[RMB1]

A correspondent writes:

Quote

On a separate query regarding the sequence starting 1H - X
Is it (a) permissible (b) alertable for the double to be a flat 9 count?

The regulations for alerting doubles is:

Quote

5 E 2 Doubles
The rules for alerting doubles are:
(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.
Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

The regulation for permitted doubles is:

Quote

11 N Defence to Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids
11 N 3 Doubles
(a) These may be played as either take-out or penalty. This includes the practice of doubling on balanced hands with (near) opening values or with 3+ cards in any unbid major(s) without any other distributional constraints.

To paraphrase my correspondent slightly:

• Is a takeout double of natural 1 of a suit that may be a balanced 9HCP permitted?
  
• Is a takeout double of natural 1 of a suit that may be a balanced 9HCP alertable?

[blackshoe]

It looks to me like it's not permitted to have an agreement to double on a flat nine count, but I should point out that the fact that a player did that does not mean there is an agreement to do it.

If they have no agreement, then whether it's alertable is moot. If the agreement is permitted, then the question is whether it meets the definition of "takeout double" in the EBU. Does it?

In the ACBL, and assuming the agreement would be legal (I haven't checked, but I suspect it probably is), then it is not, as I read the regulation, alertable (though it should be indicated — there's a checkbox — on the system card.

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2011-January-10, 09:15, said:

To paraphrase my correspondent slightly:

• Is a takeout double of natural 1 of a suit that may be a balanced 9HCP permitted?
  
• Is a takeout double of natural 1 of a suit that may be a balanced 9HCP alertable?

The regs don't seem to mention any minimum strength for making takeout doubles, so I can't see any reason why this is not permitted, provided that the partner of the player treats it as a bona fide takeout double. Whether it is alertable seems to me to turn on whether the low strength is sufficiently unexpected. And that may turn on exactly how this policy is implemented.

Does your correspondent have in mind routinely doubling when he has a flat 9 count? Or does he only do it on 9-counts when he has an exceptionally suitable hand, eg, only when he has 2 cards in opener's suit and 4 cards in all unbid majors? Because the former policy might be up to 5HCP weaker than my own behaviour, whereas the latter might be as little as 2 HCP weaker than my own (rather conservative) behaviour. I note that Fantunes seem to make a takeout double routinely on just about any flat 11-count, so the broad policy would be 2HCP weaker than about the free-est TO doublers on the international stage - that seems to me to be sufficiently unexpected to be alertable. It becomes a more borderline decision if they are only doubling on exceptionally suitable hands within the category - 2HCP weaker than me, a conservative TO-doubler, doesn't seem so very surprising.

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on 2011-January-10, 09:43, said:

Does your correspondent have in mind routinely doubling when he has a flat 9 count? Or does he only do it on 9-counts when he has an exceptionally suitable hand, eg, only when he has 2 cards in opener's suit and 4 cards in all unbid majors?

I suspect its not my correspondent who wants to make these doubles but his opponents.
I do not know whether there was an actual instance, or what the hand was. Nor do I know what the actual partnership agreement is (I suspect there is no explicit agreement to make such doubles).

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on 2011-January-10, 09:54, said:

I suspect its not my correspondent who wants to make these doubles but his opponents.

If this enquiry is in the category "My opponent made a takeout double with a flat 9-count, there was no alert, is there a law against it?" Then it seems to me that it does not dignify any more detailed an answer than "I cannot conclude from that information presented that there was necessarily any infraction."

[mjj29]

The EBU stance on takeout doubles (not that I'm on the L&E committee, but I have had cause to ask several related questions) seems to be: if it's expected that partner will bid (other than on hands which are making a penalty pass on their own hands), then it's a takeout double. The spectrum seems to be "how often is partner expected to bid vs how often are they expected to pass", with penalty doubles being "they will always pass" (except in abnormal cases) and takeout doubles "they will always bid" (except in abnormal cases) and so-called "optional" doubles half way between. The actual shape of the hand making the double never seems to be relevant.

The alertability has two states: double of a suit - purely takeout is not alertable, everything else is. Double of NT - purely penalties is not alertable, everything else is.

I've asked that the L&E committee consider adding "highly unusual meanings" to the alertability of otherwise non-alertable doubles, which I think doubling on a balanced 9 count would certainly cover. Given how long it's taken them to retrain people after the 2006 change to alerting of doubles (simpler, but in some cases less intuitive) they are understandably reluctant to change it again and so my request was turned down, although I believe they may be revisiting the issue soon. Hence, provided this double is legal, it's certainly not alertable.

11N3 says "near opening values". Like other places in these regs, this is a little ambiguous. I would open balanced 9 counts in some positions and vulnerabilities, but that is the absolutely permitted minimum. Does that mean doubling on a flat 7 count is "near opening values"? I suspect what is meants is "near 12" - so 10 or 11, but it's hard to justify from reading the regulations.

In any case I think it should be listed in the "other aspects of system that opponents should note" on the front of their convention card, since it is unusual, even if it's not alertable and as a TD would be very tempted to rule that they were guilty of insufficient disclosure if they had not done so. I might also suggest that if they were to alert it anyway, everyone concerned would be happier.

[gnasher]

The Orange Book doesn't define the term "opening strength", so presumably it means "a hand that you're allowed to agree to open at the one level". At Levels 3 and 4, that means "Rule of 18" or better.

"Near" isn't defined either, but I expect that a one-point difference would be acceptable whilst a two-point difference would not. Thus a 4333 9-count probably isn't allowed, but a 4432 9-count probably is.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Orange Book didn't use such woolly langauge?

[blackshoe]

Just be thankful you don't have to live with ACBL regs.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 13:17, said:

Just be thankful you don't have to live with ACBL regs.

I agree in general, but answering one of Robin's questions would be very easy in the ACBL: Double is "conventional", so it's "allowed".

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-January-10, 13:01, said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the Orange Book didn't use such woolly language?

I am not sure. These are judgement matters, and tend to assume a commonsense approach, eg opening values does not mean a balanced 9 points just because someone opens on balanced 9-counts in some situations. As a practical approach, making the language less 'woolly' would lead to [a] lengthening the Orange book because of all the exceptions [b] more complaints because of the type of language and [c] difficulties in applying judgement in some situations.

[barmar]

mjj29, on 2011-January-10, 12:02, said:

The EBU stance on takeout doubles (not that I'm on the L&E committee, but I have had cause to ask several related questions) seems to be: if it's expected that partner will bid (other than on hands which are making a penalty pass on their own hands), then it's a takeout double. The spectrum seems to be "how often is partner expected to bid vs how often are they expected to pass", with penalty doubles being "they will always pass" (except in abnormal cases) and takeout doubles "they will always bid" (except in abnormal cases) and so-called "optional" doubles half way between. The actual shape of the hand making the double never seems to be relevant.

Following on that general idea, can't the strength expected of the doubler be judged from the types of hands that partner will jump with? E.g. most players will jump with a good 9 HCP, and force to game with 13. If a player with 13 HCP doesn't try to get to game, that exposes that he expects a much weaker takeout double than most players promise.