[Hanoi5]

(1M)-Pa-(3♣)*-???

*4+ card support and 7-9 HCP's

What would double show? What about 3M? Would it make a difference if the Major is Hearts or Spades?

[awm]

Sam and I play that double is takeout of the opponents' major. Our general philosophy is that we play few "lead directing" doubles, and the takeout-oriented hand is quite a bit more common than the "I have clubs but am unsure about the 4-level" type hand.

[nigel_k]

awm, on 2012-October-09, 20:45, said:

Sam and I play that double is takeout of the opponents' major. Our general philosophy is that we play few "lead directing" doubles, and the takeout-oriented hand is quite a bit more common than the "I have clubs but am unsure about the 4-level" type hand.

Presumably 3M is takeout for people who play double as lead directing. Gains from using double as takeout are:

- Assuming opener rebids 3M, partner can make a responsive double which they obviously cannot do if you bid 3M for takeout and opener passes.
- You are not committed to playing the hand so they cannot nail you as easily as they can if you bid 3M for takeout
- You get to use 3M for something else such as a Michaels type hand

The main loss from using double as takeout is the ability to direct a lead. I actually think there are quite a lot of hands that would like a club lead but cannot bid clubs on their own and this could outweigh all of the above advantages. But I don't have a strong view about which is better.

[Trinidad]

Ask the following question:

What would double of 1♠-Pass-2♠ be?

The whole world will answer that it is takeout. 1♠-Pass-3♣ has essentially the same meaning as 1♠-Pass-2♠, except that it promisses a nine card fit rather than an 8 (or even 7) card fit. In practice, the level of the auction is almost the same. The only bid that responder is not allowed to make is 2NT.

Lead directing doubles are nice, but doubles that let me get into the auction are much nicer, particularly when it could easily be our hand.

Rik

[Codo]

I would hate it, if I have to bid 3 ♠ over 3 ♣ as a take out of spades. I must commit myself to the 4. level just to be able to make a lead directing double? No way.

To double 3 ♣ for take out is lower and has another advantage: Usuually they have to run from 3 ♣ doubled if you had choosen the wrong time to step into the auction So your risk to declare a doubled contract without any high cards in partners hand is much smaller then after 1 ♠ pass 2 ♠ X.

[Yu18772]

I think Adam's agreement is pretty standard, no?
Yu

[gwnn]

I came up with the idea that 1H-p-3m-x should show a (1H-p-2H-) 2S overcall a while ago, everybody thought it was crazy, now I'm putting it out there again to see if maybe the world around me has matured enough to accept the validity of the concept.

[Codo]

No

[paulg]

I would expect "standard" to be that double of the weaker Bergen raise is takeout of the major and double of the stronger Bergen raise to be lead-directing.

However Roy Hughes, in his excellent book 'The Contested Auction', makes the case that is should be takeout in both situations, in line with Adam's thinking. He also notes that a limit raise opposite a opening bid does not even guarantee the balance of points these days.

[lalldonn]

paulg, on 2012-October-10, 03:19, said:

I would expect "standard" to be that double of the weaker Bergen raise is takeout of the major and double of the stronger Bergen raise to be lead-directing.

However Roy Hughes, in his excellent book 'The Contested Auction', makes the case that is should be takeout in both situations, in line with Adam's thinking. He also notes that a limit raise opposite a opening bid does not even guarantee the balance of points these days.

You could argue as well that it should be lead directing at mps (you will often save a trick) and takeout at imps (you occasionally have a game). But I agree with you on what is standard. Honestly I'm fine with it. I don't think this situation comes up often enough that a reasonable agreement is inadequate.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2012-October-10, 02:27, said:

I came up with the idea that 1H-p-3m-x should show a (1H-p-2H-) 2S overcall a while ago, everybody thought it was crazy, now I'm putting it out there again to see if maybe the world around me has matured enough to accept the validity of the concept.

I don't think it crazy. A takeout double is probably more common, but the benefits of showing spades are greater, so it might be worth it. Having said that, I wouldn't want to play it, because I like my agreements to be widely applicable rather than specific to an auction..

[aguahombre]

Now I know how to determine a person's maturity.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-October-10, 03:52, said:

I don't think it crazy. A takeout double is probably more common, but the benefits of showing spades are greater, so it might be worth it. Having said that, I wouldn't want to play it, because I like my agreements to be widely applicable rather than specific to an auction..

You can also apply it to 1H-p-2NT-x

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2012-October-10, 04:04, said:

You can also apply it to 1H-p-2NT-x

And possibly to a 3♦ transfer preempt.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-October-10, 04:17, said:

And possibly to a 3♦ transfer preempt.

Nice, I completely didn't think about that.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-10, 04:03, said:

Now I know how to determine a person's maturity.

I think you are missing the true meaning of my post, I am not judging individual persons but rather whole eras, or civilisations, for their maturity.

[Zelandakh]

You could also play a warped version of non-leaping Michaels I suppose: X = ♣ + oM; 3♦ = ♦ + oM; 3M = takeout. This seems like the sort of spot where Ken would have something exotic prepared...

[TWO4BRIDGE]

deleted nonsense.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2012-October-10, 05:59, said:

I think you are missing the true meaning of my post, I am not judging individual persons but rather whole eras, or civilisations, for their maturity.

Sorry. You missed the true meaning of my post....simply to be silly.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on 2012-October-10, 05:59, said:

I think you are missing the true meaning of my post, I am not judging individual persons but rather whole eras, or civilisations, for their maturity.

Yes, when future civilizations look back on humanity in the early 21st century, it will not be the technological advances of the era, nor the conflicts between nations and tribes that so defined the era, nor even the political battles of the time, but rather the manner in which bridge players handled interventions over Bergen raises that will define the maturity of the human race.