a few sick takeout doubles

[karlson]

all at matchpoints or bam

 

1.

♠Qxx ♥xx ♦KQxx ♣KQxx

w/w 1♥-?

 

2.

♠AK98 ♥Jx ♦Txx ♣K98x

r/r p-p-2♥-?

 

3.

♠K9xx ♥Txx ♦AQJx ♣Ax

w/r p-1♥-?

[gwnn]

Not sure

No

Yes (automatic)

[neilkaz]

1) Give me a 4th ♠ and I suspect this will be automatic for many including me but as it is a reluctant pass lacking any aces or useful 10's.

 

2) I'd need a bit more than this so PASS.

 

3) Why would doubling be sick here? I double for sure.

[kayin801]

No, but change any card to a spade and yes.

Yes, and I didn't think it was close o_o

Yes

[pooltuna]

1) Automatic TOX

2) pass

3) toss up between 1♠ and a TOX

[hanp]

Not sure

No

Yes (automatic)

Agree with gwnn, the third one is really not sick at all.

[jdonn]

1. Definitely double w/w at mps.

2. Pass for sure.

3. Normal double in any conditions.

[Hanoi5]

Yes

No

No

[inquiry]

1. Mildly yes I am a little ashamed to say.

2. Clearly no

3. Clearly yes

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes

#2 no, but 2S is worth a consideration, not sure I find the bid on the table

#3 no

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Siegmund]

1) Really obvious yes.

2) Subminimum. I've been known to try it, but no.

3) I force myself to pass if not playing equal-level correction, but I don't like it. Really would like to get involved.

[Fluffy]

1)yes

2) lol

3) normally not, but sometimes I just do it

[Phil]

1. No

2. eh, close - more tempted on this than 1 TBH.

3. Definitely

[nigel_k]

1. No. This is a bad hand and doubling will cause partner to get us too high far too often.

 

2. Not even close.

 

3. Yes

[Echognome]

1. Yes. Acting now is much safer than waiting and trying to act later. I think it's close, but is a double to me.

2. No. Although the above holds true, it just doesn't meet the threshold for safety.

3. Yes.

[655321]

(1) (w/w at MP) and (3) are clearly Yes.

 

(2) is more interesting. I think I do like double, perhaps the hand is not really worth it, and if partner jumps to game we are likely to regret it, but otherwise double should work out OK. LHO is a passed hand too which means we are less likely to be doubled. If partner has 3 hearts 2♥ is likely to be the final contract if we pass.

 

Don't understand the Bizzarro World suggestions of spade overcalls on hands (2) and (3).

[MarkDean]

1) Yes, w/w MPs ....

2) Nope.

3) Nope.

[gszeszycki]

all at matchpoints or bam

 

1.

♠Qxx ♥xx ♦KQxx ♣KQxx

w/w 1♥-?

 

2.

♠AK98 ♥Jx ♦Txx ♣K98x

r/r p-p-2♥-?

 

3.

♠K9xx ♥Txx ♦AQJx ♣Ax

w/r p-1♥-?

 

1. NO if p cannot find a call over 1h we didnt miss anything doubling with this

crud can lead to nothing but disaster.

 

2. YES great chance hcp spread out evenly cant let them steal 2h ---while we might

get too high it wont be often since p is a passed hand.

 

3. NO not even good distribution for x what do we do if p bids 2c--x here not only isnt good for all suits but gives opps way too much information if/when they win the contract and the odds are in their favor since p is already a passed hand.

[dake50]

1. No. Leave this hand for reopening --likely 2N= mm.

2. No. Partner passed, but 2S appeals: lead-direct and may find big fit.

3. Yes. Game is on the menu, suggest that.

[JLOL]

1. No

2. eh, close - more tempted on this than 1 TBH.

3. Definitely

I honestly don't understand how 12 NV at MP at the 1 level can be less tempting that 11 red at MP with the wasted HJ over 2H vul at matchpoints. It is amazing to me.

 

1 is an obvious X, and 2 is an obvious pass. 3 to me is an obvious X, but I know the English people (gnasher, frances), are not used to these off shape doubles. The real loss is when partner has 5 clubs and a medium hand and he can't compete when it's right since you might have a doubleton club. Still, this double is normal to me, it finds 3N or 4oM when it's right. which is important to me. If you miss a 3m partscore, that's an acceptable loss.

[Cascade]

Yes 12 points in my long suits.

No Not close especially opposite a passed partner

Yes Partner's pass worries me a little but the vulnerability encourages me

[OleBerg]

1) Automatic.

 

2) No.

 

3) Reluctant.

[gnasher]

Yes, no, yes but with a slight wince. On 2, I'd double at the one-level.

 

Justin is right that I'd regard the 4342 shape as less attractive than the 3244, because I like to have 3-card support for all the unbid suits, and I think that's more important than having specifically four spades.

 

I'm slightly surprised that this attitude seems to be shared by some players from continental Europe - I thought it was purely a British thing. Anyway, I think exposure to overseas influence has largely cured the better English players of this affliction. For example, I'm sure that Frances, MickyB and Burn would all double on the third one.

[Fluffy]

For example, I'm sure that Frances, MickyB and Burn would all double on the third one.

they are all corrupted, only you remain pure and innocent :D

[stegenborg]

1: Yes, opening strength and support to all unbid

2: No, not strong enough. I would double if I felt like it.

3: No, I like 3 card support. I should probably reconsider this.

 

Kristian