[helene_t]

whereagles, on Jun 29 2005, 03:32 PM, said:

Well, check page 206.

There you hold:

♠ Kxxxx
♥ Ax
♦ KQxx
♣ Ax

RHO opens 2♣, precision: 5 clubs, 11-15 hcp. Robson/Segal recommend a take-out double of 2♣, followed by 2♠ if pard bids 2♥.

That hand has four and a half lost tricks. It's significantly stronger than the two hands from this thread.

[whereagles]

hrothgar: yes, RS advocate equal level correction. In fact, it's one of the cornerstones of their 'competition without known fit' theory.

It is true RS's example is a tad stronger than the original hands on this tread, but he also has examples of off-shape take-out doubles on weaker hands. Still, it's all a matter of judgement. I don't mind evading shape requirements in order to butt-in as soon as possible.

[pmacfar]

Hand 1) Double. If partner bids clubs/hearts you can compete. King spades appears safe. With a higher and/or extra honor in hearts, o'call 2H.

Hand 2) Pass. Too many fast losers and K♦ may not be safe. See what develops from partner bidding.

[craisin]

You must pass on both.

A takeout double GUARANTEES three cards in each of the unbid suits with a "close to opening/opening" hand OR 16+ HCP

An overcall at the two level requires at least 10+HCP (and preferably an opening hand of 12+HCP with unfavourable vulnerability) but most importantly SUIT QUALITY. It should GUARANTEE two of the top three or three of the top 5 honours.
(i.e. 2 of AKQ or 3 of AKQJ10). Let's face it, if we don't end up winning the contract, partner will lead our bid suit to us and we will play high (if partner leads low). With simply the Queen as our top honour she will probably drop on first round....and what have we left?

If we DO win the contract, it is very embarassing to find that the opposition have both the Ace, King AND Jack all over us! What can we hope to achieve?

Definately pass on both hands......

[mikestar]

If we are playing RS methods, #1 is a clear double and # 2 is boraderline (I would bid it).

If we swap the rounded suits, #1 becomes borderline and #2 is a clear pass. Scrambling to 2♥ on a four carder is less likely to do well as partner won't have four. A scamble to 3♣ is not possible as that would be a GOSH in RS methods (It would have been a jump overcall if it had been bid directly over the opening.)

[FrancesHinden]

I pass on both. This is neither the vulnerability nor the form of scoring to be making dubious actions.

NV at pairs I double on both. NV at imps I double on the second.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Jun 29 2005, 11:46 AM, said:

I must say I'm surprised to see so many passes. Especially since most people here read Robson's book, under which both hands are automatic take-out doubles.

I'm surprised as well, but I am glad because it means the level of the regular posters is increasing

[FrancesHinden]

There's also a difference between having read Robson's book (which I have also), and agreeing with everything it says (which I don't).

Any partnership has to decide on their position between the desire to get in the auction as often as possible and the desire to keep their take-out doubles shape suitable, which makes the later auction much easier. Some pairs (many of them Italian) double an opening bid to mean simply "I want to compete", usually without too much honour strength in the suit opened. Some of these pairs are seriously world class. Other pairs (many of them English or American) double an opening bid to mean "I either have significant extra values, or I have at least 3-card support for all the unbid suits". Some of these pairs are also among the best in the world.

The only style that doesn't work is when you and your partner aren't playing the same one.

(Having said that, the more English approach definitely requires less judgement in knowing when and how far to compete as partner of the doubler, so I think it is certainly easier to play. Which style is better I don't know.)

[paulg]

Following on the style theme, the answer may well depend on how partner responds to the double holding:
♠xxx
♥Qxxx
♦KTxxx
♣x

The traditional English style (described by Burn as requiring a 1-5-5-5 shape to double) would be to respond 2♦, probably a bid many Italians/Europeans would not understand as 2♥ would be so completely obvious to them.

I'd certainly double on the second hand and would consider it on the first - it's just so important to get into the auction nowadays.

[the hog]

Agree with Whereagles, (yet again )
Playing equal level conversion X on both. You get pre empted too much if you don't).
To the passers, are you going to X if the bidding proceeds
(1S) P (3S) P
(P)
Surely this is more dangerous now.

[MickyB]

cardsharp, on Jul 5 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

Following on the style theme, the answer may well depend on how partner responds to the double holding:
♠xxx
♥Qxxx
♦KTxxx
♣x

The traditional English style (described by Burn as requiring a 1-5-5-5 shape to double) would be to respond 2♦, probably a bid many Italians/Europeans would not understand as 2♥ would be so completely obvious to them.

Surprised by that - I thought 2♥ was standard. Not that I know much about the "traditional English style".

[FrancesHinden]

At imps I bid 2D every time.
At pairs probably 2H.
So I don't think either is "standard".

[Winstonm]

Both hands seem to be classic "risk verses gain" imp decisions. The first hand with it's poor suit and scattered values is not much of an offensive hand - or it's pretty offensive if you want to look at it that way, LoL. The point being that my 14 added to opener's presumed minimum of 12 only leaves 14 unaccounted for HCPs, which expentancy would anticipate dividing 7/7; hence, the hand is most probably a partscore battle. Now we are faced with several obstacles: my longest suit is poor, I'm vulnerable, my hand is defensive in nature, the opponents possess the spade suit, and I have to bid at the two level in front of an unknown hand that has information about his partner's hand. With all these negatives, it seems the hand has little upside but a huge downside. I will pass and if the acution proceeds: 1S-P-2S-P-P, I will pass again. Sometimes the risk is just too high.


The second hand is a much closer decision but still a pass - if I a spade were a little diamond instead, it would be worth a double, or if there were a 6th heart I wouldn't object to 2H. With this close of call I believe it gets down to the quality of the suit, and Q108xx isn't good enough. If I held QJ1086 I would probably bid with hand 2.

WinstonM