Is this idea logical?

[cnszsun]

Your partner passed on first seat, RHO opened at 1 level.

I have a thought that you can bid more freely at this situation than facing an unpassed partner. For example, with a weak hand, no chance to make game with passed partner, is that ok to make a takeout double with right shape or to overcall in a good suit, but lacking enough high card points?

Let's see an example:

ps-(1♠)-dbl

Is this hand ok for the above double?

[hv=s=sxhktxxdk9xcktxxx]133|100|[/hv]

[flytoox]

I think you can act more freely with strong hands but not with weak hands. The logic is that facing a pass hand you are unlikely to have slam. SO with a good hand, you can often bid what you think you can make. Furthermore, preempt takes much space and you know you are unlikely to preempt pd.

 

OTOH, dbl doesnot acheive and it provides LHO more room to show different hands. So you'd better not reveal any info if you think you are not going to compete very actively for a partscore.

 

With the hand you gave, favorable vul. i would dbl but it is not without risk. Unfavorable vul. probably better to pass.

[bestguru]

hmm, I think just the opposite. As long as partner understands, you are more free to act after he passes. If you were a actually a strong hand you would do somenthing unusual to show partner that. I would recommend a redouble.

[whereagles]

I've been doing this kind of double on occasion and it usually works well, provided you have the right shape. That singleton spade is vital.

[helene_t]

I would say the opposite. With an unpassed partner, it has merrits to double with the hand you showed since the board may belong to your side and then it's your responsibility to act as you're the one with shortness in the enemy suit.

 

With a passed p, there's less for it as the opps will outbid you anyway.

[hotShot]

I don't think it is a good idea.

 

1) Your cards say that opps have a ♠-fit and can allways overbid on the same level.

 

2) It is still possible that your side has 20 HCP but, you know that 3 suits break unfavorable for opps and it is possible that your partner hold 4♠ so they may well break unfavorable for opps too.

 

3) If you bid now opps will place more HCP to your hand. So they will play any finesse they can through your hand, do you really want that?

 

4) If your partner has a maximum pass, opps won't have game and might overbid their partscore. Why do you want to warn them?

 

5) If your partner is maximum he can reopen.

[kenrexford]

I formerly thought that a pass from partner was a green light to interfere.

 

Now, I think that a pass from partner is a green light to make aggressive use of weakness-indicating bids (like jump overcalls). However, I am convinced that strength-suggesting bids (doubles, simple overcalls) should be sound.

 

Why? Game is still very plausible. The matrix 14-14-4-8 makes game more often than expected (finesses work). That matrix is very possible.

 

This is especially important if TWO passes precede a third-seat opening, of course, as (1) partner might be conservative and pass a hefty hand second seat, (2) third seat openings are often a joke, and (3) my chances for a hefty hand in fourth seat are higher than expected, after two passes.

 

Thus, IMO, P-1♥-1♠ will be sound (I'd open this second-seat). But, P-1♥-2♠ may be frightening.

[mikeh]

The problem with espousing below-strength takeout doubles here has two aspects.

 

The first is that it assumes that partner either agrees with the practice (now you have an unannounced agreement: you had better start alerting) or is to be ignored as someone who neither thinks nor acts.

 

The second is that there is a good chance that the opps will bid to game, and they are now picking off partner's possible trump trick.

 

Let's consider the 1st point. Whether it be matchpoints or imps, partner will (absent the agreement to be alerted) play you for an opening or near-opening hand. If he doesn't and if he doesn't alert, then you are... well, I'd call it cheating, but I suspect that is an over-reaction on my part.

 

So he should be over-bidding (from his p.o.v., bidding correctly) and he should be doubling unbeatable contracts.

 

The second point is self-evident: once it becomes apparent to declarer that you are light on hcp, it becomes obvious to play you for short trump. The combination of your weakness and partner's passed hand status increases the odds that the opps are about to reach a high-level contract. Why draw a road-map on a hand on which you lack the values you are announcing to partner?

 

Now, if partner alerts your double as 'could be a 1444 9 count', for example, you are off the ethical hook, but now partner, who could easily hold a 10 count, will not know what to do in competitive auctions: after all your light double did not actually deny a real hand, did it?

[HeartA]

I agree with Mike on this matter.

[SoTired]

I think what you really want to ask is: Is it safe to mastermind in this situation since partner is a passed hand and not apt to go wild? The answer is "NO": You cannot fudge strong hand bidding even if partner is a passed hand.

 

But you CAN fudge weak hand bidding (preempts) because you don't have to worry about fooling partner as much.

[pclayton]

The answer is - 'it depends'.

 

What the overriding factor for determing how we should be competing is our degree of fit. The opponents very likely have at least an eight card spade fit. We may have anywhere from a 7 to 11 card fit in any of the other suits.

 

If you have the agreement that a takeout double can show this hand, its perfect. Similarly, if you play Overcall Structure (like Josh Sher and I do - with different partners), the subject hand is an automatic 1N overcall for takeout.

 

The drawback to lite initial actions like this is that you frequently tell declarer how to play the trump suit, and you occasionally go for a number at the 2 level on a non-fit deal.

 

The advantages are that you get in early, can quickly preempt the auction based only on fit; leaving the opponents with a nasty guess, can better gauge how good our fit is, can find cheap games based on double fits, and can find cheap sacs. You also stay out of trouble at higher levels on non-fitting hands, which is a big risk when you pass and back in later.

 

If you'd like more info on Overcall Structure, read Fout's article (google it) or PM me. Either you believe in the principles or you don't. Many of us that play it realize its something of a fringe viewpoint. My personal experience is that the structure is effective.

 

And best of all it makes the game fun.

[Cascade]

If the hand is unlikely to belong to your side e.g. when you are weak and partner has already passed then you are often better off out of the auction rather than giving the opponents information that will help them play the hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would dbl, but that is our partnership agreement,

which we alert before play starts, since t/o are not

alertable where we play.

 

The adv. you get in early, finding your fits, you dont

need to protect very often in the Pass out seat.

 

The disadv. you may have problems finding out how

strong your partnership is, but the opponents bidding

helps quite often, since a psych bid is not really of

any use, sometimes opener holds the strong hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[barmar]

The problem I have with the idea of making this takeout double is that when you're weak, there's a better chance that partner has a hand just short of opening. If he does, he may compete too high or double the opponents, on the assumption that you have full values for your double.

 

I was playing in an MBT a few days ago where the GIBs had an accident like this. The auction went:

 

Me [space] GIBW GIBN GIBE
---- ---- ---- Pass
1[cl] [space] Pass 1[he] [space] Dbl
4[he] [space] 4[sp] [space] 5[he] [space] Pass
Dbl [space]Rdbl All-Pass

 

East had 5=0=6=2 shape with ♦ AQxxxx and no other values, West had a balanced 9 count with 3 ♥. We made our redoubled contract easily.

 

This isn't exactly the same situation, since the doubler was a passed hand, so he's known not to have a full opener. But even so, the double should show something close to an opener; with a weak distributional hand the bot should have bid Sandwich 1NT, and then his partner wouldn't expect any defensive help.

[MickyB]

I think this hand is a clear-cut pass, for the reasons given above - pard will still act on decent hands and you are giving info away. You are unlikely to outbid the opps when they have at least half the deck, a likely spade fit and pard couldn't preempt.

 

I had a conversation with a decent player after she had doubled on a similar hand with Kxxxx in hearts. The auction had proceeded P-1S-X-4S; X, giving her the choice between 790 and 800 or similar. How is partner meant to know whether to act on this auction if this hand is a routine double?

 

Btw Mike, I think requiring an alert for a 4441 9 count is a bit extreme - many consider a 4441 10 count to be a routine double in any seat, and it is IMO well known that some think it is correct to allow weaker doubles opposite a passed hand.

[mikeh]

I think this hand is a clear-cut pass, for the reasons given above - pard will still act on decent hands and you are giving info away. You are unlikely to outbid the opps when they have at least half the deck, a likely spade fit and pard couldn't preempt.

 

I had a conversation with a decent player after she had doubled on a similar hand with Kxxxx in hearts. The auction had proceeded P-1S-X-4S; X, giving her the choice between 790 and 800 or similar. How is partner meant to know whether to act on this auction if this hand is a routine double?

 

Btw Mike, I think requiring an alert for a 4441 9 count is a bit extreme - many consider a 4441 10 count to be a routine double in any seat, and it is IMO well known that some think it is correct to allow weaker doubles opposite a passed hand.

I think the situation is analogous to those who play EHAA or similar light-openng methods: I have played against pairs who routinely open 8 hcp hands, in a strong club context. While my own belief is that this is a losing approach, in theory, the reality is (even if I am correct, which I may not be) that the majority of opponents will have profound difficulties due to a lack of familiarity. These pairs (the ones I played against) were scrupulous in their disclosures... indeed the range was explicitly on their convention card.

 

If you routinely make takeout doubles on 1=4=3=5 hands with 3 Kings and out, your opps are entitled to know your agreements. That agreement is a marked departure from standard methods.

 

Of course, departures from standard methods exist on a continuum: if I held AJxx x Kxxx Qxxx and was white v red opposite a passed hand, I would have no trouble doubling 1♥, even tho the strength held may be slightly less than the strength ostensibly promised. That departure from standard would be minor.... indeed, I would be surprised if an expert opp of mine passed with that hand if I had been the 1♥ bidder. But that is nothing at all like x Kxxx Kxx Kxxxx over 1♠.

 

Where the line is between 'marked' and 'minor' will be somewhat subjective, but I suspect that the majority of experts would agree quite closely on that topic.

 

If one's agreement is that one will bid hands which the majority of players would consider to be markedly non-standard, then it is appalling for one NOT to alert.

 

It is ok to have such agreements, and ok even to rely upon the unfamiliarity of such agreements as the main reason for their use, but surely not to combine unfamiliarity with a failure to let the opps in on one's secret agreement.

 

I would far prefer to alert the opps on borderline hands than end up feeling that I had misled them in any way through lack of disclosure. I want to win, but I want to win because I am a better player than my opps (or luckier, I'm not that much of a purist) not because I am more devious.

[cnszsun]

I think what you really want to ask is: Is it safe to mastermind in this situation since partner is a passed hand and not apt to go wild? The answer is "NO": You cannot fudge strong hand bidding even if partner is a passed hand.

 

But you CAN fudge weak hand bidding (preempts) because you don't have to worry about fooling partner as much.

Yes, that's what i want to know.

The example hand i've given is only an extreme one, you can add a Q, or change opp's opening to 1♣ to fit your overcalling style at this situation.

But the question is still there, should we have the same overcalling standard facing passed and unpassed partner.

With preemptive hand, i believe we all adopt more freely style.

With take-out hand, as most have pointed out, it has some disadvantages if your take-out double can be weaker than normal range. Does this also apply to suited hand? So you still need sound hand to make take-out double or suit overcall?

[pclayton]

I agree that an alert for a direct TOx like this should be required - assuming that its a partnership agreement.

 

Direct TOx's aren't discussed a lot on the convention chart. Personally, I think minimum offshape x's should be alerted, but they are in black on the cc.

[jikl]

To me, the example is a strange one as it is the one auction I would probably not consider. Take these examples:

 

P 1♣ ?

 

[hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv]

 

Most would find a double here as there is a good chance of winning the partscore.

 

P 1♦ ?

 

[hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv]

 

Again, most would double.

 

P 1♥ ?

 

[hv=s=skt32hkt32dkt32c2]133|100|[/hv]

 

This one is less clear as there is only really one way to win the partscore battle, in ♠.

 

The example hand is pretty much always going to lose out to 2♠ or 3♠. Some of this depends on preempting style, with agressive preempting it is probably a losing action to double because you are giving the opponents too much information with no benefit to your side. You are not going to win the partscore battle, so why tell them ♠ break 4-1?

 

Sean

[MartininBC]

As several respondents have pointed out, the big problem with easing strength requirements opposite a passed hand is not so much with THIS hand as with the other hands that follow. If you are the third seat doubler in the bidding sequence:

 

Pass (1H) Dbl (4H) All Pass

 

... where the 4H bid is announced as weak and pre-emptive, you may find that everyone else is bidding and making 4S your way. Your partner has shied off bidding 4S on an 11 count with four spades because your PREVIOUS takeout double yielded up only three lame kings. You of course have a shapely 13 count this time.

 

There are numerous other sequences you can construct with a little imagination where partner gets only one chance to make a bidding decision, and can't do so in an informed manner if he has to make allowance for the possibility that your double has been relaxed down to three half-tricks.

 

Also, with hands that have good takeout shape but are slightly below normal strength requirements, if you pass you often get a chance to make a takeout double on the NEXT round, which partner CAN'T mistake for an opening hand equivalent.

[P_Marlowe]

The problem I have with the idea of making this takeout double is that when you're weak, there's a better chance that partner has a hand just short of opening. If he does, he may compete too high or double the opponents, on the assumption that you have full values for your double.

<snip>

Hi,

 

1st he wont, since he should know the prtnership

agreement as well.

2nd, he always should remember, that there

are only 40HCP in the deck, and altough psychs

happen, they are not that common, meaning he

should take the opponents bidding on face value.

3rd, all he can do is jump to the 3 level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

If you are the third seat doubler in the bidding sequence:

 

Pass (1H) Dbl (4H) All Pass

 

... where the 4H bid is announced as weak and pre-emptive, you may find that everyone else is bidding and making 4S your way. Your partner has shied off bidding 4S on an 11 count with four spades because your PREVIOUS takeout double yielded up only three lame kings. You of course have a shapely 13 count this time.

<snip>

You may loose on this hand and win

several part score battles on another

hand.

 

By the way, even if partner faces a

normal t/o, it is no clear cut auction

to bid 4S with a bal. 11 count in most

cases, and the hand has to be bal., since

he may have opened certain unbal. hand.

 

As was said before, you either believe

in the theory of light action opposite

a passed partner or you dont.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The above argument may also show,

that light t/o oppossite a passed partner,

may even be a lot less riskies if you play

a weak NT, which I dont.

[jvage]

I like relatively thin takeout doubles also with an unpassed partner if the shape is right, and feel this has been a winning tactic. The original hand (x, KTxx, K9x, KTxxx) is subminimum even for me, but I would probably double if nonvulnerable (after partners pass). With an unpassed partner vulnerability is less important, since the chances for game (with a vulnerable bonus) are higher and compensates some of the risk. Judging when to make light takeout doubles is actually quite complicated, here are some factors to consider:

1. Shape is important, a minimum double must have 4 card in any unbid major. The original hand got a significant drawback since opps got the highest suit, a double would be much more appealing if opponents had opened 1♥ (major suits interchanged).

 

2. Your honour-evaluation should be adjusted slightly from when you consider opening a minimum hand. Since you know there is opening strength in front of you kings and supported low honours increase in value, unsupported low honours decrease in value and singleton J/Q/K in openers suit are worthless for offensive purposes. The given hand is in this respect a good example of a hand close to a takeout double which is far from an opening. Any ace or low honour with partner will be good and your kings with fillers look good behind an opener.

 

3. Passing also got dangers. Often the bidding will continue 2♠ (or some artificial raise) and 2 passes. If you now balance you are a level higher and opponents have exchanged the information they need to nail you more often when correct (say partner got a nondescript 4342).

 

4. Some posters have said light doubles help opponents in their declarer play. While this is sometimes true, there is a counter-argument. Opponents will normally tackle the trumps before they find that your double is minimum (and therefore short in their suit). They may also place you with more strength than you actually have, therebye misplaying other suits or the whole hand. Another advantage is that you sometimes will have pushed them a level higher.

 

PS: Of course I agree that you should disclose your methods!

 

John

[kenrexford]

If you insist upon this light overcalling here, then I'd suggest learning a two-way takeout structure.

 

The simplest I believe to have been called a Baron 1NT overcall. Not sure of the name. It made 1NT a weak 4441-ish takeout call, double values.

 

An alternative is R.U.N.T. (and "Son-of-R.U.N.T."), wherein 1NT and X are separated by "ranges."

 

1NT (R.U.N.T.):

(1) 5-11, three-suited takeout (at least 3 in each side suit, ELC allowance optional)

(2) 19-23, and shape

 

With (1), Advancer is in complete control. With (2), you bid again.

 

Double ("Son of R.U.N.T.")

(1) 0-4, three-suited

(2) 12-18, three-suited

(3) 15-18, balanced

(4) 16-18, unbalanced

(5) 24+ (ADMITTEDLY RARE, BUT FUN TO ADD IN TO THE EXPLANATION)

 

You can probably work out some of the intricacies yourselves. 1NT should have a good escape mechanism, to get to the "best" contract assuredly after a double. I would propose:

(1) pass = equal in the highest suit, plus one of the two lower suits (XX by Doubler asks for the lower); this could be "psychic" (explain this), intending to correct to the highest suit even if a XX occurs, just to "mess with" the opposition; for that matter, the XX might also be "psychic" for the same reasons.

(2) XX = equal in the two lowest suits (again, might be "psychic")

(3) Other = natural (including the cuebid)

[helene_t]

The 1NT overcall you describe (R.U.N.T.) is a BSC