[Coelacanth]

---

I don't play support doubles, so I don't know if they would apply in this auction. If you're playing that, and they do, then obviously this is a support double.

If you are NOT playing support doubles, what does East's double show here? Assume SAYC or "standard" 2/1, whatever that is.

[jallerton]

A few old-fashioned players use double as penalties here, but it's more common these days to play double as take-out: extra values and no clear bid.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-December-20, 15:42, said:

A few old-fashioned players use double as penalties here, but it's more common these days to play double as take-out: extra values and no clear bid.

I have often wondered what a hand looks like which has extra values, did not open 1NT (if 15-17), and has no clear bid. Weak notrumpers might well open 1m with a lot of hands where this is the case. But, for the rest of us, I don't think so.

We are unbalanced? We have a free bid in the other suit. We are balanced with short hearts and 18-19? We have a double, and I would not call it "takeout"; rather informing partner than defending 2C might be a good thing.

Long diamonds and extra values can rebid 3D (good/bad 2nt with less).

With 18-19 balanced and 3 hearts, we have 3C available. With extra values and 4 hearts we raise hearts to the appropriate level. Old-fashioned doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing.

[Yu18772]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-20, 18:59, said:

I have often wondered what a hand looks like which has extra values, did not open 1NT (if 15-17), and has no clear bid. Weak notrumpers might well open 1m with a lot of hands where this is the case. But, for the rest of us, I don't think so.
We are unbalanced? We have a free bid in the other suit. ......

I play support doubles, and that would be one. Otherwise most play it as t/o and I can imagine plenty of hands where we would like to compete, but not strong enough for reverse - 2♠ or 2NT. Double is a very flexible option to show a hand like that - I wouldn't like to bid ♠ or rebid 3♦ with AJxx, Kx, AQxxx,xx -partner did no show anything except 6 points and 4 hearts, but I dont like passing either and X keeps us at a safe 2 level. The specific requirements - (does opener promise 4 card ♠ suit? Does 2♥ from responder promise 5 card suit? is 2NT after responder bids 2 major forcing?) are worth discussing with the particular partner...

[aguahombre]

Yeh, well, the 14 point hands with no direction are kind of within the set shown by the original opening, so we don't tend toward the "I gotta do something in case partner didn't see my opening bid" theory. Responder still can reopen.

However, back on to the title of this thread: you are right it is probably "standard" these days to make one-suit takeout doubles and to rebid values already within the range shown.

[EricK]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-20, 18:59, said:

I have often wondered what a hand looks like which has extra values, did not open 1NT (if 15-17), and has no clear bid. Weak notrumpers might well open 1m with a lot of hands where this is the case. But, for the rest of us, I don't think so.

We are unbalanced? We have a free bid in the other suit. We are balanced with short hearts and 18-19? We have a double, and I would not call it "takeout"; rather informing partner than defending 2C might be a good thing.

Long diamonds and extra values can rebid 3D (good/bad 2nt with less).

With 18-19 balanced and 3 hearts, we have 3C available. With extra values and 4 hearts we raise hearts to the appropriate level. Old-fashioned doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing.

How strong do you need to be to make a free bid of 2♠ here, with no guaranteed fit? Would you make it on say a 15 point 4-1-5-3 hand? Or a 16 point 4-2-5-2 hand?

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-20, 18:59, said:

We have a free bid in the other suit.

It's a reverse, after partner only responded at the one level. In what way is this a "free bid"?

[Free]

"Standard" is takeout imo. The perfect hand is probably a 4=3=5=1, but in any case it suggests 4♠ and some support in ♥.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2011-December-21, 03:52, said:

It's a reverse, after partner only responded at the one level. In what way is this a "free bid"?

Freely bidding 2S needs "reverse" strength. What is your point? If you thought I meant "no cost", that would be a new definition of free bids for the fora.

Freely bidding 2S is available with an unbalanced hand with the strength to do so; the pass is available for the hand which does not have the strength.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

There is a thread about this sequence over in the Laws forums; the double was intended as Support but not alerted. Of course the South player claimed he would have done something differently over the double had he known it was support and not "takeout".

I guess I'm old fashioned; absent further discussion this looks to me like a penalty double. I have diamonds and clubs, probably 5-4, and enough extra values to make me think that my passed-hand, vulnerable opponent has made a grave error.

Maybe this is a terminology issue; to me, it makes no sense to play a "takeout" double when there is only one unbid suit. But it sounds like what some are describing as "takeout" is one of those "do something intelligent" doubles: extra values, desire to compete, no clear direction, might or might not have clubs, might or might not have spades. I would call that a "competitive" double.

[EricK]

Coelacanth, on 2011-December-21, 09:03, said:

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

There is a thread about this sequence over in the Laws forums; the double was intended as Support but not alerted. Of course the South player claimed he would have done something differently over the double had he known it was support and not "takeout".

I guess I'm old fashioned; absent further discussion this looks to me like a penalty double. I have diamonds and clubs, probably 5-4, and enough extra values to make me think that my passed-hand, vulnerable opponent has made a grave error.

Maybe this is a terminology issue; to me, it makes no sense to play a "takeout" double when there is only one unbid suit. But it sounds like what some are describing as "takeout" is one of those "do something intelligent" doubles: extra values, desire to compete, no clear direction, might or might not have clubs, might or might not have spades. I would call that a "competitive" double.

I would have thought that people who play it as takeout will be guaranteeing 4♠ (and not enough strength to reverse). They will also be prepared for any response from partner if he doesn't also have ♠.

[aguahombre]

EricK, on 2011-December-21, 13:30, said:

I would have thought that people who play it as takeout will be guaranteeing 4♠ (and not enough strength to reverse). They will also be prepared for any response from partner if he doesn't also have ♠.

Unfortunately there isn't any hand like that, but it works if the heart reponder has four spades or six hearts and would not have rebalanced over 2C; breaks even if partner would have rebalanced; and loses again if partner thinks opener has a bigger hand.

[EricK]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 16:57, said:

Unfortunately there isn't any hand like that, but it works if the heart reponder has four spades or six hearts and would not have rebalanced over 2C; breaks even if partner would have rebalanced; and loses again if partner thinks opener has a bigger hand.

It depends whether you are happy to risk playing a 4/3 or 5/2 fit at the 2 level when you have the balance of the points. Most 4252 hands will find an 8 card fit most of the time, and a seven card fit the rest of the time. With a 4351 hand the odds of finding an 8 card fit are even higher, I'd have thought.

[aguahombre]

IMO, it depends on whether you let the person in the balancing position do her job when your hand has no direction. I believe this debate says more about people's opinion of their partners and of making decisions from only one side of the table than about what the double should mean.

[EricK]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 17:36, said:

IMO, it depends on whether you let the person in the balancing position do her job when your hand has no direction. I believe this debate says more about people's opinion of their partners and of making decisions from only one side of the table than about what the double should mean.

Isn't it the "job" of the person short in ♣ to bid? i.e do we expect partner to balance with a middling hands with 3♣ (eg 4423)?

[whereagles]

The prototype would be something like

Kxxx
Qxx
AKQxx
x

or similar with 4252/4261/4360 shape. While a little bit more than the min hcp strenght is ideal, I wouldn't bother pard if he happened to dbl on

Kxxx
Qxx
AKxxx
x

But hey, to each his own style.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 07:33, said:

Freely bidding 2S needs "reverse" strength. What is your point? If you thought I meant "no cost", that would be a new definition of free bids for the fora.

It wasn't a point, it was a question. And I still have no idea what you mean by a free bid in this context.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 16:57, said:

Unfortunately there isn't any hand like that,

Whereagles has given an example of one.

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 16:57, said:

but it works if the heart reponder has four spades or six hearts and would not have rebalanced over 2C;

Sometimes the bidding doesn't stop at 2C.

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 16:57, said:

breaks even if partner would have rebalanced; and loses again if partner thinks opener has a bigger hand.

Partner won't think opener has a bigger hand if you don't play that the double shows a bigger hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

T/O, not necessarily promising add. values.

In a 15-17 NT context, a typical hand would be 4432 or 5332, i.e. in effect the
X showes 3 card support for responders suit, i.e. the hands suitable for a T/O
are hands, that would make a Support X.

But not all hands suitable for a Support X, would be suitable for a T/O.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

I would consider support doubles standard in this auction, but I also know some good pairs that use takeout doubles.

I don't think that it is a good idea to play such an early and low-level double as penalty. You'd have to pass with a lot more hands, which would put extra stress on responder to reopen with for example 3433 shape. It also leaves you more poorly placed when the opponents raise to 3C. This is especially true if partner can't make a takeout double of 3C either.

When opener picks up a penalty double of clubs, he can safely pass, knowing that partner will have short clubs and will try to reopen with a double. This is why aquahombre has it exactly the wrong way around when he states that the takeout doublers have no trust in partner. With shortness in clubs we should act immediately, with length in clubs we can pass and count on partner to reopen.