[P_Marlowe]

barmar, on Sep 20 2006, 04:33 PM, said:

The problem I have with the idea of making this takeout double is that when you're weak, there's a better chance that partner has a hand just short of opening. If he does, he may compete too high or double the opponents, on the assumption that you have full values for your double.
<snip>

Hi,

1st he wont, since he should know the prtnership
agreement as well.
2nd, he always should remember, that there
are only 40HCP in the deck, and altough psychs
happen, they are not that common, meaning he
should take the opponents bidding on face value.
3rd, all he can do is jump to the 3 level.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

MartininBC, on Sep 21 2006, 02:18 AM, said:

<snip>
If you are the third seat doubler in the bidding sequence:

Pass (1H) Dbl (4H) All Pass

... where the 4H bid is announced as weak and pre-emptive, you may find that everyone else is bidding and making 4S your way. Your partner has shied off bidding 4S on an 11 count with four spades because your PREVIOUS takeout double yielded up only three lame kings. You of course have a shapely 13 count this time.
<snip>

You may loose on this hand and win
several part score battles on another
hand.

By the way, even if partner faces a
normal t/o, it is no clear cut auction
to bid 4S with a bal. 11 count in most
cases, and the hand has to be bal., since
he may have opened certain unbal. hand.

As was said before, you either believe
in the theory of light action opposite
a passed partner or you dont.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The above argument may also show,
that light t/o oppossite a passed partner,
may even be a lot less riskies if you play
a weak NT, which I dont.

[jvage]

I like relatively thin takeout doubles also with an unpassed partner if the shape is right, and feel this has been a winning tactic. The original hand (x, KTxx, K9x, KTxxx) is subminimum even for me, but I would probably double if nonvulnerable (after partners pass). With an unpassed partner vulnerability is less important, since the chances for game (with a vulnerable bonus) are higher and compensates some of the risk. Judging when to make light takeout doubles is actually quite complicated, here are some factors to consider:
1. Shape is important, a minimum double must have 4 card in any unbid major. The original hand got a significant drawback since opps got the highest suit, a double would be much more appealing if opponents had opened 1♥ (major suits interchanged).

2. Your honour-evaluation should be adjusted slightly from when you consider opening a minimum hand. Since you know there is opening strength in front of you kings and supported low honours increase in value, unsupported low honours decrease in value and singleton J/Q/K in openers suit are worthless for offensive purposes. The given hand is in this respect a good example of a hand close to a takeout double which is far from an opening. Any ace or low honour with partner will be good and your kings with fillers look good behind an opener.

3. Passing also got dangers. Often the bidding will continue 2♠ (or some artificial raise) and 2 passes. If you now balance you are a level higher and opponents have exchanged the information they need to nail you more often when correct (say partner got a nondescript 4342).

4. Some posters have said light doubles help opponents in their declarer play. While this is sometimes true, there is a counter-argument. Opponents will normally tackle the trumps before they find that your double is minimum (and therefore short in their suit). They may also place you with more strength than you actually have, therebye misplaying other suits or the whole hand. Another advantage is that you sometimes will have pushed them a level higher.

PS: Of course I agree that you should disclose your methods!

John

[kenrexford]

If you insist upon this light overcalling here, then I'd suggest learning a two-way takeout structure.

The simplest I believe to have been called a Baron 1NT overcall. Not sure of the name. It made 1NT a weak 4441-ish takeout call, double values.

An alternative is R.U.N.T. (and "Son-of-R.U.N.T."), wherein 1NT and X are separated by "ranges."

1NT (R.U.N.T.):
(1) 5-11, three-suited takeout (at least 3 in each side suit, ELC allowance optional)
(2) 19-23, and shape

With (1), Advancer is in complete control. With (2), you bid again.

Double ("Son of R.U.N.T.")
(1) 0-4, three-suited
(2) 12-18, three-suited
(3) 15-18, balanced
(4) 16-18, unbalanced
(5) 24+ (ADMITTEDLY RARE, BUT FUN TO ADD IN TO THE EXPLANATION)

You can probably work out some of the intricacies yourselves. 1NT should have a good escape mechanism, to get to the "best" contract assuredly after a double. I would propose:
(1) pass = equal in the highest suit, plus one of the two lower suits (XX by Doubler asks for the lower); this could be "psychic" (explain this), intending to correct to the highest suit even if a XX occurs, just to "mess with" the opposition; for that matter, the XX might also be "psychic" for the same reasons.
(2) XX = equal in the two lowest suits (again, might be "psychic")
(3) Other = natural (including the cuebid)

[helene_t]

The 1NT overcall you describe (R.U.N.T.) is a BSC

[kenrexford]

It may be BSC as described, but slight tweaking to a more conservative version makes it legal. It is a fun convention, even if it lacks ultimate merit for the conservative/constructive bidders among us...