Doubling when you have opponents suit.

[BudH]

Off-shape takeout doubles haven't been alertable for a while . There's a checkbox for it on the CC, but it's in black.

 

But I doubt they have it checked, because I suspect East doesn't understand that there's a normal shape for takeout doubles, and this isn't it.

 

An important piece of information is the HCP range listed for a direct seat overcall. Does it say a somewhat typical 7-17 HCP or similar? Or is it 6-12 HCP or similar? Or is it blank?

[johnu]

East is just a bad player. He probably also reverses on balanced 12-counts, leads unsupported aces in declarer's suit against nt contracts etc. What exactly are they supposed to disclose?

 

Isn't there a requirement that they pre-alert that they don't have a clue?

[mr1303]

Anyone who ever plays club bridge plays against pairs like this all the time. If you want to avoid it go to the county green point swiss pairs.

[blackshoe]

I still think that this is a case very much like "oh, we just need 8.5 playing tricks for 2♣, so AKQJTxxxx xx x x and out is 'strong'", where they gain from lack of disclosure, but also from lack of any sane way to disclose (and the "everybody plays like this" factor).

Don't get me started. :angry:

[Trinidad]

Exactly. You can't really expect full disclosure from pairs that don't know what they're doing.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that they are lifted from their duty to disclose.

 

The OP says:

Before bidding 2H's N asks about the X and is told it is takeout.

This is MI. EW may not know better, but even then it still is MI.

 

Then:

Dummy comes down on a H lead and N immediately calls the Director.

Complaining E doesn't have a T/O X and that they make these misleading X's all the time.

And the question is:

"Shouldn't they be alerting their X's," he asks?

And the answer is "Yes, they should."

 

Why should they alert? Because this is not some kind of shot or accidental misbid by East. This is their (implicit) agreement, since it happens all the time. North knows about it (he says so) and West knows about it too (otherwise he would have never bid 2♠).

 

Do I have a problem with EW for the fact that up to now they have never alerted their "takeout" doubles? Of course not, since they didn't know any better. But now that the TD has been made aware of this, it is his task to instruct EW -in a friendly and constructive way- to alert their "takeout" doubles in the future.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Where is the requirement to alert this double? ACBL jurisdiction, remember.

[helene_t]

It is a bit similar to all those club players who play 1NT-(pass)-2♠ as weak with one minor and announce or explain it as a "transfer to clubs".

 

Somehow someone should tell all those club players that they need to make it clear what the bid shows about their partner's hand, rather than using difficult words like "t/o double" or "transfer" which they obviously don't understand. But wrt t/o doubles we can't really insist on it because the better players DO use the word "t/o" in their disclosure.

[barmar]

It is a bit similar to all those club players who play 1NT-(pass)-2♠ as weak with one minor and announce or explain it as a "transfer to clubs".

I think 99% of bridge players don't really know the distinctions between transfer, relay, puppet, etc. If a bid asks partner to bid the next step, they mostly call it a transfer to that suit, regardless of whether it specifically shows that suit or it will be a p/c situation.

Somehow someone should tell all those club players that they need to make it clear what the bid shows about their partner's hand, rather than using difficult words like "t/o double" or "transfer" which they obviously don't understand. But wrt t/o doubles we can't really insist on it because the better players DO use the word "t/o" in their disclosure.

If partner is expected to bid their best suit in response, that's the definition of a takeout bid. The doubler's hand type is generally only implied. It's kind of like asking what a Stayman bid "shows", when it actually only "asks".

[Trinidad]

Where is the requirement to alert this double? ACBL jurisdiction, remember.

Okay, then the answer is: "No, but when asked you are not allowed to explain it as 'takeout'. Instead explain it as: '....' ('an opening' or whatever)".

 

Explaining it as 'takeout' is, as Helene points out, simply not correct.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

People get parsimonious with their explanations, I start saying "I don't know what that means."

[pigpenz]

I have seen one pair make a takeout double of 1♥ holding 4♠ and 6♥, and they play that they only show the other major

and this is with a player holding more than 2500 points. I think a lot of this comes from newer players who are able to move up

the masterpoint list by playing against weaker players without having to play against top level competition.

 

Personally on the posted hand I would have overcalled 1♠

[BudH]

Argh, I think I noticed that change a while back. I know why, too - because nobody who played them had any idea that they were at all unusual, let alone that you would have to Alert it.

 

I still think that this is a case very much like "oh, we just need 8.5 playing tricks for 2♣, so AKQJTxxxx xx x x and out is 'strong'", where they gain from lack of disclosure, but also from lack of any sane way to disclose (and the "everybody plays like this" factor).

 

Of course, in ACBL play, that solid 9-bagger 2 club opening is legal, described at http://cdn.acbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Opening-2-Clubs-With-Tricks-Not-Points.pdf .

[mycroft]

Absolutely, it is legal. So are minimum offshape takeout doubles.

 

What I said was that both of these have the issue that not only do we not disclose these tendencies well (who's going to look at someone's card every time they T/OX or 2♣ opener?), it's almost impossible *to* disclose them well. And both of these are treatments where the lack of disclosure aids the side that (legally, correctly) doesn't disclose.

 

Which rubs opponents the wrong way, especially when they're "Fixed - by Palookas!" (tm Simon). And the normal way of educating people that they're playing bad systems (by knowledgeable opponents taking them to the cleaners) doesn't work if the opponents aren't in the know.

[Zelandakh]

Which rubs opponents the wrong way, especially when they're "Fixed - by Palookas!" (tm Simon).

Personally I find it much more irksome to be fixed by clever players hiding behind the regulations than palookas. As an example, you very rarely hear a palooka use the expression "kitchen bridge" but a certain class of half-decent player will happily use the phrase to describe any call they want to keep their opponents in the dark about. When a beginner lucks out I am much more inclined to laugh about it and trust the luck to even out over time.

[mycroft]

I agree there are other issues with disclosure (in fact, I referenced one in the "oh, that diamond's a heart" thread). I especially agree that the "just bridge" crowd need to have their hands slapped until they stop doing it.

 

But *this* problem is that the people that do everything they must and can to disclose properly, are still surprising their opponents with calls that gain from that surprise. And if you've never heard a Flight A player when their opponent has just preempted them out of their game with a 2♣ "9 playing tricks" opener, you're a luckier TD than I am. And trust me, they don't "laugh about it".

 

Part of the problem is that the beginners who get this "wrong" get educated and change. As you said, it's that certain class of half-decent players who don't know and won't learn that are the irritating ones.

[johnu]

Of course, in ACBL play, that solid 9-bagger 2 club opening is legal, described at http://cdn.acbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Opening-2-Clubs-With-Tricks-Not-Points.pdf .

 

I wonder about a 10 bagger, something like

 

KQJ10xxxxxx

xx

x

--

 

which only requires 1 trick from partner to make game.

[blackshoe]

The General Convention Chart requires only that a 2♣ opening be "strong". What does "strong" mean? According to ACBL, it means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means. :rolleyes: