[AL78]

---

The double wasn't alerted, and when 2♦ came round to me, I would have liked to make a takeout double, but there was too much risk of partner taking it as penalties and passing. One off in 2♦ was an average minus. Almost everyone else is making 7 or 8 tricks in 1NT our way, a few in a heart contract vmaking or going off.

[mycroft]

Yep, you're right. You would like to have it be takeout, and there is too much risk of it being understood as penalty and passing.

That's why I play that double (and 1NT-(2♦)-X) as takeout. But it's an agreement you have to have with your partner, and I would not assume the agreement with a pickup, in North America or on BBO.

[AL78]

mycroft, on 2020-August-21, 15:00, said:

Yep, you're right. You would like to have it be takeout, and there is too much risk of it being understood as penalty and passing.

That's why I play that double (and 1NT-(2♦)-X) as takeout. But it's an agreement you have to have with your partner, and I would not assume the agreement with a pickup, in North America or on BBO.

This was with a regular partner, but it is becoming apparent we need to have more discussion on what bids and doubles mean/show in a competitive auction. She got back to me after the session and said she had the same desire to double for takeout but wasn't sure if I would take it as showing the majors or penalty.

[DavidKok]

I would strongly suggest playing takeout doubles if opponents overcall your strong NT, both as a direct bid or when running out of a penalty double (so 1NT-(2♥)-X is takeout as well, as is 1NT-(2♥)-P-(P)-X). Some people play that only the first double is takeout and the rest is penalty, or that takeout doubles only apply up to 2♥ (so not on 2♠). Most of the time their bid will promise length and/or strength anyway, so it is not likely you can punish them. Conversely, over a weak NT penalty doubles by partner can be sensible.

[mycroft]

I actually find the opposite to be true (but I lean toward takeout doubles over all NT ranges these days). But unlike your area, I know I am strongly influenced by playing in the homogenous(*) ACBL.

We switched (after many years of playing penalty doubles) to takeout doubles after our K/S 1NT was interfered with, and will never go back. Yes, we lose the odd 500 when they step out wrong, but for every one of those, there were three or four hands where we don't want them to play 2-of-a-fit, but don't know where to play, which scored 30%/-5 IMPs a board each time against the room full of strong NTers. Now, we get to compete. And occasionally, opener passes the double, and we get some of our 500s back; and sometimes we balance-double with "a takeout double", and catch partner with the penalty pass.

Playing a strong NT, in my area, takeout doubles of interference are very rare (there are areas where that is different). Therefore, playing the same system as the field produces the same results as the field (plus something for our skillful defence :-). Takeout still would come up more often, but at least we will have lots of company when we can't bid it.

Obviously, in a field like "club Britain", where 75% are playing weak NT, the relative results of the two ideas are different.

Just know that whatever you decide, tomorrow the other hand will come up.

* "As you know, you always have to start with a homogenous chorus. I know a lot of people are going to say that isn't homogenous, that's homogeneous. But that isn't what I mean: I mean homogenous, as in milk." - Anna Russell, 'How to Write your own Gilbert and Sullivan'

[FelicityR]

I would have called the director. North's hand doesn't warrant a Dbl. of a Weak No Trump, let alone a Strong No Trump whatsoever.

Irrespective of your agreements, which you honestly admit were lacking to deal with the opponents' intervention, I would have kicked up a fuss here. Something doesn't feel quite right here.

[Stephen Tu]

FelicityR, on 2020-August-23, 00:56, said:

I would have called the director. North's hand doesn't warrant a Dbl. of a Weak No Trump, let alone a Strong No Trump whatsoever.

Irrespective of your agreements, which you honestly admit were lacking to deal with the opponents' intervention, I would have kicked up a fuss here. Something doesn't feel quite right here.

????Director! I don't think opponents should be allowed to make bad bids!!!????
Seriously, if I was directing I'd laugh at this complaint. Opponents are allowed to make weird, in theory bad bids. It's EW fault for not having agreements on how to compete after the runout. If east thinks double might be interpreted as penalty, can always try 2H which should deny 5 from failure to transfer (or whatever single suited runout measure is in place), which should work out well if partner has either major, as with spades and not hearts west should try 2S. But good to have takeout dbls as agreement IMO.

If North thinks 14 is enough to double for penalty, he's allowed to do so. More often South will have some stronger hand that passes, you rack up +180 or +280 or whatever.
You have no basis to complain here. Opponents are allowed to make bad bids, psyche, or whatever, their only duty is to explain their agreements if they have one.

Personally, I *want* my opponents overbidding and misbidding. Yes occasionally they'll fix me but far more often it's a gift of a top, and if I didn't take advantage then I will improve my agreements. Here NS actually did EW a favor in theory, as it's easier to find 2H, it's not clear to deploy crawling stayman after a pass and maybe EW don't even play crawling stayman.

Most likely North is just a newb that think has to double with opening hand over strong NT. People are allowed to not know stuff and play badly/play like a beginner. It's gross IMO for more experienced player to call director on such things as there's no basis for it.

[Cyberyeti]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-August-23, 01:27, said:

????Director! I don't think opponents should be allowed to make bad bids!!!????
Seriously, if I was directing I'd laugh at this complaint. Opponents are allowed to make weird, in theory bad bids. It's EW fault for not having agreements on how to compete after the runout. If east thinks double might be interpreted as penalty, can always try 2H which should deny 5 from failure to transfer (or whatever single suited runout measure is in place), which should work out well if partner has either major, as with spades and not hearts west should try 2S. But good to have takeout dbls as agreement IMO.

If North thinks 14 is enough to double for penalty, he's allowed to do so. More often South will have some stronger hand that passes, you rack up +180 or +280 or whatever.
You have no basis to complain here. Opponents are allowed to make bad bids, psyche, or whatever, their only duty is to explain their agreements if they have one.

Personally, I *want* my opponents overbidding and misbidding. Yes occasionally they'll fix me but far more often it's a gift of a top, and if I didn't take advantage then I will improve my agreements. Here NS actually did EW a favor in theory, as it's easier to find 2H, it's not clear to deploy crawling stayman after a pass and maybe EW don't even play crawling stayman.

Most likely North is just a newb that think has to double with opening hand over strong NT. People are allowed to not know stuff and play badly/play like a beginner. It's gross IMO for more experienced player to call director on such things as there's no basis for it.

In F2F bridge I would have thought if you've agreed to double on this it should be alerted, a not great balanced 14 would not constitute a penalty double for most people so would fall under the "natural but unexpected" category. I suspect there is no agreement here and they've just bent it a bit, if so there is no recourse.

[Stephen Tu]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-August-23, 02:10, said:

In F2F bridge I would have thought if you've agreed to double on this it should be alerted, a not great balanced 14 would not constitute a penalty double for most people so would fall under the "natural but unexpected" category. I suspect there is no agreement here and they've just bent it a bit, if so there is no recourse.

If it's an experienced good pair that know that this is unusual / unexpected, sure. But I don't think we can expect beginners to know that this is unusual, and anyone I see do this I pretty much assume is beginner or "life novice". I've certainly run into a fair # of beginners who think they should like always double opening bids with opening hands regardless of whether it is suit or NT and no matter what their shape is (shortness in an unbid suit etc.). Now you can ask them what dbl of NT shows and they usually answer something like "shows an opening hand, takeout", and you know they just don't know what they are doing. I don't call the director on these people, even if they are experienced but have just spent years in the life novice 499er game or whatever and have just happened to run into me in the open stratified sectional.

Sometimes, if they are open to advice, I explain to them that takeout dbls of NT don't make a lot of sense and that they should either be conventional showing some sort of distributional hand, or penalty oriented. If they fix me, maybe I gripe about it to partner but I'm not looking for an adjustment from director that I'm not entitled to. I only call the director if they blatantly break rules about using UI from alert procedure or tempo, as they need to be educated about proprieties in such areas at some point. Making bad bids by itself is not an infraction of anything.

[DavidKok]

mycroft, on 2020-August-22, 16:15, said:

I actually find the opposite to be true (but I lean toward takeout doubles over all NT ranges these days). But unlike your area, I know I am strongly influenced by playing in the homogenous(*) ACBL.

I've only picked up the weak (10-13) NT a few months ago, so thank you for sharing! I'll definitely keep this in mind going forward. It is probably smart to keep a tally of how often (and how much) the penalty double would have won versus when a takeout double wins, to see which comes out ahead in the long run. It also seems relevant that I only have access to the weak NT at favourable vulnerability, which makes penalty doubles especially juicy.

[Vampyr]

The style I prefer is one where, after we have shown strength, the first double by either player is takeout. You don’t miss many penalties this way, and it is more comfortable leaving a takeout double in if you are the stronger hand, because now you know Partner has something.

The exception where it goes one of those suit-x-xx. Now we retain the option to make a low-level penalty double.

[AL78]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-August-23, 02:50, said:

If it's an experienced good pair that know that this is unusual / unexpected, sure. But I don't think we can expect beginners to know that this is unusual, and anyone I see do this I pretty much assume is beginner or "life novice". I've certainly run into a fair # of beginners who think they should like always double opening bids with opening hands regardless of whether it is suit or NT and no matter what their shape is (shortness in an unbid suit etc.). Now you can ask them what dbl of NT shows and they usually answer something like "shows an opening hand, takeout", and you know they just don't know what they are doing. I don't call the director on these people, even if they are experienced but have just spent years in the life novice 499er game or whatever and have just happened run into me in the open stratified sectional.

I asked that and didn't get an answer.

[Cyberyeti]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-August-23, 02:50, said:

If it's an experienced good pair that know that this is unusual / unexpected, sure. But I don't think we can expect beginners to know that this is unusual, and anyone I see do this I pretty much assume is beginner or "life novice". I've certainly run into a fair # of beginners who think they should like always double opening bids with opening hands regardless of whether it is suit or NT and no matter what their shape is (shortness in an unbid suit etc.). Now you can ask them what dbl of NT shows and they usually answer something like "shows an opening hand, takeout", and you know they just don't know what they are doing. I don't call the director on these people, even if they are experienced but have just spent years in the life novice 499er game or whatever and have just happened run into me in the open stratified sectional.

For a strong no trump I agree with a fair bit of of what you said, what people double a weak or mini NT on varies a lot more, we keep it the same, but some double on "at least the top of their range" for 12-14 or 10-12. Whether you should be alerting this for 10-12 I have no idea.

[Stephen Tu]

AL78, on 2020-August-23, 08:21, said:

I asked that and didn't get an answer.

You can call the director if an opp refuses to explain a bid. "No agreement", however, is a valid answer if the pair doesn't really have an agreement. You can also look at their CC and see if they have something conventional on their NT defense.


Here lack of explanation doesn't really affect your result; North could have say South's CK and a more normal double, you are in the same spot. It's not like you got some mis-explanation like them saying something like dbl shows majors which would hamper your side's ability to compete appropriately.

[mycroft]

This looks like a pretty typical "equal or better" double from around here. The only thing wrong with it is that South doesn't have hearts like she promised.

Yes, people play this "penalty" double - enough so that I expect it from anybody I don't know has actually played weak NTs. Yes, they play "systems on when pulling the double" as well. Yes, they don't think it needs to be Alerted (or, IRL, they Announce "transfer", and definitely do not alert 2♣ "Stayman").

In other words, Yeti, "it's just bridge." And they'll tell you that, too, because the people they look up to say that when those people put in something "obvious" that the opponents haven't seen yet.

[AL78]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-August-23, 09:59, said:

You can call the director if an opp refuses to explain a bid. "No agreement", however, is a valid answer if the pair doesn't really have an agreement. You can also look at their CC and see if they have something conventional on their NT defense.


Here lack of explanation doesn't really affect your result; North could have say South's CK and a more normal double, you are in the same spot. It's not like you got some mis-explanation like them saying something like dbl shows majors which would hamper your side's ability to compete appropriately.

Yes, the opponents strange double and lack of explanation was not our undoing, our lack of confidence that a double by either of us would be interpreted as takeout by the other was. I don't think calling the director would have been justified, it was our lack of agreement that damaged us.