[joker_gib]

Hi all,

Playing teams, what's your bid ?

---

[Free]

Dbl, takeout

[helene_t]

yes, good hand for double. 2nd choice 3♥.

[rhm]

Free, on 2011-April-06, 06:20, said:

Dbl, takeout

I know almost nobody plays penalty doubles any more, but...
Why do you need a takeout double here, when partner has said he wants to play ♥?
Do you want partner to bid a black suit now?

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

No, we are telling partner that we want to compete to 3♥ but since we have only 3-card support, we give him the option to defend 3♦X which he can do with a defensive hand.

[whereagles]

♥. 3

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2011-April-06, 07:04, said:

No, we are telling partner that we want to compete to 3♥ but since we have only 3-card support, we give him the option to defend 3♦X which he can do with a defensive hand.

That's a sensible use for the double, but we shouldn't call it "takeout".

[Phil]

Double would not occur to me and I am surprised a few have suggested it already. Traditionally, to compete to the 3 level after partner makes a simple transfer requires a good hand and a good fit. Since the requirement for a two level transfer (i.e., five hearts) has not changed over the last 30 years, neither has what is needed to compete.

I still play penalty doubles in this case where they have competed to the 3 level, and partner hasn't promised anything.

- We have three hearts. Even if double were takeout, why are we trying to bring in spades and clubs? Or is it because we have short diamonds and some cashing tricks that double looks good to protect when partner mysteriously turns up with ♦QJxx when we can't make our vul game? Partner's diamonds are under the bidder, and unless we are playing against a maniac, our RHO has a good diamond suit, since RHO could have just x'd 2♦ for the lead.

- Why are we so sure if we double, partner will run to the 'safety' of 3♥ with five marginal ones? If partner has a doubleton diamond as well (not at all unlikely), I do not like my chances at all in 3♥. If partner has three diamonds, we have an uppercut problem when a third diamond is played.

- We have a minimum. Our hand looks pretty good for defense if partner passes out 3♦ and we'll probably get a plus. Our hand looks nice for hearts if partner reopens. Why are we unilaterally deciding to compete to the 3 level?

If partner has a hand, partner will double. We will bid our hearts and the auction will proceed normally.

[Hanoi5]

I'd prefer double to show a penalty oriented hand usually with no heart fit. Here I would bid 3♥, to show partner that I have a fit and want to compete.

[inquiry]

i must really, really be old school. A minimum hand (yes lots of controls), nothing special (no four hearts), I pass. Partner still has another chance to bid.


I might imagine someone could play double here as being similiar to a maximal double on 1H-(P)-2H-(3D); X, but if you did, are you not weaker than a maximal double? Albeit again with good controls and nothing "wasted" in diamonds.

[gnasher]

I think the prime values and the diamond holding make this a maximum.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I used to PASS w/ 2 cards ♥ ... and just bid 3H w/3 .

But I rather like the "maximal" DBL concept:

pass = 2 cards
DBL = 3 cards
3H = 4 cards

[inquiry]

Hanoi5, on 2011-April-06, 08:41, said:

I'd prefer double to show a penalty oriented hand usually with no heart fit. Here I would bid 3♥, to show partner that I have a fit and want to compete.

And I like those values as well, which is why I talked about them in positive terms. But what I don't want to do is bid 3♥ and have to play that, maybe doubled, opposite something pathetic like:
♠xxx
♥Txxxx
♦x
♣Qxxx

or similar. or double and have partner have to make some kind or hopeless decision with hands along that one's lines.

I will wait for at least 4♥ here to bid 3♥, and if that turns out really bad, I will throw my copy of "to bid or not to bid" at Larry Cohen again for leading me astray.

[JLOGIC]

what is going on in this thread

[1eyedjack]

inquiry, on 2011-April-06, 11:34, said:

And I like those values as well, which is why I talked about them in positive terms. But what I don't want to do is bid 3♥ and have to play that, maybe doubled, opposite something pathetic like:
♠xxx
♥Txxxx
♦x
♣Qxxx

or similar. or double and have partner have to make some kind or hopeless decision with hands along that one's lines.

I will wait for at least 4♥ here to bid 3♥, and if that turns out really bad, I will throw my copy of "to bid or not to bid" at Larry Cohen again for leading me astray.

I think that it is because partner can have a load of rubbish like this that it is highly infrequent that opener can double for penalties. And it has to be for blood, not some wishy washy ("I fancy taking this off, what do you thing p?") penalty "oriented" double because if partner is consulted in the matter and happens to decide to pull it you are effectively arguing to buy the contract at the 3 level where there is already evidence of a combined misfit, and almost asking to be doubled when you run. To double for blood opener needs to see about 6 tricks in his hand, as it is seldom worthwhile doubling just for one off.

On the other hand, if you pass with these cards, offering partner a chance to pass it out in 3D, he will take that opportunity on the cited example and the pair of you will be highly delighted that he did so. But he will also pass on a number of hands where you should be competing to 3H. I have no idea how the numbers crunch out but my instinct is that on this hand the odds are you should be competing if partner feels inclined to pass. Also, if you compete on this hand then on other hands when you do pass, partner will pass it out with more confidence.

If you pass, and responder protects with a double, I find that this is still quite useful as a takeout double, and opener can convert to penalties, perhaps with the shape but otherwise lacking the confidence for a direct seat penalty double. I find that you actually increase the total number of penalty doubles that you find that way.

So I do not like a direct seat penalty-oriented double. Furthermore, I think that there are hands where you might not have voluntarily competed to 3H in an uncontested auction but where there is now an added complication of the opponents possibly declaring 3D then you might take perhaps slightly unwilling push to 3H now.

I have an open mind about whether this hand is strong enough for a double, but I would say that it has the right shape. So it is either double or 3H for me. To be honest, if I was at the table I would probably bid 3H, but I would not criticise a partner or teammate who chose differently. I do not consider this to be a minimum opener in context, although it may be wrong-sided if I bid 3H myself, which might argue for the double, quite apart from Helene's observation that responder may be looking to convert the double.

[joker_gib]

This auction happened at the table of my teammates and south (a fine player of our team who did already play for Belgium internationaly) did pass.

At first sight, when looking at the hands diagrams I thought I would have bid 3♥ with this in a second !

I would not have thought to dbl since my partner would likely take it as penalty.

I asked him why he passed and he basically said something similar to what Phil did.

Anyway, I was interested to know your views on this...

Thanks all for the responses !

Post mortem : At our table I did bid 4♦ with AK109xxx. 4♥ was played at both tables going down at ours so we got a plus on this board.