[Fluffy]

go josh! redempt him for going against the church

[RichMor]

As best I remember, the latest BWS defense to the opponents' 4♠ opening is double = takeout in direct postition and 4NT = any non-Spade 2-suiter..

Don't remember if the various polls covered double versus 4NT in balancing position. Based on bridge logic, I think it would be the same.

I realize that BWS is not the ultimate authority but it does represent the collective opinion of many experts.

So, it's 4NT for me. Hope pard is on the same page.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Mar 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

go josh! redempt him for going against the church

Why do you always think that's the issue?

[Phil]

Josh, my understanding of the modern school is this:

Since a double of 4♠ (and higher, for that matter) is left in a lot, it may be made on a an offshape hand that I wouldn't double 3♠ (for takeout) on. As an aside, I also have the option of 3N over 3♠ where I don't have the option of 4N over 4♠.

So, I too would double on Winston's 3=5=3=2 18 count, but if pard pulled to 5♣ I would expect it to make. I would also gladly double on a 1=4=4=4 15 count.

There was a time that the people Winston referred to also play 4N over 4♠ as a three suit takeout, but the only folks that do that are wearing leisure suits, white patent leather shoes and white belts (oh wait, the belts are back in style now )

[Winstonm]

Quote

"This double is more card-showing and penalty in nature that it is takeout."

You simply argue semantics.

If I believed that the double of 4S was a penalty double I would have said it was a penalty double. Did you read that? No. Why? Because I didn't say that. I said it was more card-showing (meaning it ain't a 4441 12-count and it may be offshape) and penalty in nature (meaning the takeout double better have decent defense because it is passed quite often) [I admitted this wasn't the greatest sentence construction of my writing life - so sue me]

You seem to have a real problem admitting that as the level of bidding gets higher all doubles that are technically takeout become more card-showing than strictly takeout, and this includes takeout doubles, responsive doubles, and negative doubles. We have all seen problems where one holds xx, KQx, AJxx, Jxxx and the bidding starts 1C-3S-? to you. You want to call it negative, fine. I call it more card-showing than negative. Who is right and who is wrong? Nobody, unless you are arguing choice of words.

Good Lord, if you think a hand like x, AKxx, AJxx, KQxx is takeout, consider that a takeout doubler wants partner to bid - and I guarantee you that over 4S doubled, unless he is pretty sure he can make a 5-level bid you are being silly if double wants partner to bid. He is telling partner what he has - but he isn't asking him to take out the double without a strong reason. The very nature of takeout at the 4-level is so much different than at the 1-level that it is somewhat dumb to use the same terminology for both bids. You want to call this takeout, fine. I still call it card-showing and penalty in nature because that is a more apt description of the defensive values you should hold for the double and the most likely final contract.

If you want to ask Larry Cohen be my guest - just present the right question. Ask him if the double of an opening 4S tends to be more card-showing and have worse shape than a standard takeout double - because that's all I said.

But here is the entire deal about this hand - partner is not going to be bidding 5D unless he strongly believes he can make it - and knowing that the double cannot promise show 4 diamonds he isn't going to be out there bidding 5D on KJxxx.
It is true that a double might miss a 55 heart or club fit, but that is unlikely and even then 4S can still go down.

[RichMor]

Winston,

Don't think it's semantics, more like 'labels'.

Used to be that BWS labeled a direct double of 4♠ as 'penalty' and 4NT as 'takeout'. Latest BWS labels double as 'takeout' and 4NT as 'any non-Spade 2 suiter'.

Labels don't change the hands we are dealt but different agreements change the calls we chose.

Under the latest BWS style, we would still double 4♠ with a 3-suited hand short in Spades or with a balanced hand and extra values, 18+ roughly. Pard would look at his hand and do the right thing which could be pass.

We would bid 4NT with a minor 2-suiter or a Heart/minor 2-suiter. Pard would trance and eventually bid something. We would trance and then bid or pass.

Progress ? You decide.

RichM