Active ethics. Whats my obligation.

[OleBerg]

This post, and hopefully thread, is somewhat theoretical.

 

I play in an environment where double is this sequence (and sequences like it):

 

1♣   -    (1♥)   -  Pass - 2♥

Pass - (Pass) -    X

 

is considered and expected to be penalty.

 

Now, assume my partner and I decide to change it to T/O. Should we pre-disclose?

 

Obviously a bluff by overcaller becomes less risky, as a raise cannot be doubled for penalty by next hand. And you have a way better chance of bluff-raising your way out of a penalty double.

 

The mandatory system declarations do not have a specific entry for this, just an entry for doubles in general. But maybe that's not important, as I am looking for a principal discussion.

 

(Just so that you know: If it actually happened at the table here in Denmark, I am quite certain nobody would complain. Neither players nor even a picky TD.)

[bluejak]

I am not aware of any pre-disclosing requirements in Denmark. In England we have a space for things opponents might need to know on the SC and I might put it there.

 

But in general, I doubt that you should tell your opponents. Surely you have more important things to tell them.

 

Incidentally, I would have thought it normal to play it as penalties, and my dreadful raises to two would not be affected by this. But that is just me.

[axman]

This post, and hopefully thread, is somewhat theoretical.

 

I play in an environment where double is this sequence (and sequences like it):

 

1♣   -    (1♥)   -  Pass - 2♥

Pass - (Pass) -    X

 

is considered and expected to be penalty.

 

Now, assume my partner and I decide to change it to T/O. Should we pre-disclose?

 

Obviously a bluff by overcaller becomes less risky, as a raise cannot be doubled for penalty by next hand. And you have a way better chance of bluff-raising your way out of a penalty double.

 

The mandatory system declarations do not have a specific entry for this, just an entry for doubles in general. But maybe that's not important, as I am looking for a principal discussion.

 

(Just so that you know: If it actually happened at the table here in Denmark, I am quite certain nobody would complain. Neither players nor even a picky TD.)

The description [for all conventions] that you need to provide the opponents includes:

a. promised length [distinct from the range he is capable of]

b. promised strength [distinct from the range he is capable of]

c. specific cards promised [not applicable here?]

d. interrogations/ responses to interrogations [not applicable here?]

e. Instructions [takeout]

 

On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading. The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding.

 

Personally, for a player that is unwilling to enter the auction at the 2 level, why then does he want a potential minimum pard to bid at the 3 level? I am wondering about the efficacy of such a convention, in that under what conditions is it chosen to not employ when the specified hands are held? When my opponents have employed similar conventions almost every instance the player either had available UI suggesting that it would be a good time to make his ‘takeout double’ or he created UI that his ‘takeout’ double was tenuous [including times his holdings were penalty oriented] or, not tenuous at all.

 

I should think that such a convention ought to practiced only by partners that at least are reasonably consistent in tempo.

[aguahombre]

Incidentally, I would have thought it normal to play it as penalties, and my dreadful raises to two would not be affected by this.  But that is just me.

Not just you. At least one person on this side of the ocean agrees that if you did not choose takeout action on the first round, it does not make a lot of sense that a double at a higher level would be takeout. But that is just us :lol:

So, the double is just bridge logic --not something for alerts or pre alerts.

[OleBerg]

I am not aware of any pre-disclosing requirements in Denmark.  In England we have a space for things opponents might need to know on the SC and I might put it there.

 

Good advice, I'll do that if we change it.

 

But in general, I doubt that you should tell your opponents.  Surely you have more important things to tell them.

 

Maybe. (See reply below.)

 

Incidentally, I would have thought it normal to play it as penalties, and my dreadful raises to two would not be affected by this.  But that is just me.

[OleBerg]

This post, and hopefully thread, is somewhat theoretical.

 

I play in an environment where double is this sequence (and sequences like it):

 

1♣   -    (1♥)   -  Pass - 2♥

Pass - (Pass) -    X

 

is considered and expected to be penalty.

 

Now, assume my partner and I decide to change it to T/O. Should we pre-disclose?

 

Obviously a bluff by overcaller becomes less risky, as a raise cannot be doubled for penalty by next hand. And you have a way better chance of bluff-raising your way out of a penalty double.

 

The mandatory system declarations do not have a specific entry for this, just an entry for doubles in general. But maybe that's not important, as I am looking for a principal discussion.

 

(Just so that you know: If it actually happened at the table here in Denmark, I am quite certain nobody would complain. Neither players nor even a picky TD.)

The description [for all conventions] that you need to provide the opponents includes:

a. promised length [distinct from the range he is capable of]

b. promised strength [distinct from the range he is capable of]

c. specific cards promised [not applicable here?]

d. interrogations/ responses to interrogations [not applicable here?]

e. Instructions [takeout]

 

On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading. The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding.

 

I strongly object to that! A hand for the sequence might be:

 

♠ J109x

♥ x

♦ Q109xx

♣ 109x

 

Now it might be stupid to want to make a take-out double with that hand, but calling it take-out is certainly not misleading.

 

Personally, for a player that is unwilling to enter the auction at the 2 level, why then does he want a potential minimum pard to bid at the 3 level?  I am wondering about the efficacy of such a convention, in that under what conditions is it chosen to not employ when the specified hands are held?

 

It would not be employed very often (a quick guess; 1 in a thousand boards for an overbidder like me), but the times I need a penalty double are even rarer. In my 20+ years of bridge I have never needed it, and seen it used less than 5 times.

 

So that would be my reason for changing it. I definitely feel that T/O would have more merit than penalty. However, the advantages might diminish if the opponents considered the new possibilities that would become available. Hence, my worry about disclosure.

 

I also feel however, that there are many things, akin to this, that you don't pre-disclose, and I am quite certain most people wouldn't even think of pre-disclosing such an agreement.

 

When my opponents have employed similar conventions almost every instance the player either had available UI suggesting that it would be a good time to make his ‘takeout double’ or he created UI that his ‘takeout’ double was tenuous [including times his holdings were penalty oriented] or, not tenuous at all.

 

Wouldn't be a problem. At low levels we only play two kinds of doubles of a natural bid suit; T/O or penalty.

 

I should think that such a convention ought to practiced only by partners that at least are reasonably consistent in tempo.

 

If you want to discuss this, it'll have to be in another thread, as it will involve some principal discussions.

[bluejak]

On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading.  The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding.

 

Personally, for a player that is unwilling to enter the auction at the 2 level, why then does he want a potential minimum pard to bid at the 3 level?  I am wondering about the efficacy of such a convention, in that under what conditions is it chosen to not employ when the specified hands are held?  When my opponents have employed similar conventions almost every instance the player either had available UI suggesting that it would be a good time to make his ‘takeout double’ or he created UI that his ‘takeout’ double was tenuous [including times his holdings were penalty oriented] or, not tenuous at all. 

 

I should think that such a convention ought to practiced only by partners that at least are reasonably consistent in tempo.

I do not understand why describing a takeout double as a takeout double is misleading.

 

As to the efficacy of this agreement, it may or may not be high, but it is not the nonsense you seem to be suggesting. In many many situations players have found that protective bidding is efficacious, ie bidding on the presumption your partner will have a reasonable hand for you because the opponents have passed it out in a part score, and this situation is no different.

 

If you hold

 

Qxxx

xx

Qxxx

Txx

 

you will not double 1♥ for fear of partner just bidding too high. But when it gets raised to 2♥ and passed round to you then you know two things:

• there is a reasonable chance of partner providing enough high cards for you to make something, though probably poor distribution, and
  
• if you double for takeout now, he will not take you too high because he will know your hand is very poor in high cards
  

So, as in so many positions, a takeout double has something to recommend it.

 

As for your suggestions that only unethical players can play this efficiently, apart from my absolute dislike at such an approach, it is true in most protective situations that there are tempo problems. Tough: that is life. Next, you will suggest that the normal situation of 1 suit pass pass double should not be played in the modern style by most players because of tempo problems.

[axman]

On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading.  The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding.

 

Personally, for a player that is unwilling to enter the auction at the 2 level, why then does he want a potential minimum pard to bid at the 3 level?  I am wondering about the efficacy of such a convention, in that under what conditions is it chosen to not employ when the specified hands are held?  When my opponents have employed similar conventions almost every instance the player either had available UI suggesting that it would be a good time to make his ‘takeout double’ or he created UI that his ‘takeout’ double was tenuous [including times his holdings were penalty oriented] or, not tenuous at all. 

 

I should think that such a convention ought to practiced only by partners that at least are reasonably consistent in tempo.

I do not understand why describing a takeout double as a takeout double is misleading.

 

As to the efficacy of this agreement, it may or may not be high, but it is not the nonsense you seem to be suggesting. In many many situations players have found that protective bidding is efficacious, ie bidding on the presumption your partner will have a reasonable hand for you because the opponents have passed it out in a part score, and this situation is no different.

 

If you hold

 

Qxxx

xx

Qxxx

Txx

 

you will not double 1♥ for fear of partner just bidding too high. But when it gets raised to 2♥ and passed round to you then you know two things:

• there is a reasonable chance of partner providing enough high cards for you to make something, though probably poor distribution, and
  
• if you double for takeout now, he will not take you too high because he will know your hand is very poor in high cards
  

So, as in so many positions, a takeout double has something to recommend it.

 

As for your suggestions that only unethical players can play this efficiently, apart from my absolute dislike at such an approach, it is true in most protective situations that there are tempo problems. Tough: that is life. Next, you will suggest that the normal situation of 1 suit pass pass double should not be played in the modern style by most players because of tempo problems.

A player felt that his convention might be viewed as unusual and wanted opinions about fair play.

 

I responded with a list of information that is useful to the opponents when describing the convention.

 

The reason that takeout is misleading is because of what it leaves out. Necessarily, for a partnership to have such a convention they need some standard range of starting hands for responder’s X, and takeout supplies no such information. Information that can be material to the opponents in the choices they make.

 

I also recounted personal knowledge as to things that happen when such a convention is employed. And, I suggested a standard of conduct under which such a convention can be fairly employed.

 

What you suggested is that players with such a convention that do not have good tempo are unethical. Which goes to answering the player’s question.

 

 

** As for hand evaluation [for the hand you provided], balancer does not know there is a reasonable chance; what he knows is that the is a modest chance which is not particularly close to reasonable- at the three level. Take note that when the opponents stop they also have significant expectation of having the balance of power.

[Trinidad]

Necessarily, for a partnership to have such a convention they need some standard range of starting hands for responder’s X, and takeout supplies no such information.

To begin with: In this auction it doesn't make much sense to agree on a range for the TO double, because it is completely irrelevant. What you don't have, partner will have.

 

But suppose that you would want to know about a range. Isn't it obvious that the hand is limited at the top by the fact that the hand passed initially and at the bottom by the fact that every hand has at least 0 HCPs? That means that the typical hands are:

o 0 - bad 6 if the hand contains 4(+) spades

o 0 - bad 9 if the hand doesn't contain 4 spades (e.g. 3253 or 2263 distribution) (depending on how Ole plays his negative doubles)

 

Isn't this a much narrower range than the standard takeout double (1♣-Dbl: 11+ or so) or the negative double (6+)?

 

Now suppose that Ole and his partner would agree that they need at least 2 HCPs for the double. Why is that difference of 2 HCPs so important to the opponents that they will need to know that up front?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I would make a statement on my CC, stating something like: "Most low level doubles are takeout". If you would want to, you could prealert it at the start of the round.

 

However, expect some surprised faces when you prealert this. I admit that I don't have any experience with bridge in Denmark, but on the other side of the Öresund, it is very standard to play: "Low level doubles are for takeout, unless agreed otherwise" (or even "All doubles..., unless..."). They have described this style of doubles as "Moderna dubblingar" for about 30 years. :)

 

Rik

[MFA]

Your obligations are just what you are trying to do right now: Examining your system to see if there is anything unusual that you judge the opponents will have a special interest in knowing in advance (apart from all the ordinary stuff that one is required to fill in the CC).

 

One can't (and shouldn't try to) write everything in the CC. About doubles you might describe a general style ("almost all low-level doubles are T/O") and perhaps write down explicitely a few important sequences if you felt it would be right and helpful.

 

Some people seem to fill out the CC with font size 6 to the very last millimeter. While it may be of good intentions, it is really not very helpful to the opponents either.

[MFA]

If you would want to, you could prealert it at the start of the round.

We don't prealert in Denmark. We might just shortly state if we play an unusual general approach, like "precision". In strong tournaments it would be normal not to do that either.

 

On the other hand we are generally more disciplined with the CC than what I've experienced almost anywhere else.

 

I like it our way. I think prealerting is annoying - to do as well as to listen to.

[aguahombre]

This post, and hopefully thread, is somewhat theoretical.

 

I play in an environment where double is this sequence (and sequences like it):

 

1♣   -    (1♥)   -  Pass - 2♥

Pass - (Pass) -    X

 

is considered and expected to be penalty.

 

Now, assume my partner and I decide to change it to T/O. Should we pre-disclose?

 

I would like to be in that environment where double is penalty, because our overcalls are not bluffs, and our raises are reasonable in competition. And, if the opponents (who are not so disciplined) happen to overcall and raise when I was close to a penalty trap on the first round, I would like to be able to express that with a double now.

 

But, if you choose to use the delayed double as a takeout without the strength to act earlier, I don't see why you would have to pre-alert. Such opportunity might come up once in a blue moon, and you cannot be expected to tell the opponents everything about unlikely situations. Definitely alert at the time of the call if partner's delay double is takeout and against the norm in your environment.

[blackshoe]

I like it our way. I think prealerting is annoying - to do as well as to listen to.

A lot of that is in what you're used to, rather than in some inherent "betterness" for lack of a better word.

[bluejak]

I am used to pre-alerting in our clubs - and I loathe it.

[blackshoe]

As always, if you don't like the rules of a game, you have three options:

 

1. Work to change the rules.

2. Don't play the game.

3. Live with it.

 

But you know that already. :rolleyes:

[pran]

I have never used pre-alerting (we do not do in Norway), but regularly playing in three different clubs with three different partners and using three slightly different systems I would certainly have favoured the final reminders with my partner if we had been using pre-alerts.

 

HMMMMM?????

 

Sven

[aguahombre]

As always, if you don't like the rules of a game, you have three options:

 

1. Work to change the rules.

2. Don't play the game.

3. Live with it.

 

But you know that already. :rolleyes:

I think he chose 3(A). (Live with it and bitch a bit:)

Fora allow that.

[blackshoe]

I find, playing with several different people myself, that it's always a good idea to review our methods at the start of each session, at least.

 

If, Sven, you're implying that the pre-alert procedure is flawed because it reminds the pre-alerting side of their agreements, well, so what?