[gnasher]

Yesterday, favourable at IMPs, I made a takeout double of 1♥ with K10xx KQx Ax Q8xx. I'm quite well trained now, so I probably did it without any obvious signs of distress. The auction went:

1♥ dbl 4♥ 4NT
pass 5♣ pass pass
pass

Dummy had xx x 1098xx AJxxx. ♠A and ♣K were offside, so that was three down. It's just as well we weren't doubled, but it was still six out.


In the next set, I had 9xxx - AKJxx 9xxx. It went

1♥ dbl 4♥

to me, so I bid 4♠. Everybody passed, and partner put down Axx xx xxx AQJ8x. Everything broke, but both finesses were wrong, and even if they hadn't been I'd still have lost control. In due course I lost six tricks (I might have avoided one of them), but this time we were vulnerable. Teammates had managed a small plus, so that was five out instead of four in. Again, it's a good thing we weren't doubled.


Maybe all this tells us is that in competitive auctions it's a good idea to jump to game. Still, I thought it was interesting.

[cherdano]

Hmm, I wouldn't double on the first hand. But I agree that it's always a good idea to jump to 4M.

[1eyedjack]

Out of interest, did your team mates open 1H and raise to 4H, giving the opponents the same set of decisions on which there was a parting of the ways?

[gnasher]

This was in England, so neither takeout double was made at the other table. On the first one, teammates has an uncontested auction to 4♥. On the second, it went

1♥ 2♣ 4♥ 5♣
pass pass pass

one down on a spade lead.

[han]

I would not have doubled on either. I guess I am not well-trained, KQx in their suit doesn't make me want to make a takeout double.

The second hand looks like a club suit to me.

[dake50]

On the first, that's the reason 1N overcall bottom is good 15 with double stop.
You are expected to pass with less when "stuff in their suit".
On second, does 2C deny S:Txx? What of 2C, then later X?
Partner can then judge how good a Major he needs to come in.
Does T/O Dbl promise 4x other Major - that's useful for partner.

[OleBerg]

 han, on 2011-April-04, 05:25, said:

...I guess I am not well-trained, KQx in their suit doesn't make me want to make a takeout double...

I feel fairly confident, that the welltrained-ness gnasher referred to, was the pokerface he kept when he doubled.

[FrancesHinden]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-April-04, 03:27, said:

Out of interest, did your team mates open 1H and raise to 4H, giving the opponents the same set of decisions on which there was a parting of the ways?

The first one started with a strong 1NT opening by your teammates (your opponents were playing weak NT and 4-card majors).

To quote a private email to gnasher, I think double on the first one is horrible.

[JLOGIC]

Why did partner bid 4N on the first hand?

[awm]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-April-04, 15:27, said:

Why did partner bid 4N on the first hand?

Because he is at favorable and has 5-5 in the minors opposite partner's takeout double? Opposite a normal takeout double (and opponents presumed ten-card heart fit) you're bound to have a good sacrifice the vast majority of the time. Even LOTT suggests that bidding is often good here? If not for the fact that doubler has two heart honors (rather than some values elsewhere) and short diamonds (rather than a double fit) I would think this would work out well.

[JLOGIC]

Well if LOTT suggests it, I'm sold!

I don't understand why we have to sacrifice with an ace (can't we set them?) or why we expect to have a big double fit. Surely 42(43) is a normal hand type for a takeout double. Do you always bid to the 5 level with 5-5 in the minors opposite a 1 level takeout double?

[OleBerg]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-April-04, 22:58, said:

Well if LOTT suggests it, I'm sold!

I don't understand why we have to sacrifice with an ace (can't we set them?) or why we expect to have a big double fit. Surely 42(43) is a normal hand type for a takeout double. Do you always bid to the 5 level with 5-5 in the minors opposite a 1 level takeout double?

Get a grip.

[benlessard]

first X is horrible by all standard. 4Nt at favorable is near automatic.

2nd board is normal result.

[awm]

 benlessard, on 2011-April-05, 05:25, said:

first X is horrible by all standard. 4Nt at favorable is near automatic.

Agree with this.

Given that we have a nine-card fit opposite a normal takeout double, roughly half the values, some shape, a singleton where partner normally has little wasted opposite... I think it would be a surprise not to make nine tricks in our better minor fit opposite a normal double.

Even if we assume that we never make more than nine tricks, that opponents always find a double of 5m, and that opponents never compete to 5♥ (all of which seem like big assumptions that could easily be incorrect -- note that opponents didn't double on the actual hand either) every time 4♥ was making we will win 8 imps (-300 instead of -620) and every time 4♥ was down we will lose 9 (-300 instead of +100). So we still need 4♥ to fail roughly half the time to come out ahead, despite all the assumptions that were extremely favorable for passing 4♥ (opponents never make a wrong competitive decision, 5m is never down one or making, etc). Certainly we have an ace and 4♥ could fail. But they did bid it at unfavorable, so responder will usually have some shape (i.e. it won't be on garbage, opponents think they have a shot at making). Note that partner also probably won't double again on hands where he has a singleton heart and a five-card minor (unless he has a lot of extras) so even on these hands if we pass we defend 4♥. I just think at these colors bidding is quite clear-cut.

[Fluffy]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-April-04, 22:58, said:

I don't understand why we have to sacrifice with an ace (can't we set them?) or why we expect to have a big double fit. Surely 42(43) is a normal hand type for a takeout double. Do you always bid to the 5 level with 5-5 in the minors opposite a 1 level takeout double?

We sacrifice because it has 2 ways to win (3 if you count going undoubled), versus the only one passing. Even if larger.

[gnasher]

The most worrying thing about this thread is that I seem to be on the same side of the argument as Justin, with everyone else on the other side. Maybe I'm an imposter.

(Actually I'm not entirely in agreement with my takeout double, but I do think that if you've agreed to make takeout doubles of 1♥ on some 4324 shapes, this one qualifies.)

[gwnn]

I like both doubles, for what tiny bit it's worth. I'm afraid I'd have bid with both advancing hands, which worries me, since it means most probably I'm inconsistent.

[awm]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-05, 12:08, said:

The most worrying thing about this thread is that I seem to be on the same side of the argument as Justin, with everyone else on the other side. Maybe I'm an imposter.

(Actually I'm not entirely in agreement with my takeout double, but I do think that if you've agreed to make takeout doubles of 1♥ on some 4324 shapes, this one qualifies.)

See I don't think this one qualifies. Better would be a hand where you don't have so many slow values in hearts, which are usually better placed for defense than for playing the hand. For example say you had ♠KQTx ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣KQxx for the same shape and the same total points. Now 5♣ looks to be down one. Assuming the 4♥ bidder has short clubs (really very likely for the unfavorable leap to 4♥), 4♥ will either make or be down one depending on the defense, shapes, and location of certain cards. Probably down one is more likely, but you are risking 5 IMPs (both contracts fail and you get doubled) against 11 (4♥ makes) so even if 4♥ fails two times out of three competing was the right call...

[MrAce]

I am fairly new to the forums still, but i know Andy is a very decent player, i won't call his first DBL "Horrible" to be honest. But personally I would not DBL, would pass or bid 1 NT if i wanna bid badly.

4 NT by Andy's pd would be auto for me, unless knowing pd frequently doubles with impure hands.

[MickyB]

I would double on both and I think I would bid on both, I am finding it hard to be objective on the 2155 given the thread.

A Paca double would work well on the second.