[mtvesuvius]

Playing in a bracket 1 KO at the Regional in Daytona Beach, against fairly good opponents, I held:

Sitting East, your call? Partner is an expert, but is under 40 y/o

---

[wank]

seems like an obvious double to me

[dake50]

Having C:AQJxxx -- the unclaimed suit
AND H:Kxx -- partner's suit
AND D-single -- opener's suit
I'm not defending yet. I guess 5C,
esp. as partner will expect not misfit hearts which would double.

[gnasher]

Seems like an obvious takeout double to me.

[straube]

dbl. If partner were over 40 I'd probably still dbl.

[dake50]

Are doublers expecting penalty?
Or do they have eg. DSIP agreements in mind?

[phil_20686]

I'm inclined to pass. Looks to me like partner does not need a very good Hand. Something like xxx AQxxx Qxx xx would be perfect 1h overcall, and you do not really want to commit to the 5 level when you are incredibly likely to go positive vs 4S. Futher, it is not at all clear to me that they are in the best strain. If I dble and then bid 5d I will not be a happy bunny. I realised this is taking a view. If i was not going to pass I would make a t/o dble. Partner is allowed to pass a t/o dble. I would expect that to be the result often.

[mfa1010]

D. Takeout, but partner will pass often. He can't expect more shape than what I have.

Quote

Something like xxx AQxxx Qxx xx would be perfect 1h overcall, and you do not really want to commit to the 5 level when you are incredibly likely to go positive vs 4S.

He will autopass this for instance, and 4♠ is not going to make.
I'll lead my singleton, since I have control over trumps.

[mikeh]

I'm way over forty, and it shows....I really have to get out more...it would never have ocurred to me that the 'obvious' meaning of double was takeout.

It may be semantics....I know that a lot of posters here use the label 'takeout double' for just about every double that isn't pure penalty. I prefer the traditional usage of 'takeout double': a double that partner HAS to pull unless he has unexpected defence.

I can readily see using double here as 'card-showing' or 'transferable values', which suggests to partner that he should defend with average offensive values for his bid so far and pull with extra shape.

I wouldn't use it here, personally, but I think it is very close, and I might have a different answer if asked tomorrow. For today, I bid 5♣. I fear a double game swing, perhaps wrongly.

I'm going to run this auction past my three current partners to see what they think double would mean.

[mike gill]

I think it's an auto double but I think takeout is a poor description. I would in fact expect partner to pass with normal hands, so I guess I would call this much closer to a penalty double. I think responsive-ish or value-showing is probably the best description. "Partner my hand is too good to pass but I can't unilaterally commit us to bidding at this level"

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2010-November-03, 09:54, said:

I wouldn't use it here, personally, but I think it is very close, and I might have a different answer if asked tomorrow. For today, I bid 5♣. I fear a double game swing, perhaps wrongly.

I think you are right, you are wrong to fear a double game swing
If partner has an ace (or any other entry), we almost always beat this on a diamond lead, i.e. barring a void. If partner does not have an ace, then he will take out a double with a void, and if he doesn't have a void (and no ace) we have a minor problem in any 5-level contract...

I agree that "takeout" isn't a very adequate description for this double, but that suits my hand fairly well I think.

[Fluffy]

Why is everyone willing to introduce a new suit at the 5 level when we have support?

Partner won't overcall a 4 card suit without opening values, and I bet he doesn't have them.