[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-30, 06:57, said:

EBU: If they call it a takeout double, it's a takeout double, regardless of the distribution.
ACBL: If they call it "strong", it's strong, no matter how many points it has.

That's not the case. The EBU regulations provide a definition of "take-out double", in a section which also defines several other types of double.

Orange Book 4H6 said:

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.

[TMorris]

I know one person who makes t/o doubles on any opening hand of any shape whatsoever (can include 5-cards in the other major for example) so overcalls are always less than an opening bid. She describes it clearly on her convention card but assures me she has been told by an EBU director that it is not alertable. She is an experienced tournement player who has a very high ranking.

Has she been misinformed?

[mjj29]

 TMorris, on 2012-August-30, 08:38, said:

I know one person who makes t/o doubles on any opening hand of any shape whatsoever (can include 5-cards in the other major for example) so overcalls are always less than an opening bid. She describes it clearly on her convention card but assures me she has been told by an EBU director that it is not alertable. She is an experienced tournement player who has a very high ranking.

Has she been misinformed?

It was not alertable until the most recent update of the orange book (beginning of this month) in which the 'potentially unexpected' clause was added for doubles and redoubles. I believe this qualifies as 'potentially unexpected' and is hence now alertable

[phil_20686]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-29, 16:33, said:

um... me?

Do you really think that it's common against strong players to double a 1S opening on

KQxx
Kx
Axxx
Jxx
?

That fits the description of 'an opening hand without an overcall' pretty well.

I think paul means that its quite common to double one heart with a hand like KQxx xxx Kx Axxx. Which is not really a t/o double, strictly speaking.

[StevenG]

 mjj29, on 2012-August-30, 11:02, said:

It was not alertable until the most recent update of the orange book (beginning of this month) in which the 'potentially unexpected' clause was added for doubles and redoubles. I believe this qualifies as 'potentially unexpected' and is hence now alertable

You'll never get club players to alert these doubles. They can't alert based on ideas they don't understand.

[aguahombre]

 StevenG, on 2012-August-30, 11:55, said:

You'll never get club players to alert these doubles. They can't alert based on ideas they don't understand.

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy. He wants to know what HE should do under EBU auspice.

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like. Their partners rarely compete or advance at the proper level unless they have a nice long suit. Random noise doubles are still considered abnormal in ACBL, and they don't do any better with the terms "takeout", etc. over here either. That doesn't mean someone who knows his partner's bids don't represent what he would be expected to hold (and adjusts his own bids accordingly) shouldn't disclose.

[SimonFa]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-30, 12:12, said:

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy.

[RunemPard]

Make the law more strict regarding alerting X like these...people SHOULD learn what a TOx's definition is.

My partner at our club has absolutely no clue what it really is. I have forgotten how many hands I am playing and I see his dummy...followed by me trying to explain that he shouldn't double their 1♠ opening with a 6232 hand and 13 HCP.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-30, 12:12, said:

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like.

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

I'm not disputing that they do this, I just really wonder how we've gotten into this situation and why it's so hard to combat.

[barmar]

 mjj29, on 2012-August-30, 11:02, said:

It was not alertable until the most recent update of the orange book (beginning of this month) in which the 'potentially unexpected' clause was added for doubles and redoubles. I believe this qualifies as 'potentially unexpected' and is hence now alertable

Is the EBU taking lessons from the ACBL? That's similar to the "highly unusual and unexpected" terminology in our alert procedures. Although I suppose the bar is much lower for "potentially" than "highly" -- EBU's terminology suggests alerting for anything out of the mainstream (like these takeout doubles), while ACBL's suggests that it must be far out (I don't think slightly offshape doubles would count).

[mycroft]

Because it just feels wrong to not have a call for certain strong hands (even though it is in fact not wrong) other than pass.
And all it takes for someone who feels like that is one person to come up with a "solution", no matter how often they're told otherwise by the better players.
The itch is scratched. Frequently for a bad score, whether it be playing the 4-2 fit, or not getting to game in fear of having to play a 4-2 fit. You'll notice that the doublers tend to raise with 4 no matter what their strength is, because partner will *never* jump.

It's the same reason that "everybody" still knows that "everybody's responsible for dummy", "a revoke is 2 tricks if they take a trick later with the card", "you can't open 1NT with a singleton", "you can just make your bid sufficient" and so on.

I'm seeing fewer "8-12" overcalls, though, with doubles on 13+ *any*. So we seem to be killing off that idea.

[paua]

 barmar, on 2012-August-31, 12:59, said:

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

I'm not disputing that they do this, I just really wonder how we've gotten into this situation and why it's so hard to combat.

Because that's the more obvious way to use a double. It takes quite a brain-twist to think of using low-level doubles for tactical takeout purposes. Same with reverses, cue-bidding, overcalling 1NT, leading aces, drawing trumps every time, discarding your lowest card, etc etc. Beginners think "naturally" and some never make the shift.
My example above of a double of 1S with four spades, the player has been playing for 15 years !

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-August-31, 16:11, said:

"a revoke is 2 tricks if they take a trick later with the card",

This one is a little unfair. How many years was this the case, and how many years has it not been the case? Not every player has read the new Lawbook.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-August-31, 16:11, said:

"you can't open 1NT with a singleton", "you can just make your bid sufficient" and so on.

In the EBU, the systemic possibility of a singleton is announced. I think this is a good idea.

[jallerton]

 barmar, on 2012-August-31, 12:59, said:

How does this happen, I wonder? Takeout doubles are surely one of the early things taught to most bridge players. And every bridge teacher and book explains that you make a takeout double when you're short in opener's suit and have support for all the other suits. Experienced players learn when to deviate from this, but where do the average club players get the idea that they should double whenever they have opening strength and no suit to bid? And how do they come to believe that this is "normal"?

Presumably the "average club players" get this idea from the "expereienced players" you mention.

[paulg]

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-31, 18:34, said:

In the EBU, the systemic possibility of a singleton [in a 1NT opener] is announced. I think this is a good idea.

I think it is a very good idea when it is systemic, as with Fantoni-Nunes who open all 4441 distributions in range with 1NT.

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens. That is, it is not systemic to open 1NT with 4441 hands, but if their singleton is an honour, the wind is in the right direction and it is not a Tuesday then they may open 1NT. To me this is just 'bridge' and should not warrant the announcement and it is misleading.

[FrancesHinden]

 barmar, on 2012-August-31, 13:04, said:

Is the EBU taking lessons from the ACBL? That's similar to the "highly unusual and unexpected" terminology in our alert procedures. Although I suppose the bar is much lower for "potentially" than "highly" -- EBU's terminology suggests alerting for anything out of the mainstream (like these takeout doubles), while ACBL's suggests that it must be far out (I don't think slightly offshape doubles would count).

Not recently.
The "potentially unexpected" phrasing has been there for alerting bids for many years; it just got added for doubles more recently.
The case that was the trigger for the addition (though not the only cause) was a pair who doubled a weak 2 opening to show a 16+ HCP take-out, (bidding 3C on a weaker take-out), which wasn't alertable before because it was 'take-out'.

[Vampyr]

 paulg, on 2012-September-01, 02:05, said:

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens.

Do they? I was not aware that this happens.

[paulg]

 paulg, on 2012-September-01, 02:05, said:

However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens.

 Vampyr, on 2012-September-01, 08:30, said:

Do they? I was not aware that this happens.

Reading the Orange Book again, I see 'systemic possibility' is your phrase whereas the EBU uses the much weaker 'partnership agrees ...'. I expect, like many pairs, we have no explicit agreement to open 1NT with a singleton but neither of us would be surprised if partner occasionally has one in a 1NT opener, so this is probably an implicit agreement (c.f., I was surprised when he had two singletons once).

My interpretation of the Orange Book is that this requires an announcement of "may contain singleton", despite not being common.

[Vampyr]

 paulg, on 2012-September-01, 08:56, said:

Reading the Orange Book again, I see 'systemic possibility' is your phrase whereas the EBU uses the much weaker 'partnership agrees ...'. I expect, like many pairs, we have no explicit agreement to open 1NT with a singleton but neither of us would be surprised if partner occasionally has one in a 1NT opener, so this is probably an implicit agreement (c.f., I was surprised when he had two singletons once).

My interpretation of the Orange Book is that this requires an announcement of "may contain singleton", despite not being common.

I think that not being surprised is sufficiently "systemic" to require an announcement.