100s of 1000s of bridge hands, and I still don't know what takeout means

[Trinidad]

Exactly.

 

The NS bidding went something like:

"I have something undefined" - "I have a little bit and 4+ spades"

"I didn't have much and I don't have a lot of spades, and it is still undefined." - "OK, I quit."

 

Normally it would be rare that your two best fits are in the suits that the opponents have bid. But against a system like this, it is entirely possible.

 

Normally, it would also be rare to make 3 bids (2 of which are in a suit), uncontested, and miss a 5-5 fit in what is the longest suit in both hands.

 

It is modern bidding. But defense against modern bidding requires modern (=flexible) take out doubles in 8th seat.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

Are you suggesting the explanation is "obviously incomplete or unclear" even though it may have been "the full extent of the E/W agreement"? That seems contradictory. If it may be their entire agreement then the explanation is not incomplete or unclear, and certainly not "obviously" so.

 

OK, my previous post was (obviously?) incomplete or unclear.

 

North/South can infer that either:

 

the explanation of "take out" was incomplete; or

the explanation of "take out" was unclear; or

the explanation of "take out" may have been the extent of the E/W agreement, but their agreement of the meaning of continuations was incomplete.

 

If they care, the best way for North/South to find out which of these applies is to ask a follow-up question.

[barmar]

In this case, I'm not sure that West actually has any unusual intent about the meaning of "takeout". It asks partner to bid something, and that's what partner did. The implication about spades was expected to be deduced from bridge logic and the state of the auction. His logic seems to be flawed, which is why NS inferred something different, but I'm not sure this rises to the level of misinformation.

 

I've run into many players who make takeout doubles of a major any time they have 4 cards in the other major and opening strength. They think this is a normal takeout double, perhaps because they learned from other people with the same style, who learned it from others, and so on. I don't think it's generally a partnership agreement, just poor bridge education -- they've been misinformed about what a takeout double should be.

[lalldonn]

So for all those who says something like "it's a takeout double because it was intended to be taken out", is a double of a 1H opening bid a takeout double if the agreement is it shows 10 solid spades? Certainly the doubler expects his partner to take the double out.

 

FWIW, I asked quite a lot of players about this at the tournament and found an interesting divide. Most (but not all) Americans understood this auction to show hearts and clubs. Most (but not all) Europeans understood this auction to show the majors. In most of these cases, the other meaning didn't even particularly occur to the player, ie everyone thought his or her interpretation was obvious. So in my opinion, it's not reasonable to fault NS for failing to ask further questions since they had no reason to suspect anything was other than normal.

 

Now, I appreciate that comment can certainly be turned around to suggest that EW did nothing wrong since they believed their explanation was complete. But that doesn't mean it was complete. To me the bottom line is that it's up to the explainers to make sure the explanation is understood. I once got in (mild) trouble for explaining a bid as "minors" rather than "clubs and diamonds". It didn't matter that I could reasonably expect my opponents to understand what I meant, because if they don't realize that they don't understand then they have no cause to inquire further. If "minors" sounds exactly like the word that means "red suits" in their language, then I couldn't really have foreseen that, but as I understand it I am still at legal fault.

[barmar]

Bridge is full of terms with unusual meanings. Some of them are convention names, some are jargon. In some cases it's pretty obvious: if the term is the name of a famous player (e.g. Jacoby), it's a convention name. But others are not as clear: is "splinter" a convention or just jargon for "a bid that shows shortness in the bid suit"?

 

Disclosure requirements should probably be understood to require assuming the worst -- if there's any chance the terms could be misunderstood, find a better description. But how far can one be expected to go? I think most players would expect "minors" to be such basic bridge language that there's no chance of a misunderstanding. If I were the TD called to the table over this, I'd be very sympathetic to the explainer.

[kenrexford]

So for all those who says something like "it's a takeout double because it was intended to be taken out", is a double of a 1H opening bid a takeout double if the agreement is it shows 10 solid spades? Certainly the doubler expects his partner to take the double out. IMO, this is a wildly different scenario. With 1x-P-1y-?, the availability of an immediate takeout double and for many a sandwich 1NT means that 1x-P-1y-P-1NT-P-P-X, where no new suits have been introduced, probably means something other than the other two suits.

 

FWIW, I asked quite a lot of players about this at the tournament and found an interesting divide. Most (but not all) Americans understood this auction to show hearts and clubs. This is probably a dumb interpretation. See above. Most (but not all) Europeans understood this auction to show the majors. Makes more sense. In most of these cases, the other meaning didn't even particularly occur to the player, ie everyone thought his or her interpretation was obvious. So in my opinion, it's not reasonable to fault NS for failing to ask further questions since they had no reason to suspect anything was other than normal. This is where I throw up a red flag. If North-South did not expect anything other than normal, confirmed by the lack of any alert, then why any question at all? Sure -- these doubles might not be alertable. But, the point is that a question was asked. To think that this is not a sequence where the double might mean various possible suits is, IMO, fatr below either part of this schizophrenic duality posting here.

 

Now, I appreciate that comment can certainly be turned around to suggest that EW did nothing wrong since they believed their explanation was complete. They did, somewhat, do something wrong, but perhaps because of uncertainty themselves as to what the double should show. But that doesn't mean it was complete. To me the bottom line is that it's up to the explainers to make sure the explanation is understood. While this is true, there also is a general principle as to explanations and the like that a competent pair cannot take advantage of certain obvious situations. For instance, if someone forgets to alert in a sequence where a competent pair would suspect a missed alert (e.g., a missed alert of a support double or of a pass when support doubles might apply), then the competent pair is expected to do some "self-help" inquiries. I once got in (mild) trouble for explaining a bid as "minors" rather than "clubs and diamonds". Unless your opponents were idiots, and the director even more so, I hope "trouble" meant that you had no adjustment but had to endure the punishment of being forced to not violate ZT while listening to insane drivel. Or, if you were actually "in trouble," I hope it was because you appropriately called at least two people at the table approprately insultiong names. It didn't matter that I could reasonably expect my opponents to understand what I meant, because if they don't realize that they don't understand then they have no cause to inquire further. Ah, but here's the rub. If the person asking is competent, again, more should be expected of them. Surely you are not claiming to be ignorant in this sequence? Or, was this a problem proposed to you by one or two people who might have actually been less talented? If "minors" sounds exactly like the word that means "red suits" in their language, then I couldn't really have foreseen that, but as I understand it I am still at legal fault. If the problem was that your word sounded like a foreign word for "red suits," then how are you at fault for their hearing? I mean, if you had said "clubs and diamonds," and I thought I heard "clubs or diamonds," are you at fault because I cannot hear correctly? God help us, with so much blue around the field.

[lalldonn]

If North-South did not expect anything other than normal, confirmed by the lack of any alert, then why any question at all?

The question was asked to find out whether or not it was a penalty double, implying a good spade holding. That is not an uncommon treatment.

 

there also is a general principle as to explanations and the like that a competent pair cannot take advantage of certain obvious situations. For instance, if someone forgets to alert in a sequence where a competent pair would suspect a missed alert (e.g., a missed alert of a support double or of a pass when support doubles might apply), then the competent pair is expected to do some "self-help" inquiries.

I agree but do not consider this one of those situations. If you feel it is, then I appreciate your viewpoint but do not agree.

[bluejak]

Of course 'takeout' means it is not for penalty and partner will usually bid something. But that is not all it means.

It means rather more than that. There is a range of doubles based on expectation of partner's action, ranging from penalty, where partner is expected to pass, through penalty oriented, optional and competitive to takeout where partner is expected to take it out.

 

When opponents have bid two suits, the normal meaning of 'takeout' is that the doubler has the other two suits. Maybe not always four cards in each, but certainly not a singleton in one of them. N/S might have asked for clarification but IMO were reasonably entitled to assume 'lighter takeout with hearts and clubs' from the explanation given.

 

Maybe it would be fairer, when one side is using their first language and one is not, that the side using their first language has more of a burden to ensure that full explanations are given and understood. But that is not the rule now and I don't know if such a rule could be created in practice.

I believe the rule for explaining system is that a player is expected to make it clear to reasonable opponents. So if it is not clear, it has not been explained adequately.

 

So for all those who says something like "it's a takeout double because it was intended to be taken out", is a double of a 1H opening bid a takeout double if the agreement is it shows 10 solid spades? Certainly the doubler expects his partner to take the double out.

Maybe so, but that is not really a takeout double: it is an artificial double showing something specific.

[Trinidad]

I am curious: How many bids would you like to have in this auction to show hearts + clubs?

 

-Immediate double

-Immediate 1NT

-Immediate 2NT

-Immediate 2♦

-Immediate 2♠

-Pass and double

-Pass and 2NT

-Pass and 2♦

-Pass and 2♠

 

Now, I am sure that not all of these will show hearts + clubs, since some of these bids will be natural. But I would say that over half of these are for takeout. Would you really want to use those all for hands with hearts and clubs?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

So for all those who says something like "it's a takeout double because it was intended to be taken out", is a double of a 1H opening bid a takeout double if the agreement is it shows 10 solid spades? Certainly the doubler expects his partner to take the double out.

No, because that double shows a specific shape, and it asks partner to take the double out specifically to spades. The key feature of a "takeout" double (I think) is that partner is invited to take it out to his longest suit.

 

Here's a question for people who think that "takeout" means that it shows support for the unbid suits. If you play Equal-Level Conversion, or you habitually double 1♣ on a 4=4=2=3 shape, or you sometimes double a 1♠ opening on a 3=4=2=4 shape, how do you describe a double of an opening one-bid?

 

FWIW, I asked quite a lot of players about this at the tournament and found an interesting divide. Most (but not all) Americans understood this auction to show hearts and clubs.

How definite were your American pollees about this meaning? I can understand that they might assume spades were out of the picture, but it seems surprising that they'd be certain that diamonds were excluded as possible strains.

 

Most (but not all) Europeans understood this auction to show the majors.

I'm surprised that most of your European pollees expected it to show specifically the majors. In my experience a better description would be "whatever he was dealt".

 

In most of these cases, the other meaning didn't even particularly occur to the player, ie everyone thought his or her interpretation was obvious. So in my opinion, it's not reasonable to fault NS for failing to ask further questions since they had no reason to suspect anything was other than normal.

Yes, I think I agree, given the premise that their understanding of "takeout" is the normal one in North America. This is an American event, and the language to be used is American Bridgeplayers' English. If NS's interpretation of "takeout" is the standard meaning in American Bridgeplayers' English, then EW's explanation is misinformation, regardless of whether their explanation would be correct in some other dialect of English.

[barmar]

I believe the rule for explaining system is that a player is expected to make it clear to reasonable opponents. So if it is not clear, it has not been explained adequately.

Or the opponents are not reasonable.

[nigel_k]

I am curious: How many bids would you like to have in this auction to show hearts + clubs?

 

-Immediate double

-Immediate 1NT

-Immediate 2NT

-Immediate 2♦

-Immediate 2♠

-Pass and double

-Pass and 2NT

-Pass and 2♦

-Pass and 2♠

 

Now, I am sure that not all of these will show hearts + clubs, since some of these bids will be natural. But I would say that over half of these are for takeout. Would you really want to use those all for hands with hearts and clubs?

 

Rik

Probably not. But the issue is what opponents are reasonably entitled to expect if you do double and describe that double as 'takeout' when they ask.

[Trinidad]

I believe the rule for explaining system is that a player is expected to make it clear to reasonable opponents. So if it is not clear, it has not been explained adequately.

The point is that there was only a question about the double. At the point that the question was asked, there was no clarifying context yet. At that point, the double was a generic scrambling action that could be made on "anything". This vague meaning was made reasonably clear to reasonable opponents by using the appropriately vague word "takeout".

 

Only from the context (the pull from 2♦ to 2♥) it became clear that it must be a hand with hearts and spades (or hearts+spades and club tolerance). This wasn't clear at all at the point when the question was asked. And at the point that it was clear, the opponents didn't ask. Or are you suggesting that East should have explained the 2♥ bid unprompted?

 

Rik

[barmar]

Only from the context (the pull from 2♦ to 2♥) it became clear that it must be a hand with hearts and spades (or hearts+spades and club tolerance). This wasn't clear at all at the point when the question was asked. And at the point that it was clear, the opponents didn't ask. Or are you suggesting that East should have explained the 2♥ bid unprompted?

I think some people are suggesting that the description of the double should have been something like "Takeout, usually a weak hand with ♥ and ♣, but possibly ♥ and ♠ that he couldn't show previously".

 

But I'm not sure this is reasonable. Unless there's an explicit agreement that a bid is two-way, we often don't anticipate things like this. If I were East, I'd just assume it's a normal takeout. It's only when West bids over 2♦ that I'd be forced to try to figure out what's going on, and then I might conclude that he had ♠. If East didn't anticipate this, how can he possibly be expected to include it in the description?

[lalldonn]

How definite were your American pollees about this meaning? I can understand that they might assume spades were out of the picture, but it seems surprising that they'd be certain that diamonds were excluded as possible strains.

The auction was given with west having already not passed 2D. I'm fairly sure this was understood by all players as an offer to play there.

 

Only from the context (the pull from 2♦ to 2♥) it became clear that it must be a hand with hearts and spades (or hearts+spades and club tolerance).

Obviously clear to you. Far from clear to many. Didn't even occur to either north or south, call them dense if you like.

[lalldonn]

I think some people are suggesting that the description of the double should have been something like "Takeout, usually a weak hand with ♥ and ♣, but possibly ♥ and ♠ that he couldn't show previously".

 

But I'm not sure this is reasonable. Unless there's an explicit agreement that a bid is two-way, we often don't anticipate things like this. If I were East, I'd just assume it's a normal takeout. It's only when West bids over 2♦ that I'd be forced to try to figure out what's going on, and then I might conclude that he had ♠. If East didn't anticipate this, how can he possibly be expected to include it in the description?

EW both claimed there was no way the double could include hearts and clubs because west didn't double a round earlier. It's still not clear to me which hands would start with double for that partnership, but it seems like any combination of suits that is not hearts+clubs.

 

Since you refer to a double there showing hearts and clubs as "normal takeout", and since this EW pair could never have hearts and clubs for their double, it seems you would agree that "takeout" is not a good explanation, even prior to the later bidding.

[blackshoe]

It's only when West bids over 2♦ that I'd be forced to try to figure out what's going on, and then I might conclude that he had ♠. If East didn't anticipate this, how can he possibly be expected to include it in the description?

 

In such a situation, shouldn't East alert the 2♥ bid? Is it "knowledge generally available to bridge players" that West might do this?

[qwery_hi]

Would you have bid 2C if the double was explained as penalty with good spades? If yes, then the incomplete explanation did cause damage IMO.

 

 

So for all those who says something like "it's a takeout double because it was intended to be taken out", is a double of a 1H opening bid a takeout double if the agreement is it shows 10 solid spades? Certainly the doubler expects his partner to take the double out.

 

FWIW, I asked quite a lot of players about this at the tournament and found an interesting divide. Most (but not all) Americans understood this auction to show hearts and clubs. Most (but not all) Europeans understood this auction to show the majors. In most of these cases, the other meaning didn't even particularly occur to the player, ie everyone thought his or her interpretation was obvious. So in my opinion, it's not reasonable to fault NS for failing to ask further questions since they had no reason to suspect anything was other than normal.

 

Now, I appreciate that comment can certainly be turned around to suggest that EW did nothing wrong since they believed their explanation was complete. But that doesn't mean it was complete. To me the bottom line is that it's up to the explainers to make sure the explanation is understood. I once got in (mild) trouble for explaining a bid as "minors" rather than "clubs and diamonds". It didn't matter that I could reasonably expect my opponents to understand what I meant, because if they don't realize that they don't understand then they have no cause to inquire further. If "minors" sounds exactly like the word that means "red suits" in their language, then I couldn't really have foreseen that, but as I understand it I am still at legal fault.

[Trinidad]

Would you have bid 2C if the double was explained as penalty with good spades? If yes, then the incomplete explanation did cause damage IMO.

What makes you think the double meant: "penalty with good spades"?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

In such a situation, shouldn't East alert the 2♥ bid? Is it "knowledge generally available to bridge players" that West might do this?

Josh's poll suggests that it's "knowledge generally available to bridge players" in some parts of the world, but not in the part of the world where this event took place.

[wank]

There is no doubt that double was a takeout double, since it was intended to be taken out.

 

 

how do you know what was intended? the man's got 5 of dummy's suit. to me that looks like a penalty double.

[blackshoe]

Josh's poll suggests that it's "knowledge generally available to bridge players" in some parts of the world, but not in the part of the world where this event took place.

 

Then it would seem to me to meet the legal criterion for an alert where the event took place.

[bluejak]

The point is that there was only a question about the double. At the point that the question was asked, there was no clarifying context yet. At that point, the double was a generic scrambling action that could be made on "anything". This vague meaning was made reasonably clear to reasonable opponents by using the appropriately vague word "takeout".

I am not sure that is true. A large proportion of opponents think takeout means 'showing the unbid suits'. If, as you say, 'the double was a generic scrambling action that could be made on "anything"', why not tell the opponents this?

[barmar]

EW both claimed there was no way the double could include hearts and clubs because west didn't double a round earlier. It's still not clear to me which hands would start with double for that partnership, but it seems like any combination of suits that is not hearts+clubs.

I simply don't believe that claim. It's GBK that direct doubles require more strength than balancing doubles, so his hand could be the same shape as one that would double in the previous round, but he wasn't strong enough to do so.

 

But it's also fairly common that players take more liberties regarding shape when balancing -- they're desperate to prevent the opponents from playing in a comfortable contract.