[kenberg]

The auction 1m-(p)-1H-(2S)-X has led to discussion recently.

It has been my view that support doubles should be on only if there is a way to get out at the 2 level: 1m-(p)-1S-(2H)-X, if the worst happens you play 2S in a 4-3 fit. Committing to the 3 level with 1m-(p)-1H-(2S)-X when responder may have four hearts and six points, seems unattractive.

This came up yesterday with me as the responder. Partner had a big hand, three hearts and a spade stopper. Knowing my views on where support doubles end, he tried 3NT which was the right call. The right call, but something of a guess, imposed on him by my views. So I have been having further thoughts.

I can imagine various agreements for 1m-(p)-1H-(2S)-X . For example: Support, but also promising five cards in m so you have at least a reasonable shot at landing on your feet. Or perhaps support, but done only with enough values to bid again.

We are playing strong no trumps, and this cuts down on the number of times opener will hold three hearts and 15 points after 1m-(p)-1H-(2S). Yesterday he held 18, nice when it happens of course.

Presumably most regular partnership of expert class, and maybe many others, have thought this through and have an agreement, but I have never seen it in print.

[zheddh]

kenberg, on Oct 30 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

Presumably most regular partnership of expert class, and maybe many others, have thought this through and have an agreement, but I have never seen it in print.

Meckwell play support doubles till 4♥. IMO, the way most people play support doubles at higher levels is that a support double also promises a better hand in terms of high card points or playing strength.

Hence, a failure to double does not deny 3 card support.

[P_Marlowe]

We play X as t/o, which to a certain degree is aquivalent to a supp X,
since it will usually promise 3 card support.
We also play 2NT in this seq. as artifical (Good Bad), hence big hands
not suitable for a t/o have a bid as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Another factor, which is also important is, if you happen to play Walsh,
i.e. you open 1C, and partner responds 1H, can he have a longer diamond
suit? Or if he has 4 diamonds, does this imply, that hearts is a 5 card suit?

[spotlight7]

Hi:

Meckwell does play support doubles to the four level.

I also play them. but up to the three level(3H inclusive) and only with shape/values to hopefully protect partner.

The exception at the two level is unsuitable hands. Those that have lost value Qx etc. due to being in the suit that the other pair has bid reduces your hand to minimum/subminimum. 4333 shapes need more than minimum values.

I would guess about a 90/95% support double rate at the two level.

We also make support doubles at the three level, however, the shape/values tend to show more than a minimum hand.

Regards,
Robert

[Jlall]

Meckwell also play a strong club system, so they never have any strong hands without 3 hearts that have to double. But yes starting at 2S+ they require extra values for their support doubles.

OP I would recommend just playing this as a takeout double which contains extra values. Most of the time you will have 3 hearts (1345 15 count would be perfect), but sometimes you will have 18-19 balanced without a spade stopper, or a strong 1246 (too good/flexible to just bid 3C) or 2245 type hand.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 08:15 AM, said:

Meckwell also play a strong club system, so they never have any strong hands without 3 hearts that have to double. But yes starting at 2S+ they require extra values for their support doubles.

OP I would recommend just playing this as a takeout double which contains extra values. Most of the time you will have 3 hearts (1345 15 count would be perfect), but sometimes you will have 18-19 balanced without a spade stopper, or a strong 1246 (too good/flexible to just bid 3C) or 2245 type hand.

If this is takeout does this make 2♠ by the opps nearly a risk free bid?

[Jlall]

pooltuna, on Oct 30 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 08:15 AM, said:

Meckwell also play a strong club system, so they never have any strong hands without 3 hearts that have to double. But yes starting at 2S+ they require extra values for their support doubles.

OP I would recommend just playing this as a takeout double which contains extra values. Most of the time you will have 3 hearts (1345 15 count would be perfect), but sometimes you will have 18-19 balanced without a spade stopper, or a strong 1246 (too good/flexible to just bid 3C) or 2245 type hand.

If this is takeout does this make 2♠ by the opps nearly a risk free bid?

No? Partner is allowed to reopen with a double which you will always pass with 4 good spades. Partner can also pass your takeout double if he has 4 good spades.

If your opponents play penalty doubles on this auction you should preempt 2S more often, not less, as they will have a really hard time bidding in the far more frequent cases that they have a takeout X shape.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 08:22 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 30 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 08:15 AM, said:

Meckwell also play a strong club system, so they never have any strong hands without 3 hearts that have to double. But yes starting at 2S+ they require extra values for their support doubles.

OP I would recommend just playing this as a takeout double which contains extra values. Most of the time you will have 3 hearts (1345 15 count would be perfect), but sometimes you will have 18-19 balanced without a spade stopper, or a strong 1246 (too good/flexible to just bid 3C) or 2245 type hand.

If this is takeout does this make 2♠ by the opps nearly a risk free bid?

No? Partner is allowed to reopen with a double which you will always pass with 4 good spades. Partner can also pass your takeout double if he has 4 good spades.

If your opponents play penalty doubles on this auction you should preempt 2S more often, not less, as they will have a really hard time bidding in the far more frequent cases that they have a takeout X shape.

So partner is expected to make a reopening X with

---

?

[gwnn]

pooltuna-

Do you play takeout doubles over opps' opening 2♠? If you do, does that mean that you're expected to reopen on x xxxx xxxx xxxx? If you don't reopen with x xxxx xxxx xxxx, doesn't that make their 2♠ opening a risk free bid?

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Oct 30 2009, 08:27 AM, said:

pooltuna-

Do you play takeout doubles over opps' opening 2♠? If you do, does that mean that you're expected to reopen on x xxxx xxxx xxxx? If you don't reopen with x xxxx xxxx xxxx, doesn't that make their 2♠ opening a risk free bid?

What I am trying to point out is a hand with ♠ and invitational or near GF opposite a minimal advancer may be better off playing the double as penalty since asking partner to reopen with minimal values tends to create too wide a variation in side values

[gwnn]

You answered none of my questions. If opps open 2♠ and you have AQJTxx Axx QJx x you would like to double for penalties but you can't and need partner's reopening double. If partner can't reopen sometimes you'll write a silly result like +250. That's the way takeout doubles work: sometimes partner can't reopen and you can't get 800 but they work better than penalty doubles because next time (I mean the next 10000 times) you'll have x AQJT Axxx QJxx and you'd rather you had agreed to play takeout doubles. It is a (very nearly) identical situation to 1m-p-1H-(2S) - if you have 17 with 4135 you can pass and if partner cant reopen sometimes you miss a penalty, but you have the huge bonus of being able to double for takeout when instead of 4-1 in the majors you're 1-3 or 0-3 or 2-3 or 2-2.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Oct 30 2009, 08:46 AM, said:

You answered none of my questions. If opps open 2♠ and you have AQJTxx Axx QJx x you would like to double for penalties but you can't and need partner's reopening double.

Quote

that is also true and no I don't expect partner to necessarily reopen with a minimum

If partner can't reopen sometimes you'll write a silly result like +250. That's the way takeout doubles work: sometimes partner can't reopen and you can't get 800 but they work better than penalty doubles because next time (I mean the next 10000 times) you'll have x AQJT Axxx QJxx and you'd rather you had agreed to play takeout doubles.

Quote

why would I want to make a TOX when I can bid 3♠

It is a (very nearly) identical situation to 1m-p-1H-(2S) - if you have 17 with 4135 you can pass and if partner cant reopen sometimes you miss a penalty, but you have the huge bonus of being able to double for takeout when instead of 4-1 in the majors you're 1-3 or 0-3 or 2-3 or 2-2.

Your choice for an example of a TOX, IMO shows you are overrating the advantages of a TOX in this situation. Support with support!!

[gwnn]

up to where I mentioned 1m-1H-(2S) all my post was about a 2S opening on the right which is a simpler example. Sorry if I was unclear.

as to why you'd like to double when you can bid 3♠. I could repeat the same thing, why don't you use x over 2♠ opening as penalty and 3♠ as takeout but I don't want to be obnoxious.

here are a few ways x is better than 3♠:

• partner can pass it
  
• we can stop lower
  
• even if we don't want to stop lower, we can have a more intelligent auction, with more space to work with
  
• etc

[jdonn]

Pooltuna, if someone makes the point "takeout doubles are more frequent and useful than penalty doubles" then it's not a particularly good counter-argument to say "but what if you have a hand that really wants to make a penalty double?" since that possibility was already included by using the phrase "more frequent" instead of "always". Yes, obviously if you play takeout doubles you will be worse off on hands that want to make a penalty double, and vice versa! But, um, so what?

[kenberg]

Thanks. What I make of all this:

1m-(p)-1H-(2S). Then
1, X=take-out, doesn't promise three hearts
2. Pass doesn't deny three hearts
3. If 1NT openings are 15-17, then the double will either be on shape and good playing strength or else on 18+.
4. No one said so but it seems reasonable that over the 2S interference a direct 3N will usually be passed while X followed by 3NT shows more doubt about playing 3NT. I imagine Ax of spades and KJx of hearts, with an 18 count, might bid that way if responder doesn't rebid his hearts over the X.


I understand the issues about giving up a penalty double but I go with what I think is the majority here, with defining it not being for penalty. It seemed pretty clear to me that just having three hearts was not an adequate reason for the X.

At times I have thought it would be good to have a thread on "pick-up standard". This approach would seem to qualify for dealing with 2 level jump overcalls. I need to think about it some for higher levels.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 30 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

Pooltuna, if someone makes the point "takeout doubles are more frequent and useful than penalty doubles" then it's not a particularly good counter-argument to say "but what if you have a hand that really wants to make a penalty double?" since that possibility was already included by using the phrase "more frequent" instead of "always". Yes, obviously if you play takeout doubles you will be worse off on hands that want to make a penalty double, and vice versa! But, um, so what?

IMO they didn't make their point in this particular situation. Now I am not saying that TOX will never work in this situation just that taking away a penalty X is too big a price.

[jdonn]

Think of it this way. You get some penalties anyway playing takeout doubles. Not all, but a lot. But you are screwed on takeout double hands when you play penalty doubles (and no, bidding 3♠ is not an attractive option). Playing takeout doubles is almost like playing both at the same time. Sorry but this is not even close.

[y66]

For more general discussion of problems like this one, see Chapter 5 - Competing without a known fit in Partnership Bidding at Bridge -- The contested auction by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal, 1993 available with authors' permission at Dan Neill's site

Quote

The take-out double - a commercial break!

Flexibility is the key to competitive bidding without a known fit. You must aim to keep partner’s range of options as wide as possible. Enter the take-out double, which is the most flexible bid in your armoury. It does not raise the level of the auction; and it gives partner the option to defend the enemy’s contract. In fact, we give you this piece of advice: ‘If your hand is offensive and you want to bid, but there is no obvious bid to make - double.’

At this point, many of you will be thinking: ‘What the hell are they talking about? Most of my doubles are for penalties. I don’t want partner to bid over them!’ It may take a huge effort of will-power, but you must abandon this philosophy if you want to be a successful bridge player in the modern game. Later in this chapter we shall look at some auctions where doubles must be for penalties. For the moment, however, we are going to ask you to assume every double is for take-out unless you and your partner have found a fit.

The best way of justifying this approach is by looking at hands - and this we shall do. But consider these preliminary remarks. In a competitive auction, you should have one overriding concern: to declare when it is right to declare, and to defend when it is right to defend. When everyone is bidding, don’t be over-concerned initially with extracting a huge penalty. Just try to make sure: (1) that you go plus whenever the hand is yours; and (2) that you know how high to compete the partscore or when to take a save if the hand belongs to your opponents.

Putting it another way: concentrate initially on achieving your own ‘par’; don’t make it your first priority to punish the opposition when they fall below theirs. Playing take-out doubles is the best way to pursue these aims. They provide you with what you need most - a flexible method of announcing an interest in competing the hand. And it is far from clear that they prevent you extracting as many large scores ‘above the line’ as those whose doubles are generally for penalties.

Now let’s look at some auctions ... [60+ pages of them]

[kenberg]

This potentially opens the discussion to many auctions, fine by me. I sort of agree with the authors, but not entirely I brashly say. Example:

(1D)-pass-(1H)=pass
(1NT)-pass-(pass)-X



And why didn't I double 1H? A reasonable explanation is that while I have good values, the values are mostly in their suits. Even if you play, as I do, that I could enter the auction naturally with 2H on the first round, not all hands are suitable for that. I'm thinking that we can beat 1NT and that they won't enjoy playing in a run-out. Partner still has a right to an opinion, but the intent is penalty.

An anecdote: I was second hand in an auction like the above, I knew that partner intended (I usually play what partner wants, as long as he tells me) the double for take-out, I had no place to go. I decided to start with 2C and play in the first suit that they didn't double. I bid 2C, doubled. I ran to 2D. Lho had a couple of diamonds but passed figuring his partner, the diamond bidder, would double. Rho had only four diamonds and figured he had shown them so if his partner didn't double, he shouldn't either (I agree). I scrambled seven tricks for a good board. But I wouldn't want to depend on this as a road to success.


Another example:

Partner opens the bidding with 1H. It goes;

1H-(1S)-pass-(2S)
pass-(pass)-?


This is not exactly what hapened. Really it went


1H-(1S)-pass-(2S)
X-(pass)-pass

I happily passed partner's X, holding AQxxx and some other stuff. But I really wanted to double for penalties in the pass-out as well, if partner had not doubled. As with the NT auction, it seems there is an inference available. I had the option of doubling the 1S if I was interested in competing in the other suits. I didn't. A plausible explanation is that I have good spades, not the minors.




There is no substitute for actually going over the meanings with a long term partner. Maybe the default should be take-out, on the ASBAF principle (All strange bids are forcing), but it seems to me that this one, and a number of other low level doubles, should be for penalties


All this being said, I think that the Robson-Segal book being online available is a great service to the online bridge community. We are in need of a resource so that the default can be: Undiscussed bids mean what RS says they mean. They may even agree with me about the NT double above, but if they don't I can live with playing it their way as long as partner and I are on the same page. I have some reading to do I guess.

[y66]

kenberg, on Oct 31 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

it seems to me that this one, and a number of other low level doubles, should be for penalties

I'm nowhere close to being on top of this stuff but I'd be surprised if Robson/Segal or others disagree with anything you said in your post.