Light Takeout Double

[Mich Ravera]

In an ACBL club game last night, I (an SLM) was playing with a BLM and
against two BLMs. I got a 1D opener on my right, I had 4423 shape and only 8
or 9 HCP but decided to double (it was tactically designed to slow down
opponents a little, but I kind of like my shape and my partner often bids
timidly, so I don't expect her to hang herself). RHO bid 1S. My partner and
I passed throught the rest of the auction and Opponents managed to get to
3NT on an auction that looked something like this:

ACBL, LHO, None

1D-X[1]-1S-P[2]; 2C-P-2H[3]-P; 2NT-P-3NT-End

1) I'm a little light
2) They bid my partner's best suit
3) Not sure if it's natural, asking, showing, or artificial. As I recall,
she actually had heart length

Anyway, delcarer finesses me for all of the spade honours that are actually
held by my partner and I lead a spade every time I get in. Declarer is down
2.

Declarer makes subtle curses (no offensive language, more demerits actually)
that "you can't do that". What is his beef? Was my knowledge that "Partner
proably won't hang herself" psychic protection? Would you even remotely
consider this light takeout double to be a psyche? In any case, my intent
was the opposite of what was achieved, but I like the result.

I don't have the hand record handy, but I am appoximating:
xxxx Qxxx Kx Axx

You comments?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <k6ugnk$ku9$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Mich Ravera" <michr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In an ACBL club game last night, I (an SLM) was playing with a BLM and
> against two BLMs. I got a 1D opener on my right, I had 4423 shape and only 8
> or 9 HCP but decided to double (it was tactically designed to slow down
> opponents a little, but I kind of like my shape and my partner often bids
> timidly, so I don't expect her to hang herself). RHO bid 1S. My partner and
> I passed throught the rest of the auction and Opponents managed to get to
> 3NT on an auction that looked something like this:
>
> ACBL, LHO, None
>
> 1D-X[1]-1S-P[2]; 2C-P-2H[3]-P; 2NT-P-3NT-End
>
> 1) I'm a little light
> 2) They bid my partner's best suit
> 3) Not sure if it's natural, asking, showing, or artificial. As I recall,
> she actually had heart length
>
> Anyway, delcarer finesses me for all of the spade honours that are actually
> held by my partner and I lead a spade every time I get in. Declarer is down
> 2.
>
> Declarer makes subtle curses (no offensive language, more demerits actually)
> that "you can't do that". What is his beef? Was my knowledge that "Partner
> proably won't hang herself" psychic protection? Would you even remotely

A psychic control is an *agreement* that's designed to protect against
psyches. If you had an agreement that you only jump in response to a
double with at least 11 or 12 HCP (as opposed to the more common 9-11
range), that would be a psychic control for doubles like this.

But if you just know that partner is stylistically a little timid, I'm
not sure that counts as an agreement.

> consider this light takeout double to be a psyche? In any case, my intent
> was the opposite of what was achieved, but I like the result.
>
> I don't have the hand record handy, but I am appoximating:
> xxxx Qxxx Kx Axx
>
> You comments?

Whether it's a psyche depends on what your normal agreement for a
takeout double is. I like Colchamiro's rule: with N cards in opener's
suit, you should have 10+N HCP to make a direct T/O double; in that
case, you're 3 HCP light, and having strength in opener's suit is also a
misfeature (although it's better over opener than under), so I'd
consider it a psyche if that were your agreement. But if your normal
doubles are more aggressive, then this one is only a little light.

However, if this is close to the strength of your normal doubles, I
wonder if they should be alertable. The ACBL Alert Procedures doesn't
go into much detail about doubles. It says most doubles are not
alertable, "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected
meanings". So the question is: are direct t/o doubles with only 10-11
HCP and no compensating distributional values "highly unusual or
unexpected"?

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Adam Beneschan]

That's about a queen lighter than I'd want for a takeout double with the same distribution and honor distribution. I think I'd double on Qxxx Qxxx Kx Axx--that's about my minimum for a 4=4=2=3 hand. (Or KJxx Qxxx xx Axx, which is only a point stronger than your hand but has all the honors in the unbid suits.) Anyway, I certainly wouldn't consider this a psych, and even if it were it's not illegal since it's not a strong artificial opening, a response thereto, or a conventional suit response to a natural opening (the things you can't psych according to the GCC). But there's not much else to comment on. It seems common for less-experienced players to think you're cheating when you don't have what they think you should have, and possibly the league isn't doing enough to teach newer players that it's totally legal for their opponents to bid in ways that books don't teach you.

-- Adam

[Adam Beneschan]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:24:09 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:

> wonder if they should be alertable. The ACBL Alert Procedures doesn't
> go into much detail about doubles. It says most doubles are not
> alertable, "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected
> meanings". So the question is: are direct t/o doubles with only 10-11
> HCP and no compensating distributional values "highly unusual or
> unexpected"?

These days, *not* making a takeout double with that kind of hand would be highly unusual and unexpected. :) :) OK, that's an exaggeration, but standards for just about every call seem to have been drifting steadily downward.

-- Adam

[Stu Goodgold]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:57:57 AM UTC-7, Mich Ravera wrote:

1) It is legal to bid the way you did, so you can indeed "do that".

2) From your comments, this is one of your regular partners (you know she is a timid bidder). She should be aware of your aggressive tactics, and perhaps that is why she is timid. Sometime before, during, or after the auction, the opps should have been notified that you double on light values. I suspect your partner is not familiar enough with the laws and ethics of the game to know that she needs to say something to the opps. The TD should have been called to the table, and could find reason to adjust the score based on what your partner knew implicitly but didn't say. Given the situation, you should probably inform the opps before the round starts that you (and only you) make aggressive calls, especially take-out doubles.

3) I would not dbl with the hand you showed. Just a Q and an A in the non-bid suits. Even my most aggressive partners wouldn't do so, except in balancing seat.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Mich Ravera]

"Stu Goodgold" <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6af4367f-df34-41a5...@googlegroups.com...

I would NOT usually have doubled with this hand (It's about a queen light),
but it seemed right to do so at the time (vulnerability, knowledge of
opponents' tendancies, state of match, etc) . It was tactically calculated
to SLOW down the opponents. That intent backfired.

Instead opponents bid to their probable best contract and proceeded to
misplay it because of their assumption about who held which values.

As I said, my partner probably wasn't going to hang herself by bidding 3NT
or 5C without some decent values or length. We have no agreement about light
takeout doubles (I do with some other partners). I simply knew from playing
with her a few times that my partner (actually a client) was timid (not
systemically heavy in advances and responses as my regular "strike first"
partners are). I figured that, if she did bid 4S with 5 spades and a
13-count, that this hand MIGHT offer a play for it and I sure wasn't worried
about any of the 1- or 2-level advances (I even had a diamond stop, if she
decided to bid 1NT).

[David Stevenson]

Mich Ravera wrote

Time for your opponents to grow up?

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[judyo...@gmail.com]

You haven't shown advancer's hand. If she had 6 hcp and 4 spades, her pass over 1S certainly seems unusual, and invites the opponents to freely steal from you with a psychic response.

Carl

[dake50]

Reminds me of another post where the essence of the question was
"When does 'style of partner' become a *private understanding*??
If I know partner is highly aggressive, or *timid and use that
knowledge to try to gain advantage is that *UI*??

[psug...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 2:57:57 PM UTC-4, Mich Ravera wrote:

> In an ACBL club game last night, I (an SLM) was playing with a BLM and against two BLMs. I got a 1D opener on my right, I had 4423 shape and only 8 or 9 HCP but decided to double (it was tactically designed to slow down opponents a little, but I kind of like my shape and my partner often bids timidly, so I don't expect her to hang herself). RHO bid 1S. My partner and I passed throught the rest of the auction and Opponents managed to get to 3NT on an auction that looked something like this: ACBL, LHO, None 1D-X[1]-1S-P[2]; 2C-P-2H[3]-P; 2NT-P-3NT-End 1) I'm a little light 2) They bid my partner's best suit 3) Not sure if it's natural, asking, showing, or artificial. As I recall, she actually had heart length Anyway, delcarer finesses me for all of the spade honours that are actually held by my partner and I lead a spade every time I get in. Declarer is down 2. Declarer makes subtle curses (no offensive language, more demerits actually) that "you can't do that". What is his beef? Was my knowledge that "Partner proably won't hang herself" psychic protection? Would you even remotely consider this light takeout double to be a psyche? In any case, my intent was the opposite of what was achieved, but I like the result. I don't have the hand record handy, but I am appoximating: xxxx Qxxx Kx Axx You comments?

There are a lot of club partnerships where one consistently overbids and the other underbids to compensate (or vice versa). They are extremely hard to play against until you "figure out" their secret. But I don't see how this can be legislated into the bridge rules.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:08:19 AM UTC-7, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:

>
> You haven't shown advancer's hand. If she had 6 hcp and 4 spades, her pass over 1S certainly seems unusual, and invites the opponents to freely steal from you with a psychic response.

He did say (in a followup post) that his partner was a client. Not all clients would realize that they would need to take action in that situation.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

dake50 wrote

It is certainly not unauthorised. It is perfectly permitted to know
partner's style. But how far you need to disclose it is another matter.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Known style is part of partnership agreement and is required by law to be disclosed.

No director in my experience has ever enforced this, however.

Carl

[David Stevenson]

judyo...@verizon.net wrote

>Known style is part of partnership agreement and is required by law to
>be disclosed.
>
>No director in my experience has ever enforced this, however.

True, I cannot remember giving such a ruling, but I have never been
asked for one. I am sure competent TDs will not have a problem with
this.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <$smQu2Aa$XlQ...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> judyo...@verizon.net wrote
>
> >Known style is part of partnership agreement and is required by law to
> >be disclosed.
> >
> >No director in my experience has ever enforced this, however.
>
> True, I cannot remember giving such a ruling, but I have never been
> asked for one. I am sure competent TDs will not have a problem with
> this.

It's kind of a Catch-22. Unless the opponent knows that there's a
stylistic tendency, they won't know that there's something to call the
TD about. And if they know about the stylistic tendency, there isn't
actually any damage.

Actually, what could happen is that one of the opponents could know
about the style, and the damage comes from his partner not knowing about
it. He's not allowed to ask solely for his partner's benefit. But
after the hand is over, he could call the TD and report that they were
damaged due to the misinformation.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

In the partic

In the posted case, it would be sensible for opener, at his second turn to bid, to ask the doubler what he knows about his partner's style in bidding over (1q)-dbl-(1r)-? If the answer is "I don't know," that's the end of it, whether true or false. But if the answer is "None of your business," will the director act?

Carl

[Mich Ravera]

"judyo...@verizon.net" <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9013a2b-204a-4357...@googlegroups.com...

"None of you Business" seems a little surly. But, "As far as I know we have
no special understandings here".

If the answer is "she might be a little timd"? Then what?

On the other hand who among us is going to strain to bid an honourless
3-card suit at the 2-level with AQxxx in the suit that RHO just bid over
partner's double? I would think that such a tendancy (even if doubler
[that's I] had knowledge of it) would be defined as "not even subject to
alert regulations" as "General Bridge Knowledge".

[Co Wiersma]

Op 4-11-2012 9:41, Mich Ravera schreef:

Does it not make more sense to ask what you really want to know?
That is imho to ask the partner of the doubler about how strong the
double is minimal.

Co Wiersma

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den fredagen den 2:e november 2012 kl. 15:44:48 UTC+1 skrev psug...@gmail.com:
> There are a lot of club partnerships where one consistently overbids and the other underbids to compensate (or vice versa).

The best way to handle a partner who overbids is by overbidding. If you underbid, your partner would feel that he needs to overbid further. If you overbid yourself he will have to reduce his overbidding eventually.

[Stu Goodgold]

That doesn't always work. An overbidder expects his partner(s) to be accustomed to his tendencies. Punishing your partner by aping his style is just likely to lead to a disbanded partnership.

[Will in New Haven]

That was Goren's advice and it is workable in some situations even
today.

--
Will in New Haven

[dake50]

The BEST way to handle overbidding is to bid CORRECTLY.
Then bad results are directly attributable.
Let partner be responsible for his style.
**
As so often in my experience, not pre-reacting is the best strategy.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 2:57:57 PM UTC-4, Mich Ravera wrote:

The normal bridge action with the advancing hand you suggest is double or 2S. Not bidding a 3-card suit.

If the intervening partnership has NO way to show the suit bid over the double that is something the opening side absolutely has a right to know, and it is nothing resembling general bridge knowledge. Nor is it even style. It is a special partnership agreement.

Carl

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Let's say you inite to game and your partner ducks game on a good hand - well, obviously you either skip inviting or decide to invite even harder.

If you invite on a marginal hand and partner bids game on a marginal hand, you will have to hold better hands to invite, because if you invite your partner will likely bid game.

A good bridge academic stated that if you, like your partner bids on your cards and his cards and the opponents cards as well as some other tables cards - he will HAVE to tone down his bidding a bid.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-01 3:24 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> However, if this is close to the strength of your normal doubles, I

> wonder if they should be alertable. ... most doubles are not

> alertable, "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected
> meanings".

I agree with Barry's analysis. If there's no partnership understanding
that doubles can be this light, there's no problem. You can psych if
you want to.

If there is a partnership understanding that doubles can be this light,
then the question is as Barry puts it. "Highly unusual or unexpected"
depends on your playing environment and _perhaps_ on the opponents,
though that last is far from clear. (What is ever clear in the ACBL?)

In the event, partner's passing (twice!) with AQxxx of spades suggests
to me that the light double might have been expected. (I can't imagine
passing with that regardless of the rest of my hand.) Obviously there
would need to be further investigation, but I don't think it's 100%
clear that there wasn't misinformation. However, if this was a first-
time partnership or partner was otherwise unaware that you might double
this light, then there's no partnership understanding and no problem.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[HoneyMonster]

And Skid Simon.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <k79l8p$io8$1...@dont-email.me>,

Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-01 3:24 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > However, if this is close to the strength of your normal doubles, I
> > wonder if they should be alertable. ... most doubles are not
> > alertable, "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected
> > meanings".
>
> I agree with Barry's analysis. If there's no partnership understanding
> that doubles can be this light, there's no problem. You can psych if
> you want to.
>
> If there is a partnership understanding that doubles can be this light,
> then the question is as Barry puts it. "Highly unusual or unexpected"
> depends on your playing environment and _perhaps_ on the opponents,
> though that last is far from clear. (What is ever clear in the ACBL?)
>
> In the event, partner's passing (twice!) with AQxxx of spades suggests
> to me that the light double might have been expected. (I can't imagine
> passing with that regardless of the rest of my hand.) Obviously there
> would need to be further investigation, but I don't think it's 100%
> clear that there wasn't misinformation. However, if this was a first-
> time partnership or partner was otherwise unaware that you might double
> this light, then there's no partnership understanding and no problem.

He did say that his partner is "timid", so passing with that spade
holding could be her normal style. This is *why* he felt he could get
away with the light takeout -- he knew his partner wouldn't hang him.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 5:43:09 PM UTC-8, Barry Margolin wrote:

> Steve Willner wrote:

> > In the event, partner's passing (twice!) with AQxxx of spades suggests
> > to me that the light double might have been expected. (I can't imagine
> > passing with that regardless of the rest of my hand.) Obviously there

> > would need to be further investigation ...

> He did say that his partner is "timid", so passing with that spade
> holding could be her normal style.

I've said this before, but please consider that partner just may not have known what to do. Mich said that his partner was a client--which doesn't necessarily mean a beginner or low intermediate, but it could be. And it probably means that she isn't as knowledgeable as either of you. Bidding over partner's takeout double and an intervening bid isn't something they cover in beginner books, especially when you have the same suit as the third hand; and I must confess that I had been playing for years (with some success) before I was on solid ground about what a double, or a bid of responder's suit, meant in that auction.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

>In article <$smQu2Aa$XlQ...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> judyo...@verizon.net wrote
>>
>> >Known style is part of partnership agreement and is required by law to
>> >be disclosed.
>> >
>> >No director in my experience has ever enforced this, however.
>>
>> True, I cannot remember giving such a ruling, but I have never been
>> asked for one. I am sure competent TDs will not have a problem with
>> this.
>
>It's kind of a Catch-22. Unless the opponent knows that there's a
>stylistic tendency, they won't know that there's something to call the
>TD about. And if they know about the stylistic tendency, there isn't
>actually any damage.

I don't agree: if you think the hand looks suspicious, you ask the TD
to investigate, and he does.

================================================================
judyo...@verizon.net wrote

>In the posted case, it would be sensible for opener, at his second turn
>to bid, to ask the doubler what he knows about his partner's style in
>bidding over (1q)-dbl-(1r)-? If the answer is "I don't know," that's
>the end of it, whether true or false. But if the answer is "None of
>your business," will the director act?

Certainly: I would give the player a DP if experienced, and a strong
talk on requirements of disclosure whether experienced or not.

[Andrew B]

But not Iain Macleod (who attributes the advice to Culbertson):

"Bill overbids and Clarence underbids. Ely Culbertson has some baffling
theory which I've never been able to understand, that you should overbid
with Bill and underbid with Clarence. It's too complicated for me,
though I dare say it's got some sound psychological basis. I'm quite
sure it's too deep for Bill and/or Clarence. I'm a simple soul. If my
partner overbids I underbid, and vice versa - but I don't tell them I'm
going to."