[dburn]

There seems to be a school of thought, based in Surrey with offshoots in the Wirral, that what the OB really ought to say is this:

4H2 A penalty double promises at least four trump tricks.

4H6 A takeout double will be passed only if partner has at least four trump tricks.

It ain't so, Joe. A takeout double will be passed only if partner has "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date". That doesn't mean four trump tricks, although it would be nice if he had them - it certainly extends to ace-king-ace by way of high cards, only five cards in a suit he has rebid, and no more than three cards in either of the unbid suits in which the doubler is supposed to have length.

I confess myself baffled by talk of 1=5=5=2 opposite. If I had 1=5=5=2 with enough strength to force partner to bid at the three level, and it went 1♣ opposite - 1♠ to my right, I'd bid 2♥ - wouldn't you?

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 17:43, said:

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.

Fair enough, but when you persist in merely making assertions and never addressing their arguments to the contrary this is the impression you leave with me at least.

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 17:43, said:

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

I thought that this metaphor might provide a useful lead in to my next paragraph, but clearly not.

bluejak, on 2011-April-01, 17:43, said:

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.

You say so, I would probably agree with you on a practical, everyday basis, but my point is and always has been that this is not what OB says. I have said why I think the original double ticks all the boxes for the OB's definition of a takeout double, and all you ever say by way of response is "it's competitive so can't be takeout". I respond that, like it or not, it seems to me that in OB's terms it can apparently be both. But I don't want to waste more of your time - or mine - on it. May I just close by assuring you that I do understand where you're coming from, even if I don't actually agree with you in purely regulatory terms.

[PeterAlan]

dburn, on 2011-April-01, 20:03, said:

I confess myself baffled by talk of 1=5=5=2 opposite. If I had 1=5=5=2 with enough strength to force partner to bid at the three level, and it went 1♣ opposite - 1♠ to my right, I'd bid 2♥ - wouldn't you?

Yep, never got beyond Negative Double 101, me:

1♣ (1♠) X shows 4 hearts
1♣ (1♠) 2♥ shows 5+

In fact, I'd bid both N's and S's hands exactly the way they did, but I'm just an ordinary Portland Pairs punter. I'm taking the 5th on my alerts / explanations.

Just as well we had the E/W cards.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-April-01, 20:03, said:

There seems to be a school of thought, based in Surrey with offshoots in the Wirral, that what the OB really ought to say is this:

4H2 A penalty double promises at least four trump tricks.

4H6 A takeout double will be passed only if partner has at least four trump tricks.

It ain't so, Joe. A takeout double will be passed only if partner has "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date". That doesn't mean four trump tricks, although it would be nice if he had them - it certainly extends to ace-king-ace by way of high cards, only five cards in a suit he has rebid, and no more than three cards in either of the unbid suits in which the doubler is supposed to have length.

I confess myself baffled by talk of 1=5=5=2 opposite. If I had 1=5=5=2 with enough strength to force partner to bid at the three level, and it went 1♣ opposite - 1♠ to my right, I'd bid 2♥ - wouldn't you?

No, the "school of thought" in Surrey, The Wirral, Cambridge and elsewhere is that players should dislose their methods properly to the opposition.

Mycroft gives an eloquent explanation as to why one might hold a 1=5=5=2 shape and want to make a "take-out" double in this situation; many theorists (including you, I suspect) would regard 3♦ as forcing after 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-2NT-(P) or 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-3♣-(P).

Yes, xx Axx J9x AKxxx has more defence that some other hands that might bid this way, but the AAK will also be very useful when declaring the hand (and even the diamonds will be pulling their weight if, as we are told by someone who plays double as "take-out" in this position that the second double implies length in diamonds.

However, to suggest that this hand with a trump "stack" of a low doubleton is "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date" is quite amazing.

If you are playing the double as showing a balanced hand, or "competitive" or "co-operative", then it is your duty to describe it as such, when asked.

In this case, the opening post explains:

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

The second double was not alerted, and on enquiry explained as "asking me to bid".
....................
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.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-April-03, 03:38, said:

However, to suggest that this hand with a trump "stack" of a low doubleton is "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date" is quite amazing.

The "quite amazing" assertion is yours. In the old days of Culbertson and Lenz the only requirement for an opening bid was a certain number of "quick defensive tricks" of which this hand has 3. The average number of defensive tricks for 100 hands opened at the one level sampled on OK bridge was 1.2, so this hand is very suitable for defence, especially so in the context of our actions to date. Parner will not have length in clubs, as he would have supported them rather than make a takeout double. As dburn states, we did not rebid 1NT, presumably with the values to do so, as otherwise we would have opened 1NT, so partner is not expecting us to have trump tricks. If you are going to argue that this hand is not suitable for a pass, then do so by considering the reasons others have submitted, rather than distorting the issue with phrases such as "trump stack of a low doubleton". We are comparing pass with, presumably, bidding our five-card club suit for a third time. It is no contest, but what I find wrong is that you should be deciding how North-South should bid based on your views of the correct action. All we need to decide, based on the balance of probability, is whether they have wrongly explained their methods, and whether they have a CPU. There is not a shred of evidence of either. And it is not really relevant whether they have misexplained their methods - as the MI has not damaged E/W.

And this is another thread that has gone round and round in circles, so I shall not be posting again on it, as the same arguments are being repeated.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Jeremy's articles for English Bridge only covered the very basic situations and skirted carefully around anything more difficult.

Well it's true that I have written an article for the required market but also true that it isa notihng like as difficult as some people like to make out. If we can leave doubles of transfer completion aside for the moment then the rules up to and including 3NT are not hard:

They bid a suit: double is take out no alert, anything else do alert. This not only includes penalty doubles but, for example, support doubles.
They bid a suit artificially: doulbe shows that suit otherwise alert
They bid NT naturally: Double is for penalty. Anything else alert.

If people could manage that then it would cover 99.8% of all doubles. I agree that there are one or two situations that could be better explained but problems don't generally arise from these except in the strange world of this forum. Let's call it "pedantworld" The OB update in August will seek to cover a few of the 0.2% more clearly (I hesitate to say better).

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Is it really? I play it as penalties in every partnership.

I fear you have played two or three matches in a partnership where at least one person thought this was not true. Perhaps it can be clarified before (if) we play Round 5!

[dburn]

Partner doubles 4♥ for takeout. If I would pass - as I would - with

♠32 ♥5432 ♦5432 ♣432

should I, on enquiry, explain his double as "competitive"?

[campboy]

It is true that there are hands with four trumps on which it is normal to pass a takeout double at the four level; it does not follow that there are hands with two trumps on which it is normal to pass a takeout double at the two level.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-April-03, 14:03, said:

It is true that there are hands with four trumps on which it is normal to pass a takeout double at the four level; it does not follow that there are hands with two trumps on which it is normal to pass a takeout double at the two level.

Of course not. But the point is this: "very suitable for defence" does not mean "I can beat this contract in my own hand." What it means is "it is very likely that if I pass and we defend, we will score better than if I bid and we don't", even if "better" means minus 690 instead of minus 1100.

You (and others) have to get away from the idea that passing a takeout double is something you should do only with a trump stack. It isn't; nor is a takeout double defined (in the EBU regulations or anywhere else) as "a double that is passed only with a trump stack".

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-April-03, 14:50, said:

Of course not. But the point is this: "very suitable for defence" does not mean "I can beat this contract in my own hand." What it means is "it is very likely that if I pass and we defend, we will score better than if I bid and we don't", even if "better" means minus 690 instead of minus 1100.

Well yes, but whatever the double means I will only pass if it is likely that we will score better defending; that does not mean all doubles are takeout. The issue is: what assumptions do you need to make about partner's hand before it becomes likely that passing will score better?

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-April-03, 16:04, said:

Well yes, but whatever the double means I will only pass if it is likely that we will score better defending; that does not mean all doubles are takeout. The issue is: what assumptions do you need to make about partner's hand before it becomes likely that passing will score better?

Of course all doubles aren't for takeout. When one passes a takeout double, the implication is that "even though partner really wants me to bid and really doesn't want me to pass, I think we will score better if I pass". It could certainly be wrong to pass out 4♥ doubled with a 2=4=4=3 Yarborough; partner might have a 4=0=5=4 27-count with no jacks, and been about to raise whichever suit we bid to seven. But cases of the kind are rare; most of the time he won't have that, and we'll score less badly if I pass than we will if I don't.

The "assumptions you need to make about partner's hand" are that on average, he'll have an average takeout double. If facing one of those you think it very likely that you will do better by passing than bidding, you explain double as "takeout" and you pass it.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-April-05, 13:24, said:

Of course all doubles aren't for takeout. When one passes a takeout double, the implication is that "even though partner really wants me to bid and really doesn't want me to pass, I think we will score better if I pass".

Exactly. So what does a North hand which really doesn't want South to pass look like, and is it very likely that this South hand will do better by passing if North has such a hand?

[nige1]

North's first double is "take-out", so South has already denied four hearts. Allegedly North's second double is also "take-out" and "a request to bid". In spite of this, many posters think that South should pass on his actual hand. As South, with what hypothetical hand would they take-out the double? Would they need at least four diamonds and/or at least six clubs? Or would they need a more freakish hand?

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2011-April-03, 16:04, said:

The issue is: what assumptions do you need to make about partner's hand before it becomes likely that passing will score better?

And we have all the assumptions we need on this one. Partner is not 5-5 in the reds. does not like clubs for a trump suit, and has extra values above what his previous double showed. Yet there are those who still insist that those assumptions are not true.

[dburn]

nige1, on 2011-April-05, 15:46, said:

North's first double is "take-out", so South has already denied four hearts. Allegedly North's second double is also "take-out" and "a request to bid". In spite of this, many posters think that South should pass on his actual hand. As South, with what hypothetical hand would they take-out the double? Would they need at least four diamonds and/or at least six clubs? Or would they need a more freakish hand?

I am not sure that "many posters" think South should pass on the actual hand; initially at any rate, quite a few posters seemed to think that it was inconsistent for South to describe North's second double as "takeout" and then pass on the actual hand. One of those posters seemed to think it sufficiently inconsistent that South could be found guilty of fielding a misbid, so that East-West would actually receive an adjusted score.

As to what I would take out the takeout double with: if I had four diamonds and had been unable or unwilling to bid 2♦ at my first turn because that showed a reverse (a method employed by many world-class partnerships), I would almost always bid; if I were an Italian World Champion I would bid almost whatever I had, because that is the way they play; 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 I had ♠xx ♥Axx ♦Jx ♣KQJxxx I would bid 3♣.

But if I were an ordinary Joe playing with another ordinary Joe such as myself (admittedly not allowed in the Portland Pairs, nor in jurisdictions where cloning is illegal) I would regard an average takeout double as roughly ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦AKQx ♣xx, and I would explain it as takeout and then pass it (we don't have a game; the vulnerable opponents are very likely down at least one in two spades doubled; yet I really did not want me to pass with the vast majority of hands with which I would open 1♣ and rebid 2♣, since those would not contain three fast tricks and only five clubs). I would almost certainly not double at my second turn with ♠xx ♥KJxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx, but if I did (as North) and passed (as South) and the contract made, I am sure that I would still be on speaking terms with myself afterwards - I might even buy myself a drink.

Admittedly, this has something to do with the fact that I would never double twice (or even once) with such as ♠x ♥KJxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx - but to campboy or to mycroft or to bluejak or to the pettifogger who apparently sat West at the table, this is what North "should" or "must" have for the actual sequence. Admittedly also, this has something to do with the fact that North had a hand unique in my experience: he would double if it were for penalty, or for takeout, or anything else from the very highest point on the continuum to the very lowest. But I cannot help that: as I said some time ago, what the Director ought to have done is to ask South why South explained the double as takeout and then didn't take it out. I don't know whether South was the male or the female member of the pair in question, but if the latter, maybe she and I should play in the Portland Pairs sometime. We seem to understand bidding.

[aguahombre]

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

I don't know whether South was the male or the female member of the pair in question, but if the latter, maybe she and I should play in the Portland Pairs sometime. We seem to understand bidding.

Exactly.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-05, 20:00, said:

Exactly.

Reading the original post more carefully, I observe that South explained North's double as "he wants me to bid". You know my methods, Watson...

[nige1]

dburn, on 2011-April-05, 20:15, said:

Reading the original post more carefully, I observe that South explained North's double as "he wants me to bid". You know my methods, Watson...

We know your partner's first double was take-out so you've already denied hearts. Now, we seem to have established that, for DBurn and Co, partner's second double is correctly described as "take-out" and "he wants me to bid", although partner normally expects you to pass unless you have four diamonds and/or six clubs (or a more freakish hand). If I'm misrepresenting anybody, I apologise.

[campboy]

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

Admittedly, this has something to do with the fact that I would never double twice (or even once) with such as ♠x ♥KJxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx - but to campboy or to mycroft or to bluejak or to the pettifogger who apparently sat West at the table, this is what North "should" or "must" have for the actual sequence.

Did I say that? Of course you will not have 5-5 in the reds, even for a "takeout" double, although come to think of it I don't really know what someone who plays double as takeout here might have, since the way I play this double is better described as "competitive".

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, so I asked for a typical hand for the double. Now that you have given one (♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦AKQx ♣xx) I contend that quite a lot of hands would pass if expecting that sort of hand opposite, too many for "partner is expected to take out" to be satisfied.