[ochinko]

MP, Both vuln, RHO deals

(1♠) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
(2♠) - Pass - (Pass) - Dbl
(Pass) - ?

Is it still for t/o if partner didn't move the first time?

If you need to look at your hand in order to answer this, here it is:

♠ A 9 7
♥ 9 8 7
♦ 8 6 4 3
♣ 10 7 3

[whereagles]

I dunno what to expect, but I'll bid 3♦. After all, if pard had a 55 or so, he could have balanced 2NT.

[mikeh]

It's a takeout double, and I don't need to look at my hand for this to be so. No way does he have a penalty double sitting under the 2♠ bidder... and if he ever gets one (I've never seen one in more than 30 years of bridge) he should pass.

As it is, to make a takeout double here is a sign of lunacy. There is NO hand worth a double here that should pass 1N.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Jan 2 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

It's a takeout double, and I don't need to look at my hand for this to be so. No way does he have a penalty double sitting under the 2♠ bidder... and if he ever gets one (I've never seen one in more than 30 years of bridge) he should pass.

As it is, to make a takeout double here is a sign of lunacy. There is NO hand worth a double here that should pass 1N.

I agree that it is a takeout double.

I do not agree that there is no hand worth a double here that would pass 1NT.

When partner's RHO bid 1NT, the auction was live. He might have a subminimal takeout double, or an offshape takeout double, and he judged that it was not appropriate to enter a live auction. Now that he is in balancing seat, he wants to get back into the auction. From the looks of my hand, partner may not be right in getting back into the auction. But that remains to be seen.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jan 2 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

As it is, to make a takeout double here is a sign of lunacy. There is NO hand worth a double here that should pass 1N.

This seems illogical to me.

If a takeout X is lunacy here, it should therefore not be a takeout X.

Between them, opener and responder have promised what, 10 hcp? God knows I can cite examples of people opening here with 10 hcp and a 6 card major, and other cases of posters responding 1NT with nothing. The Xer didn't get a chance to open, so he could be pretty strong.

It seems to me that if takeout is lunacy, then the X should mean a strong hand that is not takeout shape. For example, a 4243 16 count. Whatcha gonna do with that the first time? Double 1NT for takeout, so you can play a 4-2 fit at the 4 level? Bid your 4 card suit at the 2 level? Bid 2NT, which many people play as minors? You can't pass the second time around, not when there's a decent chance of game.

You don't really have a good bid with a 1NT opener type of hand after 1M-P-1NT. If you don't have any other use for a double on the second round (which partner can leave in or take out as he pleases), using it for 15-18 balanced with length and strength in their suit seems like, well, not lunacy.

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on Jan 2 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

There is NO hand worth a double here that should pass 1N.

I don't agree with this either. A 0445 8 count would be perfect for this sequence.

[awm]

I think it's standard that:

1♠ - P - 1NT - X would be takeout of spades.

1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X would be penalty.

So what about 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠-P-P-X?

As people have pointed out, there are basically two possibilities. It can be some kind of light and shapely takeout double that wasn't good enough to double 1NT. Or it can be penalty-oriented in some variety (this could be "just cards" with moderate spade length, or a true penalty double, depending on your preference).

If we have the light shapely takeout double, partner is almost never going to convert. After all, if he had a good enough hand and good enough spades to convert with a reasonable chance of success opposite Noble's 0445 8-count, he would've doubled 2♠ for penalty himself.

Note that this is not a fit-showing auction. Opponents could easily have six or seven spades between them. Balancing here gets us to the three-level. It seems hard to believe that it's good bridge to force the three-level when the opponents have not shown a fit, with a hand that's not good enough to risk the two-level a round earlier. I guess what I'm saying is, I'd have doubled 1NT with Noble's 8-count.

Even if you do believe there are hands that reasonably should pass 1NT and then balance in with a light takeout double, you have a lot of other balancing calls available to you (for example 2NT and 3♣). Since partner is highly unlikely to want to convert this light/shapely takeout after not penalty doubling 2♠, it seems that you could devote some other call to this purpose.

On the other hand, a penalty double has no real way to bid. Perhaps being "in front" of opener is a disadvantage, but given that dummy is likely to have very few spades when you have a penalty double (and not likely to have all that many entries given the non-invite), I don't see that position makes a huge difference here. And it's quite possible that our side has majority of the strength given what people open and respond on these days.

[han]

Agree with Noble.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jan 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

As it is, to make a takeout double here is a sign of lunacy. There is NO hand worth a double here that should pass 1N.

I tend to agree, though I can conceive responder having something like

x
KQxx
Axxx
xxxx

Not that I would bid this way, though.. Prefer immediate action over 1NT.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

If we have the light shapely takeout double, partner is almost never going to convert. After all, if he had a good enough hand and good enough spades to convert with a reasonable chance of success opposite Noble's 0445 8-count, he would've doubled 2♠ for penalty himself.

That is not true, I think partner will usually convert in fact. He should double 2♠ for penalty on a 13 count with five spades, when for all he knows they are about to bid even more?

Anyway this double is obv. takeout.

[bhall]

Takeout, for sure. Maybe 4♥ and 5♦ without 3♣ or Hx. An immediate 2♦ overcall puts all our eggs in one basket. I would respond 2N, hoping partner reads it as pick-a-minor.

[neilkaz]

This double is take out. Looking at my hand, I can be even more sure. I don't expect PD to hold KQJx in trumps and 16 HCP very often.

Why didn't PD double the first time ? Well perhaps he has only 2 or 3♥ or perhaps he has a weakish 5 card minor and 4♥ ?

I suspect he is 44 or 4 weak 5 in the minors so he didn't balance 2NT. I could respond 2NT to his double if I was certain it would mean pick a minor, but holding 4♦ I don't mind picking a minor for us. One thing's for sure, I am not passing and risking them chalking up 2Sx perhaps with an OT.

[pclayton]

Its takeout. With a one card difference in the minors, I'll try 2N.

[kgr]

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

I think it's standard that:

1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X would be penalty.

Do all experts play this as penalty or do some play it as negative (bit too weak or off shape to DBL first time)?

[gwnn]

kgr, on Jan 3 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

I think it's standard that:

1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X would be penalty.

Do all experts play this as penalty or do some play it as negative (bit too weak or off shape to DBL first time)?

why is it safer to double on the 2 level instead of the 1 level?

[MFA]

kgr, on Jan 2 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 2 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

I think it's standard that:

1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X would be penalty.

Do all experts play this as penalty or do some play it as negative (bit too weak or off shape to DBL first time)?

We had a recent discussion on our team about this. We agreed upon

1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X = penalty
1♥ - P - 1NT - P - 2♥ - X = two-way
1mi - P - 1NT - P - 2mi - X = take-out