[pclayton]

A few interesting doubles came up today in the NAOP Unit qualifying. I'd be curious what you think what they mean? :

1. 1N - pass - pass - double (DONT);
pass - 2♣ (forced, sort of) - double?

2. 1N - pass - pass - double (penalty);
pass - 2♣ (running) - double?

3. 1N - 2♥ - double. What is the worst hand you will have for a x here?

[655321]

I play all of these doubles as takeout.

Not sure what the worst hand for (3) would be. Double doesn't have to be invitational for me, just enough values not to want to sell out to 2♥. Maybe a 4234 5 count is possible. Won't have a singleton heart, and should have enough values to beat 2♥X if partner passes.

[ASkolnick]

Hand 1: I can certainly understand the treatment of double as takeout since this will be the last opportunity to make a TO double if they have clubs.

Hand 2: I think dbl as penalty makes more sense since if they think they have the balance of the power, they would not run from 1Nx. But if you choose to play takeout, the NT opener is going to have to reopen more aggressively.

Hand 3: Depends who I play with. Some partners I play penalty, some I play takeout. I can think of advantages to each, so this one I will say I am neutral about. Obviously, if I play takeout, I need a slightly weaker hand then penalty.

[Gerben42]

Quote

1. 1N - pass - pass - double (DONT);
pass - 2♣ (forced, sort of) - double?

Take out of ♣, similar to my generic treatment of pass-or-correct situations. If the suit is not ♣, you'll get another chance. If you have a penalty of ♣, opener may dbl for TO.

Quote

2. 1N - pass - pass - double (penalty);
pass - 2♣ (running) - double?

I play this as TO. It is true that opponent may be bluffing and neither can dbl for TO, but in the long run you might gain anyway. If you are unfavourable und suspect they are bluffing, you can still decide to bid.

Quote

1N - 2♥ - double. What is the worst hand you will have for a x here?

Perhaps something like:

♠Axxx
♥x
♦Qxxx
♣xxxx

After all, we are not forced to the 3-level yet.

[cherdano]

Agree with 66655555333222111 (sorry if I misspelled your name).
Gerben's example is dangerous (2H it might make when partner passes with 4 trumps), I don't know what I would do.

[han]

Agree with 655321

[jdonn]

Wow I'm shocked here, at least at the first one. It's an artificial bid, and they only have clubs 1/4 of the time. Using it to show clubs is both more frequent than takeout and fits better into generic bidding rules (double artificial bid). Takeout wouldn't really even have occured to me.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

Wow I'm shocked here, at least at the first one. It's an artificial bid, and they only have clubs 1/4 of the time. Using it to show clubs is both more frequent than takeout and fits better into generic bidding rules (double artificial bid). Takeout wouldn't really even have occured to me.

I don't think it's obvious at all.

2H (Muiderberg) P 2NT P; 3C double is often played as take-out of clubs (i.e. likely to have heart length). Certaintly 2H (Muiderberg) P 3C (poc) x is take-out of clubs.

In the auction 2D (multi) P 2H (pass or correct) double is commonly played as take-out of hearts, even though they only have hearts 1/2 the time. (It might also be a very strong hand).

In the auction 1NT P 2C P 2D x, double is usually played as diamonds, although if this is passed round to fourth seat, double becomes take-out.

In the auction 1S (2S) Michaels P (3C pass or correct), what do you think double by opener is? I admit I'm not at all certain if it's clubs, or take-out of clubs.

I think you are right that it probably ought to show clubs, on the basis that responder is more likely to have length in clubs than shortage, having passed 1NT.

[helene_t]

The first two I would play as penalty (or maybe as optional), because I passed 1NT. And most hands suitable for a t/o on clubs would have used garbage stayman.

[mikeh]

I'm with Josh.... I'd play no. 1 as showing a desire to penalize clubs.. not that I'd expect it to go all nod... but I am showing some values, and club length such that partner will know whether and when to compete with 3♣ after the DONT doubler shows his suit... and if opener passes, I have steered him towards what will more often than not be a decent suit to lead if his own hand leaves him guessing.

As for number 2: I'd also play this as penalty. I admit I have no experience with this situation.. I don't know anyone who plays a balancing double as penalty... I mean, I don't like penalty doubles in direct seat, where at least I would usually know what to lead (I won't double a strong notrump with a flat 17 and no clear lead). So I may be guessing.. but my experience is that 2♣ is often a 4 card suit, and sometimes only a 3 card suit (4333 yarborough... run to 2♣ and redouble...loses only when partner has 3=3=3=4 or 5 clubs), so I want to start the double cube rolling.. using double as takeout is aiming at a small target.... and puts far, far too much pressure on partner to reopen with his 4=3=4=2 16 count.. I mean, why should he? Maybe his RHO is sitting there with a 21 count.

On the 3rd hand, it depends.. with some partners I still play penalty, with others I play (and prefer) takout... to me, a takeout here shows a good 6+ hcp, typically 4 spades, and if I own a stiff heart, I have extras, since partner can pass with 4 chunky hearts.

BTW, i see Frances posted while I was writing my post... in her Michaels example, she posited 1♠ [2♠] P [3♣] as p/c... in my neck of the woods, 3♣ would be natural, with 6+ clubs... we'd bid 2N to elicit partner's minor. And while I appreciate that she was responding to Josh's statment of a general rule, I don't see the muiderberg/michaels auctions as analogous to the one's posted by Phil.

[awm]

First two takeout for me.

My general rules state that pass/correct bids are treated as natural for the purpose of doubles, and that undefined doubles at the two-level are takeout.

I can see some value in double "showing clubs", mostly because responder had no way to show a five-card club suit directly over 1NT. But I don't like to define my doubles casewise to this degree; it seems pretty clear to me that:

1NT - Pass - Pass - X (penalty)
Pass - 2♥ (weak with hearts) - X should be takeout

1NT - Pass - Pass - 2♦ (one major)
Pass - 2♥ (pass/correct) - X should be takeout

1NT - Pass - Pass - X (5+ minor and 4cM)
Pass - 2♣ (pass/correct) - X should have the same meaning as if 1st X was DONT

I suppose you could have some rule like "if 1NT bidder's partner has already passed 1NT, and the opponents try to bid a minor suit, then double is penalty/shows that suit because 1NT bidder's partner couldn't show a five-card minor directly, whereas if they try to bid a major double is takeout because responder can't have five of them" or you could have a rule that "if they make a pass/correct bid where partner's suit has three or four possibilities, then double is penalty, whereas if partner's suit has only two possibilities, then double is takeout" but all of these seem to get you at best marginal benefits in exchange for a lot of complexity in your rules about doubles.

[jdonn]

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but even though 2♣ is technically "pass or correct" I think of it more as totally artificial asking "what is your suit?", whereas for example over a multi I think of 2♥ as "pass or correct". I realize both are essentially the same thing with the only difference being how many different suits are possible, but clearly that is a big difference and it changes how I think about the situations. Another difference is many "takeout of club" hands have already bid garbage stayman, so on frequency grounds takeout seems really really wrong.

And yes obviously the goal isn't to penalize 2♣, the goal is to compete to 3♣ if opener has a fit.

I think a good general rule is takeout of p/c bids if two suits are possible, showing the suit if four suits are possible. I have yet to come accross exactly three suits being possible...

[awm]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

I think a good general rule is takeout of p/c bids if two suits are possible, showing the suit if four suits are possible. I have yet to come accross exactly three suits being possible...

I expect there are some people who play capp but won't bid 2♣ with primary clubs, since it gives their opponents a pretty easy time of the auction (they can just play systems on) and you're going to have to go to the three-level to play in clubs anyway...

[awm]

Another example might be the Meckwell double, which has three possibilities (clubs or diamonds or both majors) although one of them is not a single-suited possibility.

[Gerben42]

The "pass-or-correct" agreement is an agreement which overrules the "dbl of artificial bid" agreement, if you have it, because it's more specific.

Anyway, it's also possible that you have agreements about

1NT (Dbl = something multi-meaning)

or

1NT (2♣ = something multi-meaning)

that overrule your standard "artificial bid" agreements.

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 17 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

I think a good general rule is takeout of p/c bids if two suits are possible, showing the suit if four suits are possible. I have yet to come accross exactly three suits being possible...

I expect there are some people who play capp but won't bid 2♣ with primary clubs, since it gives their opponents a pretty easy time of the auction (they can just play systems on) and you're going to have to go to the three-level to play in clubs anyway...

If 2♣ isn't clubs then it's not p/c...

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

I think a good general rule is takeout of p/c bids if two suits are possible, showing the suit if four suits are possible. I have yet to come accross exactly three suits being possible...

There's a convention currently trendy in England (among juniors, and the juniors-at-heart) called the "2C fert" where a NV 2C opening shows a weak two in diamonds, hearts or spades. So while double of 2C is artificial (although playing double as clubs is a waste of a call), 2C P 2D x is an interesting position.

"Weak two" here is often defined as 0-8 HCP and a 4+ card suit which might change your preferred defence, but that's a different issue.

Quote

BTW, i see Frances posted while I was writing my post... in her Michaels example, she posited 1♠ [2♠] P [3♣] as p/c... in my neck of the woods, 3♣ would be natural, with 6+ clubs... we'd bid 2N to elicit partner's minor.

We had this on another thread. 45% of the world plays 3m as natural and 2NT to ask for partner's minor, 45% plays 2NT as promising invitational values and 3C as weak pass-or-correct. (and 10% play something else)

[awm]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

If 2♣ isn't clubs then it's not p/c...

Obviously the auction in question would be:

1NT - Pass - Pass - 2♣(Capp: one-suited hand in ♦, ♥, or ♠)
Pass - 2♦ (pass/correct) - X

So Josh, do you actually think it's beneficial (and worthwhile in terms of remembering the agreement) to play:

1NT - P - P - X
P - 2♣ - X

The second double is takeout if the first double promised one long minor with a shorter major. The second double is penalty if the first double promised any single suited hand. The second double is, well, who knows? if the first double promised one of clubs/diamonds/hearts (i.e. DONT but would always balance 2♠ with spades) or if the double promised one minor or both majors (three possibilities, one of them clubs).

And if the 2♣ bid actually shows clubs (i.e. double was just cards) then the second double is...? Does it matter if the 2♣ bid promises actual clubs in a weak hand, or if it's just "scramble"? What if the first double was "spades and another suit" (lionel)?

This all seems really confusing and forget-prone to me, with marginal benefits. I just play that if 2♣ passing out is a possible outcome (i.e. 2♣ is natural, or 2♣ is pass/correct and is one of partner's possible suits) then double is takeout of clubs.

[han]

I agree with Adam, it may not be perfect but playing all such doubles as TO makes it much easier to remember.

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 17 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

with marginal benefits

That's where I disagree. Showing clubs is MUCH more likely to come up, so I would consider it much more beneficial. Nor do I agree that it's very accident prone or easy to forget. It would be very easy to say double is takeout if the bid is one of two options, showing the suit if the bid is one of three or more options. How could that be messed up? Obviously the way you stated it may be accident prone, since you worded it as confusingly as possible. There is just virtually no utility to playing double of 2♣ as takeout. He usually doesn't have clubs, you would have bid stayman on some of the hands that show takeout, and you can still bid 2♦ on some of them as well. I mean how often will a takeout double occur and be useful compared to having some decent clubs worth showing, 20% as often?