[Phil]

1♠ - (pass) - 1N* - (x)
pass - (2♦) - x

Whatever your choice, come up with a hand that supports it. Thanks.

[Hanoi5]

Takeout or negative which is the same as do something intelligent partner, i.e. if partner holds diamonds then he passes.

x
Axxx
Qxx
KTxxx

[Gerben42]

As there are still two suits to choose from, this one is T/O. I would prefer to have Hanoi's hand with 2-2 in the pointy suits, though.

[aguahombre]

First, what do we know about our allegedly reasonable partner's hand?
-He chose not to bid, and certainly would not have let the double which takes up no room silence him if he had a second suit or a sixth spade or a hand too big to open 1NT.

Opener has a 5-3-3-2 mini. Opposite that, I doubt I could construct very many hands which would want to have a takeout double available. Responder's lefty has shown support for other than spades, and his RHO must have at least 4 Spades.

Of course, some people use the word "takeout" very loosely; so, in that spirit I would make a takeout double on this auction with around 11 HCP, 4 diamonds, and spade shortness ---suggesting we take the opponents out (hit-man talk).

There is no particular reason to believe the oppoents have an 8-card diamond fit.

If we have a policy of never defending doubled at the two-level, then double of 2D could be used as some kind of 3-card limit raise in spades which we are downgrading because our values are likely to be in front of the hand which doubled 1N. This would leave 2S available for constructive direct-raise adherants with the same crappy spade raise they intended when they bid 1nt.

[frank0]

Penalty for the reason given by aguahombre.

[MrAce]

Playing this double as take-out does not make sense to me at all. After all LHO showed the suits already that we are asking pd to bid. I also think that it will be a waste to use this DBL for "trump stack" penalty.

Imo this should be a hand that intended to bid 2NT later but after they bid, he was unable to do so, or he saw new oportunities after they bid.

Jx Axx xxx AQxxx

Basically 10-12 hcp , no ♠ fit hands. This type of DBL catches better penalties than trump stack penalty DBL.

[Free]

I've had a 5-5 before, so takeout is definitely an option if partner is 5332.

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2011-September-15, 04:02, said:

I've had a 5-5 before, so takeout is definitely an option if partner is 5332.

Possible, but if that is the case, both your rounded suits will break badly and the spades will be behind opener. Don't think I will reserve the double for what would probably be ugly.

[andy_h]

"Takeout/values". Something like a 2425 hand or possibly 2434 with 9 count and xxx diamonds or something. I don't think partner is necessarily a 5332 since there are hands with any 5422 or something that they'd rather pass than force to show, so if we have a trump stack I can expect partner to make the takeout double. I don't think the suits will always be breaking that badly as aguahombre suggests since 4th seat may sometimes X with say a flat-ish 15+count with 3 spades.

[Free]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-15, 04:52, said:

Possible, but if that is the case, both your rounded suits will break badly and the spades will be behind opener. Don't think I will reserve the double for what would probably be ugly.

Not all my opps' Doubles mean they have a 4441. Moreover, our declarer play will be close to DD which compensates bad splits.

[rogerclee]

My rules say it's takeout, but I think it is probably better to just play penalty doubles. It's not like you need a lot, for example, Hanoi's example of a takeout double (x Axxx Qxx KTxxx) looks like a penalty double to me.

[han]

rogerclee, on 2011-September-16, 01:14, said:

My rules say it's takeout, but I think it is probably better to just play penalty doubles. It's not like you need a lot, for example, Hanoi's example of a takeout double (x Axxx Qxx KTxxx) looks like a penalty double to me.

Looks like a pass to me.

Anyway, I prefer to play this double as takeout. If we start by assuming that the doubler has 4+ hearts and clubs and advancer has 5+ spades then we'll be passing far too much.

[the hog]

This is a penalty double. I agree t/o is illogical. Agree with Aguahombre and others.
1NT bidder does not have S support, so....

[han]

So they cannot hold Jx KQxx xx Axxxx?

[aguahombre]

han, on 2011-September-16, 05:41, said:

So they cannot hold Jx KQxx xx Axxxx?

Responder might hold that distribution; so might the doubler But considering all the uncomfortable situations the opponents might be in at the moment, and assured that partner had no rebid, it seems that any hand with less than invite values can just be content to pass and avoid their own disaster.

[han]

I have some trouble understanding what your posts mean. Let me know if I translate them correctly:

any hand with less than invite values can just be content to pass and avoid their own disaster.

means

I want to play penalty doubles and this means I have to pass on some hands where it would be nice to make a takeout double. I accept this loss.

Alright, fair enough, every method has their plusses and their minuses, too bad we can't be honest about it though.

If we have a policy of never defending doubled at the two-level, then double of 2D could be used as some kind of 3-card limit raise in spades which we are downgrading because our values are likely to be in front of the hand which doubled 1N.

means

I know some of these young guys are going to propose that even this double is takeout. I hate them. Here, let me post something ridiculous which implies that the only alternative to a penalty double is terrible bridge.

[aguahombre]

At least your quotes of what I said are accurate. I avoid using dogmatic absolutes, and try to avoid judgemental blasts when describing other peoples opinions. I frequently use "could" and "might" and "maybe"; or "if" this, "then, perhaps". I also recognize that different views come from people's different agreements and their overcall style (context).

I don't mind other posters thinking, or even saying how thoroughly wrong they think I am. I do think that certain terminology when used to describe another posters' points of view, reflect more on themselves than on the other person or on the subject being debated.

[han]

Now that we are getting to know eachother, I like to cook Italian and I try not to use too much salt.

Now, what do you mean by saying that we can just be content to pass with less than invitational strength? Don't you agree that this is a strange comment?

By the way, I don't think it is unreasonable to play this double as penalty. Had partner opened 1H instead then I think double should absolutely be penalty, but now I think takeout has its merits. Had the opponents bid 2C then takeout would be more useful and had they bid 2H it would be less useful. We all have to make practical agreements and either seems fine here. Maybe you can convince me that penalty is better but you go so over the top with your arguments that they have the opposite effect.

[aguahombre]

han, on 2011-September-16, 12:06, said:

Now, what do you mean by saying that we can just be content to pass with less than invitational strength? Don't you agree that this is a strange comment?

What I meant was that with those hands, we "can" just be.....I did not say there are not hands where we want to get back into the auction. I just feel that the frequency of occurrence, coupled with the possibility of a bad result weigh in favor of the penalty suggestion of the double.

I don't believe that is an "over the top" advocacy, but that conclusion is not mine to judge.

[han]

When you twist it like that you almost sound reasonable.