[jdonn]

A It's just wrong not to double. B I would double as well but it's certainly not as obvious. C I think you could go either way, double right now is probably your one and only chance to get into the auction.

[whereagles]

Dbl, though not too happy about it.

Hands B and C I would pass.

[vuroth]

jdonn, on Oct 30 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

A It's just wrong not to double. B I would double as well but it's certainly not as obvious. C I think you could go either way, double right now is probably your one and only chance to get into the auction.

I've already stated that I'm far from convinced that I know how to handle these hands. That said, why do I want to get into the auction in B and especially C? Where is it going that I'm going to like?

[pclayton]

I'd double on both and I tend not to double on square hands.

The extra values and the good location of the honors makes it worth a double.

[jdonn]

vuroth, on Oct 30 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 30 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

A It's just wrong not to double. B I would double as well but it's certainly not as obvious. C I think you could go either way, double right now is probably your one and only chance to get into the auction.

I've already stated that I'm far from convinced that I know how to handle these hands. That said, why do I want to get into the auction in B and especially C? Where is it going that I'm going to like?

The two obvious good things that could happen from doubling are that partner can now compete to the 2 level on a weak hand with a five-card major, and that if partner is some balanced 11 or 12 we have a chance to bid 3NT. But I still think pass is ok too, it's hard to judge the likelihood of those outcomes compared with that of partner expecting more shape and overcompeting.

[awm]

I know there seems to be a modern style where:

(1) You routinely make takeout doubles with two or fewer cards in an unbid minor (without extras).
(2) Passing in second seat when opponents open virtually denies holding an opening bid unless you have a true penalty pass of RHO's suit, since you would either double or overcall a four-card suit otherwise.
(3) Partner is expected to bid 1NT in response to a takeout double, even without a stopper, in preference to bidding a four-card holding in an unbid minor.
(4) Partner would never jump or compete to the three level when advancing a takeout double in an unbid minor suit, and would instead make a "responsive double" on any such hand, allowing doubler to reach a reasonable spot if/when he doubled with two or fewer cards in that minor.

Personally, I don't like this style, but if you want to play it more power to you. Where I have a bit of an issue is people selling this style as "standard" and recommending it on the B/I forum, when I think this style is pretty far from standard, would not be advocated by any of the classic books on takeout doubles (I think Lawrence has a good one) and is practiced by only a small minority of good players (yes, I know this was the Italian style at one point, and I know some good players from BBO forums do bid like this, but it's hardly as if "all world class players bid this way" and I'd be surprised if this approach was a majority view on a BW poll).

Anyways, I would pass on the various example hands, planning to back in later if the opponents try to play in 1NT (which seems to be their most likely resting spot). Fortunately I can double in the auction 1♦-P-1NT-P-P with a 13-count and 3-4 good diamonds; I don't need a rock crusher with a serious diamond suit like a lot of people seem to.

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2007, 05:35 AM, said:

This type of hand is a tough one for beginners to grasp because we are all taught in the beginning NOT to make a t/o X with a hand like this (we need 3+ in all the unbid suits, etc).

As we get better we are told we must X with this hand, because we may get shut out/stolen from if we don't. This could cause us to miss a cold 3N, 4M, or just not compete for the partscore when we need to be. It also makes life much simpler to bid now rather than guess later. Especially with 4-4 in the majors we need to fighting to get in. The doubleton club is only a minor deterrent, but it is not even close to being enough to outweigh the gains from bidding here immediately.

A superb explanation here (hand A) ! Note that we have 14 HCP and at least if PD replies 2♣ we have Ax in support.

Passing here, means that you too often get stolen from or simply someone has to guess to balance later from my experience.

I double on hand B and C as well, but have no criticism for those who'd pass C as I think it is very close. On Hand B if my ♠ were stronger I'd o/c 1♠. On hand C with even one fewer HCP I pass.

.. neilkaz ..

[Echognome]

awm, on Oct 31 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

<snip>

Personally, I don't like this style, but if you want to play it more power to you. Where I have a bit of an issue is people selling this style as "standard" and recommending it on the B/I forum, when I think this style is pretty far from standard, would not be advocated by any of the classic books on takeout doubles (I think Lawrence has a good one) and is practiced by only a small minority of good players (yes, I know this was the Italian style at one point, and I know some good players from BBO forums do bid like this, but it's hardly as if "all world class players bid this way" and I'd be surprised if this approach was a majority view on a BW poll).

Anyways, I would pass on the various example hands, planning to back in later if the opponents try to play in 1NT (which seems to be their most likely resting spot). Fortunately I can double in the auction 1♦-P-1NT-P-P with a 13-count and 3-4 good diamonds; I don't need a rock crusher with a serious diamond suit like a lot of people seem to.

Without commenting on the above "style" that you outlined, your major complaint that it is not "standard" so should not be advocated on a B/I forum, but you then proceed to advocate backing in with a double on the auction 1♦ - P - 1N - P; P - Dbl with a weak NT??? How is that standard? In which of your references will we find that treatment?

[awm]

Echognome, on Oct 31 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

Without commenting on the above "style" that you outlined, your major complaint that it is not "standard" so should not be advocated on a B/I forum, but you then proceed to advocate backing in with a double on the auction 1♦ - P - 1N - P; P - Dbl with a weak NT???  How is that standard?  In which of your references will we find that treatment?

Actually I did not just make this up, it may well be in Lawrence's takeout doubles book. But I don't have a copy of this so who knows?

In any case, it's fine to advertise your own methods. If your methods aren't really far out there, it's fine to advertise them on B/I forum too. But it's nice to preface this by saying something like "in my preferred methods..." or "playing French Standard / SAYC / English Acol" or whatever.

On the other hands, many of the posts here are of the flavor:

"Should I double? Yes."

"If partner bids 2♣ he really should have five of them"

"Yes for sure."

"Double is automatic."

"As we get better we are told we must X with this hand."

"Clearcut double."

These are not of the form: "Well it's not standard, but I like a style where double only promises opening values/ 3-card support for the majors and would double with these hands."

[han]

What does that even mean "standard"? We have players from many countries here that are doubling. If I posted this hand on the forum from my hometown club in the Netherlands then almost all (if not all) the good players would be doubling.

I'm not sure why you are quoting "If partner bids 2♣ he really should have five of them" you know very well that none of the regular posters here think this or would say so. It is possible that you end up in a 4-2 fit but we are all willing to take that risk.

I double because I think it is the long term winning action. I would double with any partner no matter what system I played.

I think it is in the beginning players' favor if the world class players who post here what they would bid and why they think it is the best call. I even think it is good for more advanced players like you and I.

[pclayton]

Adam - I don't think anyone is saying double is ideal with this hand but it seems much better to get in now in spite of the "risk" pard wants to bid clubs.

Are we really better placed with a pass if it continues p - 1 major - pass - 2 major

or

1N - pass - pass?

Frankly I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where passing helps us out later. If you think just passing this hand throughout is good bridge, then thats a different matter altogether,