[Apollo81]

All Vul, IMPs

♠Kx
♥K
♦AK10xx
♣K98xx

(1♥)-2♦-(2♥)-2♠-(4♥)-?

[P_Marlowe]

X.

I am assuming that 2S was not based on garbage.
If it was constructive: I control the minors, partner
controls spades, where are their tricks coming from?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

Double, partner won't always do the right thing whatever that is, but he has a fair shot (at least between pass and 4♠.)

[pclayton]

x. I'm happy with whatever pard decides. Although I would probably prefer that he sit.

[dburn]

4♠. Aren't you supposed always to do that over 4♥? Put it this way - if partner opened a vulnerable weak 2♠, would you not raise him to four?

[gnasher]

If partner has a hand that would have opened a vulnerable weak 2♠, won't he take out my takeout double?

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Oct 9 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

If partner has a hand that would have opened a vulnerable weak 2♠, won't he take out my takeout double?

Is this obviously a take-out double?
I admit I'm not certain what it is, but if partner opened a weak 2S, they bid 4H and I doubled, that would certainly be penalties.

[Mosene]

4♠. A lot of bidding going on - must be a lot of distribution - so not a big penalty. Partner cannot have worse than QJ10XX of spades and the ace of clubs - can she?

[skjaeran]

4♠. I don't think we'll get rich defending 4♥. And if I double, partner must have something special to take it out.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 9 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

Is this obviously a take-out double?
I admit I'm not certain what it is, but if partner opened a weak 2S, they bid 4H and I doubled, that would certainly be penalties.

Partner's hand is much more vaguely defined than after a weak two - he can have between five and seven spades, and in strength he's limited only by his failure to double and bid 3♠, which would be game-forcing. That seems reason enough to play it as takeout.

In those of my partnerships where the notes read "Double is takeout, except ...", one of the exceptions would be "partner has shown a defined one-suiter". I don't think this sequence falls into that category, though maybe I should insert "well-" before "defined".

[Codo]

I don't double enough with these hands, but I would double here and it is not take out. Pd may take it out with a surprising length, like a 7. spade or a 4. diamond f.e.

[Apollo81]

I bid 4♠, which should have gone down one, but it was misdefended. If I had doubled, this would have been pulled to 5♦, which is down 1 and cannot be realistically misdefended. Pass results in a small plus, probably 100.