[awm]

Two way doubles (described in another thread) are doubles which can be either takeout or penalty. Partner is supposed to guess which you have based on the auction and his own hand. Does anyone actually play these in a serious partnership? If so, what are your experiences with them?

[Fluffy]

it seems easy to find out what to do when you have 1 card on their suit, or 5 cards, however depending on the situation, there will always be a holding such as 2 or 3 cards where you will ahve no clue of what is going on.

[OleBerg]

In my partnership, which at least I myself consider to be serious, I play them in one situation only:

(1x) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
Pass - X

Lead director/penalty or take-out.

I vaguely record thinking that it is not so hot on ambigious 1♣/♦ openings. But cannot remember a mix-up either.

[gwnn]

They may make sense over
2D-p-xM-Dbl
where 2D is multi and xM was a p/c bid at any level. Opener shouldn't have the guts to pass it with the 'other' major. Sure if partner has 6 cards in opener's suit we will not like it but at least we gain a level when he has 0-4 cards. But I've never tried these, somehow all I've ever agreed to multi seems to be "x is weak NT, the bid of the other major is a cuebid".

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jan 12 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

They may make sense over
2D-p-xM-Dbl
where 2D is multi and xM was a p/c bid at any level.

I play them in that situation. It seems to work OK.

[whereagles]

OleBerg's double is described in Mike Lawrence's book on take out doubles as exactly that

[mich-b]

I think "either-or" doubles can be used in some specific situations, generally when one opponent bid a major, and the other denied fit there. This is necessary so that we have a good estimate how many trumps they have.

The other necessary condition is that the player who makes the "either or" double should have a clear penalty (5+ trumps) or a clear takeout (singleton or void). If you try that with in-between hands , partner may well guess wrong.

I think the idea has merit in some specific situations , that need to be well defined.
One example may be :
1♦ - 1♥
1NT - 2♥ - DBL
And one will get it right if you stick to the rule of (5+ or 1-).

My partner is a great fan of "either or" , but we never really agreed to play them , because getting it wrong would usually be very costly.

[mich-b]

OleBerg, on Jan 12 2010, 03:31 AM, said:

In my partnership, which at least I myself consider to be serious, I play them in one situation only:

(1x) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
Pass -  X

Lead director/penalty or take-out.

I vaguely record thinking that it is not so hot on ambigious 1♣/♦ openings. But cannot remember a mix-up either.

I don't see the merit of this, when they opened 1M.

After :
1♠ - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
Pass - ?

When would you consider a takeout double?
Keep in mind, that your hand was not good enough for a double on the previous round , and since then LHO showed some values , and denied a fit. So why should I enter now?

For us, a double here would be 100% penalty, suggesting a ♠ lead.

[P_Marlowe]

mich-b, on Jan 12 2010, 04:24 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jan 12 2010, 03:31 AM, said:

In my partnership, which at least I myself consider to be serious, I play them in one situation only:

(1x) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
Pass -  X

Lead director/penalty or take-out.

I vaguely record thinking that it is not so hot on ambigious 1♣/♦ openings. But cannot remember a mix-up either.

I don't see the merit of this, when they opened 1M.

After :
1♠ - Pass - (1NT) - Pass
Pass - ?

When would you consider a takeout double?
Keep in mind, that your hand was not good enough for a double on the previous round , and since then LHO showed some values , and denied a fit. So why should I enter now?

For us, a double here would be 100% penalty, suggesting a ♠ lead.

For us the X would be a clear T/O.

The argument that LHO showed values is true, although it is better to say,
LHO showed limited values.
But of course there is an counter argument, that peoble usually ommit -
openers pass over 1NT limits openers hands, so we have the situation
that LHO showed limited add. values and opener denied add. values.

And given that some peoble req. for a T/O in direct seat opening values,
just because I am short in spades, does not mean, that I was able to make
a T/O the round before.

In the end it is a matter of style / philosophy - whatever you think suits you
better / works for you better, but there are arguments, that support to use X
for T/O, ... and obviously I my opinion is, that those arguments are stronger,
but it is fine to disagree with this weighting.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Poky]

The best situation to play them is:

1NT pass Jacoby pass
Accept pass pass

Now, double is:
a ) TO with 1♥
b ) Penalty with 5♥

Partner always knows.

[hanp]

I don't play two-way doubles, I don't know if they are bad but I have no desire to play them.

Which option do I click?

[OleBerg]

whereagles, on Jan 12 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

OleBerg's double is described in Mike Lawrence's book on take out doubles as exactly that

I've played it for a decade, so I might have picked it up there, can't remember.

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on Jan 12 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

They may make sense over
2D-p-xM-Dbl
where 2D is multi and xM was a p/c bid at any level. Opener shouldn't have the guts to pass it with the 'other' major. Sure if partner has 6 cards in opener's suit we will not like it but at least we gain a level when he has 0-4 cards. But I've never tried these, somehow all I've ever agreed to multi seems to be "x is weak NT, the bid of the other major is a cuebid".

I wouldn't recommend that double if you play with screens.

You will have disasters all the times advancers suit happens to be openers. This aplies moreso, when playing against jokers that multi on 5-card-suits.

[gwnn]

I'm sorry is this another little thinly veiled accusation of cheating? I am not offended or anything but I'd like to know.

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on Jan 12 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

I'm sorry is this another little thinly veiled accusation of cheating? I am not offended or anything but I'd like to know.

No it isn't.

It is just my, maybe a little headstrong, way of making the generalisation, that sometimes conventions dont work with screens, because it stops information that people sometimes exchange unknowingly, when screens not are in use.

And it certainly wasn't personel.

(But maybe I should drop it, noone seems to care.)

[helene_t]

Was about to mention Csaba's example, but only at the 3+ level:

(2♦)-x-(3♥)-x

If opener passes, they ought to have a 9-card fit, or maybe 8-card fit if they don't believe in the LOTT. The double shows either 5+ hearts or t/o of hearts. If you are void in hearts you will have to guess but generally the double is t/o.

Dunno if opener will have the guts to pass with spades. He "knows" his partner has 3+ hearts and his RHO has 5+. So if he has 2+ hearts, his LHO has max. 3 hearts and usually only 2. OTOH his RHO could have 2- hearts and his LHO 17+ points 5+ hearts.

I am afraid some multi-players would have the guts. Suppose we play in a jurisdiction where no doubles are alertable, and they didn't bother to look at our CC (or our CC didn't specify the meaning of the 2nd double). Then it is probably safe. And if opener looks at our CC, or asks questions, at his 2nd turn, he gives the show away. Or maybe not. Some people might consider bidding 4♥ depending of the meaning of the 2nd double.

[jdonn]

Poky, on Jan 12 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

The best situation to play them is:

1NT pass Jacoby pass
Accept pass pass

Now, double is:
a ) TO with 1♥
b ) Penalty with 5♥

Partner always knows.

It's too big a problem to me that you can't make a takeout double with 2 hearts playing that.

I don't like 2 way doubles in any situation that I know of. But I'm also no expert at playing against multi.

[fred]

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

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[dake50]

2-way double wins. Director called by opponents damaged.
How do you convince that the decision to pass/bid after double wasn't influenced?
Won't you get some logical alternative adjustment?

Similar to odd-even signals when a BIT occurs without the right parity card. Try to justify the thinking pause as other than alerting partner to 'wrong parity' signal doesn't mean what it ostensibly does mean.

[gwnn]

OleBerg, on Jan 12 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

(But maybe I should drop it, noone seems to care.)

yes, you should drop it, we are all cheaters who don't like you exposing our devious ways.