[karen4]

In the national pairs regional final we had the following auction

3H - X - XX - 4D
P - P - 4H Passed out

The X was not alerted and when asked was just described as takeout

The hand turned out to be:
Qxx
AJxx
Txx
Jxx

When questioned about their methods the pair maintained that double was takeout, and both felt that this hand was a normal takeout double at the 3 level for them.

There was no damage on the hand (a) we would probably ended up in the same spot as we would have if we had known that the doubler could have 4 hearts and an 8 count and (b) there was no damage in the play and © it did not seem to be fielded

We spoke to a director whether they should be alerting these double and disclosing that it may be an 8 count with 4 trumps. We were told no as it is up to them what they consider a takeout double & just because we don't agree this qualifies doesn't make it alertable. He said he would ask they to put something on their card, but this seems pointless to me. Most people would just ask if the double were takeout and be told it is.

Views?

[Pict]

It's very odd, but his partner did take it out.

[jallerton]

The TD is correct. The "simple" rule is that doubles of natural suit bids are not alertable if they are for take-out.

Your opponents on this board had an unusual style, certainly, but there is no "potentially unexpected meaning" in the alerting rules for doubles.

On the other hand, when asked about the meaning of the double, they should give full details of their agreement and if they play a non-standard version of take-out double they should say so.

[bluejak]

Which jurisdiction?

[aguahombre]

Let's take a wild guess that it was in Reno. But, since you are thoroughly familiar with ACBL and with EBU, maybe an answer applicable to both would be worth reading.

[blackshoe]

The poster seems to be in England.

I suppose the question is whether one should alert a "takeout" double that does not conform to some normative idea of what such a double is.

I would agree with a player who argued that the higher the level at which one is doubling, the less likely the double is to conform to ideal shape - 4441. OTOH, one would ordinarily expect a lot more HCP than 8 for a TO double at any level, so this seems a very unusual agreement to me. OTGH, if the ACBL can say that "strong" means whatever the player making the "strong" bid thinks it means, then I suppose they or some other jurisdiction can say that a "takeout double" shows whatever the player making it thinks it shows.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on Mar 22 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

Let's take a wild guess that it was in Reno. 

Guess again. The OP said it was a national pairs regional final and the regional finals took place today (Sunday) in England, I think the juristriction was EBU. In fact, I would guess the original poster played at the heat were gordontd was scorer.

[peachy]

If this were the ACBL, there is a tickbox in the section SPECIAL DOUBLES, for
"Min. Offshape T/O"

The least the TD should do is enforce they tick that box, since the pair said this is a T/O Double in their methods and this most certainly is a Minimum Offshape Takeout Double. Such doubles are not alertable. However, I would think at some point in time they should be made alertable, and perhaps at national level events that sort of Dbl is so unusual that for that reason alone it should be alerted, also by the Alert Regulation [something that is very unusual or unexpected]. Had it been a club game, there are more of these birds there and it is not so unusual.

PS. Only later did I see that this probably was not ACBL.

This post has been edited by peachy: 2010-March-21, 19:06

[bluejak]

If it is England then I think it is not alertable, but does need to be shown on the SC and explained in answer to a question.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on Mar 22 2010, 01:46 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Mar 22 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

Let's take a wild guess that it was in Reno. 

Guess again. The OP said it was a national pairs regional final and the regional finals took place today (Sunday) in England, I think the juristriction was EBU. In fact, I would guess the original poster played at the heat were gordontd was scorer.

Yes, that's correct. I was consulted about this. The pair in question had marked on their card that their takeout doubles of pre-empts could be very weak. I suggested that they be advised to mark their card to indicate that they also might not have typical shape for their takeout doubles (and explain it if asked), but I think the evidence from the auction is that they were not playing the double as anything but takeout.

[mjj29]

gordontd, on Mar 22 2010, 02:58 AM, said:

Yes, that's correct. I was consulted about this. The pair in question had marked on their card that their takeout doubles of pre-empts could be very weak. I suggested that they be advised to mark their card to indicate that they also might not have typical shape for their takeout doubles (and explain it if asked), but I think the evidence from the auction is that they were not playing the double as anything but takeout.

If I were playing such a method I would certainly alert it and, like this oppo, be unhappy when it was not alerted against me. It certainly has "a potentially unexpected meaning", which the orange book defines as making a bid or pass alertable, but not a double, which I think is a significant omission and I shall be writing to the laws and ethics committee requesting that this be changed.

[karen4]

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

Which jurisdiction?

It was in England as everyone seems to have worked out. Sorry for the omission. I suppose when we asked 'takeout double?' we would have expected more of an answer than 'yes'. I can't imagine ever having asked this question and received this answer, then picking up the convention card and looking for it on there to see if there were additional information.

[jeremy69]

Quote

If I were playing such a method I would certainly alert it

This would be because you don't agree with the alerting regulations and wish to make a point?
There are other situations where double is take out but conveys an additional message. For example RHO opens a Weak 2 and you double, take out but showing 16+ because with a 12-15 take out you would have bid 3C. It may not be the best method but it is certainly legal and when the L&E were consulted as to whether this was alertable recently they said no under the current regulations. Section 5E1 of the Orange Book says "UNless it is announceable a pass or a bid must be alerted if it is not natural or it is natural but has a potentialy unexpected meaning. You will notice that a double/redouble is not included here. 5E2 makes it clear which doubles should be alerted and this is not one of them.

[mjj29]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 05:22 AM, said:

Quote

If I were playing such a method I would certainly alert it

This would be because you don't agree with the alerting regulations and wish to make a point?
There are other situations where double is take out but conveys an additional message. For example RHO opens a Weak 2 and you double, take out but showing 16+ because with a 12-15 take out you would have bid 3C. It may not be the best method but it is certainly legal and when the L&E were consulted as to whether this was alertable recently they said no under the current regulations. Section 5E1 of the Orange Book says "UNless it is announceable a pass or a bid must be alerted if it is not natural or it is natural but has a potentialy unexpected meaning. You will notice that a double/redouble is not included here. 5E2 makes it clear which doubles should be alerted and this is not one of them.

I would expect a takeout double to either be strong or intermediate with a suitable shape (for appropriate values of strong, intermediate and suitable depending on context, but not including this hand in any of those criteria). Restricting it to just one of those is completely different to including hands which would not be expected at all.

I have in the past played a method where double showed either a limited three suited hand short in the suit doubled or an unspecified single suiter, but not a strong hand. This seems not alertable under the regulation, but we were alerting it perforce, since we felt not doing so would not be fulfulling our disclosure obligations (without having checked the regulation), and that is why I would alert in this case.

I have emailed the secretary of the laws and ethics committee to ask for this regulation to be discussed at the next meeting since I disagree that this double should not be alerted.

[greenender]

The OB does provide some guidance as to what a takeout double is expected to look like (4 H 6):

"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 he can pass 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."

To describe as takeout a double which may be made on the hand in the OP, as well as (presumably) on a shape-suitable 16-count, potentially constitutes MI, although it seems there was no damage. But it does not make it alertable. The TDs seem to have done a good job of investigating, and to have concluded that it was a takeout double, albeit one with a potentially lower than expected point count, and potentially looser than expected shape considerations.

Whilst a "potentially unexpected meaning" qualification to the alerting rules for doubles might be helpful, I think that alerting this double under the current rules would not be helpful. After all an alert of a double suggests that the agreement is that the double cannot be something like a shape-suitable 16-count. I think it is much better to keep the alert of doubles for something that really isn't a takeout double, rather than for something which essentially is, albeit with some unexpected constraints.

But I would certainly get the pair to put something about shape constraints as well as strength in the "aspects to note" section of the SC and caution them to make sure that these are disclosed in response to any questions.

[bluejak]

karen4, on Mar 22 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

Which jurisdiction?

It was in England as everyone seems to have worked out. Sorry for the omission. I suppose when we asked 'takeout double?' we would have expected more of an answer than 'yes'. I can't imagine ever having asked this question and received this answer, then picking up the convention card and looking for it on there to see if there were additional information.

Personally I believe the answer to the question was inadequate.

However, there is a problem in England. When you ask the wrong question, such as asking "Takeout double?", you are required by regulation to receive a full and complete explanation of the call in the ACBL.

But there is no such regulation in England, deliberately so. When it was discussed last at the L&EC some members believed that if you ask a question, it is perfectly reasonable that an opponent should just answer it. So if someone opens 2♠, showing clubs and a red suit and a weak hand, and the question is "Is that weak?" then the answer "Yes" is acceptable.

As a result of diverse views on the Committee it was decided to make the following regulation:

EBU Orange book said:

3 B 9 While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the questioner wishes to know, there is a danger that they may lead to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3♣ overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent merely says “Weak or strong?” it is not unreasonable for a player to answer “Weak”, since this is true (and since more complete answers have been known to elicit comments such as “I did not ask that.”).

Unless the questioner really only wants to know something specific he should merely ask “What does that call mean?”. If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question. Furthermore, asking “What does that call mean?” rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid a suggestion of unauthorised information.

Alternatively the questioner can ask for an explanation of the entire auction rather than individual calls, and opponents should then give all (relevant) information, inferences etc.

I advise asking "What does double mean?" in future.

[blackshoe]

karen4, on Mar 22 2010, 04:09 AM, said:

I suppose when we asked 'takeout double?' we would have expected more of an answer than 'yes'. I can't imagine ever having asked this question and received this answer, then picking up the convention card and looking for it on there to see if there were additional information.

Well, if you ask a leading question, you should expect the answer you led towards.

An alert is a notification that you might want to ask questions about the call. If you did ask without an alert, then it seems to me that the question whether it was alertable is irrelevant. OTOH, if you asked and were told "yes" with no qualifications, then the answer you were given does not match the answer written on the card, so it's MI. Also, I don't think "(some) players are expected to protect themselves" extends to lengthy interrogations or the application of thumbscrews in order to obtain a complete description. After all "any question should trigger full disclosure" (that's from the ACBL alert reg, but it's a generally applicable principle IMO, in view of Law 40).