Place your bets

[Echognome]

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P

2♦ - Dbl = ?

[jchiu]

Takeout seems all too normal, showing a 2434 hand with about 12-14, a 3424 hand with 10-11, or a 1444 hand in either range. Without the monkey option, I would expect this to be a curveball.

[rbforster]

Penalty seems all too normal, since you could have already doubled for takeout. If you're on 2434 or something, let partner balance if he's short in diamonds. Why bail them out of their misfit?

[Sambolino]

to

[nige1]

(1♦) _P  (1♠)  _P

2♦  _X  = ??

IMO Optional = 10, Penalty = 8, Striped-tailed Ape = 2, Takeout = 1

More accurately: Good ♦ with ♣ and ♥ tolerance.

e.g. ♠ x ♥ AKJ ♦ KJxxx ♣ KQJx

e.g. ♠ - ♥ AKQx ♦ AJxx ♣ Kxxxx

e.g. ♠ x ♥ AKxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ AKxx

[gnasher]

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

[foo]

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P; 2♦ - Dbl = ?

Welcome to partnership agreement territory.

 

Takeout is by far the most common meaning I've seen in more modern times.

[the hog]

Peanlty is by far the most common meaning. If you idn't have a t/o on the first round you haven't got one now.

[foo]

Peanlty is by far the most common meaning. If you idn't have a t/o on the first round you haven't got one now.

Most that I know play that (1m)-X should promise 44 in ♠+♥ or a hand strong enough not to care what Advancer bids.

 

...and that means it is very possible for you to have a 7- loser hand that has only 1 4cM and therefore must pass on the 1st round.

 

Jason gave some nice examples.

[helene_t]

With 4-5 I wouldn't force p to bid my 5-card at the 3-level and with better shape than that I would have acted before. I think this must be either penalties or optional.

 

Isn't it a problem with this is that it may help opps make the right decision of correcting to 2♠ or maybe 2♥?

 

If opener's suit was clubs I think it should be t/o though. Or maybe not. With a five-card diamond I could have bid over 1♣.....

[andy_h]

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

Agreed

[bid_em_up]

Takeout with spade shortness and diamond length.

[pclayton]

Its takeout, but my vote is still for sale.

[ArtK78]

Takeout.

 

A good hand without tolerance for spades. You could not make a takeout double the first time because of the spade shortness. Typically 44 or 45 in the rounded suits, distribution in the pointed suits unknown (but usually no more than 2 spades).

[kfay]

I think this is a penalty double.

 

If I've got some sort of hand that can takeout now I bid the round before unless I'm xx Qxxx Kx AQxxx or worse in ♥s (because I can't bid 1♥ with total crap). Even then I'm not sure why I'd want to take out now.

 

In my experience it's worked out well to get into auctions with a 4cM when you can't X for t/o if you don't want to have to start coming into the auction later. I don't go crazy bidding 4cMs but I'm definitely not afraid to, even with a longer minor. I pretty much always have a stiff. If partner is lawful then we don't play at the 3-level or above in a competative auction unless we've got an 8-card fit. Things are sticky when partner has power.

 

My philosophy might differ between IMPs and MPs since I'm just getting in there at MPs so this is a penalty since I would have bid before with reason whereas at IMPs I'd be more inclined to play it as t/o since I'm more happy to pass initially--but for the most part I just try to get in the round before.

[Echognome]

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

Depends entirely on style and whether you'd overcall 1♥ with an x=4=y=5 hand, where x<3. (since with a 3=4=1=5 hand you would double)

[Rebound]

It seems unwise, generally, to come late to an auction when the opponents have apparently failed to find a fit.

 

With any hand I can think of that could not double the first time, or overcall in a suit, I would pass 2♦ anyway, e.g. ♠ xx ♥ Q10xx ♦AQx ♣AJxx

 

Therefore I would expect this double to be penalty.

 

[Edit] I must apologize. This is just a restatement of Kfay's post. I somehow didn't see it before I posted. Anyway, I think it's a strong argument in favor of the interpretation of double as penalty.

[Guest Jlall]

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

[ArtK78]

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

While I agree (and have so stated earlier in this thread), it is apparent that others choose a different interpretation. So, whether or not we like it, there is a debate about it.

[Guest Jlall]

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

While I agree (and have so stated earlier in this thread), it is apparent that others choose a different interpretation. So, whether or not we like it, there is a debate about it.

There is also a debate about whether elvis is dead or not. I did not say "no debate exists" I said that I cannot believe that one exists, because in this case just like in the elvis case one side of the debate is so clearly superior to the other side of the debate.

[ArtK78]

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

While I agree (and have so stated earlier in this thread), it is apparent that others choose a different interpretation. So, whether or not we like it, there is a debate about it.

There is also a debate about whether elvis is dead or not. I did not say "no debate exists" I said that I cannot believe that one exists, because in this case just like in the elvis case one side of the debate is so clearly superior to the other side of the debate.

What do you mean, Elvis is dead?

[the hog]

Show me a takeout type hand where:

 

1) you are prepared to force partner to bid at the 3 level in a non fit auction. (So I doubt this will be a ?4?4 shape).

2) you have not overcalled earlier by either overcalling a decent 4(5) card H suit or 2C. (Or 1NT if your hand qualified for that)

[655321]

Takeout, agree Elvis is dead. :P

[foo]

Show me a takeout type hand where:

 

1) you are prepared to force partner to bid at the 3 level in a non fit auction. (So I doubt this will be a ?4?4 shape).

2) you have not overcalled earlier by either overcalling a decent 4(5) card H suit or 2C. (Or 1N if your hand qualified for that)

1= Neither Opener nor Responder has guaranteed much in the way of values here

1m,2m is a min with 6+m or an exceptional 5cm

1S is 6+ HCP

 

So We could even still have the balance of power on this auction.

 

Here's some hand types 44 in the Roundeds that I suggest are reasonable 2nd round T/O X's.

Hx-HHxx-xxx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-Hx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-x-HHxxx etc

 

all of these are 6- loser hands,

that could not make a T/O on the 1st round because they are not 44 in ♠+♥

 

2= 4 card overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea, and should be an exceptional suit if you do overcall with them (say hhhx).

 

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

[kenrexford]

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

I'm torn on this one, focused on this idea here.

 

There seem to be lots of conflicting theories in play here. One is the GP that bidding 2♣ over 1♦ on very little cause is a good idea. However, doing that at the cost of perhaps burying a major for our side as well has an obvious downside.

 

Initially, I think this is the right view. Double here should probably be a heart-club canape bid. More utility. But...

 

It is interesting that this seems to parallel, to a degree, an alternative auction of 1♣-P-1♠-P-2♣-? In that sequence, a delayed 2♦ seems to suggest 4♥/5♦, making the use of a double in that sequence to show that hand less important and perhaps more appropriately penalty. However, I wonder how many people actually have discussed needs-of-the-auction meanings to this level of detail. Two auctions that appear superficially identical seem to lead to two wildly different results on a "needs" basis.

 

One could argue that if the latter club-based auction can be handled via 2♦, freeing double as penalty, then consistency and memory would support the double as penalty in the diamond-based auction. I personally think that this is the wrong way to bid, but it may be the easier way to bid for some.

 

The depth of analysis gets even more difficult, though. For, one could counter that the parallel to the 2♦ solution for 4♥/5♦ in the sequence 1♣-P-1♠-P-2♣-2♦ is to use a canape 2♥ call in the sequence 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♦-2♥. If 2♥ in this later sequence must obviously show only four hearts (why not overcall 1♥ otherwise?) but distributional values (hence clubs and longer clubs logically), then is not a double to show that shape redundant, or simply a result of not realizing the redundancy that 2♥ must show that same pattern?

 

The counter to all of this may be that the double is more flexible, allowing a conversion pass, whereas the bid does not. But, then you wonder whether both should apply, one as the more penalty-possible and the other as the more declaring preferent. That seems like a strange nuance for a passed hand, and it limits the merits of not having a penalty option.

 

All of this, of course, suffers from the inevitable, "So what -- play what is standard so partner understands you" issue. But, what is standard?

 

So, although some folks see no basis for the debate, but I strongly disagree. In this situation, it seems imminently plausible for a 2♥ overcall to carry the weight of this 4♥/5♣ holding, thereby reducing the value of a takeout double here. If the end result is that the value of the takeout is reduced sufficiently to not merit giving up the ability to strike a penalty hit here, then logic suggests re-thinking the situation, IMO.