[Antrax]

With no agreements, how is it reasonable to expect partner to interpret the following?
a)

---

b)

---

[JLOGIC]

Takeout and takeout. Very reasonable.

[menggq]

A) X=penalty, showed good ♣ suits and openning hcp+

B) X=takeout, showed ♠5 short ♥ and not bad minors.

[frank0]

Both of them are takeout
(a)Delayed takeout double, E has strength to compete at 2 level but pass over 1C, the only possibility is E has strength in ♣, short ♠ and has no proper bid at first round.

For example,
♠x
♥Kxxx
♦KJxx
♣AKxx
is a perfect hand for E

(b)E don't want to sell contract at 2 level, the double shows a 3-suited hand, short ♥.
E may have
♠AKxxx
♥x
♦Qxxx
♣Kxx

[VM1973]

Everyone agrees the second should be takeout. But I feel that the first one should be penalty. Not everyone will agree.

[jillybean]

"reasonable" and "pick up partner" should not be used in the same sentence.

[han]

Depends entirely on how good your partner is.

[awm]

The second one being takeout seems pretty universal. I think any reasonable partner should "field" this as a takeout double.

The first one there is some difference in opinion. With a pickup partner (even one who is reasonably good) I wouldn't bet on how they play this one. Personally I like takeout, and expect that young-ish American advanced-to-expert players would tend to agree, but that's a far cry from assuming a true pickup partner will get it.

[Antrax]

Thanks. I meant both as takeout, two different advanced partners kept them in (in both cases without a trump stack and with a good suit to bid), so I was wondering if thinking they'd be TO is exotic. (And yeah, self-ratings are flawed, but I still expect non-"expert" ratings to be more or less accurate)

[han]

All advanced players say they are experts.

[Antrax]

I know two experts in real life, one self-rates as World Class (and has a star) and the other self-rates as Advanced, hence my conclusion

[han]

Which contradicts the accurateness of advanced?

[TylerE]

1st is clear penalty. To my mind, there is basically no hand that wants to double for takeout over 2♣, that couldn't over 1♣.

2nd t/o ainec.

[Antrax]

ainec?
The reason I think the first could/should be TO is a hand with length in the red suits and some competitive potential. For instance, something like:

---

I wouldn't make a TO double over 1♣ with (too weak for its shape), but don't mind getting to the 2 level in a red suit rather than selling out to 2♣.

[Flameous]

I'd take the first one as penalty without discussion. The other (maybe better) agreement is T/O of spades, ie a good opening hand with both red suits that couldn't X 1♣ or overcall a red suit. Because I would have overcalled almost all of these, a penalty hand is more likely.
I don't think it's good idea to X with hand like Antrax showed. It's a very dangerous spot as opps might easily have both red suits locked up. (2♣ bidder is 45 in minors, 1♠ bidder 54 in majors) I rather trust that partner can find a balancing bid in actual balancing position.

[billw55]

To me these are both 100% and obvious takeout doubles. I would expect any true intermediate or above, anywhere in the world, to know this.

This in particular baffles me:

TylerE, on 2011-June-01, 18:31, said:

1st is clear penalty. To my mind, there is basically no hand that wants to double for takeout over 2♣, that couldn't over 1♣.

There are many hands with 4-4 red suits, but short in spades, that will not double 1♣. Perhaps you overlooked the spade bid in the auction?

[pooltuna]

a) penalty b) takeout

[helene_t]

TylerE, on 2011-June-01, 18:31, said:

1st is clear penalty. To my mind, there is basically no hand that wants to double for takeout over 2♣, that couldn't over 1♣.

Depends on your overcall style. If you overcall only on decent 5-card suits this is obviously not true. If any 5-card suit or KJxx is enough then you are right.

[TylerE]

billw55, on 2011-June-02, 06:31, said:

To me these are both 100% and obvious takeout doubles. I would expect any true intermediate or above, anywhere in the world, to know this.

This in particular baffles me:


There are many hands with 4-4 red suits, but short in spades, that will not double 1♣. Perhaps you overlooked the spade bid in the auction?

I think doubling on most 4-4s on that auction is nuts. Opponents haven't found a fit yet. Why do WE feel an urge to declare a hand that's possibly a misfit all around?

[billw55]

TylerE, on 2011-June-02, 15:39, said:

I think doubling on most 4-4s on that auction is nuts. Opponents haven't found a fit yet.

I didn't say most 4-4s. I said many 4-4s. Specifically, the good ones

Quote

Why do WE feel an urge to declare a hand that's possibly a misfit all around?

To avoid defending 2♣.