ultra-light takeout doubles

[mikl_plkcc]

I have recently found that I started to make takeout doubles habitually whenever I have the right shape, i.e. 4-4-4-1 and 5-4-4-0 only. In the past, I would make it holding 10+ HCPs, but now, I seems to always put the double even with 8 HCPs, and sometimes with even only 6 HCPs if the points are good. What would be effect if takeout doubles are consistently made under standard strength?

[gwnn]

I like ultra-flat, not ultra-light. I'm not sure what would happen, but ultra-flat seems to come up more often than ultra-light since 3-suiters are not that common especially not over openings of 1m.

[Zelandakh]

The main effect woudl probably be to move towards one of the methods that has split-range takeout doubles. Typically this splits these hands between X and 1NT; I think Ken has such a method and I know a few good pairs in England use such methods - perhaps Frances or Cyberyeti might be able to fill us in what is being played over there.

[billw55]

What would be effect if takeout doubles are consistently made under standard strength?

1. You should pre-alert this agreement.

2. You will find yourself redoubled and in trouble somewhat more often.

3. Sometimes you will gain by getting in the auction earlier, allowing partner to compete.

 

Probably some other things too, but I'll leave bidding theory to the bidding theorists.

[ArtK78]

A significant problem when playing understrength shape takeout doubles is that responder will not know how much to bid with moderate to good hands. This can be deadly at IMPs, but I can see the advantage of getting into the auction light at matchpoints.

[mikeh]

I have recently found that I started to make takeout doubles habitually whenever I have the right shape, i.e. 4-4-4-1 and 5-4-4-0 only. In the past, I would make it holding 10+ HCPs, but now, I seems to always put the double even with 8 HCPs, and sometimes with even only 6 HCPs if the points are good. What would be effect if takeout doubles are consistently made under standard strength?

1. you will likely have (probably already have, based on your post) disclosure issues. Your opps are entitled to know what your partner knows...that you have a distinctly non-standard agreement

 

2. Your constructive bidding will suffer. This is inevitable, unless you use, say, 1N to show one range of takeout and double the other. Anytime you widen range shown by an initial action, your side's ability to bid accurately is diminished. And if you do opt for using 1N as a takeout double of some kind, you lose the ability to show the strong 1N overcall...this will have a ripple-through effect on your defensive methods

 

3. Against weak opps, you will probably do very well. Against stronger...I very much doubt it

 

4. While I think the style likely a loser long-term at all forms of the game, it will certainly mix things up a lot, and increasing variance can result in some big mp scores (as well as some low ones), so it strikes me as very much a mp tactic. In addition, you gain at mps by the fact that the opps will be repeatedly unfamiliar with your approach and won't have time to even discuss how to deal with it. If you like winning boards because of that factor, then go for it. Personally, I find that a negative.

[mycroft]

I was just asked about this last week, in fact.

 

I explained that if that is their style, then it's not a psychic (which the complainers were complaining about); it's part of their agreements and legal (in our area). *BUT*, there are disclosure issues, and it is likely that at least some of the good results they are getting from this style come from the lack of disclosure. *AND* in the ACBL at least, it is difficult to disclose this properly. But if they do, and if it works even after the disclosure, then go for it.

 

I agree it probably will work better against weaker players, but I think this style has its theoretical benefits as well - witness the people who are willing to play "no strong bid" at MPs to get more preempts. "Quantity has a quality all its own", after all, and you get a *lot* more takeout doubles that way.

[aguahombre]

+1 to MikeH. The disclosure issue is covered above.

 

Also, ultra flat and ultra lite both have problems for partner and his/her ability to compete. In one, the problems are lack of fit issues; in the other (or both), danger of getting whacked. Not sure which is worse for our long-run expectations, so we choose neither.

[lalldonn]

I have seen people make lighter and lighter takeout doubles of one-level opening bids for years now and I still don't understand it. I haven't found it to be that effective at all, and often partner just bids game and goes down for no reason.

[rsteele]

Ultra light to dbles have the additional flaw in that you have disclosed your shape to a competent declarer when you do not declare.

[gwnn]

Aguahombre, as gnasher would say, doubling all the time will often lead to bidding problems but passing will often lead to scoring problems :P (add some reference to bayonets)

[aguahombre]

I have found that doubling, passing, or overcalling after looking at our cards and the conditions doesn't result in scoring problems, bidding problems, or partner problems.

 

If I make enough random flat doubles that partner can't figure out how to advance them, all I have done is either get to more bad contracts and/or tell the opponents where the missing HCP are located.

[awm]

The problem that comes up at matchpoints is that it often pays to make close doubles of partials. A sound takeout double promises enough values that partner can usually make a good decision when to attempt this. If you make takeout doubles on a very wide range of hands, you miss out on the opportunity for some lucrative matchpoint penalties.

 

Using 1NT as a weak takeout wrong-sides a lot of notrump contracts. It's not unusual to end up playing 1NT after a takeout double (even after a light takeout double) and you basically cannot do this (at least not from the right side) after the takeout 1NT. This is in addition to the problems that arise on strong balanced hands (and the strong 1NT is a surprisingly effective preempt at times as well as getting you to your games).

[SteveMoe]

Here's an Overcall Structure that offers a 4-14 HCP takeout bid: 1NT. Double shows 14+ usually balanced.

 

Seems in context of this post it is possible to invert the meanings of 1NT and double (full disclosure - not checked all ramifications).

 

What this brings is an ability to have disciplined weaker takeouts without losing the ability to diagnose strong fits in competition.

[kenrexford]

If interested, my "Really Unusual Notrump (RUNT)" covers this two way takeout method.

[phil_20686]

Don't forget how helpful it is to declarer to get a good idea of the shape. If you play ultra light t/o doubles and you dont make one, then you are basically marked with 3+ trumps. Imagine that you will give away a lot of extra tricks in the trump suit alone playing this way.

[Mbodell]

I don't think a perfect shape 8 HCP is ultra-light for a one level t.o. double.

 

I think it is difficult to play this style and also X with a bunch of flat 13 hcp hands. But if your X shows shape accurately to partner, I think you can make it work.

[gwnn]

I have found that doubling, passing, or overcalling after looking at our cards and the conditions doesn't result in scoring problems, bidding problems, or partner problems.

That is quite remarkable. Making (for the sake of the argument) perfect competitive decisions will not result in problems?

 

This is reminiscent of my early days of bridge when we would make some post-mortems with much wiser club players and they would go

they 'they played 2S='

me 'oh our opps found 3C here, east doubled on the first round'

they 'that is preposterous, I am sure they lose a lot of IMPS with this stupid style'

and if the opps ever got in trouble with their silly doubles, they would say

'aha! I told you!'

 

So if opps win by making a strange double/enter the auction early and find some contract, it means that their style is silly and my style is good anyway, they won because they are lucky. If I win imps because I passed wisely throughout, it means that my style is good and I won because I am clever.

 

There is a certain bias that disregards any losses encountered by us passing and our opps making some crazy competitive bidding. I even have it too, no doubt about it and I made good use of this irrational attitude in Iceland (where people cherish the idea of colours being only for children), but I believe it is clearly a wrong attitude to have and it clearly merits more thought whenever they win by bidding/acting more (and I am not saying my flat doubles are automatically right if they happen to win 5 imps on one board or another).

 

I am jumping to conclusions here but do you realise what you are saying by implying that your style doesn't cause you any bidding problems at all? I bet there would be world champions willing to pay millions for a style like that. Even adjusting for a dosage of hyperbole on your side (yes I make hyperboles too and they are fun), I see the following possibilities why you would say this:

-You are incredibly lucky that you got only 'easy hands' throughout your career.

-You are redefining bidding problems as something like 'bad situations where a stupid call got us' and by definition your calls are not stupid

-You are irrationally biased against active calls you would not make

 

Yes, my style has big drawbacks and it has lost me many a board. However, it can do other things than just stop partner from advancing them. Partner will have a harder time to advance them sometimes but at other times he will have a much easier time to advance my double than your pass. In particular, whenever partner has a 4- or 5-card major or 5-card minor and he hears my double (and he will hear me double much more often than you) he can be quite happy about this*. I am not promising 4-card support for pd but then again, neither are you! It is much easier to bid a hand with a suit like Axxxx (and a king or so outside) in competition when I doubled to show 11+ with 3+ in unbid majors, (2)3+ in unbid minors (no I do not double on all hands that fulfill these criteria but I am close) than when you passed to show either a hand that is almost a textbook takeout double, or a hand almost a perfect overcall, or a hand that is just quite weak/bad. It will also be much easier for opponents to bid out their partscores when we pass throughout than when I double and my partner bids 2S. But yes, all of these upsides are just a product of a crazy, irrational, idiotic style that can only help opponents, so any wins thanks to it is just a product of my imagination and should definitely be ignored and probably ridiculed.

 

And what about when I double and they declare? Yes, they will be able to place some cards quite accurately, but at least they do not know that much about my shape. If I make a takeout double with a textbook hand it will be harder to know I have a textbook hand now than if you and I both double and you are defending. Maybe a secondary win but a win nonetheless. BTW this win does not apply for 'ultra light' doubles.

[P_Marlowe]

We play ultra-light T/O doubles, but only versus a passed partner, i.e. partner had

the chance to bid, but was not able to.

 

This way you are basically prebalancing, you have the shape, you act.

 

Going that way you also minimize the issues, that you may miss game / whatever.

 

Of course you disclose information, if they declarer, but than they may not win the

bidding, or they may play a level higher, which counters the loss of giving away

information ... take your pick.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

We play ultra-light T/O doubles, but only versus a passed partner, i.e. partner had

the chance to bid, but was not able to.

 

This way you are basically prebalancing, you have the shape, you act.

 

Going that way you also minimize the issues, that you may miss game / whatever.

 

Of course you disclose information, if they declarer, but than they may not win the

bidding, or they may play a level higher, which counters the loss of giving away

information ... take your pick.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

the opps are entitled to disclosure during the auction. It is highly unethical to employ non-standard agreements known only to you and partner during the auction. It is absurd...and wrong..to suggest that they only need to be told if they declare.

[Zelandakh]

They are also entitled to know that you will not hold this hand when you do not double. This can potentially be even more revealing but very few players seem to see the need to disclose such negative inferences.

[ArtK78]

They are also entitled to know that you will not hold this hand when you do not double. This can potentially be even more revealing but very few players seem to see the need to disclose such negative inferences.

You may think this is true, but the fact is that negative inferences are much more difficult to deal with than positive inferences.

 

To take a ridiculous example, suppose the auction starts Pass - "ALERT! Partner's pass implies that he does not have 12+ HCP or a distributional hand which he considers to be worth an opening bid or a preemptive hand (either weak 2 bid or higher preempt). Furthermore, in our partnership's history partner has been known to psyche on one or more particular types of hands, so the odds are that he does not have that hand. Furthermore...."

 

You can see where I am going with this.

 

This is not as over the top as you might think. Take a straight-forward situation of a pair that plays support doubles. If the auction goes 1♣ - (P) - 1♥ - (1♠), opener's double here (a support double) is alertable in ACBL land. However, his direct raise to 2♠ (promising 4 spades) is not alertable, AND HIS PASS OR ANY OTHER NATURAL CALL IS NOT ALERTABLE, despite the fact that for most partnerships this would deny holding 3 spades. Furthermore, the partnership is under no affirmative obligation to bring to light the fact that the failure to double or raise implies holding less than 3 spades.

 

So I wouldn't go too far with the idea that a partnership that makes ultra light takeout doubles has an obligation to disclose the negative inferences from the failure to make a takeout double.

[mikeh]

You may think this is true, but the fact is that negative inferences are much more difficult to deal with than positive inferences.

 

<snipped>

This is not as over the top as you might think. Take a straight-forward situation of a pair that plays support doubles. If the auction goes 1♣- (P) - 1♥ - (1♠), opener's double here (a support double) is alertable in ACBL land. However, his direct raise to 2♠ (promising 4 spades) is not alertable, AND HIS PASS OR ANY OTHER NATURAL CALL IS NOT ALERTABLE, despite the fact that for most partnerships this would deny holding 3 spades. Furthermore, the partnership is under no affirmative obligation to bring to light the fact that the pass or other action implies less than 3 spades.

 

So I wouldn't go too far with the idea that a partnership that makes ultra light takeout doubles has an obligation to disclose the negative inferences from the failure to make a takeout double.

I'm surprised at this, tho admit that I don't play much and haven't played a Nationals or gone to a Regional in years. I always alert when partner passes or makes a non-raise/support call when playing support doubles, since in my opinion the opps are entitled to know that my partner 'usually denies 3 card support' by his non-double. Am I wrong to do so?

[billw55]

I'm surprised at this, tho admit that I don't play much and haven't played a Nationals or gone to a Regional in years. I always alert when partner passes or makes a non-raise/support call when playing support doubles, since in my opinion the opps are entitled to know that my partner 'usually denies 3 card support' by his non-double. Am I wrong to do so?

Yes, the are entitled to know. Hence they should ask.

 

Well, that's really just my opinion, maybe the laws agree and maybe not. Personally though I agree with Art, things would really get out of hand if negative inferences must be altered. Absolutely every time my partner calls, there are calls he did not make. It would be silly to alert all this. Also I feel that bridge players have at least some responsibility to protect themselves, by asking, looking at a CC, etc.

[Zelandakh]

Meckwell always alert this pass too when I have seen them on vugraph, although the regulations are naturally different playing with screens. I would say that the easy answer is to make sure that such unusual treatments are displayed prominently on the front of the CC but comments from several ACBL members suggest this is a silly suggestion.