[ehhh]

---

Before bidding 2H's N asks about the X and is told it is takeout.
Dummy comes down on a H lead and N immediately calls the Director.
Complaining E doesn't have a T/O X and that they make these misleading X's all the time.
"Shouldn't they be alerting their X's," he asks?

How would you handle/rule this call?

[ggwhiz]

West bid appropriately opposite a takeout double and "east doesn't own their bid" is no reason to adjust.

The fact that you mention this pair does it all the time means there may well be evidence of fielding (ie. if west passed 2♥ here) but this hand isn't it.

I would suspect east of being a novice/inexperienced but west has fulfilled their ethical obligations.

[gordontd]

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-27, 14:36, said:

West bid appropriately opposite a takeout double

Really?

[ggwhiz]

gordontd, on 2016-June-27, 14:49, said:

Really?

Passing with those hearts instead of bidding spades directly doesn't seem bad enough to be fielding imo

[johnu]

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-27, 14:36, said:

West bid appropriately opposite a takeout double

I guess it depends on what you mean by takeout double

[mycroft]

1) I would investigate with East to determine what they believe is a takeout double, and if this is part of their agreement (and more particularly, if their overcalls are 8-12 or something like that, so they have to double with "any strong hand"), then their opponents are owed an Alert. However, if it's some relation to "it's a 4.5-loser hand, it *has to be* too strong to overcall" well, I hope they can resolve their issues. They should have got what they deserved by being in 2♠+2, but the cards are wrong.

2) I am going to investigate what a double of 1♥ would be. Many people are playing it as "extended responsive", which means they don't get to double with the West hand "Partner, they're picking off our suit". It is getting to the point where having an *agreement* (legal, any non-destructive convention may be played after "conventional calls" - a takeout double is a conventional call) that 1♥ in this auction is "either hearts, or a diamond raise without hearts, or a long single-suited hand" is +EV, since they can neither double me for penalty or find the suit. But that's aside. If West is prepared to pass a takeout double with two known 8+card fits (one of which they're currently playing in) and an Ace, I think he knows their agreement better than your average opponent.

3) Why not 1♠? Or was West waiting for the "protect me" second double?

Short answer: it looks like they don't know how to play, but that doesn't mean that their agreements aren't Alertable. It also doesn't mean that they are.

[wank]

what do you suggest east does? passing with 15 points doesn't occur to bad players.

[mycroft]

If they won't pass with a 15-count, I think it still qualifies as "minimum" for "off-shape doubles" (I'm willing to be overruled on this). If so, then it's legal, but requires an Alert in the ACBL.

Which will likely, in some short order, show them why better players think the correct first action with this hand is "Pass".

That's why step 1 of my list was "Investigate."

[blackshoe]

I'm with Mycroft on this one.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-June-27, 16:54, said:

If they won't pass with a 15-count, I think it still qualifies as "minimum" for "off-shape doubles" (I'm willing to be overruled on this). If so, then it's legal, but requires an Alert in the ACBL.

Off-shape takeout doubles haven't been alertable for a while . There's a checkbox for it on the CC, but it's in black.

But I doubt they have it checked, because I suspect East doesn't understand that there's a normal shape for takeout doubles, and this isn't it.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-June-27, 20:52, said:

Off-shape takeout doubles haven't been alertable for a while . There's a checkbox for it on the CC, but it's in black.

Definitely a backwards step. I wish they were alertable here.

[WellSpyder]

ehhh, on 2016-June-27, 13:53, said:

Complaining [...]that they make these misleading X's all the time.

Sounds like oppo weren't actually misled by the explanation, so whether or not there was MI probably doesn't actually matter this time.

[Trinidad]

I'm with Gordon. No sane West would bid 2♠ opposite a normal takeout double of diamonds. They would pass it out and let the vulnerable opponents play in their 4/5 card heart fit. They would make 2♥ or 3♥ themselves and take the +300 or +400 on a partscore deal.

So, the evidence is that West is aware that East's double (and subsequent pass!) does not promise anything in hearts. That does not meet my definition of 'takeout double'.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-28, 04:07, said:

I'm with Gordon. No sane West would bid 2♠ opposite a normal takeout double of diamonds. They would pass it out and let the vulnerable opponents play in their 4/5 card heart fit. They would make 2♥ or 3♥ themselves and take the +300 or +400 on a partscore deal.

So, the evidence is that West is aware that East's double (and subsequent pass!) does not promise anything in hearts. That does not meet my definition of 'takeout double'.

Rik

Well the opps have told him quite categorically by their auction that partner is short in hearts, now he must have spades so 2♠ is beyond obvious. I haven't seen anybody psyche 1♥ for a long time in this auction although it used to be common, and when it happened they usually went back to opener's suit.

I suspect this is just a bad player considering a 15 count as a good hand, too good to pass and 1♠/1N overcalls wouldn't occur to them.

I had such a ruling recently where opps bid 1♣-(1♦)-2♥ and when this was enquired about was told "natural GF good hand". When this turned out to be a 12 count with ♥KJxxx ♦AQ10x and I misdefended assuming he had rather more (unopposed in Acol this would usually be a minimum of a 16 count), it was ruled that basically it was just a bad bid by a bad player, and that he'd upgraded his hand to consider it was worth that.

[billw55]

IMO west failed at full disclosure. He knew that east's actual hand type was possible, and chose not to mention this in response to north's query. He also probably knew that merely saying "takeout" would encourage the perception that east will usually hold hearts. "Takeout, often offshape" would take at most an extra breath.

I'm not impressed. I would adjudicate this as a CPU and apply penalties as appropriate.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2016-June-28, 06:31, said:

IMO west failed at full disclosure. He knew that east's actual hand type was possible, and chose not to mention this in response to north's query. He also probably knew that merely saying "takeout" would encourage the perception that east will usually hold hearts. "Takeout, often offshape" would take at most an extra breath.

I'm not impressed. I would adjudicate this as a CPU and apply penalties as appropriate.

I would suggest that the doubler and his partner just consider it bridge and nothing unusual that a 15 count can't pass.

If they double on this shape and a 13 count then they need more of an announcement.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-28, 05:28, said:

it was ruled that basically it was just a bad bid by a bad player, and that he'd upgraded his hand to consider it was worth that.

Did he say that, or did the director put words in his mouth?

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-June-28, 06:31, said:

I'm not impressed. I would adjudicate this as a CPU and apply penalties as appropriate.

Is the fact that partner doesn't know how to bid really a CPU that requires disclosure?

When a pair arrives at your table, should they be required to disclose their general expertise level? Is this necessary so that club regulars don't have an unfair advantage over new players who don't know who the fish are?

[jeffford76]

Minimum off-shape takeout doubles are not alertable in the ACBL. However like any agreement, calls must be fully explained upon the request of the opponents.

Are minimum off-shape takeout doubles marked on their card? If this is a normal double for this pair, then they should be. And they should also be giving better explanations of what hands start with double.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-28, 08:44, said:

Did he say that, or did the director put words in his mouth?

He said he thought it was worth a game force because of the diamonds, the director made comments to the effect I gave.