[bluecalm]

So I thought double is for take out and that is "expert standard".
However my friend told me he thinks it should be for penalty.
In sequences like:

1NT - pass - pass - dbl
pass 2♦ - ?

We can bid 2♥ with both majors for example or like aguahombre suggested to show "2 places to play".

I am not convinced because I still just want to just double with my 3-4-2-4 6-8hcp as partner may well have KQJT in their suit and leave it in.
Also if their bid is 2♥ or 2♠ not being able to double seems to be very costly (especially after 2♠) as we can have like 24hcp and 9 card minor fit.

As to question how often will partner reopen if we pass. I think probably not that often. I think he needs "pure" hand to do that (nice values, xx in their suit).

[fred]

Phil, on May 19 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Some good posters supporting takeout (assuming the double is penalty), although I'm not convinced.

Me neither.

Undiscussed I would certainly assume penalty according to the over/under principle (DBLs are penalty if the DBLer is sitting over the player who has shown length in the suit bid and takeout if the DBLer is sitting under that player). I am really surprised by the consensus vote for takeout.

If I were to discuss such things with my partner (as I would if I was playing seriously), I would suggest that we use the over/under principle to define what responder's DBLs mean whenever the opening bid is 1NT and responder has already passed once.

In my experience, this simple principle works very well. In my experience, the even simpler "all low-level DBLs are for takeout" does not work as well.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[peachy]

Tomi2, on May 19 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

doesn't a takeout double also cover the msg that we have the point majority?

No. Takeout double shows shortness in their suit and by nature, takeout doubles are normally "taken out". For offensive hand, ownership of the hand in HCP is not a requirement and seldom it is needed to successfully compete.

[pooltuna]

fred, on May 19 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

Phil, on May 19 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Some good posters supporting takeout (assuming the double is penalty), although I'm not convinced.

Me neither.

Undiscussed I would certainly assume penalty according to the over/under principle (DBLs are penalty if the DBLer is sitting over the player who has shown length in the suit bid and takeout if the DBLer is sitting under that player). I am really surprised by the consensus vote for takeout.

If I were to discuss such things with my partner (as I would if I was playing seriously), I would suggest that we use the over/under principle to define what responder's DBLs mean whenever the opening bid is 1NT and responder has already passed once.

In my experience, this simple principle works very well. In my experience, the even simpler "all low-level DBLs are for takeout" does not work as well.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Doesn't this violate one of the three main Fora principles? Which are of course
1] All Doubles are take out
2) no pass is forcing
&
3) protecting partner is the lowest priority