(1D)-X-(3D preempt)-X

[kgr]

I had a discussion at our club about:

(1D)-X-(3D)-X

3D was a preempt. 0-7 pts and 5 card (or 4card sometimes) D.

What is the second double? Is it penalty or takeout?

And when it is takeout does it deny 4card M (partner already promised tolerance for both M, so you can better support iso Dbl if you have 4 card M?) or does it promise both 4-card M?

What is the difference between 3H, 4H, DBL, 4D?

[inquiry]

This is a responsive double (at least for me).

 

Google it and you will find lots of ways to play it as responsive. Bridgeguys, as usual has a nice little write up on it at http://www.bridgeguys.com/Doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html

 

Responsive doubles are for "takeout"

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't a responsive double 1H - dbl - 2H - dbl where the responder's double denies spades and shows the other suits? In the above case since there are 2 major suits shown by the double and one other suit it should be for a tolerance for the majors and a club suit that is insufficient to bid at the 4 level.

[mr1303]

After (1 minor) X (2/3/4 minor) I play that a second double shows both MAJORS.

 

After (1 major) X (2/3 major) I play that a second double shows both MINORS.

 

I think this is quite common.

[zasanya]

I had a discussion at our club about:

(1D)-X-(3D)-X

3D was a preempt. 0-7 pts and 5 card (or 4card sometimes) D.

What is the second double? Is it penalty or takeout

 

And when it is takeout does it deny 4card M (partner already promised tolerance for both M, so you can better support iso Dbl if you have 4 card M?) or does it promise both 4-card M?

 

 

What is the difference between 3H, 4H, DBL, 4D

3♦ double should be take out promising both majors 4 cards.

3H should be 5 card ♥ invitational.

4H should be to play.

4D should be slammish in either major

[awm]

For me this is penalty. I confess that this will lose the board on half of those hands where advancer is 4-4 in the majors, doubler is 4-3 in the majors, and we need to play exactly at the three-level in our better major suit fit.

 

On the other hand, I see a lot of people bidding to 3♦ on an eight or even seven card fit with trumps breaking 4-1 or 5-1, and find the penalty double to be quite useful. In addition there are often hands where you have the majority of values and can beat 3♦ a couple tricks on pure power but cannot necessarily make any game.

[han]

Once again Adam plays things quite differently from the mainstream approach (at least here on BBF) and once again I find myself nodding while reading his comments. Playing this as a penalty double makes a lot of sense. Playing responsive doubles you will lose a lot of opportunities to play 3DX, because partner won't often be able to reopen when advancer has a good hand. Also, when opener has to stretch to reopen then you might get into trouble.

 

However, I play this double as responsive, and I'm happy about the meta-rules I usually use for doubles. There are a lot of different auctions out there, and if you have to remember a lot of exceptions for when a double is penalties then you might have more accidents. Do you have some general rules that also apply for this auction Adam?

[cherdano]

Yeah, it's a little annoying how often Adam has good arguments for his minority opinions.

[luis]

For me this is penalty. I confess that this will lose the board on half of those hands where advancer is 4-4 in the majors, doubler is 4-3 in the majors, and we need to play exactly at the three-level in our better major suit fit.

 

On the other hand, I see a lot of people bidding to 3♦ on an eight or even seven card fit with trumps breaking 4-1 or 5-1, and find the penalty double to be quite useful. In addition there are often hands where you have the majority of values and can beat 3♦ a couple tricks on pure power but cannot necessarily make any game.

I can understand this over 1♣ - X - 3♣ - X

But when the suit is diamonds I really think a penalty double is useless compared to the hands where you have values and no clear direction to go.

 

Maybe over 1♣ - X - 3♣ it makes sense to use X for penalties and 3♦ as a responsive double, pd will reopen with a 2nd double when he has 3+ diamonds in case you have a diamond suit and couldn't bid it :-)

Ah devilish idea, I'm sure my pd will love it and we'll forget it if we agree to play it :-)

 

Luis

[awm]

Since Elianna and I are still working on our notes, I wouldn't say we have 100% concrete rules about doubles at the moment. Some general principles:

 

(1) We balance very aggressively at the two-level, especially when opponents have shown a fit. We do not balance nearly as aggressively at the three-level. With this in mind, it makes sense to treat two- and three- level advances differently. If opponents are bidding a suit where I hold a big trump stack, I am quite safe to pass at the two-level knowing that partner will almost always find a balancing double on her singleton. At the three-level this is not true.

 

(2) It makes sense to treat advancer's double after partner's overcall differently than after partner's double. The reason is, after partner's double it is quite safe to bid a five-card suit even at the three-level, with a guaranteed fit. Even a four-card suit risks only a 4-3 fit (and with a few cards in the enemy suit a 4-4 fit is almost assured). Additionally, these free bids are not forcing (for example 1♦-X-3♦-3♥). After partner's overcall, there is no guarantee of any sort of length in any suit but the one partner bid. New suit free bids are forcing, and this can be quite risky even on a five-card suit without sound values. There's no reason that "double" in these auctions (compare 1♦-X-3♦-X and 1♦-1♠-3♦-X) should have the same meaning.

 

Anyways, Elianna and my agreement is something like the following:

 

(1) Doubles at the two-level and below are virtually always for takeout. This includes the sequence 1♦-Pass-1♠-2♥-X, among other unusual ones. There is a short list of exceptions, basically: if we opened a preempt or 1NT, if opponents bid a suit we've already bid naturally, if opponents bid a suit which partner implied via a takeout double (1♣-X-1♠-X), if we already have an agreed fit (1♥-Pass-2♥-2♠-X).

 

(2) Doubles from 3♣ through 4♥ are usually penalty-oriented, but there are exceptions for doubles occurring very early in auctions. In general these exceptions occur when partner has never bid, or has bid only once and it was a non-jump (and non-double). This handles for example a double directly over a preempt (3♣-X or 1♣-Pass-3♣-X) or the normal "negative" double and "responsive double after an overcall" (1♠-3♣-X and 1♣-1♠-3♣-X), all of which are takeout. On the other hand 1♣-X-3♣-X would be penalty, as would 2♥-X-3♥-X and 1♥-1♠-3♣(weak)-X.

 

For the most part I think our double agreements are fairly standard except for the "no responsive doubles at the three-level after partner's takeout double" agreement, and the "takeout doubles instead of support doubles" agreement.

[Finch]

For me this is penalty. I confess that this will lose the board on half of those hands where advancer is 4-4 in the majors, doubler is 4-3 in the majors, and we need to play exactly at the three-level in our better major suit fit.

 

On the other hand, I see a lot of people bidding to 3♦ on an eight or even seven card fit with trumps breaking 4-1 or 5-1, and find the penalty double to be quite useful. In addition there are often hands where you have the majority of values and can beat 3♦ a couple tricks on pure power but cannot necessarily make any game.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but it sounds as if your penalty double after 1D (x) 3D is either a 'trump stack' (4 or 5 of them, from your description) or a hand with nothing obvious to bid where you just have the majority of values.

 

If you can have anything from 2 to 5 trumps for your penalty double, how on earth does partner know whether to pull or not?

[awm]

Partner doesn't pull the penalty double unless holding something like a strong single-suited hand. The intent is to defend opposite a normal takeout double.

 

And I wouldn't normally double with two small trumps. The hand that doubles without a big trump stack usually is pretty balanced with something like Hxx in trumps, figuring that we have the clear majority of strength but no clear game, so may as well set the opponents a couple in their nine-card fit.

 

Take something like:

 

Axx

KQx

Kxx

xxxx

 

1♦-X-3♦, now what? You might make 3NT but it's kind of a long shot. You probably have around 24 high and opponents have an obvious lead. Partner might have a source of tricks, but odds are good partner has something like 4414 or (34)15 pattern, and the clubs will need to be pretty exceptional for 3nt to make. If double is responsive, partner will usually bid 3M and you get to play a 4-3 major fit with the tap in the long hand (usually not fun). And there's no particular reason that 4♣ will fare well on this hand, and making 5♣ seems a long shot. So what do you do? My choice is a penalty double; obviously this is not "perfect" but more often than not 3♦ will drift down a couple tricks and we will pick up a nice result.

[mcphee]

Most treat this second dble as take out, the second double hand may have 4-3 0r 4-4 majors. Most important is the double shows the values to compete at the 3 level or higher. When the pre-empt is extended to a higher level the second dble is not sensible to be penalty. Lets face it, the doubling side does not have trumps.

 

it is the same sort of idea when the bidding goes 1H double 4H. Those that are playing dble as penalty in this postion rather than annoucing that the hand belongs to them may be waiting a long time for the right hand type. The same thing applies to 1S dble 4S dble. Those who think that every time partner makes a t/o dble of one major must have 4 of the other major are not practical.