Portland Pairs ruling (EBU)

[WellSpyder]

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]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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:

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.