[fred]

fred, on Jan 12 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

1S-P-1NT-P-2S-P-P-DBL

Now that I think about it...

Even those who claim to never play 2-way doubles play them in this auction.

Imagine that you have, say, 6 HCP and a void in spades and the bidding goes this way with partner being the DBLer. Are you really saying you wouldn't Pass just because you have agreed to play takeout Doubles in this auction?

Maybe you think this doesn't apply to you because you have agreed to play penalties Doubles in this auction? Then imagine that you have an opening bid with KQJ109 of spades and the bidding goes this way with partner being the DBLer. Do you think your partner has a penalty Double just because that is what you agreed?

So you are already playing 2-way doubles if your partner makes one. If you think "well, my partner would never make one", then I would suggest that your partner is missing some good opportunities.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on Jan 12 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 12 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

1S-P-1NT-P-2S-P-P-DBL

Now that I think about it...

Even those who claim to never play 2-way doubles play them in this auction.

No, they are just missing the good opportunities you speak of. I could imagine a problem if the partner of the doubler has 2 (Are the opponents in a 7-3 fit or a 6-0 fit) but that is just one unlikely case so it's probably worth it anyway.

[FrancesHinden]

The way I (and I think gnasher) play the Multi sequences is not what I consider to be a 'true' 2-way double.

A genuine 2-way double is one showing either 0/1 trumps or 5+ trumps; partner is supposed to work out which. The auction in which I would like to play them (but I don't) is

1/2/3H P 4H P
P ?

Where you want to double 4S both on A10xx - A10xxx 10xxx and on Axx KQJ10 Kxxx xx (and I've had both of those hands in the past on this auction)

I play the sequences 2D (multi) P 2H/3H (poc) x slightly differently. Double is either take-out of hearts, or a strong hand, possibly with heart length, that is frightened to pass in case opener passes. Your down-the-middle 1453 13-count passes 2H and doubles 2/3 spades next round. To double 2H/3H here with heart length you need a very good hand e.g 1543 18-count. But as partner of the doubler I'm not supposed to guess whether doubler is short or long. We treat the double as take-out of hearts initially, but the idea is that opener's pass or bid will tell you what his suit is, and you adjust accordingly.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Imagine that you have, say, 6 HCP and a void in spades and the bidding goes this way with partner being the DBLer. Are you really saying you wouldn't Pass just because you have agreed to play takeout Doubles in this auction?

Maybe partner has a t/o double with xxxx/xxxxx of spades and many points ?

xxxx
A
AKQx
KQxx

xxxxx
x
AKQx
AKQx

He couldn't act over 1NT because t/o double would promise ♥ fit what he is suppose to do now being almost sure we have profitable 3level (or even 5level) contract ?
If you say 2NT, then what about :
xxxx
AKQx
x
AKQx
?

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 13 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

The way I (and I think gnasher) play the Multi sequences is not what I consider to be a 'true' 2-way double.

A genuine 2-way double is one showing either 0/1 trumps or 5+ trumps; partner is supposed to work out which.

Actually I do prefer to play it as a "true" two-way double: a takeout double of the suit bid, or an overcall in the suit bid.

With a normal-strength takeout double of the other major, I'd pass. With a very strong version of the same, I'd make something up.

[FrancesHinden]

So what do you do after 2d P 2H on a 4234 13-count? Or a 4333 17-count with 3 low hearts? That's a normal take-out double of 2H to me, but isn't in line with the standard "two-way" double definition.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 13 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

So what do you do after 2d P 2H on a 4234 13-count? Or a 4333 17-count with 3 low hearts? That's a normal take-out double of 2H to me, but isn't in line with the standard "two-way" double definition.

On the first one I'd make the takeout version of a two-way double. My truths are further from the absolute than yours, so a doubleton is OK.

On the second, I'd make something up. Probably 2NT.

Where did this idea of a "standard" for two-way doubles come from?

[gwnn]

if I have 4 non-small spades and 3 small hearts, isn't there about a 75% chance of LHO having hearts and not spades? I'm just wondering. hint hint. (assuming 2♦ promises 2 of the top 4 honors and 6 cards in a major)

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jan 14 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

if I have 4 non-small spades and 3 small hearts, isn't there about a 75% chance of LHO having hearts and not spades? I'm just wondering. hint hint.

Possibly, but even if double were unambiguously takeout it wouldn't be such a great description of my hand. 2NT is also misdescriptive, of course, but it's not so much worse than double that I'd choose to risk the ambiguity.

I can't remember ever having this problem, anyway.

Quote

(assuming 2♦ promises 2 of the top 4 honors and 6 cards in a major)

Which century do you think this is?

[athene]

Fred suggests:-

(1♠) Pass (1NT) Pass
(2♠) Pass (Pass) X

Frances suggests:-

(1♥) Pass (4♥) Pass
(Pass) X
[and other similar sequences]


These have something in common: you had the chance to act over the denomination earlier and didn't.

(OK, in Fred's example you declined acting over 1NT rather than a spade bid, but since X there is t/o of spades, it comes to the same thing, pretty much.)

There are other situations like these, where such 2-way doubles might work. The basic idea is that if you pass then come in, you either must have a huge trap or a very shapely light t/o. You can't have a lot of the middling hands, so ambiguity is reduced.

How about:-

1♣ (1♠) Pass (2♠)
Pass (Pass) X

or

(1♠) Pass (2♥) Pass
(3♥) Pass (4♥) X


Having mentioned this, I must say I am not a big fan of two-way doubles because you just can't ever rely on opps to have the fit they claim to have. I constantly see people bid to the 2-level with 11-card fits or the 3-level with 7 (even 6)-card fits

[jdonn]

You want to double for takeout on the last auction?

[kfay]

I was playing with Roger Lee a few days ago and we had this auction:

(P)-1♣-(1♠)-P
(2♠)-P-(P)-Dbl

It was pretty easy for him to sort it out holding: void AQ6 Q853 AJ9762

2♠ bidder was an unspecified clayton and their side went for an unspecified number

[gwnn]

gnasher, on Jan 14 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

(assuming 2♦ promises 2 of the top 4 honors and 6 cards in a major)

Which century do you think this is?

Just got reminded by the last thread. I think it's the 21st century. Many people play 2♦ as promising 6 cards and 2M as Muiderberg. I know there is a group of experts playing 2♦ as junk multi, 5 cards more often than not and 2M as 8-11, always 6 cards. As for 2 out of top 4, I really don't think it's an unreasonable requirement, particularly for the first two seats. I mean Ace and out is a bad preempt, J and out is too weak, KT9xxx and QT9xxx maybe sometimes but do you really think a significant % of Multi people open a significant % of times without 2 of top 4? 2 of top 3 is a bad agreement, as is 3 of top 5. Anyway I don't think you're being fair with your question. I feel misplaced in the "preemptors of the last century" category. If I did anything wrong, I only did it to hint at a reasonable simulation that might have been done.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jan 19 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

Just got reminded by the last thread. I think it's the 21st century. Many people play 2♦ as promising 6 cards and 2M as Muiderberg. I know there is a group of experts playing 2♦ as junk multi, 5 cards more often than not and 2M as 8-11, always 6 cards. As for 2 out of top 4, I really don't think it's an unreasonable requirement, particularly for the first two seats. I mean Ace and out is a bad preempt, J and out is too weak, KT9xxx and QT9xxx maybe sometimes but do you really think a significant % of Multi people open a significant % of times without 2 of top 4? 2 of top 3 is a bad agreement, as is 3 of top 5. Anyway I don't think you're being fair with your question. I feel misplaced in the "preemptors of the last century" category. If I did anything wrong, I only did it to hint at a reasonable simulation that might have been done.

Sorry, neither comment was meant seriously. I'll include a smiley next time.

I'm sure you're right that typically a weak two will contain two of the top four. I just think it's time that the rest of the world learned to bid like I do.

[hanp]

kfay, on Jan 14 2010, 11:29 AM, said:

I was playing with Roger Lee a few days ago and we had this auction:

(P)-1♣-(1♠)-P
(2♠)-P-(P)-Dbl

It was pretty easy for him to sort it out holding: void AQ6 Q853 AJ9762

2♠ bidder was an unspecified clayton and their side went for an unspecified number

I think I can sort out this double without looking at my hand.

[helene_t]

Hey Kevin this is not a 2-way double, it's a penalty double.