oojah Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 (P) P (P) 1♦(P) 1N (P) P(2♣) X (P) P (P) 1♦(P) 1N (P) P(2♣) P (P) X Doubles are causing a lot of headaches, penalty or take out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 1: Penalty. Responder has already denied a 4cM so it cannot be takeout, responder is limited, so it cannot be a card showing X. It looks as the 2♣ bidder has just made a costly balance. 2: Takeout. Opener is probably 4441 or something with some extra values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I usually like to play a lot of takeout doubles, but there are always some exceptions when it becomes obvious. On the 1st hand, this double is penalties. Responder pretty much has shown a club suit with something like 3334 or 3325 etc (the shorter the majors, the longer the clubs) or maybe he has 3343. Looking at it from the other side, this double being takeout doesn't really make much sense. On the 2nd hand, this double is for takeout. I can see playing this as penalties as well like responder has 3 clubs and opener has 3-4 clubs but this auction doesn't really come up (the opponent passes, then passes 1D, and after West pretty much showing clubs now wants to come back in with 2C? and if our partnership do have 6-7 clubs the opponents should have a major suit fit anyway) but based on meta-agreements this would be for takeout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 It just doesn't seem consistent to me to play 1) as penalties and 2) as takeout. That would mean that responder can double for penalty or convert partner's takeout double for penalty. It doesn't seem to be necessary to play both as penalty. I can actually see the argument to play either both as takeout (an example for auction 1 would be something like Kxx Axx Qxxxx xx or maybe the same hand with 4=3 in the minors) or to play both as penalty. What doesn't make sense to me is to play one as penalty and the other as takeout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 It just doesn't seem consistent to me to play 1) as penalties and 2) as takeout. That would mean that responder can double for penalty or convert partner's takeout double for penalty. It doesn't seem to be necessary to play both as penalty. I can actually see the argument to play either both as takeout (an example for auction 1 would be something like Kxx Axx Qxxxx xx or maybe the same hand with 4=3 in the minors) or to play both as penalty. What doesn't make sense to me is to play one as penalty and the other as takeout. I think it makes sense here. Responder clearly must be penalty (why would he double with five card support for opener, or even four card support?) Opener's is perhaps more debatable. I could imagine it along the lines of cooperative-penalty on a balanced hand with good controls, but I think takeout is normal. Responder might not have doubled with long clubs, or opener might have five diamonds but not want to just bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having thought about it more, opener's double doesn't make sense unless takeout. If he had a balanced hand, he would either pass now, have opened 1NT, or raised 1NT to 2NT. If he has an unbalanced hand, then he either would have bid 2♣ or 2♦ over 1NT or he has a (14)=5=3 type hand (where he might have bid 2♣ anyway) and just under reversing values. Nope. Doesn't make sense, so seems that takeout is all that's left. I still think it doesn't make sense to have one as penalty and the other as takeout. But, it also seems complicated to make responder's double cooperative and opener's takeout, so penalty and takeout it must be. Hmph. This is just one of the unusual cases where you wouldn't play double from either side the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 In both cases, responder has the ♣s stacked. But in the first case responder has the extras, and in the 2nd, opener has the extras. So I think there is room to play it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Agree with mtvesuvius. I play all Dbls as T/O unless proven otherwise, and in #1 this is proven, because responder must have ♣. Brianshark has the situation analyzed correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having thought about it more, opener's double doesn't make sense unless takeout. If he had a balanced hand, he would either pass now, have opened 1NT, or raised 1NT to 2NT. If he has an unbalanced hand, then he either would have bid 2♣ or 2♦ over 1NT or he has a (14)=5=3 type hand (where he might have bid 2♣ anyway) and just under reversing values. Nope. Doesn't make sense, so seems that takeout is all that's left. Why can't the opener have a (1-4)-4-4 or (2-3)-4-4 and a 14 count or so? It seems like it would be good enough for a penalty X. Perhaps I don't understand what a hand that would takeout X would look like. It looks like a rotten case where when responder usually won't know to convert or not. Take, for example: All red:QJxAxxxxxJxxx Auction goes: 1♦ -P- 1NT -P--P- 2♣ -P- -P--X- -P- ? Do people find a call here obvious, and I'm just missing it? I don't think this hand is a rare event among 1NT responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Why can't the opener have a (1-4)-4-4 or (2-3)-4-4 and a 14 count or so? It seems like it would be good enough for a penalty X. What are the opponents doing in some 6-0 or 5-0 fit with an 8 or 9 card major suit fit on the side? And if they have somehow gotten themselves to that position, why do I want to chase them into their good fit?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Why can't the opener have a (1-4)-4-4 or (2-3)-4-4 and a 14 count or so? It seems like it would be good enough for a penalty X. What are the opponents doing in some 6-0 or 5-0 fit with an 8 or 9 card major suit fit on the side? And if they have somehow gotten themselves to that position, why do I want to chase them into their good fit?? It's a good question. That would make the only hand that would want to penalty X (23)-4-4, and the hand where it would sit (43)-3-3. Of course, if I do have (23) 44 and the opponents aren't trying for a major, that increses the odds that my partner has length in the majors. It would still be a pretty rare event. I'm just having a hard time visualizing what a takeout X hand would look like- too weak for a reverse, but strong enough for partner to leave it in with good clubs. Would the shapes of 4-4-3-2, 4-4-4-1, and (43)-5-1 all qualify? If they do, then if responder picks a suit with 3-3-3-4 shape there's a pretty good chance that the suit he picks will end up being a six card fit. Then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Both players agreed to play 1NT, its not like there are many extras around. Maximum calls yes. Anything but penalty by responder its unintelligible, the other I have my doubts, and if I have doubts partner does as well, so partner must have a hand suitable for both take out and penalties, a 4432 with defensive values (I would say controls, but that is what josh said :huh:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'm just having a hard time visualizing what a takeout X hand would look like- too weak for a reverse, but strong enough for partner to leave it in with good clubs. Would the shapes of 4-4-3-2, 4-4-4-1, and (43)-5-1 all qualify? If they do, then if responder picks a suit with 3-3-3-4 shape there's a pretty good chance that the suit he picks will end up being a six card fit. Then what? I would say 4432 with 12-14 is not good enough to double there. It should be 4441 or (34)51. A 3334 responder should bid 2♦ over the double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts