[raist]

I have a qn regarding "modern" takeout double styles
it seems that many double with balanced 12-13 hcps these days over a 1minor opening without really having shortness in the the minor suit
very often with 4333 shape or so

i understand that the "modern" style of light openings can be quite effective
i'm wondering if the "modern" takeout double is also an effective style? or is it just ill-disicplined and poor bidding?

anybody can say from personal experience or with some semi-conclusive proof from running simulations ?

[gwnn]

I started doubling with all sorts of junk. So far I'm happy. Don't double with a singleton in an unbid minor. Don't double with a doubleton in an unbid major. Otherwise, pretty much double away

[glen]

my fav double now is a 4-3-3-3 with 4 in their opening minor - having 4 in the opening minor improves the chances of advancer having 5+ in one of the three unbid suits

[aguahombre]

raist, on Aug 29 2010, 07:25 AM, said:

i'm wondering if the "modern" takeout double is also an effective style? or is it just ill-disicplined and poor bidding?

Dunno about how effective it is for the side which makes the "modern" t/o x, when they now are left alone to find the right strain and level.

But these modern doubles are one very good reason the opening side should pretty much ignore them and respond as they would after a pass (exception: single raise and 2NT).

It would seem that the best effect of these non-descriptive 1m doubles is when they cause the opponents to unneccesarily screw up their own bidding system.

The double of a major, however, is different. It allows Capp xfer responses, and a whole slew of descriptive actions otherwise unavailable. So, against players who do that, the undisciplined Major double would seem to be more helpful to the opponents.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-29, 10:37

[Phil]

glen, on Aug 29 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

my fav double now is a 4-3-3-3 with 4 in their opening minor - having 4 in the opening minor improves the chances of advancer having 5+ in one of the three unbid suits

I kind of like 7 cards in their suit, with a 2-2-2 in the unbid suits. That way the chances that I catch a six card suit in partner's hand are really good.

I've never held a 1=1=1=10 shape when RHO has opened, but that must be the perfect TOx shape!

[aguahombre]

If you hadn't added the emoticon, I would have assumed Josh was using your computer.

[glen]

Phil, on Aug 29 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

I kind of like 7 cards in their suit, with a 2-2-2 in the unbid suits. That way the chances that I catch a six card suit in partner's hand are really good.

I've never held a 1=1=1=10 shape when RHO has opened, but that must be the perfect TOx shape! 

the 7-2-2-2 and 10-1-1-1 can produce my fav auction: 1m-X-XX-P-P-P with the first pass saying "you pick"

[JLOGIC]

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

I am one of the most avid followers of this style probably, I feel that I have had good results with it and it is effective.

Justin gets dealt more 10-1-1-1 hands than the rest of us.

[peachy]

It is not really a "modern" way, been around for decades and not far removed from the "beginner rules" of takeout double: The opponent's suit is the shortest, three or more cards in all unbid suits, 12+ HCP, and if really short in their suit then 10+ is enough, and if both unbid majors then don't worry too much about the minor suit shapes.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

Reese played Italian style(I have an opening bid) doubles with partner expecting no more than xx in an unbid suit. He played in high stakes money bridge for a period of a year using the style.

Regards,
Robert

[jdonn]

I also like this style but keep some things in mind. Assume you double or bid 1NT on 4333 hands with 15+ almost always, and pass on that shape with 11 almost always. With 12-14 here are some guidelines:

- It's better to have 14 than 13 than 12 (duh but I just want nothing unsaid)
- It's better to double 1♣ than 1♦ than 1♥ than 1♠.
- It's better to have as little of your strength as possible in the suit you are doubling.
- It's better to have your 4 card suit be an unbid major than the unbid minor than their suit.

So the best such double is something like of 1♣ with AQJx KTx Axx xxx, the worst is of 1♠ with AKQJ xxx Qxx xxx (haha).

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

So the best such double is something like of 1♣ with AQJx KTx Axx xxx, the worst is of 1♠ with AKQJ xxx Qxx xxx (haha).

What's the worst that you personally could have for a double of 1♣? I'll make sure I'm sitting down when I read your reply.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure I'd ever double on this shape with less than 12 (and there are certainly those who would so you should be extra cautious when reading their replies). If you come up with some fantastic 11s for me I'll tell you if I'd make an exception.

[dburn]

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Where the opening bid was instead one strong club, all three players doubled to show both majors (in two cases) or "diamonds or both majors" (in one case).

Since partner had:

♠Q1053 ♥J103 ♦7 ♣KQ1086

and since the lie of cards was moderately favourable, game (4♠) was cold. It was reached at one table out of eight, when the response to the takeout double was 1♠ (giving you some idea of what a modern partner expects for a takeout double) and the doubler raised this to 2♠ after 1NT to his right; advancer now bid game.

At three other tables, advancer jumped in spades (once to three, twice to two). These partnerships did not reach game - in fact, one of them reached three hearts when, after the opponents competed in diamonds, advancer intellectually bid his heart fragment and doubler left him in it for down one.

At a fourth table, advancer doubled a pre-emptive raise to three diamonds and doubler passed this out for plus 200.

At the tables where the opening bid was a strong club, one advancer bought the hand for 3♠ and one for 2♠. The third assumed his partner had diamonds rather than the majors and did not bid at all, losing 120 against 1NT.

What can we learn from all this? If we knew that, we'd presumably have learned it by now.

[peachy]

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

♠KJ94 ♥AK87 ♦982 ♣72

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup.

I would Dbl with this. Pretty sure most would.

[pooltuna]

peachy, on Aug 29 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

To give some idea of the modern game, this hand:

♠KJ94  ♥AK87  ♦982  ♣72

was considered to be a favourable-vulnerability takeout double of an opening bid of one diamond at five tables out of eight in the semi-finals of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup.

I would Dbl with this. Pretty sure most would.

1♥ for me but then I like to have support for all unbid suits with a minimal X just too old fashioned I guess

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 29 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

So the best such double is something like of 1♣ with AQJx KTx Axx xxx, the worst is of 1♠ with AKQJ xxx Qxx xxx (haha).

What's the worst that you personally could have for a double of 1♣? I'll make sure I'm sitting down when I read your reply.

I know you asked josh but my answer for this would be a 4423 10 count if NV at MP or something (AQTx KJ9x xx xxx), or a 4333 11 count (as long as id didn't have the queen or jack of clubs).

I saw meckstroth double in the bermuda bowl with 3334 and I think 11 (!) after 1C, I would not do that!

I would also double with dburns example hand over 1D.

[jdonn]

I was talking about 4333 hands, 4-4 in the majors yes I would double lighter. Dburns hand looks obvious to me.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2010, 10:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure I'd ever double on this shape with less than 12 (and there are certainly those who would so you should be extra cautious when reading their replies). If you come up with some fantastic 11s for me I'll tell you if I'd make an exception.

I meant "worst" in terms of the positive and negative factors you listed. I was wondering how close you'd get to the horrible AKQJ xxx Qxx xxx over 1♠.