[foo]

Josh, I never said we should guess. I have in fact said we should do everything we can not to guess. In particular, I've said we should never be the one taking what is likely to be the last guess before it goes allpass or X-allpass or pa-pa-X-allpass.
Every time we have to take the last guess, either We have made a mistake or They have outplayed Us.

Not changing my tune one note.
"Not suitable to defend" means exactly that: not a defensive hand. Neither hands with convertable values nor offensively oriented hands are defensive hands. Since that was evidently not clear enough from my phrasing, I apologize for the lack of clarity and will be more explicit in the future.

The Big Difference between the auction 1m-(4om) and 1m-(4M) or 1M-(4OM) is that in the first auction all of 3N and 4M are possible contracts and an Opening bid opposite an Opening bid rates to make 3N or 4M.
Not so a 5 level contract which requires ~ a K more in playing strength to take 11 tricks.
Sometimes We will not be able to make 5 on such hands, but will be able to "X Them into oblivion." Sometimes We will not be able to work it out and just have to Defend.

Nor did Steve's quick blurb get into issues involving the vulnerability ratio.
Even if the auction is 1m-(4om) and Responder has an Opening bid, there are circumstances where it is not clear that Responder should X for possible T/O.

For instance, if We are at Favorable and I as Responder in this situation have just about any 4333 with 3 likely defensive tricks and not enough extras to make slam reasonably likely...
...I'm going to be searching for ways for Us to Defend with a Red Card on the table first and foremost.

That's even more true when I have to decide whether or not to ask GOP to bid when there is a possibility or a certainty that I'm forcing Us to the 5 level by doing so.

In these situations, Responder's ODR calculation is critical. A pass by Responder in these situations should say "GOP, my estimate is that We are more likely to score well if We Defend rather than Declare." Etc, etc.
That knowledge allows Opener to make better decisions.

If We at any point get reduced to taking blind guesses in these situations, We have most likely already lost the board.

[awm]

I prefer to bid 4♠. While passing is possible, I think most of us play the double as primarily "takeout oriented" and not penalty. We'd all double with hands like:

AQxx
x
Qxx
KJxxx

to give just one example. Opposite this hand 4♥ will often make and we can likely make 4♠ or 5♣ (especially if suits are breaking well enough for 4♥ to go set). There are many similar examples. It's true that partner will also double with some balanced hands, but I wouldn't expect a double on a hand including a real "trump stack" without much tolerance for opener to pull. It just seems that there are a fair number of hands where partner has one or two hearts and 4♥ can even make, and most of the hands where we expect to set 4♥ more than a trick or so also offer good play for some game contract.

In any case, 4♠ doesn't have to end the auction. Could it lead to a 3-3 fit? Perhaps, but this is unlikely. If partner doesn't have four spades, he knows we are headed for a moysian with the tap most likely in the short hand. Keep in mind that it would be very surprising for partner to have four hearts (why make a "takeout" double with such length) or for partner to have five diamonds (why not just raise), making four card spades all the more likely. On the off chance partner has some shape like 3235 or 3334, why leave 4♠ in? It won't play well even if opener has four.

[jdonn]

awm, on May 17 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

I prefer to bid 4♠. While passing is possible, I think most of us play the double as primarily "takeout oriented" and not penalty. We'd all double with hands like:

AQxx
x
Qxx
KJxxx

to give just one example. Opposite this hand 4♥ will often make and we can likely make 4♠ or 5♣ (especially if suits are breaking well enough for 4♥ to go set). There are many similar examples. It's true that partner will also double with some balanced hands, but I wouldn't expect a double on a hand including a real "trump stack" without much tolerance for opener to pull. It just seems that there are a fair number of hands where partner has one or two hearts and 4♥ can even make, and most of the hands where we expect to set 4♥ more than a trick or so also offer good play for some game contract.

In any case, 4♠ doesn't have to end the auction. Could it lead to a 3-3 fit? Perhaps, but this is unlikely. If partner doesn't have four spades, he knows we are headed for a moysian with the tap most likely in the short hand. Keep in mind that it would be very surprising for partner to have four hearts (why make a "takeout" double with such length) or for partner to have five diamonds (why not just raise), making four card spades all the more likely. On the off chance partner has some shape like 3235 or 3334, why leave 4♠ in? It won't play well even if opener has four.

Your arguments consistently seem logical, but I don't like this one and think it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

As regarding your example hand for partner, I consider it impractical to base my bid on the assumption the opponents have 11 hearts. Move his jack of clubs to hearts for something I consider more realistic and your expectation is something like 4♥X -1 or -2 vs. 4♠(X?) -1 or -2, particularly on the lousy breaks you know you are about to receive. Even on the example you gave, which was heavily weighted toward offense and away from defense, it is far from clear you want to be playing this hand. It won't be easy to use the diamonds and maintain trump control at the same time, all while not suffering ruffs to the short trump hand, and that is not to mention picking up the clubs.

With 3334 he would probably pull your 4♠ bid, but I don't think so with 3235. For all he knows this is the last making game if you are 42 in the majors, and even if not it is a level lower and thus less likely to be doubled than a minor suit game. It seems a little presumptuous to say 'I will bid my three card suit and play a potential 4-3, but partner should run with a three card suit and not play what he thinks is a potential 4-3.' Even if you are able to take your first ruff in the short trump hand in your 4-3 fit, your trump control issues are far from over at this high of a level.

Another issue is partner may have slam interest in spades if you bid them, and will be more than a little disappointed in your suit.

I still definitely think passing is right, but if you are going to bid then your goal shouldn't be to sneak into a 4-3 that you hope plays ok, it should be to find safety in your longest fit. 4NT is the bid that does that.

[awm]

This also reminds me of one of my pet peeves about the many words and terms used to define doubles.

Is it really accurate to say that a double is "takeout" when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

Is it accurate to say that a double is "negative" when it doesn't guarantee four cards in the only unbid major, and when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

Isn't such a double really "penalty" or maybe "cooperative"? In other words: "let's defend this contract unless you have a seriously distributional hand or substantial extras"?

If you'd really pass with this hand, it seems like you're treating the double much more like a cooperative double. Now, cooperative doubles are certainly a reasonable agreement in high-level auctions, but is it really accurate to say "double is takeout" and then routinely pass with hands like the one given? Seems very dubious to me.

[jdonn]

I never said double should be takeout. In fact, in prior posts I made more of a cooperative argument, particularly in quoting Robinson.

I still think you could argue takeout is the correct name even if you normally leave it in. The case would be that it presume's the doubler's intentions for his partner, not his partner's intentions. But it's just semantics anyway.

[foo]

I think one of the few things Josh and I agree on in this thread is that X by Responder is essentially Cooperative.

If truth be told, the higher the auction the more Coopoerative the X by Responder is. Regardless of what it is actually called.

"A rose by any other name...(is still a rose)"

"If it looks like a nag and acts like a neg, you can call it a thoroughbred all you want. It is still a nag."

[joshs]

awm, on May 17 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

This also reminds me of one of my pet peeves about the many words and terms used to define doubles.

Is it really accurate to say that a double is "takeout" when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

Is it accurate to say that a double is "negative" when it doesn't guarantee four cards in the only unbid major, and when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

Isn't such a double really "penalty" or maybe "cooperative"? In other words: "let's defend this contract unless you have a seriously distributional hand or substantial extras"?

If you'd really pass with this hand, it seems like you're treating the double much more like a cooperative double. Now, cooperative doubles are certainly a reasonable agreement in high-level auctions, but is it really accurate to say "double is takeout" and then routinely pass with hands like the one given? Seems very dubious to me.

I think the following definitions are very easy and have nothing to do with the liklihood of the x getting passed:

Takeout: I have extra offense but tolerance for defending

Co-operative: I have extra defense but tolerance for declaring

Penalty: I have a strong desire to defend

A takeout x is not the opposite of a penalty x. A bid is closer to the opposite of a penalty x (a strong desire to declare the hand). Once we understand this, this subject is not so complicated...

If I make a takeout x of 6H, I don't expect my partner to bid very often, but I am still expressing my hands leanings for offense instead of defense. Its just that: if I claim my hand is 75% offensive and partner hand is also 75% offensive that still may not add up to enough offense to expect to make a very high level contract, but has enough defense to beat a high level contract. For instance if you can take 11 tricks on offense and 2 tricks on defense, your partnership is very offensive oriented, but still shouldn't bid over 6H...

On a side note, playing in australia's nationals, where they don't alert any x's, I asked if a particular x was a negative x (I had a 5440 hand with weak hearts and strong diamonds and had to decide which 4 card suit to rebid), was told it was, and then was perterbed to find out that in australia apparently the term negative x merely means "not penalty".

[foo]

I like those definitions.

[awm]

My definitions:

Takeout = I expect partner to pull with most "typical" hands. Partner will not tend to pass unless holding trump length or strength.

Penalty = I expect partner to pass with almost all hands, although partner can pull with a hand which is very unsuited to defending (given previous bidding).

Cooperative = I expect partner to pass with most "typical" hands, but to pull with hands that have substantially more offense than defense.

To my mind, a fairly typical 1-minor opening has 11-14 points without a void, six card suit, or ten cards in two suits. Certainly a balanced hand or something like 4144 or 31(45) is pretty typical after the opponents preempt 4♥. If this type of hand is normally a pass of the double, then I don't think it's reasonable to say double is takeout.