[lmilne]

inspired by a comment in a different thread:

Hypothetically, I open 1♦, LHO doubles, and I end up declaring a contract after no further opposition bidding. For some reason, either my partner or I asks what the double is, and we receive the answer "takeout double".

Seeing that between dummy and I, we have 28 HCP, I reach the conclusion that LHO must have the "short in diamonds, long in other suits" variety of takeout double, rather than one of the strong options. I then proceed to make some assumptions after the shape of the hand and adopt an unsuccessful line, as LHO shows up with a 2344 12 count.

Personally, I wouldn't (not even hypothetically!) seek redress from this sort of situation, but would redress be available under the laws, as most players would agree that 2344 shape with 12HCP doesn't fulfil the requirement for a "takeout double"? Or is the onus upon me to find out what "takeout double" means, or something else?

[peachy]

This has been discussed here before but I don't remember when, nor do I have a link to any thread, It is the regulations that cover this, not laws. If in ACBL, the system card has a tick-box for "Min. Offshape TO" and this type of Double is not alertable. So I suppose best is to ask about TO Double style if it matters. The trouble is that those who use this kind of TO Dbl, probably are not even aware that they should tick the box or give a different answer because they probably think it is "normal" style to TO Dbl with any opening hand regardless of shape. For them it is normal. I have no idea how things are in other jurisdictions.

[lmilne]

Yes, agree it would solve things if declarer had asked better questions, but surely no one is going to punish declarer for asking, e.g., "just a takeout double?" and getting an affirmative answer.

[peachy]

lmilne, on Aug 19 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

Yes, agree it would solve things if declarer had asked better questions, but surely no one is going to punish declarer for asking, e.g., "just a takeout double?" and getting an affirmative answer.

The folks who use TO Dbl in this manner shoulod be educated to give a meaningful answer when someone asks about the Dbl. They likely do not understand that there is "anything to tell". Not sure how such education can be accomplished other than case by case. And not sure if there is any recourse if declarer goes wrong. Frustrating.

[lmilne]

It might be out of place for me to suggest that players who make doubles like this and describe it as "takeout" are beyond education, so I won't.
Agree that it would be frustrating if declarer had no recourse - then again, the methods will catch up with the opponents, no doubt.

[Cascade]

My partner has a good saying and philosophy for this sort of situation - "we will get two back".

In theory however the opponents are required to give you all information which should include any standard (for them) shape requirements (or the lack thereof). If they do not then they are not complying with the laws on disclosure. This includes not only their agreement - which might standard or classical takeout - but also their partnership experience - which could be frequent offshape doubles.

Having said that if one were to ask and the answer was "takeout" and you were looking at two players who you did not recognize or knew to be unsound then I think you largely have yourself to blame if you interpret "takeout" to mean some textbook shape with seeking further clarification.

[iviehoff]

lmilne, on Aug 19 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

most players would agree that 2344 shape with 12HCP doesn't fulfil the requirement for a "takeout double"?

"Takeout" just refers to the expectation that partner will bid, it is not a description of the type of hands that may make it. If you wish to know their style of take-out doubles, you need to ask. While I think that an unsuitable hand for a TO double of 1D, I would observe that some players in the Italian national squad seem to disagree with me. So whilst "most players" might not play it this way, some very successful ones do.

But a more likely possibility is that this is a "deviation" (ie incompetence) that the player's partner wasn't expecting either, and not actually representative of the partnership's "style". Though maybe partner expects a certain level of incompetence in a generic sense.

I recall once a player asking me what my partner's double of a (4cd+) 1D opening was and I answered, as in your hypothetical case, that it was takeout (as was clear, in England, from the lack of alert). The player asking the question had a very fixed idea of what kind of hand was suitable for a "normal" take-out double of 1D, and proceeded to tell me what it was, and asked me to acknowledge that was what I meant by take-out. She got very upset when I refused to agree that. (I should have called the director.) I wonder if this case is a bit similar?

[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on Aug 19 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

"Takeout" just refers to the expectation that partner will bid, it is not a description of the type of hands that may make it.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? Can we apply this to transfers, Michaels, Unusual Notrump, penalty doubles, etc?

Explanations of calls are supposed to convey what the person who made the call is showing (or denying), not what the person explaining is going to do (or is being asked to do).

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-19, 10:31

[blackshoe]

"Takeout double" is the name of a convention. In the ACBL, at least, it is clearly stated in the alert regulation that explaining a call by naming a convention is inadequate disclosure. A proper explanation is something like "partner will have a hand short in diamonds and with at least three card, and usually at least four card support for the other suits, particularly the majors, and normally some 12+ HCP, though sometimes as low as 10. He might also have a hand too strong to overcall in a suit (some 17+ HCP and a good five card suit) or 1NT (some 19+ HCP and a balanced hand)." If partner might also have a balanced 12-14 or so with 4-3-3-3 or some 4-4-3-2 where the doubleton is not diamonds, that should be included in the explanation. Yes, it's long. Tough.

[TylerE]

Disagree. "Takeout" is descriptive.

Btw, I don't get this problem.

If LHO is 2344, then trumps are split no worse than 4-5. If opps ahve all the trumps honors, they have 2HCP in the side suits. How exactly are they taking 7 tricks?

[Coelacanth]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Explanations of calls are supposed to convey what the person who made the call is showing (or denying), not what the person explaining is going to do (or is being asked to do).

Don't completely agree with this. Consider the Lebensohl sequence 1NT by me, 2 grapes by LHO, 2NT from partner, alerted by me.

RHO: What's 2NT?
Me: We play Lebensohl. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣.
RHO: What kind of hand will he have?
Me: A hand that wants me to bid 3♣.

Have I complied with full disclosure? Absolutely. This is the extent of our agreement.

Partner might be aiming for 3NT with a grape stopper in his hand, he might be looking for me to declare a 3♣ contract, he might be looking to place the contract at the 3 level in some other strain, or he might have none of these things in mind. His next call should clarify things, and I'll be happy to explain our agreements to RHO after that next call. For now, all I know is that he wants me to bid 3♣, and that's all I'm telling the opponents.

[Cascade]

This

Coelacanth said:

Partner might be aiming for 3NT with a grape stopper in his hand, he might be looking for me to declare a 3♣ contract, he might be looking to place the contract at the 3 level in some other strain, or he might have none of these things in mind. His next call should clarify things, and I'll be happy to explain our agreements to RHO after that next call. For now, all I know is that he wants me to bid 3♣, and that's all I'm telling the opponents.

contradicts the paragraph immediately before it

Coelacanth said:

Have I complied with full disclosure? Absolutely. This is the extent of our agreement.

If you know that your Lebensohl demands you pass a 3♦ correction then "wants me to bid 3♣" is not all you know.

[Coelacanth]

We may have to agree to disagree here. Partner's Lebensohl bid might show one of (many) different specific hand-types, or it might be purely tactical in nature. He could have literally any hand. Because he didn't make a penalty double, you might infer that he doesn't have a penalty double, but I consider that to be "general bridge knowledge".

If you want to be pedantic about it, the correct full explanation of partner's bid is something like "2NT is a relay to 3♣, and partner's next call will clarify his intentions" but I don't think the part of that statement after the comma really adds any informational value to it.

Of course, if RHO asks about specific followup sequences, I'd be happy to explain our agreements. I just don't think explaining what all of partners bids on the next round of the auction would mean is part of explaining what his bid on this round meant.

Another example: with one partner I play penalty doubles of opening pre-empts. I have actually had this paraphrased conversation after my LHO opened 2♠ and my partner doubled:

Me: Alert! (this double is alertable in the ACBL)
RHO: Yes?
Me: His double is for penalties.
RHO: What kind of hand does he show?
Me: The kind that doesn't think you're making 2♠.

Have I provided an inadequate explanation? Certainly not.

[gnasher]

Coelacanth, on Aug 19 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

Consider the Lebensohl sequence 1NT by me, 2 grapes by LHO, 2NT from partner, alerted by me.

RHO: What's 2NT?
Me: We play Lebensohl. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣.
RHO: What kind of hand will he have?
Me: A hand that wants me to bid 3♣.

Have I complied with full disclosure? Absolutely. This is the extent of our agreement.

No you haven't, and no it isn't. Your agreement, as you partially stated later in the post, is that it shows a signoff in a suit lower than grapes, an invitation (or whatever) in some suit higher than grapes, a 3NT bid with a grape-stopper, or whatever meaning you have assigned to a cue-bid.

It may be reasonable to simplify that explanation to "It's usually a signoff in x, y or z, but might be one of several stronger hands." It's not reasonable to simplify it to "Asks me to bid 3♣".

Quote

His next call should clarify things, and I'll be happy to explain our agreements to RHO after that next call. For now, all I know is that he wants me to bid 3♣, and that's all I'm telling the opponents.

It's always nice to have the auction to ourselves whilst we exchange information. However, RHO may have the selfish idea of bidding immediately so as to disrupt that exchange of information. In order to be able to evaluate the merits of such an approach, he needs, and is entitled, to know what information might be exchanged if he were to pass.

[blackshoe]

TylerE, on Aug 19 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

Disagree. "Takeout" is descriptive.

Irrelevant. It is not a complete description.

[mgoetze]

gnasher, on Aug 19 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

Coelacanth, on Aug 19 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

Have I complied with full disclosure? Absolutely. This is the extent of our agreement.

No you haven't, and no it isn't. Your agreement, as you partially stated later in the post, is that it shows a signoff in a suit lower than grapes, an invitation (or whatever) in some suit higher than grapes, a 3NT bid with a grape-stopper, or whatever meaning you have assigned to a cue-bid.

Strongly agree with gnasher.

[Coelacanth]

gnasher, on Aug 19 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

No you haven't, and no it isn't.  Your agreement, as you partially stated later in the post, is that it shows a signoff in a suit lower than grapes, an invitation (or whatever) in some suit higher than grapes, a 3NT bid with a grape-stopper, or whatever meaning you have assigned to a cue-bid.

Perhaps this is just a semantic question.

Our agreement is that 2NT followed by 3-anything is a weak signoff. The 2NT bid, by itself, does not say that partner has a weak signoff.

Our agreement is that 2NT followed by 3NT shows the values for 3NT with a stopper in the enemy suit. The 2NT bid, by itself, promises no such values or stopper.

Our agreement is that 2NT followed by a pass of 3♣ normally shows a weak hand with clubs, but may be a purely tactical competitive bid with any hand whatsoever. The 2NT bid, by itself, shows nothing about partner's club holding or particular tactical mood.

So what do I know about partner's hand? He has game values, weak values or a complete bust. He has clubs, some other suit, or no particular suit to bid. This covers pretty much all hands.

My point is that when partner bids 2NT, I have no idea what he has. My original point was just in response to the original statement that

Quote

Explanations of calls are supposed to convey what the person who made the call is showing (or denying), not what the person explaining is going to do (or is being asked to do)."

I literally cannot tell my RHO what partner is showing, because he's not showing any hand in particular. In response to a putative "Could he have X?" from RHO, my only responses would be "Yes, he could have X (in which case his next call will be Y...)" or "Yes, he could have X, but with that holding he would more likely have bid ..."

Sometimes a relay is just a relay and doesn't convey any information about the bidder's hand. That's all I'm saying.

[aguahombre]

Again, my research abilities suck. There was another thread, some time ago, where the proper explanation of, say Lebensohl, was explored. Maybe Bluecalm can find it.

These explanations were not ridiculously long, and did not include what explainer might do if ........

1NT (2H) 2NT* "Either a signoff in a suit lower than yours, an invite in a higher suit, or enroute to 3NT with a heart stopper." (One rather easy way of explaining).
Yes, it is a relay; but it says something about the hand which made the relay ---relays which convey nothing can also be explained: "Artificial relay". Conventional calls which are not relays can be "artificial,asking for further description".

Worse scenario would be 2NT after a reverse: "Telling me to bid 3C if I am minimum for my reverse." This is an explanation which gives UI, even though partner is supposed to know what the follow-ups mean. "Artificial, showing less than 9 HCP" is proper.

[mycroft]

Tell me, how many times have opponents thought, based on your explanation, that your partner is showing clubs(*)?

So, fourth hand has KQTxxxx in clubs after 1NT-2H-2NT!, hears "partner wants me to bid 3C" - what do you expect them to think? Are you happy either when she doubles for clubs, or waits to double 3C (instead of bidding them herself) and then finds out that your partner has a weak diamond hand? Or, with other club holdings, and heart support, your "explanation" retards a heart raise, because her clubs don't work so well - or encourages a heart raise, because her clubs and your partner's mean that the cross-ruff is known to work?

And anyway, your explanation of your partner's bids shouldn't tell partner what *you're* going to do. Your explanation of Lebensohl 2NT is similar to explaining 4NT as "he wants me to bid 5C with no aces, 5D with one,..." "but it could be any number of hands. All I know is..."

As you said, and others have iterated in quick mode (because we have the same problem):
"shows either a signoff in <suits lower than grape>, an invite in <suits higher than grape>, or a hand with a grape stopper, wanting to Stayman or play 3NT."

Takes not that much longer than your explanation, has the added benefit of being correct, not misleading opponents as to clubs, and not telling partner what you're going to do.

(*) I have a real problem with 1NT-2S "transfer to clubs", too - when what they're playing is "signoff or slam try in *either minor*". "Transfer to clubs" is clearly wrong here, but would you be happy with an explanation "asks me to bid 3C" for that agreement?

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on Aug 20 2010, 10:32 AM, said:

(*) I have a real problem with 1NT-2S "transfer to clubs", too - when what they're playing is "signoff or slam try in *either minor*". "Transfer to clubs" is clearly wrong here,

Yeh, that is a biggie. "Transfer" implies length in the suit to which one is transferring ---and explaining what might be a diamond bust as a transfer to clubs creates an impossible situation for the next hand holding clubs. Damned if he asks, damned if he doesn't.