Help
Our default is that doubles are takeout. Should this be an exception? If yes, can it be formulated as a more general rule (e.g. whenever they balance against our NT contract, all doubles are penalty?)
Takeout or penalty?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,942
- Joined: 2005-January-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cologne, Germany
- Interests:Sleeping, Eating
Posted 2015-December-04, 09:15
Our default is that doubles are takeout. Should this be an exception? If yes, can it be formulated as a more general rule (e.g. whenever they balance against our NT contract, all doubles are penalty?)
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell
-- Bertrand Russell
#2
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-December-04, 09:22
Definitely takeout for me. I think the case for takeout is even stronger after responder has passed than over a direct overcall by second seat. When you have lots of hcp you might be happy to double them with Hxx in their trump suit, whereas with 7-8 hcp you'd need a good four-card holding. Plus you are less likely to lose out big if you try for a penalty with a pass an opener doesn't reopen.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,485
- Joined: 2009-July-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:London
Posted 2015-December-04, 09:31
I can't see that this case should be an exception to your general agreements.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 10:37
I don't know what's the meanings of 2♦ as takeout? is its meanings to support all the suits unbid except ♣?
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,942
- Joined: 2005-January-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cologne, Germany
- Interests:Sleeping, Eating
Posted 2015-December-04, 10:42
lycier, on 2015-December-04, 10:37, said:
I don't know what's the meanings of 2♦ as takeout? is its meanings to support all the suits unbid except ♣?
2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx".
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell
-- Bertrand Russell
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 11:22
mgoetze, on 2015-December-04, 10:42, said:
2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx".
I got it, and thank you.
I think this is a penalty double by South,if by opener,of course,it is takeout for sure.
My reason is that there is no any evidence to show opps have found real suit fit,so logically it would be penalty.
What else?
#7
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2015-December-04, 11:39
(bold face added by me)
By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.
lycier, on 2015-December-04, 11:22, said:
I got it, and thank you.
I think this is a penalty double by South,if by opener,of course,it is takeout for sure.
My reason is that there is no any evidence to show opps have found real suit fit,so logically it would be penalty.
What else?
I think this is a penalty double by South,if by opener,of course,it is takeout for sure.
My reason is that there is no any evidence to show opps have found real suit fit,so logically it would be penalty.
What else?
By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 19:42
gwnn, on 2015-December-04, 11:39, said:
By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.
Very interesting.
Logically what you said can't lead back to same thing.Now,please allow me to take a classic example:
XX=I usually have 10hcp plus,our joint strength is more than opps.
And then after XX,one of opps is forced to escape to one new suit,all the double by opener or responder are penalty because of misfit.
As for this hand,let's make a logic analysis.
Why does East escape to 2d after first double by West ? just because of weakish hand,Mgoetze said well," 2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx". in another word,East is forced to escape to 2♦,so proving by the same methods,I would decide the second double by South is only for penalty because of misfit.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 19:43
gwnn, on 2015-December-04, 11:39, said:
By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.
Very interesting.
Logically what you said can't lead back to same thing.Now,please allow me to take a classic example:
XX=I usually have 10hcp plus,our joint strength is more than opps.
And then after XX,one of opps is forced to escape to one new suit,all the double by opener or responder are penalty because of misfit.
As for this hand,let's make a logic analysis.
Why does East escape to 2d after first double by West ? just because of weakish hand,Mgoetze said well," 2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx". in another word,East is forced to escape to 2♦,so proving by the same methods,I would decide the second double by South is only for penalty because of misfit.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 19:50
Sorry,repeated post due to my connection delay.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,952
- Joined: 2008-June-23
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-December-04, 20:28
In auctions like this we go by the over/under principle. If you are under the bidder it's takeout, over is penalty.
And here a 2M bid should just show 4 of them as you didn't transfer over the 1nt bid. Might be a (rare) problem when responder has 4-4 in the majors but I'll pay off to that as they could have risked 2 clubs directly.
And here a 2M bid should just show 4 of them as you didn't transfer over the 1nt bid. Might be a (rare) problem when responder has 4-4 in the majors but I'll pay off to that as they could have risked 2 clubs directly.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
What is baby oil made of?
#12
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2015-December-04, 20:52
You didn't address my argument at all. I didn't talk about 1D-x-xx-?. We can talk about that example once you addressed mine.
1. gwnn asks lycier something
2. lycier answers gwnn
3. lycier asks gwnn something
4. gwnn answers lycier
You skipped from 1 to 3 without skipping a beat. That's unfair and rude.
1. gwnn asks lycier something
2. lycier answers gwnn
3. lycier asks gwnn something
4. gwnn answers lycier
You skipped from 1 to 3 without skipping a beat. That's unfair and rude.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,612
- Joined: 2009-September-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:China
Posted 2015-December-04, 21:25
Double by south says
1- I have a good ♦ constructure with some strength in the hand,we can beat opps 2♦ contract because of opps misfit.
2- Or I have some defensive tricks in ♦,our joint strength are more than opps,we can beat opps 2♦ contract.
1- I have a good ♦ constructure with some strength in the hand,we can beat opps 2♦ contract because of opps misfit.
2- Or I have some defensive tricks in ♦,our joint strength are more than opps,we can beat opps 2♦ contract.
#14
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2015-December-05, 01:54
OK sorry I asked.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,485
- Joined: 2009-July-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:London
Posted 2015-December-05, 02:36
gwnn, on 2015-December-05, 01:54, said:
OK sorry I asked.
I think you are wasting your breath
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#16
- Experimental biddicist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,909
- Joined: 2010-January-02
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-December-05, 17:36
ggwhiz, on 2015-December-04, 20:28, said:
In auctions like this we go by the over/under principle. If you are under the bidder it's takeout, over is penalty.
This seems weird to me. Wherever you have asymmetrical doubles, your partnership can only bid half as many hands.
The "4♥ is a transfer to 4♠" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
#17
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2015-December-05, 17:45
Jinksy, on 2015-December-05, 17:36, said:
This seems weird to me. Wherever you have asymmetrical doubles, your partnership can only bid half as many hands.
Well, the rationale is that half of the hands aren't meant to be bid at all (let's say, if the 1NT opener doubles for penalty when she's under the bidder but her p hasn't shown any points). I'm not sold on it (the half in my previous sentence is really less than half), but this is the standard defence of the method and it has at least some merit.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#18
- Experimental biddicist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,909
- Joined: 2010-January-02
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-December-06, 03:42
That seems more like a rationale for takeout doubles - now responder won't X with no points and the hand doesn't get bid.
The "4♥ is a transfer to 4♠" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,866
- Joined: 2008-July-13
Posted 2015-December-06, 04:37
as far as i'm concerned, when opps protect and one of your partnership has yet to make a bid showing any values (which normally means any bid, double or redouble which wasn't forced), double is take-out, otherwise it's penalties.
as responder hasn't shown anything on this auction, doubles are take-out from both sides.
as responder hasn't shown anything on this auction, doubles are take-out from both sides.
#20
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,196
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2015-December-06, 04:55
Maybe it should have been penalty (or at least optional) if opps' suit was clubs, since responder would probably have used garbage stayman with a hand suitable for a t/o double on clubs?
But when they bid a red suit I think t/o is clearly superior. Probably also if they bid spades.
But when they bid a red suit I think t/o is clearly superior. Probably also if they bid spades.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket