Is this explanation legal ?

[lycier]

Hello moderators :

 

This matter happened in the my club at BBO，a pair of players always make a special double at 1 level,even often at 2 level.

For example :

They hold :

♣ KQxx

♦Kxxx

♥Axx

♠Jx

 

 

While RHO opens any suit at one level,they always make double only to show 13hcp in the hand without any other explanation.

Here I can 100% confirm they are not cheaters,they are boss of two companies,nearly 60 years old,playing this game over 20 years,not for the fame or the score.

Some members said that if their explanation is legal,can we explain all of doubles as xx hcp or power or values ?

 

How would you rule?

 

Thank you.

 

Best Regards

 

 

Lycier

[blackshoe]

Not familiar with the "my club" on BBO, but speaking generally, what is and is not a legal agreement is a matter of regulation, not law. So you would have to ask whoever's in charge of the event what regulations are in force.

 

This is, basically, a card showing double. If this were an ACBL event, it would be legal, and it would not require an alert. It would require an accurate explanation, but you say they're doing that.

 

"Some members said that if their explanation is legal,can we explain all of doubles as xx hcp or power or values ?"

 

You have to explain your agreement about your doubles. If your agreement is "card showing", that's how you explain it — with any shape or HCP implications you've agreed, as well.

 

If, having agreed to play takeout doubles, you make a takeout double, but explain it as "card-showing", you're not explaining your agreements, and that violates the laws of the game.

[billw55]

I can't imagine why it would be illegal. They have an agreement, their explanation of it is accurate, and it matches the actual hand they hold. What could be the problem?

[Vampyr]

Alertable in EBU. I thought that this was the case in the ACBL too, because the checkbox on their CC is red.

 

I don't know what regulations are in force, but if they are unclear it is safest to require an alert. And they should explain the double as "card-showing" or "potentially minimum offshape" or whatever their agreemen actually is.

[nige1]

Alertable in EBU. I thought that this was the case in the ACBL too, because the checkbox on their CC is red. I don't know what regulations are in force, but if they are unclear it is safest to require an alert. And they should explain the double as "card-showing" or "potentially minimum offshape" or whatever their agreemen actually is.

Such doubles are also called Italian or Welsh

[barmar]

The checkbox for "Minimum off-shape takeout doubles" on the ACBL CC is now black. I don't remember when it was changed from red, but it's been a few years.

[mgoetze]

This isn't an "off-shape takeout double". It's a double showing points that has nothing to do with a takeout double.

[lycier]

Because such explanation is too fuzzy,often not to be understood,or even some people suspected they have some secret key agreement,so this matter is really embarrassing.

[billw55]

Because such explanation is too fuzzy,often not to be understood,or even some people suspected they have some secret key agreement,so this matter is really embarrassing.

It doesn't sound fuzzy to me. They double with values and any shape, and explain it as only showing values.

 

Some people, at clubs especially, think that any agreement that they are not familiar with is somehow unethical or illegal. That is their own problem.

 

 

[blackshoe]

This isn't an "off-shape takeout double". It's a double showing points that has nothing to do with a takeout double.

On the ACBL system card I'm looking at right now, there's a box for "card showing" and another for "min off-shape TO".

[sanst]

For quite a few not so good players around here it's normal to bid like that. Their double shows 12+ HCP and no 5+ in a suit. After their partner has made a call, which might show zilch, they bid on wth a minimum and quite often have a good result, because their opps do the same. I wouldn't call this a special double; the names I've in mind are not very nice.

[barmar]

This isn't an "off-shape takeout double". It's a double showing points that has nothing to do with a takeout double.

Partner is generally expected to bid their longest suit (i.e. take it out), unless they have a strong enough holding in opener's suit to convert it, right? Isn't that the definition of a takeout double? The fact that doubler doesn't necessarily have the traditional shortness in opener's suit doesn't change that (but it's what makes it "off-shape").

 

I think "card-showing" doubles generally come up later in competitive auctions, when a player needs to show values without specific direction.

[mgoetze]

Partner is generally expected to bid their longest suit (i.e. take it out), unless they have a strong enough holding in opener's suit to convert it, right?

How would I know - you'll have to ask the people who play this crazy method.

[helene_t]

Partner is generally expected to bid their longest suit (i.e. take it out), unless they have a strong enough holding in opener's suit to convert it, right? Isn't that the definition of a takeout double?

Probably most will respond like they do to a t/o double except that a non-jump response could be quite strong (they may think that a new suit by responder is forcing). Doubler's 1NT rebid is 12-14 OR 18-20.

 

Some have the agreement that the cheapest bid is negative and everything else is positive.

 

Anyway, they have to disclose their agreements about what the double shows. Describing the follow ups are only helpful if that is the easiest way to make opps understand what the double shows.

 

So this is all fine if people were taught never to use a convention name ("take-out double") to describe the meaning of a call but always explain what it means. Of course at tournament level, people will know what t/o means and it would be a waste of time to explain that to opps at the table. But in the B-line of the local club I don't think any convention names should be used. We can make an exception for Stayman, maybe.

[billw55]

Probably most will respond like they do to a t/o double except that a non-jump response could be quite strong (they may think that a new suit by responder is forcing). Doubler's 1NT rebid is 12-14 OR 18-20.

 

Some have the agreement that the cheapest bid is negative and everything else is positive.

 

Anyway, they have to disclose their agreements about what the double shows. Describing the follow ups are only helpful if that is the easiest way to make opps understand what the double shows.

True. In practice though, those who use this "method" are likely to be poor players. Often they will not be able to accurately describe their agreements, or even be aware of what their default agreement is. I think this is the kind of thing you just have to live with in club games.

[helene_t]

Often they will not be able to accurately describe their agreements, or even be aware of what their default agreement is. I think this is the kind of thing you just have to live with in club games.

Yes, but in some cases they really have the agreement that the double can be any hand with opening strength and not suitable for an IJO or 1NT overcall, and if they have that agreement then they may be able to disclose it. Sometimes they say "it shows opening strength" without mentioning any negative inference, but that is still better than saying "t/o". Especially because it is obvious that there will be some negative inference, and opps can ask about that.

[lycier]

How would I know - you'll have to ask the people who play this crazy method.

True. In practice though, those who use this "method" are likely to be poor players. Often they will not be able to accurately describe their agreements, or even be aware of what their default agreement is. I think this is the kind of thing you just have to live with in club games.

 

Recent several years more and more players of my country employ this double,however Max Hardy mentioned on his book that some of Ameican players also employed this method in real life.

[blackshoe]

Recent several years more and more players of my country employ this double,however Max Hardy mentioned on his book that some of Ameican players also employed this method in real life.

Max wrote a lot of books. Which one?

[barmar]

My experience is similar to Bill's -- most people who double like this have no idea that it's not a normal takeout double. They think that double is just the way to show opening strength with no suit you can overcall with. They do expect partner to take it out, and don't even consider the problem of partner bidding their short suit.

 

BTW, suppose you have the agreement to play takeout doubles through 4♥. RHO opens 4♥ and you have a big hand with 4=2=2-5 shape. Wouldn't you double, hoping partner can bid 4♠, and willing to risk playing in a poor fit in a minor? Would you give a different description for your low-level doubles and high-level doubles? Or is this example irrelevant to the discussion, because it's GBK that you may have to stretch when bidding over a preempt?

[billw55]

My experience is similar to Bill's -- most people who double like this have no idea that it's not a normal takeout double. They think that double is just the way to show opening strength with no suit you can overcall with. They do expect partner to take it out, and don't even consider the problem of partner bidding their short suit.

 

BTW, suppose you have the agreement to play takeout doubles through 4♥. RHO opens 4♥ and you have a big hand with 4=2=2-5 shape. Wouldn't you double, hoping partner can bid 4♠, and willing to risk playing in a poor fit in a minor? Would you give a different description for your low-level doubles and high-level doubles? Or is this example irrelevant to the discussion, because it's GBK that you may have to stretch when bidding over a preempt?

When I teach any game, I present rules before exceptions. (meaning guidelines/rules of thumb, not actual rules). If they can't get the general rule understood, the exceptions will remain beyond them as well, and no sense bringing them up, imo. A simple example is cashing top winners in the early tricks. If they can't stop doing that, attempting to explain a vienna coup is pretty pointless.

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

A simple example is cashing top winners in the early tricks. If they can't stop doing that, attempting to explain a vienna coup is pretty pointless.

 

Although...

[lycier]

Max wrote a lot of books. Which one?

 

It is " Advanced bridge bidding system for the 21th century".

[lycier]

Max Hardy also said that actually they are poor players and don't even know how to fill in his CC.

So opinions of Bill and mgoetze are correct.