of knowledge, specific to this partner, you have.

[AlexJonson]

If this was teams, then as South I would bid 3S and we would play in 3NT.

At Pairs I don't know, because I've never understood Pairs all that well. I could pass for 800 v 600 +.

Big risk since it could be 500 v 600.

Then it could be +200 v part score. How do really top class players resolve this at Pairs?

I think personally, this is a Bridge hand and not an ethics hand.

[nige1]

I've no idea what the ruling should be and I agree that
North's hand is an initial take-out double. Also
North's second double is an appropriate action but
What additional message does the second double convey over and above the first double?
Does it indicate a shapely take-out with diamonds as well as hearts? eg (2452 or 1552) ? or
Does it show a competitive pudding? (eg 3442 or 4432) and
Is it correct to describe the latter double as take-out?

IMO, however, the question for the director is not whether North's double is reasonable but
whether, in the light of South's explanation, South's pass with support for both North's advertised suits may hint at a concealed partnership understanding?.

I, too, would have doubled twice with the North hand..
As South, having read this thread, I will now describe the second double as "competitive".
I confess that before I read this thread, I might have misdescribed it as "take-out". but.
IMO "He wants me to bid" is over the top and seems gratuitous misinformation.

Similar case ....
You hold ♠ AKxx ♥ Axxx ♦ QJT98 ♣ - . A take-out double may be OK, when RHO opens 1♦. But if
Partner holds ♠ xxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ KQJxx and passes for penalties then the director has some grounds for suspicion.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2011-March-31, 15:24, said:

Similar case ....
You hold ♠ AKxx ♥ Axxx ♦ QJT98 ♣ - . A take-out double may be OK, when RHO opens 1♦. But if
Partner holds ♠ xxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ KQJxx and passes for penalties then the director has some grounds for suspicion.

I would agree that would be a little odd, and more suggestive of an illegal signalling system. But I don't think it is a similar case. Provided North's second double in this thread was not slow, nor accompanied by any gesture or mannerism.

[Poky]

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.

First of all, not all the doubles mean the same. And not all people are very good at understanding and/or defining them. The classic (and most profitable) meaning of double in this sequence is "negative". And a negative double is negative because denies (negates) the fact that their contract (if passed out and played) could be in the long run a good contract for our side. In most cases you have takeout shape for bidding a negative double, this is true, but sometimes you just do not. And you have to bid those hands anyway. And this is what probably happened here.

North doubled the 2nd time and south started to think:
- "hmmm, partner doubled twice, so, he should have good (at least invitational) values"
- "hmmm, my partner didn't bid nor 2♦ neither 2♥ forcing, therefore, he doesn't hold those hands"
- "hmmm, my partner didn't bid 3♠ on 2♠, he doesn't have much club support and/or he thinks that for some reason X could give us better result"
- "hmm, my partner didn't bid 2NT/3NT, he thinks that for some reason X could give us better result"
- "hmmm, opponents didn't raise spades and I have just two small ones"
...
And all this thinking, looking at the two small spades, heavily leads to the assumption partner has (3)4 spades in his range. If this is true, a pass in the long run with AK+A (with a hand that doesn't guarantee a game can be made even if partner is 12-ish) could even be a profitable MP move.

Certainly, it is true that sometimes North will have some 2443 shape, but this is more probable in theory than in practice.

In given context it would be pretty absurd to rule "fielded misbid" when there are so many bridge-reasons for making this move (which was just a little bit gambling). Except if you just want to punish them (in a wrong way) for saying "takeout" except "negative" - where is absolutely clear what opener meant (and his further bids are a clear evidence).

A good director should primarily focus at the tempo of second double (and potential UI arosen) because this is the most probable way the damage (if any) could have be done.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2011-March-30, 08:27, said:

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.

This sums up the situation to me. I'm happy to accept that this leaves room to make a case for MI on the hand under discussion, but as I suspect will often be the case it is much harder to make a case for damage! The idea of a fielded misbid seems very contrived, though.

Of course if the second double was slow then UI considerations might well point to an adjusted score....

[bluejak]

StevenG, on 2011-March-31, 09:17, said:

But how does South know which it is? Their agreement is takeout. You told me upthread not to worry about these things.

How does he know which it is? Well, when my partner opens 1♠ it shows at least four spades, because that is our agreement. For many, many people, when their partner opens 1♠ it shows five spades, because that is their agreement.

When 1♠ is opened, how does partner know whether it shows at least four spades, or at least five spades? By their agreements, of course.

So, in the given sequence, how does partner know whether it is a takeout double, or a competitive double? By their agreements, surely.

PeterAlan, on 2011-March-31, 11:07, said:

You seem to be following the remark in OB 5G4[c] that a double can not be both "takeout" and "competitive"; it would seem from the above and this thread that this is erroneous, and it can be just that. I don't see that S can be penalised for failing to resolve such discrepancies in OB wording at the table, especially when it's perfectly clear to everyone just what's going on.

A double is either takeout or competitive [or several other things]. Any double except takeout is alertable. I do not understand how you say it can be both. Of course, many hands my look the same.

Compare opening 1♠. A player may open 1♠ holding five spades. That does not mean he is playing five card majors, he may be playing four card majors and just have a suitable hand for either four or five card majors.

Similarly competitive and takeout doubles show different things. That does not mean that a specific hand will not double playing either: it means that not every hand is suitable for both.

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 07:04, said:

So, in the given sequence, how does partner know whether it is a takeout double, or a competitive double? By their agreements, surely.

Which brings me back to my original question. With only a meta-agreement that a double is essentially takeout, how does one decide at the table whether it best described as competitive or as takeout. I can assure you that if I were to ask any of my partners whether our doubles were takeout or competitive, not one would know what was meant by a competitive double. Nor indeed, would 99% of the non-anoraks in any bridge club.

I would have doubled as North on this hand. That is my general style. Perhaps we should alert all doubles in competitive auctions since they are essentially "do something sensible partner" doubles on balanced-ish hands with values. Then when opponents ask we can say "competitive" and hope they are constrained by the UI they have accidentally (and needlessly) created. Even better, they might actually assume it's penalty and go horribly wrong.

[RMB1]

StevenG, on 2011-April-01, 08:24, said:

Which brings me back to my original question. With only a meta-agreement that a double is essentially takeout, how does one decide at the table whether it best described as competitive or as takeout. I can assure you that if I were to ask any of my partners whether our doubles were takeout or competitive, not one would know what was meant by a competitive double. Nor indeed, would 99% of the non-anoraks in any bridge club.

I don't see the problem in alerting and explaining your agreements: don't invent explicit agreements you don't have, don't use the word "competitive" if your opponents will not understand (but you could borrow some of the wording from the Orange Book). If you have no real understanding whether it is takeout or more competitive then say so. This way the opponents will know you are both guessing and they won't be surprised if the double is passed out when you both hold balanced hands.

Once you recognise that your agreements are ill-defined then disclosure is not too difficult. The problems arise when people say they have definite agreements and their partner has bid differently.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 07:04, said:

A double is either takeout or competitive [or several other things]. Any double except takeout is alertable. I do not understand how you say it can be both.

I realise you don't, David, but if you will forgive my saying so you do not always show a recognition of where other posters are coming from.

Let me put, as clearly and simply as I can, why I differ from you.

3 is an odd number. 3 is also a prime number. It is not either odd or prime in an exclusive sense, and I hope you understand how it can be both. Oddness and primality are well-defined, and capable of precise testing: if we have two computer programs, one that tests for oddness and one that tests for primality, 3 will satisfy both if we put it through them. We conclude that 3 is both odd and prime.

Here we have two pretty precise definitions of "competitive" doubles (OB 4H5) and "takeout" doubles (OB 4H6). We embody these definitions in two computer programs, and put this double through them. I have already said why it passes the "takeout" test, and I would agree with Mycroft that it also passes the "competitive" test. We conclude that it is both.

You seem to have a viewpoint that says "these have different names, and they are different things", and are unable to depart from this in your thinking. It may be that in drafting the OB definitions you intended them to be exclusive, and believed that you had achieved this. If so, I think you are mistaken, for the reasons above.

Moving on, there is also a second, more fundamental, problem: the Procrustean nature of the regulatory regime - you invent a bunch of categories, and, like Procrustes, you try to fit "double" bids precisely into one (or more) of them. What we find, however, is that real life doesn't always fit the Procrustean bed, and it requires a lot of chopping or stretching to achieve those ends.

Just as colours run in a continuous spectrum, so do doubles in real life, and sometimes trying to say whether a double is "takeout" or "competitive" makes no more sense than trying to say whether purple is red or, instead, blue. The partnership members won't always have just the same take on a particular bid, which may be bluer to one and redder to the other, and their respective views will also be coloured by the cards in their hands: the goal of an totally objective categorisation is ultimately chimerical.

At some conceptual level, therefore, any attempt to pigeon-hole doubles - and hence partnership agreements about doubles - in the OB manner is fundamentally misconceived: on a practical day-to-day level, of course, it is both required and helpful, so long as one is alert to its limitations. It is with doubles like this that the limitations are exposed; when that happens, it is time to bring common sense to bear, and not to be too dogmatic. It would be seriously worrying if players came to feel forced to subordinate their bridge judgments to some arbitrary set of regulatory requirements. And let's not forget that the real purpose is that opponents should know the real meaning of the bid, not that they can attach some particular label to it.

None of this is to deny the immense value of making sensible arrangements to regulate partnership agreements, to ensure proper disclosure, and to deal with CPUs: by-and-large, I think the arrangements are very good. But please don't go into denial when difficult areas are highlighted - and those, after all, are the ones most likely to be the subject of posts here.

[campboy]

It may or may not be the case that "takeout" and "competitive" are not mutually exclusive, but I do not think it matters very much. If a double is both competitive and takeout, then describing it as "takeout" is not full disclosure, because it is also competitive and that has not been mentioned.

[PeterAlan]

campboy, on 2011-April-01, 10:14, said:

It may or may not be the case that "takeout" and "competitive" are not mutually exclusive, but I do not think it matters very much. If a double is both competitive and takeout, then describing it as "takeout" is not full disclosure, because it is also competitive and that has not been mentioned.

I agree - the more general point only matters because in certain places (eg 5G5) the OB uses "must not" in relation to alerting takeout doubles.

No doubt I had too much time on my hands when I composed my previous post, but I would still come back to the point that what really matters is that the opponents understand the bid, not that it has a particuar label attached to it. In cases like this, the regulatory regime has become a bit too hung up on labels, with understanding taking second place. This leads to regulatory, rather than bidding, problems that it's hard to solve at the table.

[blackshoe]

In general, it is probably best to describe partner's call by explaining what kind of hands he can have, given that he made the call. So a descriptive label, whether of a double or a bid, is in general inadequate disclosure. The ACBL alert regulation codifies this: it says "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." The "natural" meaning of "double" is "penalty" — "takeout" is a convention. So "takeout", or "competitive", or other label isn't enough. Consider a double in second seat of an opening suit bid (at various levels). At the one level, it might be described as "(10)12+ points, ideally 4441 distribution, but possibly some 4432 or 5431. Partner is expected to bid a suit unless he has sufficient enemy trumps to pass for penalties". At the two level, it might be a little stronger, or a little longer in the enemy suit. By the time you get to the four level it might be described much as a two or three level double, but with much more distributional variance, and "partner may well leave it in". But getting bridge players, creatures of habit all, to change from "takeout" to a fuller disclosure is not going to be an easy task. No doubt even this post will get responses along the lines of "that's too much, too harsh. Players won't do it."

[mjj29]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-01, 09:58, said:

3 is an odd number. 3 is also a prime number. It is not either odd or prime in an exclusive sense, and I hope you understand how it can be both. Oddness and primality are well-defined, and capable of precise testing: if we have two computer programs, one that tests for oddness and one that tests for primality, 3 will satisfy both if we put it through them. We conclude that 3 is both odd and prime.

The question is not "is _this_ hand only suitable for a takeout double or a competitive double" but "what possible hands _could_ double here". Of course there are hands that would double if the agreed meaning was takeout and would also double if the agreed meaning was competitive, the opposition are entitled to know what the agreed meaning is. A better test is to dream up a hand which would _only_ double if it were takeout and not competitive (and vice versa) - would partner expect the doubler to be able to hold that hand.

The other way to look at it (which is the way which the EBU regulations are generally modelled) is "what sort of hands will leave the double in". If partner is expected to leave the double in on a hand which doesn't really have any clear cut action - then it's definitely competitive and not takeout (in which case, with no clear action partner will generally try and find the cheapest thing to pull to).

Matt

[bluejak]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-01, 09:58, said:

I realise you don't, David, but if you will forgive my saying so you do not always show a recognition of where other posters are coming from.

Let me put, as clearly and simply as I can, why I differ from you.

3 is an odd number. 3 is also a prime number. It is not either odd or prime in an exclusive sense, and I hope you understand how it can be both. Oddness and primality are well-defined, and capable of precise testing: if we have two computer programs, one that tests for oddness and one that tests for primality, 3 will satisfy both if we put it through them. We conclude that 3 is both odd and prime.

Here we have two pretty precise definitions of "competitive" doubles (OB 4H5) and "takeout" doubles (OB 4H6). We embody these definitions in two computer programs, and put this double through them. I have already said why it passes the "takeout" test, and I would agree with Mycroft that it also passes the "competitive" test. We conclude that it is both.

Your presumption that I disagree with posters because I do not understand them is a view, but I do not think it right: I disagree with them because I think they are wrong.

Of course 3 is both odd and prime: that proves nothing whatever as to whether a double is takeout or competitive.

There seem to me from this thread to be a number of views on how to play this double, but the three most common ones are penalties, where the doubler may be expected to have a trump holding, competitive where the doubler is probably expected at worst to be balanced, and takeout, where th doublier promises nothing about trumps and may be short. If you play the double as the middle type where someone who passes has an expectation of - at least - a balanced hand then you are not playing takeout doubles and your doubles are alertable.

My judgement may be poor, but the reason I don't pass the double playing with my favourite partner was expressed well by mycroft: if partner is 1=5=5=2 I think 2♠ doubled is a poor idea. If partner is known to be balanced, then it is an alertable double.