[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-08, 09:44, said:

Not sure that the calls listed as natural under "this includes" are in fact natural under your regulations.

The calls listed under [this includes] shall specifically be alerted even if they are not conventional (i.e. "natural") by the definition. This clause may be redundant but it is there to avoid any doubt about alerting.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-08, 14:31, said:

But be aware that a "natural" call shall be alerted when it may convey information other than, or in excess of what follows from its state as a "natural" call.

But their definition of "conventional" is a call that may convey other information than length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit. So it's not possible for a call to be both natural and also convey excess information.

Maybe what they meant in the definition of "conventional" is that its meaning doesn't include length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit (which is essentially my definition of "artificial").

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-January-09, 02:28, said:

But their definition of "conventional" is a call that may convey other information than length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit. So it's not possible for a call to be both natural and also convey excess information.

Maybe what they meant in the definition of "conventional" is that its meaning doesn't include length/strength in the suit or willingness to play in the suit (which is essentially my definition of "artificial").

Just a reminder - I did write:

pran, on 2017-January-08, 14:37, said:

The calls listed under [this includes] shall specifically be alerted even if they are not conventional (i.e. "natural") by the definition. This clause may be redundant but it is there to avoid any doubt about alerting.

[WellSpyder]

So, LHO deals and opens 1♠. Partner passes. Oh dear! I'm in a bit of difficulty, now. We play take-out doubles in partner's position, so he may decide to pass when he wants to make a penalty double. I guess I had better alert that pass then, should I?

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-09, 05:09, said:

So, LHO deals and opens 1♠. Partner passes. Oh dear! I'm in a bit of difficulty, now. We play take-out doubles in partner's position, so he may decide to pass when he wants to make a penalty double. I guess I had better alert that pass then, should I?

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

[mycroft]

Nope, they both say "hey partner, if you have a penalty double given my strength, go ahead and pass." Don't see any difference.

Yes, it is much more likely that (playing negative doubles) partner has trap passed than partner has a pass of a takeout double. But that doesn't mean that the pass shows values - he's also passing with a flat zero. The pass of the double - well, yeah, that shows values, at least the pass of 1Mx (which might get sent back!)

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-January-09, 07:55, said:

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

Obviously the subset of all possible hands which is likely to make the call is different, but the general principles are more or less the same, aren't they?

[pran]

pran, on 2017-January-09, 07:55, said:

Do you know the difference between take-out doubles over an opening bid and negative doubles over intervening bids after partner's opening bid?

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-10, 03:32, said:

Obviously the subset of all possible hands which is likely to make the call is different, but the general principles are more or less the same, aren't they?

AFAIK

The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

The negative double over an intervening bid after partner's opening bid shows that the intervening bid has prevented opener's partner from his preferred response bid. A pass in this situation may show interest for a penalty double.

I don't see these as more or less the same?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-January-10, 06:18, said:

AFAIK
The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

I think that is a very unusual way of playing the take-out double of an opening bid. AFAIK it is more usual unless showing significantly more than minimum opening strength to have interest in all other suit denominations other than that opened. (Equal Level Conversion can modify this rule for very specific combinations of suits.) If the suit opened is your best suit then you may well have no sensible call to make other than pass even if you have opening values and interest in another denomination as well as that opened.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-10, 06:18, said:

AFAIK

The take-out double over an opening bid shows opening strength and interest in at least one denomination other than the opened. A pass in this situation simply shows no values.

The negative double over an intervening bid after partner's opening bid shows that the intervening bid has prevented opener's partner from his preferred response bid. A pass in this situation may show interest for a penalty double.

I don't see these as more or less the same?

A pass in the direct seat over opener can also have values, but all calls are flawed. E.g. 4-1=4-4 shape over a minor opening (shouldn't make a takeout double because you can't handle partner bidding the singleton), or a strong balanced hand without a stopper in opener's suit (most won't bid NT with this), or a hand that wants to penalize opener (but double would be for takeout). That's why players routinely balance with weak hands, to protect partner in this situation. This is very analogous to passing in the seat where you would make a negative double if you had an appropriate hand.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-10, 08:32, said:

I think that is a very unusual way of playing the take-out double of an opening bid. AFAIK it is more usual unless showing significantly more than minimum opening strength to have interest in all other suit denominations other than that opened. (Equal Level Conversion can modify this rule for very specific combinations of suits.) If the suit opened is your best suit then you may well have no sensible call to make other than pass even if you have opening values and interest in another denomination as well as that opened.

To elaborate a bit more on takeout doubles over an opening bid:

My and my partners' understanding is that the doubler with support in all unbid denominations may hold just about opening values for a takeout double, typically around 13 HCP. In such cases his next call will often just be pass or a raise in partner's response denomination.

But he may also double with the intention to bid his own denomination regardless of his partner's answer. In that case he shows a hand that is far too strong to just bid in his own denomination directly over the opening bid. His strength will now typically be at least 16 HCP.

So the strength shown by the takeout doubler depends heavily on his next call.

[blackshoe]

This is hardly the right forum for discussions of bidding theory, but…

Max Hardy postulated four types of "takeout double":

1. Roughly the values of an opening bid, 2 quick tricks, short in the suit doubled, support (at least 3) for each of the unbid suits.
2. A hand too strong for a simple overcall, balanced or unbalanced. Doubler will bid again.
3. "Values". About 13 HCP, no clear cut bid. He points out that this is non-standard, and that most people doing it don't understand what they're doing.
4. "Equal level correction". Here, when advancer bids the lowest ranking of the available suits, and doubler bids the next higher, he is showing that suit and the highest unbid, and will not have the values for a type 2 double. If he has a type 2 double in the suit he has bid, he has to jump over partner's advance.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-10, 16:08, said:

So the strength shown by the takeout doubler depends heavily on his next call.

I thought we were discussing strength shown by the passer, not the doubler. Specifically, a pass made when you could have made some kind of artificial double (takeout, negative).

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-January-11, 10:25, said:

I thought we were discussing strength shown by the passer, not the doubler. Specifically, a pass made when you could have made some kind of artificial double (takeout, negative).

You cannot compare pass when a double would be negative and pass when a double would be for takeout (over an opening bid). They are two different "kettles of fish"

My point has always been that pass in a position where a double would be negative can show, but not necessarily does show values justifying a penalty double.

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-January-11, 11:05, said:

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

I think this is the sentence where you seem to be parting company with the rest of us, pran. (I say "seem to", because I don't really believe you play things that differently from the rest of us.) To me, it is absolutely normal when you have a hand that wants to make a penalty double in a position where double would be for to takeout to pass instead, planning to pass again if partner is able to make a takeout double. Since you won't normally what to make a penalty double unless you have values, it follows that in any normal "natural" system, a pass where double would be for takeout can indeed have significant values if you want to take a penalty. You seem to be suggesting that this only applies in the "negative" double position after opponents have overcalled partner's opening bid, but for most of us I think it applies in more or less any takeout double position.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-January-11, 11:05, said:

You cannot compare pass when a double would be negative and pass when a double would be for takeout (over an opening bid). They are two different "kettles of fish"

My point has always been that pass in a position where a double would be negative can show, but not necessarily does show values justifying a penalty double.

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-12, 03:30, said:

I think this is the sentence where you seem to be parting company with the rest of us, pran. (I say "seem to", because I don't really believe you play things that differently from the rest of us.) To me, it is absolutely normal when you have a hand that wants to make a penalty double in a position where double would be for to takeout to pass instead, planning to pass again if partner is able to make a takeout double. Since you won't normally what to make a penalty double unless you have values, it follows that in any normal "natural" system, a pass where double would be for takeout can indeed have significant values if you want to take a penalty. You seem to be suggesting that this only applies in the "negative" double position after opponents have overcalled partner's opening bid, but for most of us I think it applies in more or less any takeout double position.

Sorry, I was inaccurate by not repeating "over an opening bid" in my last sentence but I really thought this was obvious from the context.

Can you show an example where second hand pass after an opening bid may suggest partner (fourth hand) to double for penalties based on values in second hand?

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-January-12, 04:17, said:

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

So would I. I would expect the same of a double in this auction:
1♥- 1♠ - PASS - PASS - ???

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-12, 04:17, said:

Sorry, I was inaccurate by not repeating "over an opening bid" in my last sentence but I really thought this was obvious from the context.

Can you show an example where second hand pass after an opening bid may suggest partner (fourth hand) to double for penalties based on values in second hand?

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

I've reopened in auctions like that with minimum values, I think as little as 6 HCP. Opener and partner have at least 29 combined HCP, and partner is likely to have a decent chunk of that. His pass didn't "show" those values, but third hand's pass and my hand implied it.

Sometimes it doesn't work, because opener has an 18-20 count.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-12, 05:49, said:

So would I. I would expect the same of a double in this auction:
1♥- 1♠ - PASS - PASS - ???

The way I know negative doubles a double here is for penalty based on the knowledge that partner passed in a negative double position possibly with values likely to favourably set opponents contract. If opener can see from his own cards that partner is unlikely to hold such values he should not double.

And if partner does not hold such values he must take out opener's double after which opener quite likely will just pass.

[blackshoe]

Is opener required to double on this auction, unless as you say he can see that responder is unlikely to wish to double for penalties?