[Bbradley62]

---

Is this standard? If I didn't have a takeout double of 3♥, how can I have a takeout double the next time?

[steve2005]

yes its definitely superior to double at the 4-level that way your sure to be in game! lol

[1eyedjack]

It probably had 3 low hearts (explanation says 2-, but we all know that this can be out by one) and as is typical, places absolute faith in the honesty of the opponent's 4H bid, and places partner now with a Heart void. All of a sudden his hand becomes at least 2 tricks better but as they are only 1 level higher, that is a net gain of 1 which may be enough to compete.

Another possibility is that it fears that 4H will make, and while reluctant to sacrifice against a part score (or push them into a making game that they might not bid on their own), the P&L v their game bonus now makes action more attractive.

Madness, but I only speculate as to the reasoning.

The double should be penalty. Wanted to double 3H but feared doubling into game. Now that they are in game (and a level higher) the risks are decimated.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2014-September-03, 23:33, said:

The double should be penalty. Wanted to double 3H but feared doubling into game. Now that they are in game (and a level higher) the risks are decimated.

I was sitting South and wanted the penalty double.

[Bbradley62]

Variation on a theme... If North thinks the double is for takeout, shouldn't he take it out?

---

[uva72uva72]

Next to failing to take setting tricks (or, worse, underleading Aces) against nullo slams, I find the GIB implementation of doubles the most frustrating part of playing on BBO. From my perspective, the most egregious problems are:

1. Doubles are almost always for take-out when standard practice defines them as penalty (I'm guessing take-out is the default).
2. The robot makes panic passes of take-out doubles because its hand is weak and/or shapeless. This is particularly bad at high levels, where the robot seems to treat doubles that are unequivocally defined as take-out as co-operative instead. As a result, some players have taken to overcalling in 4-card suits at high levels to avoid the dreaded penalty pass and resultant phone number.
3. The robot pulls the few penalty doubles that are available for no good reason (and sometimes to previously unbid suits) when doing so cannot possibly gain.
4. The robot doubles for penalty when its hand does not meet the definition of a double or when it has no hand at all. This is particularly bad because you can't tell if you should pull the double (and perhaps even consider a sacrifice) or if this is one of the rare occasions when the robot is doubling on its own hand rather than on South's bidding.
5. Implementation of negative and responsive doubles is way out of line with standard practice. Both doubles were created to address hands for which no good bid is available. GIB uses them for hands for which much more accurate bids are available (such as making a negative double with 5 cards in the other major and an opening hand, or a responsive double with 5 cards in the other major).

[iandayre]

I don't recall doubling in that situation ever in my 35+ years as a duplicate player. I would like to know what the hand is. But yes, my first thought is penalty. As so often happens, GIB looks only at the current round of bidding and cannot recognize the implications of previous rounds.

In BBradley's other hand, even if it thinks X is penalty it should be taken out.

[Bbradley62]

These were Video Bridge hands, so I don't have records of them. On the first hand, I had something like xx, AQJ, Axxx, Axxx and thought I had a very good chance to set 4♥, but didn't want to take action over 3♥. I didn't preview the meaning, and was surprised when North bid. On the second hand, I had already had the first problem, so I actually meant it as a takeout. Can't win for losing...