[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jun 18 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

Edgar Kaplan often wrote that playing penalty doubles over weak nt was a major advantage of playing weak nt systems. Double often, not just with a trump stack.

I played 10-12 NT (including overcalls, bion) for years and the best results came after the opps bid or doubled. Our run-outs were only a page long (not so bad) and we used the double of an intervening bid to transfer to the suit above (for correction or to play) bidding the suit above showed a 2 suiter etc. There was never a dull moment at our table......

p.s. The major openings were bid a la 2/1 and the minor suit openings were 1C was either any unbalanced opening hand with clubs or a balanced 16-18 and 1D any unbalanced opening hand with diamonds or a balanced 13-15.

[han]

The fact that people come in more often over 1NT nowadays makes it in my opinion even more important to play take-out doubles. If you don't, you are going to be stuck more often too. there are some big penalties that you are going to miss playing take-out doubles, but you get some other penalties in return (when parrtner converts or reopens). But the fact that you are better able to compete at the partscore level is much more important imo.

I like to play take-out doubles over all artificial bids too, including 2-suiters. In practice, it often means that my "take-out" double shows a desire to defend, for instance if they overcall 2C for the majors. I tend to have at least 2 clubs in such a situation, so that partner can pass 2CX more easily. Second round doubles are also take-out, but third round doubles are for penalty.

[pclayton]

As long as were discussing this, what do you all play a reopening x by responder, ie,

1N - pass - pass - 2x
Pass - pass - dbl?

[luke warm]

penalty

responder probably has a semi-balanced 8, 9 count with 4 trumps... he won't have a 5 card major or he'd have bid it over 1nt (to play)... the 1nt bidder probably won't double, he's said what he has to

playing it for takeout can obviously work else justin and others wouldn't play it that way... i just think the opps get too free a hand when we aren't able to punish them

[keylime]

Here's a logical extension:

Is Leb outdated? Does it need updating?

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Jun 21 2005, 01:31 AM, said:

As long as were discussing this, what do you all play a reopening x by responder, ie,

1N - pass - pass - 2x
Pass - pass - dbl?

To complete this discussion, how do you play the direct seat opener's double ?

1N - pass - pass - 2x
DBL

It seems to me that if phil's sequence is for takeout, this one should be for takeout too :-)

[FrancesHinden]

Yup, if responder's double is take-out, opener also needs a take-out double.

Pairs is a great game. Going for 1100 when the mini-NT-er makes a take-out double is the same zero as conceding 110 when they find a fruity protection.

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Jun 21 2005, 03:10 AM, said:

To complete this discussion, how do you play the direct seat opener's double ?

1N - pass - pass - 2x
DBL

It seems to me that if phil's sequence is for takeout, this one should be for takeout too :-)

it's hard for me to imagine many times when this is bid.. if this is takeout it should guarantee 4/4 majors if the overcall is 2m

[FrancesHinden]

At pairs, I double as opener whenever I have two low in the suit they have bid. Also on many Hx holdings having opened a strong NT.

At teams, it's normal both to be a little more cautious and also to have a slighter more careful eye on the vulnerability, as you are generally only competing the partscore on these auctions.

[flytoox]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 05:54 PM, said:

Takeout, penalty doubles are an endangered bid, will be extinct soon.

No way penalty dbl will die.

[Al_U_Card]

I play lebensohl and prefer to play that any double directly behind the bidder is penalty (by an unpassed hand or the opener). Any balancing double is the 2 higher remaining suits and bidding the lowest suit shows that suit and a "higher" one. I do think that any agreement, whatever it might be, is miles better than no agreement