Portland Pairs ruling (EBU)

[bluejak]

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, they have not. They have made the simplest alerting rules that are possible by splitting doubles into takeout and the rest for one regulation, and penalties and the rest for another.

 

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.

As a matter of regulation in England you cancel the board and give Ave+/Ave- if you judge it is a fielded misbid.

 

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 me.

No doubt it is, which is why no-one suggests you do such a complicated and unnecessary procedure. When he doubled did he expect you to take it out? If so, it is takeout, if not, it isn't. Whether you do take it out is irrelevant. Slightly complicated by artificial doubles, which are alertable, but most people would understand that.

 

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.

In many situations when you double you neither expect partner to take it out, nor expect him to leave it in. In such situations you are not surprised what he does dependent on his hand. Such doubles are neither takeout nor penalty.

[bluejak]

How do you exactly define a 'fielded misbid'?

I mean, what are the bases of fielding? Because, I always meant there should be some prearragned agreement around that (implicit or explicit).

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.

[lamford]

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.

Burn gave excellent reasons why passing is normal, and I completely agree with him. South will have answered what he thought the pair's agreements are, and I can quite believe that there was no agreement, so if that is established South should be advised to answer more accurately next time, but there is clearly no damage from the MI. I play that double is takeout, but would still double en route to 3NT, and I would pass on the South hand. The double certainly shows extra values, and if partner does not have club support, he is very likely to have two or three spades. If I knew that partner was 2-4-5-2 I would still pass on the South hand.

 

And matchpoints is certainly the medium in which conceding an unlikely doubled part-score is most palatable.

[lamford]

♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

Would you rebid 2C on this hand? And left-hand opponent really does have a poor suit now.

 

And the definition of the take-out double seems to fit the North hand to a tee, so you are hoisting yourself on your own petard by quoting it:

 

"A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete (he clearly does not want to defend 2S undoubled here), and invites partner to describe his hand (which partner did by defending for +800). Take-out doubles are frequently (but not always) based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. (here North does have significant extras to offset his lack of shortage)". (all parenthetical additions mine).

 

So, in summary, according to the OB, if North will systemically double on this hand it is not alertable. But I agree with finding out all the facts of course.

[mycroft]

Lamford, reading the EBU definitions further, I believe your last argument falls through.

 

You have quoted and commented on OB 4H6. However, OB 4H5 has this definition, which further prescribes 4H6 by contrast (emphasis mine):

 

A competitive double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete further, without

being certain of the best place to play, which may include defending the doubled

contract. Partner is usually expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand more

suitable for defence than his actions to date might indicate.

And as far as alertability goes, OB 5G4:

The following doubles must be alerted:[...]

( c ) Any ‘competitive’, ‘co-operative’ or ‘optional’ double, since these are not takeout doubles (see 4 H).

This further makes clear that 4H6 is to be read in contrast to 4H5 and the even "closer-to-penalty" doubles.

 

If partner is doubling, expecting you to bid, that's takeout. If you pass, that's your lookout, and if it leads to -670, it's totally your fault (unless the only other options were -800 and up, of course). If partner is doubling, and will not be surprised to hear you pass, then it's competitive and Alertable (in either "takeout or other" or "penalty or other" situations, if I'm reading it right).

 

But I'm a LeftPondian, and I have a totally different set of rules to live by, so I Could Be Wrong.

[nige1]

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?

If partner's second double were take-out, I'd pass with say [sP} KQJx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQxxxxx

I play North's second double as penalty, however, so I would pass with the actual South hand.

Edit : Jallerton seems to have a similar Idea of what a penalty pass of a takeout double might look like.

[StevenG]

It seems to me that, on this hand, South can deduce that North's second double is essentially competitive, rather than purely takeout. However, if South held a different hand (with, say, a couple more spades), he might be totally confident that the double was genuinely takeout. This isn't about agreements, but about bridge logic. Are we supposed to alert agreements, or to alert on the basis of what we can deduce about a double?

 

A different question. I sometimes make a double that is unambigously takeout, because I can deduce that partner will convert it to penalties, which is, of course, what I really want to do but systemically can't. If I don't expect partner to bid again, then, by the OB definition, it's not a takeout double. So, what sort of double is it?

[lamford]

Lamford, reading the EBU definitions further, I believe your last argument falls through.

 

You have quoted and commented on OB 4H6. However, OB 4H5 has this definition, which further prescribes 4H6 by contrast (emphasis mine):

 

 

And as far as alertability goes, OB 5G4:

 

This further makes clear that 4H6 is to be read in contrast to 4H5 and the even "closer-to-penalty" doubles.

 

If partner is doubling, expecting you to bid, that's takeout. If you pass, that's your lookout, and if it leads to -670, it's totally your fault (unless the only other options were -800 and up, of course). If partner is doubling, and will not be surprised to hear you pass, then it's competitive and Alertable (in either "takeout or other" or "penalty or other" situations, if I'm reading it right).

 

But I'm a LeftPondian, and I have a totally different set of rules to live by, so I Could Be Wrong.

The level of surprise, or what you expect partner to do, is irrelevant. If I had AKQxxx none AKJx xxx, as I did a few nights ago, and it went 1S - (2H) - Pass - Pass, I would expect partner to pass my takeout double around 65% of the time, based on simulations. But it is still clearly a takeout double. (Footnote: Partner had none KJ9xxxx Q10x J10x and declarer was cold for an overtrick, but I am still confident I was making a takeout double). It seems that both the competitive double and the takeout double can suggest that the best result might be to defend the doubled contract, but the latter usually when there is a trump stack. I am a simple soul. The North hand, Q10xx KQ10x AKxx x includes three of the requirements for the takeout double - ability to play in other suits, extra values, and a desire to compete further. There is no requirement in the OB for it to show short spades at all. It says it EITHER shows short spades OR extra values. If the OB is wrong, that is another matter, but on the wording therein, the North hand is a takeout double. It fulfils many of the requirements of the competitive double (or penalty double) too, but that is irrelevant. A hand can be suitable for more than one bid.

[lamford]

.sorry I somehow posted twice - accidentally, before jallerton comments that this is not unusual.

[campboy]

Why are you arguing about whether it is a takeout double, a competitive double, or both? The player didn't say use any of these words when asked about the double; he said "asking me to bid". Do you really think that is an adequate description of a double that might be passed on a fairly normal hand with two cards in the suit doubled?

[lamford]

Why are you arguing about whether it is a takeout double, a competitive double, or both? The player didn't say use any of these words when asked about the double; he said "asking me to bid". Do you really think that is an adequate description of a double that might be passed on a fairly normal hand with two cards in the suit doubled?

No, I believe that the correct explanation was likely "no agreement" and I am using "likely" in the sense of greater than 50%. We are told that both North and South (we are not told if they were kept at separate police stations) stated that the agreement was takeout, so the need to establish whether the North hand conforms with the OB definition of a takeout double is paramount, as then we can move on to the "fielding a systemic misbid" question if we decide it doesn't! At least if I am paraphrasing bluejak correctly.

 

And I suggest you re-read the OP if you don't think the players used the word "takeout".

[lamford]

If partner's second double were take-out, I'd pass with say [sP} KQJx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQxxxxx

I might also venture a pass with that hand if partner's second double was penalties, although others might no doubt be worried about the occasional -670.

[campboy]

And I suggest you re-read the OP if you don't think the players used the word "takeout".

My point was that in the OP that word was not used until after the board was completed, too late to affect whether there was MI. But I didn't realise you were trying to argue that there was no misbid, rather than that there was no MI.

[bluejak]

Burn gave excellent reasons why passing is normal, and I completely agree with him. South will have answered what he thought the pair's agreements are, and I can quite believe that there was no agreement, so if that is established South should be advised to answer more accurately next time, but there is clearly no damage from the MI. I play that double is takeout, but would still double en route to 3NT, and I would pass on the South hand. The double certainly shows extra values, and if partner does not have club support, he is very likely to have two or three spades. If I knew that partner was 2-4-5-2 I would still pass on the South hand.

 

And matchpoints is certainly the medium in which conceding an unlikely doubled part-score is most palatable.

Suppose partner is 1=4=5=3?

 

I know, you don't think he is. Nor do I, but I don't think it is a takeout double. If it is a takeout double I would take it out, for the excellent two reasons that I expect a better score on balance, and partners tend to get a little cross at masterminding penalty passes with no trumps.

[dburn]

I know that you have pledged not to agree with Bluejak for the next two weeks, but the basic principle of what he says is correct. The TD should investigate the facts, which in this case involves trying to ascertain what was going through South's head, consult if necessary, and rule accordingly.

Indeed. This is why I remarked that the Director should proceed by asking South why, if North was asking South to bid, South did not bid.

 

♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

True. With the ace of spades in addition, South would be on still firmer ground.

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.