[Echognome]

Roland's discussion on doubles, reminded me of a discussion we had the other day. Here was the first auction in question.

(1♦) - Dbl - (P) - 2♣
(2♦) - P - (P) - Dbl = ?

Is this double takeout or penalties?


The second discussion was not on doubles, but on whether a new suit by a hand that didn't overcall is fitted? The auction in question was:

(1♣) - P - (1NT) - (2♦)
(P) - 2♠ = ?

Is this simply partnership agreement or is there a standard?

[inquiry]

The first hand the double has to be at least "do somthing intellegent double"... why? You have found a fit (2♣ was passed, and they competed. I play this as an optional double with a tendency that partner will leave in more often than pull.

The second hand is a matter of partnership agreement

[david_c]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Roland's discussion on doubles, reminded me of a discussion we had the other day.  Here was the first auction in question.

(1♦) - Dbl - (P) - 2♣
(2♦) - P - (P) - Dbl = ?

Is this double takeout or penalties?

I'm tempted to say "no", just to annoy Roland.

But I'd probably interpret it as take-out actually. 3325 perhaps?

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Oct 24 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

The first hand the double has to be at least "do somthing intellegent double"... why? You have found a fit (2♣ was passed, and they competed. I play this as an optional double with a tendency that partner will leave in more often than pull.

The second hand is a matter of partnership agreement

Ben, the 'fit' in 2♣ is inferential (because of the double), not proven by any pass: doubler did not get a chance to pass 2♣.

I would view this as a takeout double: probably 3=3=2=5 with maximum values for 2♣. Most penalty oriented hands would have either passed 1♦ or bid 1N last time. If you held a close penalty double of 1♦, it hasn't got much clearer after opener showed real ♦'s, and I think most players would simply pass.

On the second, I think that most experts, in a pickup partnership with another expert, would take an undiscussed 2♠ as fit showing: the values and degree of fit required to bid 3♦ but checking back for ♠. Most experts are aggressive overcallers in terms of bidding 1♠ over 1♣ (maximal space consumption combined with minimal risk due to being at the 1-level), so there are no hands I can imagine that would pass 1♣ and then bid 2♠ with no ♦ safety. Degree of fit is a different issue: I would not require more than 3 card support.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Oct 24 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 24 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

The first hand the double has to be at least "do somthing intellegent double"... why? You have found a fit (2♣ was passed, and they competed. I play this as an optional double with a tendency that partner will leave in more often than pull.

The second hand is a matter of partnership agreement

Ben, the 'fit' in 2♣ is inferential (because of the double), not proven by any pass: doubler did not get a chance to pass 2♣.

You are correct.. .I missed remembered the auction while typing my response. The double is takeout... if it had gone 2C-(pass)-Pass-2D then my answer us what i said.