Strange way of playing TOX

[AL78]

I've been having a discussion with one of my regular partners after enquiring how she and one of her other regular partners got to 5♥ on a competitive hand going six down. I have found out that this other partner insists on doubling over an opening bid as showing an opening strength hand, even when holding a biddable suit. This partner is an aggressive player and likes to overcall on hands which I suspect many on here wouldn't dream of doing, but I was wondering if anyone on here plays such a convention or has come across it?

 

For info, here is the hand.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq6h62dakj874cj6&w=s5haq9dq5caq98742&n=sk92hj875dt962ck5&e=sjt8743hkt43d3ct3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1dd2d2s3dpp3h4d4h5d5hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I'm not certain of the auction beyond 4♦ so am guessing.

[Zelandakh]

I was wondering if anyone on here plays such a convention or has come across it?

One comes across this in two contexts. The first and most common is players that simply do not know any better. They double with any opening bid for the same reason that UK novices overcall 1NT with a balanced 12-14.

 

The second case is gadget lovers or quite good players who are using some variation of the overcall structure, where a double shows a good hand and other calls are weaker.

 

My guess is that your regular partner falls into the former category but may be wrong. Either way, if her agreement is as it is then that is probably alertable if you play in a jurisdiction where doubles are not self-alerting (such as online). If asked, it certainly needs to be made clear that it is not a standard takeout double. If she refuses to disclose her agreement as unusual, she is essentially cheating. I personally would not play with a partner that knowingly did that.

[spotlight7]

This was much like the style of some Italian players in the 60s.

 

Blue Team Club players overcalled @3-12HCP and doubled with 13+.

 

Responder was not supposed to expect more than 2 cards support

 

in any given suit after a double.

[Tramticket]

Either way, if her agreement is as it is then that is probably alertable if you play in a jurisdiction where doubles are not self-alerting (such as online).

 

This ought to be so. But in England, the EBU has completely watered down the regulation. You don't need to alert take out doubles and there is no shape requirement for a take-out double - just the requirement that the doubler wishes to compete and partner is expected to bid but might pass.

 

You can expect no sympathy from an English director when an opponent makes one of these bizarre doubles.

[blackshoe]

Well, I'm glad I don't play in England any more, then.

[mycroft]

Or in the US I guess - the ACBL got rid of the Alert for "minimum offshape doubles" years ago.

 

You can check my history - I got caught by it at least twice here before the memory stuck.

[Zelandakh]

This ought to be so. But in England, the EBU has completely watered down the regulation. You don't need to alert take out doubles and there is no shape requirement for a take-out double - just the requirement that the doubler wishes to compete and partner is expected to bid but might pass.

In that case a simple Double of a 1suit opening bid should be regarded as self-alerting in England. Regardless of the alert, if asked an accurate description should be given. A simple description of "takeout" here should be regarded as MI - hopefully Gordon will confirm.

[barmar]

The problem with expecting people who "don't know any better" to alert is that they think it's standard. They're just copying what they've seen other players do, and it gets passed along like this, all of them thinking it's normal.

 

If they knew it was inappropriate they probably wouldn't make the bids in the first place.

 

It really is for takeout since they expect partner to bid -- they just don't concern themselves with the followups if partner bids their short suit.

[mcphee]

Clearly the player has no idea about the game.

[Vampyr]

Or in the US I guess - the ACBL got rid of the Alert for "minimum offshape doubles" years ago.

 

Yes, so did the EBU. It is a real shame; why make players ask every time an opponent makes a simple takeout double.

 

A long time ago I read a book by Terence Reese; There was a hand where he considered overcalling, but since it had opening strength he elected to double. There is a reason why such methods have fallen out of favour…

[mycroft]

Mostly because, as everyone is mentioning here, and elsewhere, the people who play this don't realize it's unusual. Therefore, they don't know they would have to Alert it. In fact, they would wonder why, with a 16-count with 6 spades, you bid 1♠ - nobody they know would do that, they would double. Why aren't you Alerting?

 

Do I like this? No. But it's just the same as everything else where there are multiple common possibilities all not Alertable (or all Alertable, for that matter).

[Tramticket]

I don't buy this argument that the EBU can't regulate because: "they don't know any better".

 

Players who open a Benji 2C on an 8-card suit headed by AKQJ and nothing else also don't know what they're doing, but the EBU is determined to twist and turn into all sorts of ridiculous contortions to ban this practice. It is far easier to define a take-out double than a Benji 2C and they could require an alert - if they had the will.

 

Maybe these players would have a better understanding if their national body gave a clearer direction.

[helene_t]

The idea that a double "shows an opening hand" is also extremely widespread in the Netherlands.

 

Probably some teachers and textbooks defined a t/o double as something like "opening strength with tolerance for all unbid suits OR a very strong hand" and an overcall as "could be less than opening strength", and then somehow it became too complicated for some so they just abbreviated it to "double=opening, overcall=less than opening".

[akwoo]

The idea that a double "shows an opening hand" is also extremely widespread in the Netherlands.

 

Probably some teachers and textbooks defined a t/o double as something like "opening strength with tolerance for all unbid suits OR a very strong hand" and an overcall as "could be less than opening strength", and then somehow it became too complicated for some so they just abbreviated it to "double=opening, overcall=less than opening".

 

1) It is too complicated for some players.

 

2) How much do you lose playing this way? I'm guessing, on 100 boards, you lose on 5 and gain on 2 playing this way? That's way too small a difference for casual bridge players to notice or care about. Most players lose way more boards not noticing that their side suit is good or forgetting what declarer's last card is.

 

3) A requirement to alert is a non-starter, because when you tell a life novice that they have to alert some agreement because other players don't play it that way, you're effectively telling them that they're playing the game wrong. They might know they're not good players, but they don't want to be told that.

[helene_t]

2) How much do you lose playing this way? I'm guessing, on 100 boards, you lose on 5 and gain on 2 playing this way? That's way too small a difference for casual bridge players to notice or care about. Most players lose way more boards not noticing that their side suit is good or forgetting what declarer's last card is.

Probably you lose a lot less. And for some pairs, playing unplayable methods may even be a long-term winner. Some of those pairs also play that reverses don't show extras, that a 1NT opening promises a stopper in each suit, and that 4♣ is always Gerber. I don't expect any of those agreement to lose more than 0.2%/board or so at MP, either.

 

A requirement to alert is a non-starter

Absolutely. Even if they could be taught that t/o doubles that just show opening strength is alertable, it doesn't serve much of a purpose anyway. A realistic goal of club-level alert regulations is to get people to alert artificial conventions where a natural treatment is the norm, for example multi and Verdi. Many club players are averse to alerting because they find that it doesn't help opps but only serves to brag about sophisticated systems and to pass UI to partner.

 

I would suggest a course in rules and ethics for those who aspire to play in external competition, but at the club level you'll have to enforce more liberal rules. It's good to have a discussion about this with players at different levels, though, since at some clubs, many will disagree. And if it turns out that there's a general wanting for playing by the EBU rules, then by all means go for it.

[TylerE]

The problem here isn't the whacky double.

 

It's East taking *3* free bids on a ratty 4 count.

[Vampyr]

Probably you lose a lot less. And for some pairs, playing unplayable methods may even be a long-term winner. Some of those pairs also play that reverses don't show extras, that a 1NT opening promises a stopper in each suit, and that 4♣ is always Gerber. I don't expect any of those agreement to lose more than 0.2%/board or so at MP, either.

 

And being on the other side of these actions often costs a lot.

[johnu]

This was much like the style of some Italian players in the 60s.

 

Blue Team Club players overcalled @3-12HCP and doubled with 13+.

 

Responder was not supposed to expect more than 2 cards support

 

in any given suit after a double.

As Avon Wilsmore noted in his book The Case Against the Blue Team, those offshape doubles worked much better when partner knows the doubler's shape.

[Tramticket]

How much do you lose playing this way? I'm guessing, on 100 boards, you lose on 5 and gain on 2 playing this way?

 

I am prepared to accept these numbers. But ...

 

I suggest that they ought to lose more than 5. But they never seem to end in the ridiculous contract because their partner always seems to have a justification not to bid 4M, despite holding a five-card suit. They might be "life novices", but they do know what type of hand partner will hold and bid on that assumption. Is it unreasonable that we should also know?

 

Most of their two gains will occur when they don't win the auction, declarer makes a plan based on the likely suit distribution. The plan would be different if properly informed.

[Tramticket]

I would suggest a course in rules and ethics for those who aspire to play in external competition, but at the club level you'll have to enforce more liberal rules. It's good to have a discussion about this with players at different levels, though, since at some clubs, many will disagree. And if it turns out that there's a general wanting for playing by the EBU rules, then by all means go for it.

 

But the strange thing is that they are playing by the EBU rules and they can (and do) continue to do this in external competitions. A course in rules and ethics will be ineffective if the rules are poorly drafted.

[akwoo]

I am prepared to accept these numbers. But ...

 

I suggest that they ought to lose more than 5. But they never seem to end in the ridiculous contract because their partner always seems to have a justification not to bid 4M, despite holding a five-card suit. They might be "life novices", but they do know what type of hand partner will hold and bid on that assumption. Is it unreasonable that we should also know?

 

Most of their two gains will occur when they don't win the auction, declarer makes a plan based on the likely suit distribution. The plan would be different if properly informed.

 

At least 3 of the 5 they lose is when partner does NOT bid 4M when it makes.

 

Yeah sometimes you get fixed by poor disclosure when you play against people who don't know what they're doing. You gain more because they don't know what they're doing. It's part of bad players randomizing games.

 

The alternative is to make it against the rules to be bad at bridge, which drives people out of the game. Maybe you're lucky to be in a place with enough good players that you actually can still have a game after driving out all the bad players, but I'm not, and I'd like to have face-to-face games again when conditions permit.

[helene_t]

But the strange thing is that they are playing by the EBU rules and they can (and do) continue to do this in external competitions. A course in rules and ethics will be ineffective if the rules are poorly drafted.

Oh but I don't propose a course in some idosyncratic club rules. The EBU rules are well written and players who want to play external need to know them.

 

I'm not sure what I would do at club evenings. Maybe "in principle" follow EBU rules and just not enforce them too strictly? It's not ideal but you can't penalize people for lack of alerts if alert rules are broken all the time. So I would focus on the most important, simple and obvious alert rules like artificial 2-openings and NT defences.

 

People don't alert negative freebids either but often they don't really play negative freebids, they just don't know if a freebid is forcing or not. And I wouldn't go into a discussion of whether non-agreements can be alertable.

[Tramticket]

The EBU rules are well written and players who want to play external need to know them.

 

In most areas, I would agree with you that the EBU rules are well written.

 

 

But compare the previous Blue Book:

 

BB3D2

If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values (not just on hands that are shot in the opponent's suit or have substantial extra values) , this should be disclosed on the system card. Similarly the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be marked on the system card.

 

BB3H3

A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take-out, though a pass may be made on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

 

with the current wording:

 

BB3D2

If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values including length in opener’s suit, this should be disclosed on the system card. Similarly the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be marked on the front of the system card.

 

BB3H3

A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Partner is expected to bid, though a pass may be made on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of the level of bid doubled and what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.

[AL78]

The problem here isn't the whacky double.

 

It's East taking *3* free bids on a ratty 4 count.

 

He is a gambler by nature.

[AL78]

The alternative is to make it against the rules to be bad at bridge, which drives people out of the game.

 

It wouldn't just drive people out of the game, it would kill the game, because it would effectively make it against the rules to be a beginner, then how do people learn the game?