[gordontd]

 billw55, on 2013-June-05, 06:47, said:

And what is the advantage gained by using double as strictly takeout, that outweighs the loss of ability to penalize?

I would expect one of the advantages to be that it increases the ability to penalise. If you have to bid 4NT for takeout, you can't thereafter defend 4♠x.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2013-June-05, 06:46, said:

I didn't read any further (other than to find out what the question was). It seems clear that nothing is demonstrably suggested.

When I do read further, I still find that nothing is demonstrably suggested.

That was my view initially. However, when we found out how they say they play the double, I had some concerns. If they are going to double on a 3433 hand as well as a 1633 hand (which is what the North hand was), I can't see how they can make any sensible decisions without the risk of unconsciously using UI from the tempo of the auction.

The South hand in question bid 5♥, but this would have been very wrong if partner had held a strong balanced hand, rather than the typical takeout doubling hand he had. The trouble is that it's really necessary to have some information about other similar auctions this pair might have had in order to be able to judge this with any accuracy.

In the event my colleagues decided to disallow the 5♥ bid, and as stated above the pair decided not to appeal because they were too far from the prizes.

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2013-June-05, 04:50, said:

Everyone seems keen to ignore their claim that they play the double as neither take-out nor penalty.

I didn't in my answer, they have either a pure take out double or a pure penalty double, which is unsuitable for their method, and no real indication which unless they use a slow/fast methodology.

[Zelandakh]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-05, 06:46, said:

If so, that eliminates the possibility that the UI is because opener is balanced, so bidding is suggested over passing.

 lamford, on 2013-June-05, 06:46, said:

It seems clear that nothing is demonstrably suggested.

Of these two viewpoints, I think Andy's evaluation stands up better to scrutiny. For the players that Gordon describes, the UI suggests taking the double out.

 billw55, on 2013-June-05, 06:47, said:

In that case, what do these better/younger players use 4NT for? And what is the advantage gained by using double as strictly takeout, that outweighs the loss of ability to penalize?

How about a 0544 shape for 4NT, say? The arguments as to which method is more able to penalise are complex. Obviously the more often you double and the better defined the double is, the more opportunities you have. Similar arguments apply over a 4♠ opening too, which is also one of those where double has switched over time from optional to takeout.

[billw55]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-05, 07:26, said:

How about a 0544 shape for 4NT, say? The arguments as to which method is more able to penalise are complex. Obviously the more often you double and the better defined the double is, the more opportunities you have. Similar arguments apply over a 4♠ opening too, which is also one of those where double has switched over time from optional to takeout.

I admit to not really understanding you.

0544 sounds like a specific shape of takeout to me. So that makes double and 4NT both takeout, and hence nothing at all that opener can do to penalize. So how is the argument complex about which method is more able to penalize?

And why would we play that double=takeout and 4NT=0544 in the first place? That sounds kind of redundant to me. OK, double will usually be 15(43). Is that a big enough difference to worry over? And why not reverse this procedure, double with 0544, when partner is at least slightly more likely to have a penalty pass?

Or is it just that opener wanting to penalize 4♠ is so rare that it is fair to dismiss it entirely?

So many questions ...

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-June-05, 07:10, said:

I didn't in my answer, they have either a pure take out double or a pure penalty double, which is unsuitable for their method, and no real indication which unless they use a slow/fast methodology.

Since you described it as a ToX, which they had said it was not, I think you did.

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2013-June-05, 07:50, said:

Since you described it as a ToX, which they had said it was not, I think you did.

Try actually reading the post, that line said "Absent the extra info" at the beginning. The next paragraph addressed the case where they had described it as neither T/O nor pens.

[gnasher]

 billw55, on 2013-June-05, 06:47, said:

In that case, what do these better/younger players use 4NT for? And what is the advantage gained by using double as strictly takeout, that outweighs the loss of ability to penalize?

I'd bid 4NT on a two-suiter with a disparity between the two suits, so five of a minor shows equal length.

A "takeout double" doesn't mean "a double that must be taken out". It means that you have the right shape for a takeout double, and enough strength to think that we want to either bid to the five-level or defend 4♠x. These hands occur much more often than a penalty double, and when we're dealt a takeout double it's much more likely that we have a game-bonus to protect.

If you play double as for penalties and 4NT as takeout, on all the "takeout" hands you end up playing at the five level. Often you will go down when you would have beaten 4♠. By making a takeout double instead, you involve partner in the decision about whether to go to the five-level, so you will tend to only get to the five-level when you want to be there.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2013-June-05, 06:48, said:

Maybe simple Blackwood?

I haven't found many times over the years when I have opened 1M and then wanted to Blackwood when partner showed nothing.

[billw55]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-05, 08:21, said:

A "takeout double" doesn't mean "a double that must be taken out". It means that you have the right shape for a takeout double, and enough strength to think that we want to either bid to the five-level or defend 4♠x. These hands occur much more often than a penalty double, and when we're dealt a takeout double it's much more likely that we have a game-bonus to protect.

If you play double as for penalties and 4NT as takeout, on all the "takeout" hands you end up playing at the five level. Often you will go down when you would have beaten 4♠. By making a takeout double instead, you involve partner in the decision about whether to go to the five-level, so you will tend to only get to the five-level when you want to be there.

OK, this was my general understanding, perhaps I misconstrued the phrase "strictly takeout" in Zel's comment.

[barmar]

To make it clear, most people play (1♠)-X as "strictly takeout", but partner is still allowed to leave it in with a hand he judges as more suitable for defense. As the level of the opponent's bid gets higher, the kinds of hands that will do better on defense get more common.

[c_corgi]

 gordontd, on 2013-June-05, 07:09, said:

..I can't see how they can make any sensible decisions without the risk of unconsciously using UI from the tempo of the auction.
...

Since it is not clear what accidentally transmitted UI would show, I can't see how they can make sensible decisions without deliberately using UI. If they guess, sometimes they will get lucky. Lucky guesses run the risk of being mistaken for sensible decisions. The director would be hard pressed to gain sufficient evidence to rule sensible decision rather than lucky guess here, given the unfortunate connotations.

[mycroft]

I usually find this bid, whether they play it as "takeout", "penalty" or anything in between, really means "I'm strong, you guess." or "takeout, but if you feel like passing, that's okay, too".

We both need to know what 4NT would be (likely 6-5 minimum, frankly :-) and partner's double. If partner's double would have been penalty, then this double doesn't have to cater for "I have a stack"; if it's negative, then this double does (but doesn't have to cater for the decent 3145 hand). Of course, negative doubles at the 4 level are "Well, if you pass this, I won't be too upset, even if it's wrong..." anyway.

As far as this auction goes, I would believe that this is uncomfortable with one of partner's calls. Can I tell if it's pass or 5♦? Not sure. I'm expecting either 0544 or 2524 with too much to pass. 6 hearts with the UI is almost impossible (well, I guess he could be 1633 and not be sure whether to play in partner's suit or hearts). In any case, opener has a big hand. Oh another option is 19-ish where "we could be being robbed, or we could be down in anything, but 4♠ will beat any partscore we can make". Are the opponents known to be the type who preempt a half-trick more than the field?

It's not a "partner, if you pull you're walking home" double, that I know. That one doesn't hesitate, even if systemically double isn't penalty.

I'm saying a whole bunch of nothing. I don't want to let them get away with this one, because it *does* remove several "easy" hands from consideration; but I can't see what it demonstrably shows that it demonstrably could also deny.

[Edit: oh one more thing. What was the tempo of the pass over 4♠? Both for "how much time did opener have to think about this?" and "does opener 'know' partner has crap?"]

[gordontd]

 mycroft, on 2013-June-05, 09:36, said:

[Edit: oh one more thing. What was the tempo of the pass over 4♠? Both for "how much time did opener have to think about this?" and "does opener 'know' partner has crap?"]

We're in a jurisdiction where the stop procedure is fairly widely observed as required, even if not usually for the full ten seconds, so not having been told anything about this should mean there was no break in tempo.

[awm]

Their normal meaning for double seems to be "cards" -- so the slow double suggests not that great a hand. So why did he double? It could be either:

1. A mediocre hand with shape hoping pd will bid.
2. A mediocre hand with top tricks hoping pd will pass.

However given the auction type 1 is just overwhelmingly more likely than 2. So the slow double suggests to bid.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2013-June-05, 04:27, said:

South's hand was
♠ 97
♥ T742
♦ 872
♣ KT32

I see little difference between the OP auction and:

(4S) P (P) X There is even less difference when Acol openings are in use.

Taking out 4SX is lunacy; only if South knew something he/she should not know would the double be taken out. That is a stronger position than "could demonstrably be suggested", while still acknowleging we could call the double "takeout", "convertable values", "card's" or whatever at this level.

[nige1]

 gordontd, on 2013-June-05, 03:28, said:

There was a difference of opinion amongst the TDs on this one, but it wasn't appealed because the pair concerned were lying too far down the field. We are told that a slow takeout double suggests leaving it in, and a slow penalty double suggests taking it out. On this auction, What would you expect partner's double to be, and following from that, what do you think a slow double would suggest? If you were told that double was neither takeout nor penalty, but 50/50 and partner is expected to judge what to do, what do you think a slow double would suggest?
If it matters, and I think it might, they were playing four card majors.

---

Tim Rees explains that such doubles show "the cards held" but here, logically, partner's hand can't be too defensive because, we're told, his double is "neither takeout nor penalty, but 50/50". That is partner expects us to bid at the five-level, about half the time! Hence, without UI, IMO: 5♥ = 10, Pass = 9.

Why did partner tank? What calls, other than double, might he have considered? Pass is an obvious option that he might have considered if he was worrying that his hand was flattish or lacked enough strength. But then, given your partnership agreements, he could well have chosen to pass. IMO he was more likely to have been considering 4N or a suit at the five-level. If so, the tank suggests 5♥. Hence you should pass.

I don't think you can legally assume that partner is Paul Lamford's secretary-bird who deliberately hesitates to restrict your logical alternatives

Notwithstanding my tentative opinion, since the polled TDs were split between passing and bidding as the suggested alternatives, I don't think the TD can rule that either is suggested over the other.

[campboy]

I personally wouldn't describe double here, as I play it, as strictly takeout: there are some plausible hands on which I will not double simply because I am worried about partner passing. But I would certainly double on 15(43) shape with sufficient values. I wouldn't consider passing the double with the actual hand given, though; maybe my style isn't that similar to what we're considering.

Anyway, I agree with helene_t about the main point. Slowness for this pair suggests that doubler either has a more-takeout-than-normal double or a more-penalty-than-normal double, and partner will usually be able to guess which based on your hand. So what is suggested depends on your hand, but often one or the other will be demonstrably suggested. Essentially what the slow double suggests is "don't do what you would usually do".

Bart Simpson said:

"Don't do what Donny Don't does." They could've made this clearer.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-05, 06:46, said:

From the explanation of the double and your description of the players, I expect that they usually pass this double. If so, that eliminates the possibility that the UI is because opener is balanced, so bidding is suggested over passing.

I agree with the first sentence, but I do not see how the second sentence follows, unless it is linked to another post. Why cannot partner be something like Axx KQJxx AKx xx? Partner was choosing between Pass and Double.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-June-06, 05:35, said:

I agree with the first sentence, but I do not see how the second sentence follows, unless it is linked to another post. Why cannot partner be something like Axx KQJxx AKx xx? Partner was choosing between Pass and Double.

I didn't say that it eliminates the possibility that opener is balanced. I said it eliminates the possibility that the UI is because opener is balanced.

That is, he wasn't thinking because he was balanced. I agree that he might have been holding a balanced hand and thinking for some other reason.