Alerting partner's flat T/O doubles?

[aguahombre]

You'll never get club players to alert these doubles. They can't alert based on ideas they don't understand.

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy. He wants to know what HE should do under EBU auspice.

 

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like. Their partners rarely compete or advance at the proper level unless they have a nice long suit. Random noise doubles are still considered abnormal in ACBL, and they don't do any better with the terms "takeout", etc. over here either. That doesn't mean someone who knows his partner's bids don't represent what he would be expected to hold (and adjusts his own bids accordingly) shouldn't disclose.

[SimonFa]

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy.

 

:D

[RunemPard]

Make the law more strict regarding alerting X like these...people SHOULD learn what a TOx's definition is.

 

My partner at our club has absolutely no clue what it really is. I have forgotten how many hands I am playing and I see his dummy...followed by me trying to explain that he shouldn't double their 1♠ opening with a 6232 hand and 13 HCP.

[barmar]

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like.

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

 

I'm not disputing that they do this, I just really wonder how we've gotten into this situation and why it's so hard to combat.

[barmar]

It was not alertable until the most recent update of the orange book (beginning of this month) in which the 'potentially unexpected' clause was added for doubles and redoubles. I believe this qualifies as 'potentially unexpected' and is hence now alertable

Is the EBU taking lessons from the ACBL? That's similar to the "highly unusual and unexpected" terminology in our alert procedures. Although I suppose the bar is much lower for "potentially" than "highly" -- EBU's terminology suggests alerting for anything out of the mainstream (like these takeout doubles), while ACBL's suggests that it must be far out (I don't think slightly offshape doubles would count).

[mycroft]

Because it just feels wrong to not have a call for certain strong hands (even though it is in fact not wrong) other than pass.

And all it takes for someone who feels like that is one person to come up with a "solution", no matter how often they're told otherwise by the better players.

The itch is scratched. Frequently for a bad score, whether it be playing the 4-2 fit, or not getting to game in fear of having to play a 4-2 fit. You'll notice that the doublers tend to raise with 4 no matter what their strength is, because partner will *never* jump.

 

It's the same reason that "everybody" still knows that "everybody's responsible for dummy", "a revoke is 2 tricks if they take a trick later with the card", "you can't open 1NT with a singleton", "you can just make your bid sufficient" and so on.

 

I'm seeing fewer "8-12" overcalls, though, with doubles on 13+ *any*. So we seem to be killing off that idea.

[paua]

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

 

I'm not disputing that they do this, I just really wonder how we've gotten into this situation and why it's so hard to combat.

 

Because that's the more obvious way to use a double. It takes quite a brain-twist to think of using low-level doubles for tactical takeout purposes. Same with reverses, cue-bidding, overcalling 1NT, leading aces, drawing trumps every time, discarding your lowest card, etc etc. Beginners think "naturally" and some never make the shift.

My example above of a double of 1S with four spades, the player has been playing for 15 years !

 

:)

[Vampyr]

"a revoke is 2 tricks if they take a trick later with the card",

 

This one is a little unfair. How many years was this the case, and how many years has it not been the case? Not every player has read the new Lawbook.

[Vampyr]

"you can't open 1NT with a singleton", "you can just make your bid sufficient" and so on.

 

 

In the EBU, the systemic possibility of a singleton is announced. I think this is a good idea.

[jallerton]

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

 

Presumably the "average club players" get this idea from the "expereienced players" you mention.

[paulg]

In the EBU, the systemic possibility of a singleton [in a 1NT opener] is announced. I think this is a good idea.

I think it is a very good idea when it is systemic, as with Fantoni-Nunes who open all 4441 distributions in range with 1NT.

 

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens. That is, it is not systemic to open 1NT with 4441 hands, but if their singleton is an honour, the wind is in the right direction and it is not a Tuesday then they may open 1NT. To me this is just 'bridge' and should not warrant the announcement and it is misleading.

[Finch]

Is the EBU taking lessons from the ACBL? That's similar to the "highly unusual and unexpected" terminology in our alert procedures. Although I suppose the bar is much lower for "potentially" than "highly" -- EBU's terminology suggests alerting for anything out of the mainstream (like these takeout doubles), while ACBL's suggests that it must be far out (I don't think slightly offshape doubles would count).

 

Not recently.

The "potentially unexpected" phrasing has been there for alerting bids for many years; it just got added for doubles more recently.

The case that was the trigger for the addition (though not the only cause) was a pair who doubled a weak 2 opening to show a 16+ HCP take-out, (bidding 3C on a weaker take-out), which wasn't alertable before because it was 'take-out'.

[Vampyr]

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens.

 

Do they? I was not aware that this happens.

[paulg]

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens.

Do they? I was not aware that this happens.

Reading the Orange Book again, I see 'systemic possibility' is your phrase whereas the EBU uses the much weaker 'partnership agrees ...'. I expect, like many pairs, we have no explicit agreement to open 1NT with a singleton but neither of us would be surprised if partner occasionally has one in a 1NT opener, so this is probably an implicit agreement (c.f., I was surprised when he had two singletons once).

 

My interpretation of the Orange Book is that this requires an announcement of "may contain singleton", despite not being common.

[Vampyr]

Reading the Orange Book again, I see 'systemic possibility' is your phrase whereas the EBU uses the much weaker 'partnership agrees ...'. I expect, like many pairs, we have no explicit agreement to open 1NT with a singleton but neither of us would be surprised if partner occasionally has one in a 1NT opener, so this is probably an implicit agreement (c.f., I was surprised when he had two singletons once).

 

My interpretation of the Orange Book is that this requires an announcement of "may contain singleton", despite not being common.

 

I think that not being surprised is sufficiently "systemic" to require an announcement.

[aguahombre]

In any jurisdiction, shouldn't the practical answer be that the possibility of partner having a singleton be (actively) alerted/announced only if "systemically" your responses and rebids allow for it? Of course your experience with partner opening 1NT holding a stiff would still be disclosable if the opps ask.

[paulg]

I think that not being surprised is sufficiently "systemic" to require an announcement.

I agree.

 

But I'd also not be surprised if playing with at least half the field at a regular tournament, even if it were a first-time partnership with no agreements.

[gnasher]

In any jurisdiction, shouldn't the practical answer be that the possibility of partner having a singleton be (actively) alerted/announced only if "systemically" your responses and rebids allow for it?

No. What the opponents need, and are entitled, to know is whether it's possible, and if so on what hands. They are unlikely to care whether the opening side's methods cater for it - mainly they need to know when they are defending or declaring.

 

In one partnership we used to play that all 4441 shapes in range would open 1NT, but our methods didn't cater for the possibility at all. In the same partnership we do now cater for this possibility in some sequences. The set of hands on which we open 1NT hasn't changed, so why should there be any change to the way we disclose them?

[Lurpoa]

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy. He wants to know what HE should do under EBU auspice.

 

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like. Their partners rarely compete or advance at the proper level unless they have a nice long suit. Random noise doubles are still considered abnormal in ACBL, and they don't do any better with the terms "takeout", etc. over here either. That doesn't mean someone who knows his partner's bids don't represent what he would be expected to hold (and adjusts his own bids accordingly) shouldn't disclose.

 

 

 

 

NO, no, they all know.........

but not the same as you.

[f0rdy]

I agree.

 

But I'd also not be surprised if playing with at least half the field at a regular tournament, even if it were a first-time partnership with no agreements.

 

I had always assumed that the minimum for announcing "may contain a singleton" NT openings was if you agree to open 1NT on one particular unbalanced hand shape (eg 4414), or a reasonable proportion of one hand type (eg 3451 without strong diamonds).

 

I have no careful reading of the orange book to back this up, but this seems like it would be the most useful point at which to set the cutoff.

[mycroft]

This one is a little unfair. How many years was this the case, and how many years has it not been the case? Not every player has read the new Lawbook.

Well, I still remember when revokes were two tricks no matter what...

 

Yes, maybe that's a little unfair (but how many revokes have occurred at your table in the last 4 years? As opposed to, say, "everyone is responsible for dummy" issues? Surely, this change has been triggered at least once by now), but when it's *directors*, or *players saying it as opposed to calling the TD*, that's when folk wisdom falls down - and I don't care how recently it's changed.

 

Oh, another one - "you don't have to/why should we have to announce 15-17 NTs". That one's been *20* years (at least in the ACBL), and the reasons are *to protect the NT opening side*, for Kaplan's sake :-).

[bluejak]

It's got to the point where I think I should be alerting. However I am worried that ops will see this as a penalty and are equally likely to misread pertner's bid. Leaving it until the end of the auction to clarify may also mislead ops.

I do not think you should worry about opponents assuming alert = penalties. While it is true that some people do believe that you should be doing the right thing, whether that is alerting or not, and not worrying if they are misled by failing to understand the rules.

 

Pretty common amongst stronger players too. In fact, who doesn't do this?

I don't. Of course, it is not up to me to decide whether I qualify as a "stronger" player or not.

 

And you should be concerned. You have knowledge that partner won't have those hand types with the frequency the opps would expect; and your own advancing actions will be affected by that knowledge. They deserve to be alerted to that information.

The number of times I have seen this argument on RGB! :) There was a player in our area who used to alert any call if he knew something about it the opponents might not. This meant he alerted 75% of bids and made alerting meaningless. It was with the best of intentions.

 

You alert if your TO tells you to alert. What is being asked here is whether the EBU has said this is alertable. You do not alert because you think opponents deserve to be alerted because your views are different to the next person along.

[aguahombre]

Yes, I wasn't aware that EBU had figured specifically everything to be alerted and drew the line of "if we say it is, it is..otherwise it isn't". Some jurisdictions mention the alertability of calls which would otherwise not require an alert but which have unexpected extra meanings.

 

Of course this is subject to the views of the person choosing to alert as to whether the call has "highly" unexpected nuances, and I don't recall ever being taken to task for excessive alerting. People have been subject to negative rulings if the opponents and/or TD views an action as highly unexpected.

 

Given that knowledge, which would we prefer to do? Keep em in the dark, or enlighten them? We would also prefer the same courtesy to be extended by opponents who are aware of the variance of their methods from the expected.

[barmar]

Yes, full disclosure is correct, but you need to be reasonable about it.

 

These days, most experienced players open aggressively -- some will open all 12 counts, and most 11 counts. Suppose you have an old fashioned partner who insists on sound openers -- he never learned to count to "rule of 20". Would you really alert all his 1-level openers, to inform the opponents that 13 HCP is very likely?

 

I think this is the kind of thing that David was alluding to when he said such a policy would require alerting 75% of bids.

[aguahombre]

Yes, full disclosure is correct, but you need to be reasonable about it.

 

These days, most experienced players open aggressively -- some will open all 12 counts, and most 11 counts. Suppose you have an old fashioned partner who insists on sound openers -- he never learned to count to "rule of 20". Would you really alert all his 1-level openers, to inform the opponents that 13 HCP is very likely?

 

I think this is the kind of thing that David was alluding to when he said such a policy would require alerting 75% of bids.

Yes, he probably was. Extending the concept of full disclosure to a situation not under discussion for the purpose of making it sound ridiculous seems ridiculous in and of itself, to me.