[lalldonn]

Since last week's question was a dud, I'll try one more time. ACBL, Swiss team, NS American players EW Polish players. EW are not native English speakers but seem relatively fluent. Spots are approximate in some suits based on my memory.

---

The bidding and play went as shown, with west then claiming 9 tricks for -140 NS. After the double, north asked about its meaning and was told "takeout" by east.

Both north and south think takeout means something like "unbid suits" and therefore believed it showed hearts and clubs, and later short diamonds when the "just in case you have them" 2D bid was pulled. Both east and west think takeout means something like "bid something and we will find a place to play" and that this auction shows the majors (I have no idea why east passed 2H instead of bidding 2S in that case, but that's what happened). EW believe the interpretation of majors is obvious since west didn't double directly over 1S, but NS believed that this simply showed a lighter takeout with hearts and clubs. NS believed they were damaged in the bidding, since either might have bid clubs at some point after the balance, and also damaged in the play, since the lead and later defense would have been different. Neither north nor south had any idea their interpretation was incorrect until the play was over or nearly so (north believing west was approximately 4414 for most of the hand and south 5332, south believing west was approximately 3514 for most of the hand and north 3442).

The director was called and did not feel that "takeout" constituted misinformation, therefore the table result stood. There was no appeal, as the result ended up not mattering for NS.

Any thoughts? Is "takeout" the name of a convention, or a description of the intentions of the bidder (or both)? Was it an adequate explanation in this case? Do you believe east claiming this bid shows majors even though he didn't bid 2S? (or as at least one person told these events believes, that west meant his double as penalty showing good spades and east gave a misexplanation?) Do you believe either north or south would really have bid clubs at any point if a different explanation had been given? If there are any further questions I will add whatever information I know.

[hrothgar]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 12:36, said:

Since last week's question was a dud, I'll try one more time. ACBL, Swiss team, NS American players EW Polish players. EW are not native English speakers but seem relatively fluent. Spots are approximate in some suits based on my memory.

---

The bidding and play went as shown, with west then claiming 9 tricks for -140 NS. After 1NT was bid, north asked about its meaning and was told "takeout" by east.

Both north and south think takeout means something like "unbid suits" and therefore believed it showed hearts and clubs, and later short diamonds when the "just in case you have them" 2D bid was pulled. Both east and west think takeout means something like "bid something and we will find a place to play" and that this auction shows the majors (I have no idea why east passed 2H instead of bidding 2S in that case, but that's what happened). EW believe the interpretation of majors is obvious since west didn't double directly over 1S, but NS believed that this simply showed a lighter takeout with hearts and clubs. NS believed they were damaged in the bidding, since either might have bid clubs at some point after the balance, and also damaged in the play, since the lead and later defense would have been different. Neither north nor south had any idea their interpretation was incorrect until the play was over or nearly so (north believing west was approximately 4414 for most of the hand and south 5332, south believing west was approximately 3514 for most of the hand and north 3442).

The director was called and did not feel that "takeout" constituted misinformation, therefore the table result stood. There was no appeal, as the result ended up not mattering for NS.

Any thoughts? Is "takeout" the name of a convention, or a description of the intentions of the bidder (or both)? Was it an adequate explanation in this case? Do you believe east claiming this bid shows majors even though he didn't bid 2S? (or as at least one person told these events believes, that west meant his double as penalty showing good spades and east gave a misexplanation?) Do you believe either north or south would really have bid clubs at any point if a different explanation had been given? If there are any further questions I will add whatever information I know.

Is the auction correct?

[lalldonn]

The auction is correct. Which part do you doubt?

[kenrexford]

FWIW, most sentences in explanation go like this: "Takeout for ____." When the person stops at "Takeout," I would consider the explanbation incomplete, not incorrect. So, I would have asked "for what?" as North or South.

[ArtK78]

Doubles are either "positive" (i.e, for penalty), "negative" (i.e., for takeout), or a combination of the two, generally referred to as optional or card showing or the like.

A positive or penalty double is a statement that the contract bid by the opponents is going down.

A negative or takeout double is a request for the doubler's partner to bid one of the unbid suits. That is not the same thing as saying that the doubler is promising any minimum holding in the unbid suits, but it is expected that the doubler does have some minimum length (usually four, but sometimes three) in each unbid suit.

The explanation of the double of 1NT as "takeout" and nothing more gives a strong impression to the opponents that the doubler is prepared to play in one of the unbid suits; therefore, he should have length in each. Obviously, that was not the case. So, for purposes of determining whether there was any damage to North South caused by the explanation "takeout," one needs to determine whether the partner of the doubler believed that the double showed length in the unbid suits.

I don't know what East thought about West's double of 1NT, but East certainly bid his own hand and did nothing out of the ordinary. 2♥ is a somewhat inelegant but remarkably effective contract.

I don't believe that North South are under any obligation to inquire further after being provided with the explanation that the double is for "takeout." Quite frankly, such a further question might be considered to be insulting (maybe not in this case, but generally).

[AlexJonson]

Can't see a problem of misinformation, or any sign of concealed information.

[pran]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 12:57, said:

The auction is correct. Which part do you doubt?

I was wondering the same because of the sentence: After 1NT was bid, north asked about its meaning and was told "takeout" by east.

Sounds like North asked about the meaning of his own 1NT bid?

But I understand now that his question must actually have been about and after the subsequent double.

[lalldonn]

Art: I mentioned that east and west both stated after the hand that this sequence shows the majors. I realize this is inconsistent with the pass of 2H, but that's what he said quite clearly.

Pran: I see now, sorry. Yes of course north asked about the double immediately after it was made.

Alex: Care to elaborate? What do you think takeout means?

Ken: Isn't "incomplete" a subset of "incorrect"?

[ArtK78]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 14:19, said:

Art: I mentioned that east and west both stated after the hand that this sequence shows the majors. I realize this is inconsistent with the pass of 2H, but that's what he said quite clearly.

Pran: I see now, sorry. Yes of course north asked about the double immediately after it was made.

Alex: Care to elaborate? What do you think takeout means?

I did miss that you stated that, after the auction, both East and West stated that this auction shows the majors. That is interesting, to say the least.

I see the explanation by East/West that this showed the majors because of the failure to double 1♠, but I still don't follow the rationale. Is East/West saying that East is required to double 1♠ with hearts and clubs, even if he doesn't have the values for a direct takeout double? When 1NT is passed back to East, can he not double with a light hand with the unbid suits?

Are you trying to make my head explode?

[I now fully understand the title to this thread]

[AlexJonson]

Did EW really say the double showed the majors by prior agreement?

I might think as E that partner very likely had majors, because of the auction and my hand.

[lalldonn]

AlexJonson, on 2012-March-28, 14:26, said:

Did EW really say the double showed the majors by prior agreement?

They implied it is obvious from the auction that this shows the majors because they would have doubled a round earlier with hearts and clubs. It was not at all obvious to either of the NS players here who thought this auction would just show a slightly worse hand with hearts and clubs (and later, that couldn't stand diamonds).

As an example, NS note that on the same logic offered by EW, 1D P 1S P, 1NT P P 2H should show the majors since he didn't overcall the round before.

[kenrexford]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 14:19, said:

Ken: Isn't "incomplete" a subset of "incorrect"?

If I opened 1NT, and you asked what it showed, and my partner said, "balanced," this would be correct. Incomplete, but correct. So, not a subset of incorrect, IMO.

Granted, some omissions are more significant than others. But, in this specific sequence, the opponents might have legitimate cause for agreeing to a double as:


1. Clubs and Hearts (the unbids)

2. The three suits Opener bid not bid (including a four-card spade holding into the picture)

3. The three suits Responder did not bid (diamonds might be short anyway)

Or, any number of other plausible holdings. Obviously, the question was designed to ask what suits were shown, and as obviously the explanation did not answer the intended question. So, equally obvious IMO is that a follow-up is as called for as the omission of range in my 1NT example.

[jallerton]

Literally, a take-out double is a double which partner is expected to take out, i.e. remove to another contract. Thus all you can infer from the original explanation is that East is not expected to pass 1NTx.

kenrexford, on 2012-March-28, 13:00, said:

FWIW, most sentences in explanation go like this: "Takeout for ____." When the person stops at "Takeout," I would consider the explanbation incomplete, not incorrect. So, I would have asked "for what?" as North or South.

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 14:19, said:

Ken: Isn't "incomplete" a subset of "incorrect"?

Perhaps it is, but if North/South are reasonably experienced they should know to ask a follow-up question after an obviously incomplete or unclear explanation.

I could not find any definition of "take out" on the ACBL website, but here in England we have the following definition:

EBU Orange Book said:

Take-out doubles
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.

This definition does not really envisage a take-out double being made of a NT bid, but if the auction (1♠)-P-(1NT)-dbl crops up I describe it as "take-out of spades".

On the auction shown in the opening post, perhaps "take-out" was the full extent of the E/W agreement with East and West having slightly different ideas as to what suits lengths were implied by the subsequent bidding.

[kenrexford]

I thought about this more, and I am more and more convinced that this is an interesting sequence.

suppose that you had a general default that "all doubles below 2♠ are takeout of some variety." That's not a terrible default for a quick agreement. The meaning of "takeout" is then "contextual."

So, consider this sequence. The double could be a "multi-purpose takeout," showing:

a. three-suited short in spades, or
b. any two suiter with hearts as an anchor suit

Advancer assumes (a) and picks one of the suits. If he picks one of Doubler's two suits in a two-suit situation, all is good. If not, then an unusual version of equal-level conversion occurs. The ELC only comes up when Advancer bids a minor, as doubler always has hearts.

If Advancer bids clubs but doubler has the reds, he ELC's to 2♦, and all is well.

If Advancer bids clubs but doubler has the majors, he ELC's to 2♥, and all is well.

If Advancer bids diamonds but doubler has hearts and a black suit, he converts to 2♥. Advancer does not know which black suit doubler has, but he picks between hearts and his worst black suit.

You can also add onto this one more meaning -- spades and a minor. If Advancer picks a minor, great. If not, ELC to 2♠.

Alternatively, you could instead add one two additional meanings -- spades and a minor. If Advancer picks clubs and that is one of the suits, pass. If advancer picks clubs but doubler had diamonds and a major, he ELC's to 2♦ and may ELC to 2♠ if necessary after that. If advancer picks diamonds and that is one of the suits, pass. if diamonds are picked as the wrong major, doubler ELC's to 2♠.

You could even dangerously include both alternatives, or even any two or three suits.

So, "takeout" as the sole definition might actually be playable and might make sense.

As an aside, this would also explain the pass of 2♥.

[lalldonn]

jallerton, on 2012-March-28, 16:27, said:

Literally, a take-out double is a double which partner is expected to take out, i.e. remove to another contract. Thus all you can infer from the original explanation is that East is not expected to pass 1NTx.

Suppose when I open 1H my opponents play double shows a single-suited hand in spades. If they describe this double after it is made as "take-out" (after all, partner is not expected to pass it) then would you consider that a sufficient explanation?

On a different note, there is a convention often referred to as the "Grand Slam Force", which actually just invites a grand slam, rather than forces to one. So wouldn't you agree that some conventions may not match the literal meaning of their name? And "takeout doubles" are a convention, correct?

jallerton, on 2012-March-28, 16:27, said:

if North/South are reasonably experienced they should know to ask a follow-up question after an obviously incomplete or unclear explanation.
....
On the auction shown in the opening post, perhaps "take-out" was the full extent of the E/W agreement with East and West having slightly different ideas as to what suits lengths were implied by the subsequent bidding.

Are you suggesting the explanation is "obviously incomplete or unclear" even though it may have been "the full extent of the E/W agreement"? That seems contradictory. If it may be their entire agreement then the explanation is not incomplete or unclear, and certainly not "obviously" so.

Quote

EBU Definition...

I can not locate a single definition of takeout doubles anywhere on the internet, using either official or unofficial sources, that fails to make mention of "unbid suits" in the definition, including your quoted definition from the EBU.

[mrdct]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-28, 13:23, said:

Doubles are either "positive" (i.e, for penalty), "negative" (i.e., for takeout), or a combination of the two, generally referred to as optional or card showing or the like.

I can think of several other potential meanings of doubles:

- showing precice length in a specific suit (e.g. support dooubles);
- showing general length or values in a specific suit (e.g. lead directing doubles);
- calling for an unusual lead (e.g. lightner double);
- inviting game in a competitive auction (e.g. maximal doubles);
- showing a control;
- keeping an auction alive after a forcing pass situation;
- responding to an asking bid;
- making an asking bid.

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 17:33, said:

I can not locate a single definition of takeout doubles anywhere on the internet, using either official or unofficial sources, that fails to make mention of "unbid suits" in the definition, including your quoted definition from the EBU.

But notice that it qualifies this with "frequently" -- not "always" or even "usually".

For example, it's pretty standard to use a takeout double to show a hand with overcall shape, but too strong for a simple overcall. If the doubler bids a new suit on his next turn, it cancels the implication that he had support for the other unbid suits.

Of course, this double can't be a strength-showing double, because he could have doubled on the previous round in that case.

If East understood that West was showing the majors, why didn't he bid 2♠ over 2♥?

[Trinidad]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 12:36, said:

Do you believe either north or south would really have bid clubs at any point if a different explanation had been given?

Not really, after all the doubler, or his partner, could still have had clubs if the explanation would have been: "He doesn't want to defend 1NT and can envision more than 1 place to play. Future bids will be ELC style, since he can't have a strong hand anymore." (which is one common meaning of "takeout" and probably close to what EW are actually playing).

However, I do believe that North or South would have bid clubs if they would have bid differently themselves. Presumably (correct me if I am wrong) North had the following options available for his opening bid:

1) Pass
2) 2♣, showing 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and a four card major
3) 1♦, showing genuine diamonds or an 11-13 balanced hand

All three options are ugly: Pass because you have something, 2♣ because your club suit is ...well.. err.. not really a suit and 1♦ because your hand is not balanced. If North would have chosen pass or 2♣, the club suit would have been found easily (Pass-Pass-Pass-1♠; and North has an easy takeout double, according to the NS understanding of takeout ). North decided on 1♦ and as a result the clubs were lost in the auction.

And obviously, the NS system doesn't help to find the club suit either. I mean, strong club systems are very nice (I play a strong club system myself) but it shouldn't come as a big surprise that you might lose the club suit if you reserve the 1♣ opening for something conventional, unrelated to clubs, and at the same time put constraints (a half decent suit) on the opening bid that actually does show clubs (2♣).

So, the way I see it, the club suit was lost due to the system that NS played and the opening action that North chose. Don't get me wrong. It is a good system and North' action was reasonable at minimal and most likely 100% correct in the long run. But that was the cause for losing the club suit. And not the fact that there was a difference between the way NS and EW understood the term "takeout".

lalldonn, on 2012-March-28, 12:36, said:

(I have no idea why east passed 2H instead of bidding 2S in that case, but that's what happened).

Maybe because East thought 1♠ meant "spades" and 1NT meant "balanced hand", leaving exactly 4 spades with West, giving West 45 in the majors?

Rik

(serious editing)

[gnasher]

I think that a "takeout" double is a double that you want partner to take out, in the same way as a "forcing" bid forces partner to bid, an "invitational" action invites partner to do something, and a "preemptive" bid is intended to preempt the opponents' auction. To me, the implication of "takeout" is merely "I want you to bid something, and I am prepared for the likely continuations."

In this situation, all four suits might be playable, so lots of shapes are possible when West doubles. Doubling and converting 2♦ to 2♥ says that diamonds aren't a possible strain, so it suggests five hearts and at least one four-card black suit. I think that the normal shapes for this action are 4513, 4522, 3514 and 2524. East's explanations and his pass of 2♥ suggest that he was expecting one of these shapes. When West doubled, he was probably expecting to hear 2♣, which he could convert to 2♥, clearly showing 4-5 in the majors.

I expect that what E was trying to say with his explanations was "Double meant he wanted me to bid. 2♥ meant he had the length in both majors, but not specifically 5-5. I expected him to have five hearts, so I passed it." But obviously I haven't heard East's actual words, so I can't be sure.

Should NS have enquired further? I think so. It's not an everyday auction, and it's obviously affected by EW's agreements about what a double of 1♠ would have shown. The assumption that there is only one possible natural meaning for this sequence seems unwarranted. So I would probably rule that the score stands.

It's not directly relevant to the ruling, but when you're playing against people from another country, I think you should take extra care to ask them to clarify their explanations. No doubt it would have been better for East to say "flawed takeout", or "takeout, but not promising any particular shape", or "he wants me to bid", but it's asking a lot to expect a native Polish speaker to realise this. Explaining bridge agreements in a foreign language is difficult, and often two superficially equivalent terms actually have slightly different meanings.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-29, 05:30

[wank]

take-out to me means the bidder's partner is expected to bid something as opposed to passing. i don't see why you made the leap to assuming any particular suits.

however, i would think it's more common for X to show spades. i would be a bit suspicious about EW's affirmation that this sequence showed the majors for them, but nothing to be done about it, besides recording it and waiting for the sequence to come up again in 7 years time.

retrospectively, you would have been in a much stronger position had you asked about the 2♥ call as well.