[pescetom]

A player's partnership agreement says that a takeout double of any 1 in a suit opening indicates a hand worth an opening bid with at least 3 card support for all unbid suits, but despite this she doubles a 1♥ opening with only 2 cards in ♠ (2344 shape and no extra strength). Could this be considered a psyche?
If not, what if there was only 1 card (say 1444 shape)?

How would things change if the partnership agreement said that the takeout double of 1♥ indicates 4 cards in ♠?

[barmar]

A psyche is a "gross deviation", and I don't think a 1-card deviation is generally considered gross, so 2344 is OK. 1444 would probably be a psyche.

And if she does it often enough, their description is simply misinformation.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-February-04, 14:54, said:

A psyche is a "gross deviation", and I don't think a 1-card deviation is generally considered gross, so 2344 is OK. 1444 would probably be a psyche.

Thanks.
I understand that a 1-card deviation from 5 or 4 is not considered gross, but 2-card is so short that it is frowned on by other regulations, hence my question.
Can I desume that 2344 would generally be considered gross if the agreement was that spades should be 4-card?

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-February-04, 15:23, said:

Thanks.
I understand that a 1-card deviation from 5 is not considered gross, but there is a lot of difference between 3 and 2, both proportionally and in terms of regulations about opening, hence my question.
Can I desume that 2344 would generally be considered gross if the agreement was that spades should be 4-card?

Without intervening in the actual agreement here I would like to point out that a takeout double very seldom promises 4 card in an unbid major suit.

What it usually promises is a hand that can tolerate any (reasonable) answer from partner.

Example: in an auction like:
1♥ - Double - pass - 1♠
pass - 2♦ - pass - ?

The doubler might very well not have spades at all but he has a very strong hand with diamonds (and probably clubs).
Quite likely he is aiming for game or even slam.

My agreement with my partner(s) is this:
If I double an opponent's opening bid but at my next turn to call bid my own suit rather than accepting your response suit then you should count me for at least some 16 HCP and a strong suit on my own.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-February-04, 15:46, said:

Without intervening in the actual agreement here I would like to point out that a takeout double very seldom promises 4 card in an unbid major suit.

What it usually promises is a hand that can tolerate any (reasonable) answer from partner.

Example: in an auction like:
1♥ - Double - pass - 1♠
pass - 2♦ - pass - ?

The doubler might very well not have spades at all but he has a very strong hand with diamonds (and probably clubs).
Quite likely he is aiming for game or even slam.

My agreement with my partner(s) is this:
If I double an opponent's opening bid but at my next turn to call bid my own suit rather than accepting your response suit then you should count me for at least some 16 HCP and a strong suit on my own.

That's fine but the situation in question is a direct intervention over an opening of 1 in a suit, having just normal opening strength.
The agreement of the partnership in question - 3-card+ in unbid suits - is traditional and standard.
My own partner agreement in the same situation is that over 1♥ I promise 4-card ♠ and over 1♠ I promise at least 4-card ♥. I think that is increasingly common these days.

[blackshoe]

The fact that someone does this once does not imply that there's anything untoward going on. However, if she does it often enough that her partner becomes aware she might have this hand type it becomes a partnership understanding which must be disclosed. How it is to be disclosed is a matter for regulation but I would think at minimum it should be on the system card.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-04, 16:19, said:

The fact that someone does this once does not imply that there's anything untoward going on. However, if she does it often enough that her partner becomes aware she might have this hand type it becomes a partnership understanding which must be disclosed. How it is to be disclosed is a matter for regulation but I would think at minimum it should be on the system card.

In this case the understanding was clearly and correctly disclosed. I don't know why she deviated from it, but my understanding is that this is not important anyway so long as her partner does not expect it, and I have no reason to think that he did.

My partner bid 2♥, her partner 2♠ and holding ♠AJxxx in my own hand I bid a 4♥ contract, only to see 2-card ♠ in the dummy. Down 1 and a MP bottom.

[blackshoe]

Stuff happens.

[Vampyr]

I think that a takeout double that may be an offshape minimum should be alerted in most jurisdictions.

[sanst]

I see that many weak players have a tendency to double with opening values and no five card fit for an overcall. Last week I played against a weak pair, got a double on my 1♦ opening and discoverd during the play that she had a five card in diamonds. My 1NT went one off, because of that unexpected distribution. As Blackshoe wrote "stuff happens".

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-February-04, 23:12, said:

I think that a takeout double that may be an offshape minimum should be alerted in most jurisdictions.

It used to be alertable in ACBL, but they changed it 1 or 2 revisions of the alert procedures ago. Now it's just a checkbox on the CC, although I'm not sure most of the people who double whenever they have opening values ("I have an opening hand, I have to do something!") check it; most of them are poor players who don't even realize this is unusual.

But that doesn't seem to be the case of the pair in the OP, who seem to have an explicit agreement that it shows at least 3 cards in the suits, but the player has chosen to violate the agreement.

[blackshoe]

Not yet in evidence is when that change was made. I think it was at least five years ago, but I could be wrong.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-February-05, 09:30, said:

It used to be alertable in ACBL, but they changed it 1 or 2 revisions of the alert procedures ago. Now it's just a checkbox on the CC, although I'm not sure most of the people who double whenever they have opening values ("I have an opening hand, I have to do something!") check it; most of them are poor players who don't even realize this is unusual.

I was playing in Italy, ACBL players (and TDs) are still lucky in comparison. Here playing without a CC is forbidden but still tolerated. The alert procedures are fairly clear but also minimalist, and TDs are encouraged to go beyond them based on some pragmatic ideas that are (at least publically) only informally described. The alert procedures for doubles for instance state that no doubles or redoubles are alertable, except for doubles that show length or shortness in specific suit(s), or redoubles that show the opposite to pass. Limited and arbitrary choices, but fairly clear: unfortunately TDs are nevertheless encouraged to insist on alerts if the agreement on takeout double has unusual limits of strength or distribution and in general to apply the "not readily understood" logic of law 40B1.

[barmar]

Wow, it's rare that we get to claim superiority in our alerting regulations. Thank you, Italy.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-February-06, 09:56, said:

Wow, it's rare that we get to claim superiority in our alerting regulations. Thank you, Italy.

Superior in form, not necessarily in content
But yes, having some unwritten regulations is a stress for players and I imagine even more so for TDs.
It would be logical and correct to revise the alerting regulations if they are not considered sufficient.
I imagine that any conflict blocking revision is not about doubles but about whether or not to sacrifice the principle of alerting all conventional bids in favour of smoother play of modern systems. At the moment if your opponent opens 2♥ without alert he must have 19+ HCP, for instance.