[TWO4BRIDGE]

All red...
2/1 GF.. so 1NT! is forcing .
N/S can actually make 13 tricks in ♥ .
2DX making 10 tricks by East was about -13 IMPs for N/S .

I guess the key question is... is the DBL T/O or penalty or optional if North has a ♦ stack ?

---

[SteveMoe]

Partner is weak so double is takeout. However South should bid 3♥ (or 3♦ if 3♥ shows 55+). South is both too strong and O/D too high for double imho. Yes, North should bid 2♥.

[aguahombre]

Obviously North and South were on two different pages.

South thinks that interference which doesn't prevent his intended rebid should prevent his intended rebid.

North doesn't think that.

I would be North.

[Codo]

Take out take out doubles... Seems not too complicated. North did not show a balanced hand at all, so the double surely is take out....

Maybe the take out double itself is not the best bid possible, but pass was a major crime.

[lalldonn]

Double is takeout.

[phil_20686]

Double is t/o, and seems normal to me. I would respond 3H with the north hand, but completely understand 4H. Did north really pass this double? That would be very bad.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-16, 08:56, said:

Obviously North and South were on two different pages.

I submitted this hand to a Nationals champion.

He said: " Standard is penalty but many, if not most, expert pairs play it as T.O. "

[ahydra]

Ah - I recall a fairly recent game with somebody I'd never played with before, who seemed to be clued in on modern bidding style but thought this was a penalty X. I've always thought it was takeout, and everybody I've played with previously thought it was takeout, so naturally I ended up pulling to 2H... and playing a 4-2 fit, down a few, but better than the 2DX= we would have otherwise got.

After a TOX, N should probably bid 3H as others have said. But to be honest in an unestablished partnership (I'm guessing it is because they had a misunderstanding about this X), South should just bid the obvious 3H. In a regular partnership you might have an agreement about X-then-bid being stronger than bidding directly, and in this case you wouldn't blame South for treating his hand as strong enough for X-then-bid.

Also... "most expert pairs"? Surely ALL expert pairs play this as takeout?

ahydra

[aguahombre]

There must be someone still alive who would make a 2H rebid if he/she has a 2H rebid.

[Codo]

Hmm funny comment, there is nobody with a two heart rebid.
Both hands are too strong for this underbid. South if he does not double, north if he does.

[aguahombre]

The point on this hand is, IMO, that South would make a rebid higher than 2D whether his righty bid 2D or not. Whatever that call would have been, the auction would proceed.

A 2H rebid might be chosen if the hand is considered just short of a J.S. The wide range of a 2H rebid is acknowledged and has been written up many times.

1S-1N
2H-3H (acknowledging the wide range of 2H)
4C...and so on.

Doubles are nice tools when they are needed. They are also the source of many ATB threads.

[lalldonn]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 09:19, said:

The point on this hand is, IMO, that South would make a rebid higher than 2D whether his righty bid 2D or not. Whatever that call would have been, the auction would proceed.

A 2H rebid might be chosen if the hand is considered just short of a J.S. The wide range of a 2H rebid is acknowledged and has been written up many times.

1S-1N
2H-3H (acknowledging the wide range of 2H)
4C...and so on.

Doubles are nice tools when they are needed. They are also the source of many ATB threads.

Two questions.

How do you play the double?

Who would be to blame if south bid 2♥ and the north and west hands were reversed?

[aguahombre]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-18, 13:52, said:

Two questions.

How do you play the double?

Who would be to blame if south bid 2♥ and the north and west hands were reversed?

First answer: reverse my red suits with about the same strength.
Second answer: the same as if the opponents had not bid and I rebid 2H. Unfortunate Partner wasn't a passed hand who could bid 2NT to show weakness with extreme minor-suit length, and unfortunate partner made a reasonable choice to respond 1NT instead of pass.

[lalldonn]

I guess I don't understand this viewpoint that we shouldn't be able to gain from the opponent's intervention. It doesn't matter to me what I could have done had RHO passed since RHO didn't pass. I just want to do the best I can now. Am I really waiting for a nice 17 count with AQJT in the overcalled suit before I can use a double here, the cheapest non-pass option available? I suppose if I live long enough I will get to use it one day.

In any case I probably shouldnt get into a discussion with someone who plays this double as penalty, since that is so clearly wrong to me that I doubt we would have much to discuss.

[aguahombre]

You are right that our views are different. I don't characterise my viewpoint in the same way you do, and I don't choose to characterise what you believe.

There are many situations where we want to have specialized agreements to take advantage of interference ---to actually plug a hole which might otherwise have been difficult to do.

We just don't believe as strongly as you do that this particular situation calls for a double to show a heart rebid. If we played a different style of continuations and rebids than we do, our views on this and other competitive situations might well be the same as yours.

[sailoranch]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 19:51, said:

If we played a different style of continuations and rebids than we do, our views on this and other competitive situations might well be the same as yours.

I am confused by this statement. Are you saying you play methods because you think they are effective, or that you think they're effective because that's what you play?

I don't think there is anything "specialized" about playing double as takeout. I also don't think there is anything about agreeing doubles as takeout that causes ATB threads.

[aguahombre]

Disagreements about doubles are what caused this ATB thread. My observation was that South and North disagreed. I assessed no blame, and I don't particularly care to crusade against takeout doubles in general.

[sailoranch]

Partners disagreeing about the basic meaning of an undiscussed call means they need to discuss it, not that penalty doubles are awesome in this situation.

Please forgive me for interpreting saying you would be North in this confusion and advocating a 2♥ rebid as South and philosophizing about making the same call you would make without the interference as assessing blame in an ATB thread and/or crusading against takeout doubles in general. Clearly I need to read more carefully.

Added: Apologies for derailing the thread. I do not agree with your doctrine that we should strive to make the same call we would without interference.

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-September-18, 07:07, said:

He said: " Standard is penalty but many, if not most, expert pairs play it as T.O. "

I think this is right if Standard means "what Culbertson would have done". It would never occur to me that double might be penalty here in the 21st century; actually that goes for any date in my lifetime. I agree with Josh here about gaining from their interference - would anyone not assign a meaning to a redouble just because the opponents' double did not take away any space? Or should we double their 1♠ opening on any hand that would have opened 1♣, 1♦ or 1♥? There is a place for using a double competitively when the opponents have taken away our natural call - but this is not a situation where that would be an efficient use for the double.