[Flame]

I wonder how you play those doubles, you passed the first round and then you found a double on the second round.
1.
(1♦) p (2♦) p
(p ) D
2.
(1♦) p (3♦) p
(p ) D
Does it matter how strong is 2d/3d, if so then how. ( diamond is just an example, i assume a major would be just the same)
3.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(2♦) D
4.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(3♦) D

With my partner i play this as penalty, a side effect of this (or maybe this is the side effect) is that partner should double in second seat more often then normal since i cant balance (this if i understand corectly is a bergen idea)

When LHO bid a new suit we dont play it as penalty for example
(1♦) p (1♠) p
(2♦)/(2♠) D
This double is a takeout with short spade.

[inquiry]

1. Double I play here as takeout.. the difference is that I am weaker than an intial takeout double, but I am short in diamonds.

2. Double here I play as takeout... the same difference, but I am more distributional. IF I have a buncho diamonds, I expect partner to usually balance back in with a double...

3. Takeout.

4. Ok, here is an exception. Here, oddly enough a takeout double is not such a good idea. So as unlikley as it seems, I guess the only thing this can be is a penalty double.


5. Yes I play both doubles here as takeout.

[Chamaco]

1.
(1♦) p (2♦) p
(p ) D

Balancing double, weak takeout

2.
(1♦) p (3♦) p
(p ) D

Penalty, no matter what the range of 3D leap

3.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(2♦) D

More delicate. At the 2 level (as opposite to the 3 level, see auction 2), a point can be made of using a "pre-balancing" double: with the right shape and 8-9 good points, it is not unreeasonable to play that this double is a weak takeout, something like KJxx-KTxx-x-QTxx.
This would suit people who play "OBAR" bids, the rationale being that if you have the right shape, pard is likely to have the wrong shape for balancing and it will harder for him to decide, since his shape (length in opps sit) will tell him to pass.

Here this is especially effective because BOTH OPPONENTS HAVE LIMITED THEIR HANDS, and this makes it less dangerous; on the other hand, they may be in a misfit, but I doubt the misfit will be bad, as they did not look for a major.

4.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(3♦) D

Same as 2. Penalty. No need of a weak, prebalancing takeout double to fight for a 3-level partscore.

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Oct 11 2004, 05:47 PM, said:

2. Double here I play as takeout... the same difference, but I am more distributional. IF I have a buncho diamonds, I expect partner to usually balance back in with a double...

This expectation puts a lot of pressure on partner, which is suppose to "prebalance" light at the 3 level in direct seat.

After 1D-pass-3D-?
If I hold AK-QTx-KT9xx- Kxx and I cannot double for penalty in the balancing seat, is pard supposed to "prebalance" holding QJTx-KJxx- void - QTxxx ?

And the next time I will have a weaker hand and pards makes a prebalancing double (by unpassed hand), how do I know he does not hold AKxx-AJxx-x-KJxx ?

In my opinion OBAR bids are ok at the 2 level, but at the 3 level the tradeoff are too heavy.

[mikestar]

If I remember correctly, Bill root taught that the delayed double of a suit that you could have doubled earlier is takeout thru 4D if the suit has been raised, but only takeout thru 2D if the suit has not been raised. I would amend the latter level to takeout thru 2S. (For this purpose, a chance to double a 1N response counts as a chance to double opener's suit.)

[pclayton]

Sigh. I need to occasionally insert a pitch for Overcall Structure whenever hands like this come up:

http://www.gg.caltec...em/foutnote.txt

[Rebound]

Flame, on Oct 11 2004, 01:03 PM, said:

I wonder how you play those doubles, you passed the first round and then you found a double on the second round.
1.
(1♦) p (2♦) p
(p ) D
2.
(1♦) p (3♦) p
(p ) D
Does it matter how strong is 2d/3d, if so then how. ( diamond is just an example, i assume a major would be just the same)
3.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(2♦) D
4.
(1♦) p (1NT) p
(3♦) D

With my partner i play this as penalty, a side effect of this (or maybe this is the side effect) is that partner should double in second seat more often then normal since i cant balance (this if i understand corectly is a bergen idea)

When LHO bid a new suit we dont play it as penalty for example
(1♦) p (1♠) p
(2♦)/(2♠) D
This double is a takeout with short spade.

1. Balancing, doubler has a balanced sub-opener with weakness in the enemy suit

2. Penalty over weak 3♦, takeout over strong 3♦ - indicates a strong hand with nothing in diamonds which prevents nt overcall

3. Penalty

4. See #2

Generally in the direct seat, I assume if partner has also passed, a double of a minimum rebid should say I was a trapped pass, holding good diamonds (or clubs, as the case may be) and had no other good call available over 1♦. If the double comes over a strong rebid, I would deem it unprofitable to double for penalties most of the time. I believe it is better to use it to show the hands I describe and to pass weaker balanced hands.

4th seat and bidding after opps have agreement is another story entirely. Clearly double is needed to keep the auction from ending too low for a good result but I apply the same reasoning as in direct seat over responses showing strength and/or agreement.

But that's just me. I'd be interested in reading about other treatments.

An alternative could be to play them all as t/o, it would avoid misunderstandings at least

[Free]

imo:
1 & 3 are takeout Doubles
2 & 4 are penalty Doubles

[helene_t]

When opps have a fit, a double should certainly be t/o. When opener rebids his suit, a fit is not garantied, but still t/o is generally more useful than penalty. If opener is likely to rebid a 5-card (when 1NT is semi-forcing) things might change a little in favor of penalty doubles, but still I would play all these doubles except 4) as t/o. So I agree with with Ben.

[whereagles]

There is a case for

1D pass 1NT
2/3D dbl

being for penalties, since with a take out for the majors you can always bid a delayed 2H. This situation deserves some discussion with pard, but, for casual partnerships, fortunately it doesn't come up too often.

[Fluffy]

4 is a penalty double, at least if you have less than 3♦ .

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Oct 12 2004, 10:04 AM, said:

When opps have a fit, a double should certainly be t/o.

Not "certainly", it depends on the situations.
I would say that it is "certinly so" at low levels (1-level and 2-level), at the 3 level things get much worse.
Also another factor is whether or not you had or not the chance to double for t/o before.

If you had the chance to double at the previous turn but chose to pass, and now you wish to double for takeout at a later stage, it means your hand is weak.

Now, with a weak hand, I agree it is good to fight for the partscore at the 2 level, justifying then the use of 2nd round dbl as weak competitive t/o.

But, at the 3 level it is another planet.
If my hand was not enough good to double at the 1-level, on percentage I do not think it pays off to fight for the partscore at the 3 level.

Certainly not at IMPS.

At Matchpoints this may be a little shaded, but still I believe that on balance, even at MP pairs, you seldom will want to to bid (or force pd to bid) "3 over 3" based solely on your hand which was not good enough to double at the 1 level, without any sign of life from p.

[inquiry]

In the june 1980 master solvers with Jeff Rubens as the moderator, this was one of the problems...

(1♦) Pa (1NT) Pa
(2♦) DBL

---

The panel had fits over this. Roth abstained because "there is no such bid", Rubin bid 3♣ saying "by rule this is penatly double, but your hands says impossible. The discussion revolved around "trust your parnter, trust your opponents, or trust no one."...

Jeff then made a convincing argument that the standard "penalty double" agreement here is unsound. He compared this auction to (1D)-P-(1H)-P; (2D)-DBL where the double shows spades and clubs and a weak takeout. Here he argues that the 1NT bidder has in a sense shown clubs and this double was weak takeout for the majors. I agree with the weak takeout part, with emphasis on the majors. The panel voted primarily for 2S (11 votes) and 3C (8 votes), but pass got 7 votes and most of the bidders did so only because they thought their partner couldn't possible be making the "standard" penatly double.

I wonder how the vote would go today. I think the vast majority today would play this double as takeout. In 1980, I played it as penatly, soon after this problem I swtiched over...

Ben

[whereagles]

I think the point is, if X is for the majors, what would a 2H bid be? Why not have the best of both worlds and bid X for penalty and 2H for the majors?

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Oct 12 2004, 09:46 AM, said:

I think the point is, if X is for the majors, what would a 2H bid be? Why not have the best of both worlds and bid X for penalty and 2H for the majors?

Kenneth feel free to skip, as it is long.

Whereagles, your approach seems too arbitrary to me.. especially if you play michaels.... you could probably argue that 2♥ shows hearts and ♣ given the lack of micheals, but you know what, I like 2♥ as pre-balance showing the bid suit and shortness in diamonds (and playing partner for points) . Why shortness in diamonds? I expect my partner to balance anytime he is short in diamonds, so if I have a lot of diamonds, I don't need to take action immediately, even with a one suited hand. But if he has 3 diamonds he generally will pass, even with fair hands, so if we are going to enter the bidding, it is necessary for me to pre-balance in the direct seat when I have a suitable hand. So my 2♥ and dbl here is aggressive when short in their suit, when I am longish in their suit, I can take the more conservative pass and see what happens route. This approach has worked very well for me.

So with a hand like this I would double....

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- - 1♦ Pass
1NT Pass 2♦ Db

---

With this hand I might double or bid 2♥ depending upon my table feel and temperment at the moment. DBL is ok as I have spade support, 2♥ is ok because relatively speaking (since I couldn overcall), my heart suit is good.

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- - 1♦ Pass
1NT Pass 2♦ Db

---

And with all the following hands e this, I would bid 2♥

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- - 1♦ Pass
1NT Pass 2♦ Db

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- - 1♦ Pass
1NT Pass 2♦ Db

---

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

- - 1♦ Pass
1NT Pass 2♦ Db

---

[whereagles]

Ben: too arbitrary? I think it's very well defined

Thanks for the time figuring out some examples, but this situation is probably more of a partnership agreement thing than of logic. For instance, I do play michaels with my live partner, but we don't bid it on 44's. Thus a 4-4-4-1 is a definite possiblity if I bid it like

(1D) p (1NT) p
(2D) 2H

[Rebound]

inquiry, on Oct 12 2004, 09:11 AM, said:

I wonder how the vote would go today. I think the vast majority today would play this double as takeout. In 1980, I played it as penatly, soon after this problem I swtiched over...

Ben

Alas, 1980 is about the time I took up bridge and I guess I haven't learned much since because I would still play it as penalty.

[inquiry]

Rebound, on Oct 12 2004, 10:57 AM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 12 2004, 09:11 AM, said:

I wonder how the vote would go today. I think the vast majority today would play this double as takeout. In 1980, I played it as penatly, soon after this problem I swtiched over...

Ben

Alas, 1980 is about the time I took up bridge and I guess I haven't learned much since because I would still play it as penalty.

Sorry, I should have made my answer slightly more complete. I meant among the top group of players, the kind that participate in the master solvers, the majority of them would now play this double now as "takeout" rather than penatly.

If I had to guess, I would say that the vast majority of players in the world today would still play this double as penatly, and there is nothing wrong with that. As a lot of people are fond of saying, any agreement is better than no agreement... As long as you and your parnter agree what the double means, you are WAY ahead of the game.

However, you might want to take a look at the example hands I showed and start watching your results for auctions that go.. 1D-P-1N-P-2D-ALL PASS and see if maybe a different strategy would have served you better. I still get my penatly doubles because the partners I play with with reopen with a double after the 2D rebid and two passes, so I simply pass that... it is like having your cake and getting to eat it too in my experience.

BTW, things like this hand and the forcing pass hand earlier by helium is what makes it hard to sit down with a new partner and agree to play "2/1". The nuances of what is and is not forcing, is a double takeout, cooperative, penatly, which is weaker immediate action or forcing pass followed by double, in competition what does a jump in a new suit show, etc, etc," make the game so difficult. Without SPECIFIC agreement, with all but world class or Gold star players, I would probaly assume the double was penalty on this auction. But with my partners, one thing I always say (and said here a thousand times), all my doubles are for takeout until we have found a fit (or have an implied fit).

Ben

[inquiry]

To keep it simple, i looked up 2,205 bbo hands where the auction went 1D-P-1NT-P-2D-All pass just to see what the average result for the declaring side (the one that bid 2D) was. The average imp score was -0.04, the average mp score was 49.89, the average number of tricks taken by delcarer was 8.87 +/- 0.02 at imps and 8.39 +/- 0.21 at mp. These hands were not segregated from those where second seat has five or six hearts.....this was all the hands....

If you throw in hands where the second seat has five or six hearts, making 2D is worth a lot more, instead of the slighest average minus, it now wins +0.07 imps and 57.75 matchpoints. Doesn't prove a thing.. as sometimes you will know it is right to pass 2D, just htought I would share with you.

Ben