[quiddity]

Just wondering about the strength requirements for this double. Is it mostly competitive or does it show a real interest in game? Playing 2/1 with semi-forcing NT, what does a minimum for this double look like? Does the answer depend on form of scoring or vul?

[aguahombre]

I vote, neither unless you count playing 2H doubled as "game"; or unless we mean by "competitive" that it shows good hearts behind the interloper, more than a minimum opener, and a desire to let partner decide whether to make another bid having been given that information.

If 1NT is semi-forcing (not likely to include offensive spade invites and not including weak spade raises), I would say the minimum for a double might be AXXXX KJXX AX QJ.

[MrAce]

This double is about shape rather than strength. Take out.

51(43) or 50(44)

I would do it with Axxxx x AKxx Kxx for example, i dont need to be too strong in hcp wise.

[Phil]

I would add a good 5233 into the mix.

[pooltuna]

This X is playable as penalty but needs agreement since the Meta-agreement policy for this forum is all Xs are TO except penalty by specific agreement

[han]

As Phil and Ace said.

[quiddity]

So if it does require AAKK, how does our side compete effectively when opener has a weaker hand? Is partner expected to reopen holding a balanced 9 count with 3 or 4 hearts?

[JLOGIC]

I agree with what MrAce wrote but his example hand seemed to imply that he needed extras?

I would double with any 51(34) that I opened, so like a king less than his example is fine.

With 5233, I would only double if I was 17+ (since I would open 1N with 15-16). I would not double with 5233 and 14. Partner should be able to bank on a stiff or a void in hearts imo, unless I have really significant extras.

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2011-September-19, 22:59, said:

I agree with what MrAce wrote but his example hand seemed to imply that he needed extras?

Definetely not, Justin, that was not my intention. I was just trying to give an example for the shape. Obviously not a good example, the hand i gave is too handsome. I agree that my example does not represent the minimum requirement.

[jdeegan]

I am trying to get my almost senile mind around this controversy. I give up the relatively frequent penalty double when I am 5-4 in the majors for a 'takeout' double when the opps are almost certain to have a nine card (or better) ♥ fit and I have pretty much the same values I promised to begin with plus a heart shortage????? Yes, I suppose it does define a hand that can stand three of a minor if pard has the right 5 or 6 bagger holding, but it does issue an ingraved invitation to the opps to bid 3♥, just in case they have a memory lapse. Please help me Rhonda, am I losing my mind?

[JLOGIC]

Why when we have a stiff heart are the opps almost certain to have a nine card heart fit? Can't partner have some hearts rather than LHO? In fact, partner is much more likely to have them than LHO, because he has 0-2 spades.

[han]

But jlall, what do you do when you pick up Kxxxx AQJ9 Ax xx, a much more common hand type? Do you not like to pick up on the juicy penalties the opponents owe you for stepping in at the wrong moment?

[aguahombre]

I will know I have "arrived" if a prominent poster disagrees with my view by asking a follow-up question in a manner where it is clear he wants to know the answer.

[MrAce]

han, on 2011-September-21, 07:13, said:

But jlall, what do you do when you pick up Kxxxx AQJ9 Ax xx, a much more common hand type? Do you not like to pick up on the juicy penalties the opponents owe you for stepping in at the wrong moment?

aguahombre, on 2011-September-21, 08:15, said:

I will know I have "arrived" if a prominent poster disagrees with my view by asking a follow-up question in a manner where it is clear he wants to know the answer.

I had a bad day, a very bad one and just when i thought there is nothing to cheer me up, i figured i was wrong as soon as i started reading forums.

I ♥ you guys

[Gerben42]

han, on 2011-September-21, 07:13, said:

But jlall, what do you do when you pick up Kxxxx AQJ9 Ax xx, a much more common hand type? Do you not like to pick up on the juicy penalties the opponents owe you for stepping in at the wrong moment?

Well if partner has a dead minimum you play it undoubled (making or -1), but normally he will have some minor-oriented 8-count he will double and you will happily pass

Besides playing this as penalty makes hands like

♠KQxxx
♥xx
♦KQx
♣AQx

quite unbiddable. A slow pass sounds good then pd can decide.

[aguahombre]

Gerben42, on 2011-September-24, 01:08, said:

Besides playing this as penalty makes hands like

♠KQxxx
♥xx
♦KQx
♣AQx

quite unbiddable. A slow pass sounds good then pd can decide.

Without the interference, in a strong NT style, we have already made this hand unbiddable on the first round.

[Siegmund]

With my regular partner, X is penalty-oriented, and 2NT is Good/Bad even after partner responds 1NT.

With anybody except a forum regular I would have assumed this particular double was still penalty, too.

OP's post did make it sound like he played it for takeout and was asking only about strength - and if so, I think any non-subminimum with a desire to compete is fair game.