Takeout X or not?

[akhare]

IMPs, NV. vs. NV., partner deals:

 

P* - (1H):

 

*: P denies balanced 11+ or most distributional 10

 

You hold:

 

AT76

xx

AQ9x

xxx

 

1) Do you P or X?

2) Does vulnerability affect your choice?

 

3) If you P, would you bid differently with:

 

AT98

xx

AQT9

T98

[aguahombre]

This is a better question than I thought at first glance.

 

Even though in your style pard is limited to a flat ten or an unbalanced 9, it seems we should attempt to compete for a part-score with support for the top suit.

 

However, if playing against a pair who have a much better structure after 1MX than they would have otherwise ---such as transfers and mini-splinters, in addition to Jordan ---there might be something to be said for pass.

[helene_t]

Pass.

 

On the second one I would double at matchpoints.

[Hanoi5]

Pass, I think we could enter later if neccessary, there's no need to force it now.

[gwnn]

X for me, nice that it's nv.

[CSGibson]

X. It's safer now than later IMO, and it's not as though we are giving away any 2 way finesses. Also, muddy the waters as much as possible. Partner shouldn't hang you, as you should feel more free to take lighter actions opposite a passed hand.

[straube]

X. It's safer now than later IMO, and it's not as though we are giving away any 2 way finesses. Also, muddy the waters as much as possible. Partner shouldn't hang you, as you should feel more free to take lighter actions opposite a passed hand.

 

Partner will bid less when you promise less. What you promise is a matter for partnership agreement. What our agreement should be is what we're discussing here.

 

I'm starting to get the sense that...

 

overcalls-need promise less as partner should not hang you unless he has a fit. We then have law protection.

 

dbls-should promise about what they would or a smidge more because doubler is hopeful of a fit, but will frequently catch a poor dummy (in terms of high cards)

 

NT overcalls-should be stronger than opposite an UPH because no fit is expected

[aguahombre]

Partner will bid less when you promise less. What you promise is a matter for partnership agreement. What our agreement should be is what we're discussing here.

 

I'm starting to get the sense that...

 

overcalls-need promise less as partner should not hang you unless he has a fit. We then have law protection.

 

dbls-should promise about what they would or a smidge more because doubler is hopeful of a fit, but will frequently catch a poor dummy (in terms of high cards)

 

NT overcalls-should be stronger than opposite an UPH because no fit is expected

 

IMO:

 

Overcalls should be the same and a passed-hand partner should bid what she would have bid if unpassed in the advance position.

 

Doubles should be the same, and a passed-hand partner should respond as normal.

 

1NT overcalls should be in the same range. They win the race to 1NT, and allow partner to decide whether 1NT or a suit contract is appropriate.

 

However, 2NT overcalls vs a 2nd-seat weak two should be jacked up a bit...no froggy 15's.

[akhare]

Partner will bid less when you promise less. What you promise is a matter for partnership agreement. What our agreement should be is what we're discussing here.

 

I'm starting to get the sense that...

 

overcalls-need promise less as partner should not hang you unless he has a fit. We then have law protection.

 

dbls-should promise about what they would or a smidge more because doubler is hopeful of a fit, but will frequently catch a poor dummy (in terms of high cards)

 

NT overcalls-should be stronger than opposite an UPH because no fit is expected

 

Disagree -- I am with csgibson here.

 

1) There's no need to go ultra conservative just because pard is a PH (including NT overcalls).

 

2) Acting now has to be safer than coming on over (1H) - (2H) and they may very well lock us out with (1H) - (3H) (weak).

 

3) There's no reason for PH to bid less under the assumption that the X is any different than over a UPH. The possibility of a "light takeout X" exists regardless of whether it was made opposite a PH or not.

[AlexJonson]

Double.

 

Pushing opps and taking them off at the three level is one of the other reasons for playing IMPs,

after bidding low percentage games.

[straube]

Disagree -- I am with csgibson here.

 

1) There's no need to go ultra conservative just because pard is a PH (including NT overcalls).

 

2) Acting now has to be safer than coming on over (1H) - (2H) and they may very well lock us out with (1H) - (3H) (weak).

 

3) There's no reason for PH to bid less under the assumption that the X is any different than over a UPH. The possibility of a "light takeout X" exists regardless of whether it was made opposite a PH or not.

 

Well why not make a takeout double with Axxx xx Axxx xxx? I could use the same sort of reasoning to defend this that you're using here. Perhaps we have a partial or sacrifice in 2S. It's certainly safer to come in now with this hand than balanced with double over 2H. OTOH, it's just not safe or winning to double on such a light hand.

 

I think we need to be able to lose on some hands so that we can win on others. We don't open every hand because we want some high cards to support partner in fit-finding. Having a standard for a takeout double works the same way.

 

I'm not sure what the minimum strength ought to be for a takeout double opposite a passed hand, but the lower we extend the range, the less partner will be able to compete.

[awm]

I'd double.

 

Obviously you need to have some agreement about playing strength for doubles. If you double really light all the time, partner needs to know not to compete aggressively if the opponents raise (i.e. what does partner need to bid 3m after 1♥-X-2♥?) and not to push for game on mediocre hands. So I wouldn't advocate doubling on Axxx xx Axxx xxx for example (too often partner will bid three-over-two or three-over-three and get a bad result).

 

There are a few factors on this hand which I think are important though. First, partner being a passed hand means he won't bid game expecting to make it very often. This removes one of the risk factors of a light double. Second, we are NV at IMP scoring, so opponents will rarely double our partial on marginal hands (even if it's right for them to do so). Third, we have the master suit (spades) so can often play the hand at a lower level.

 

I agree that this hand is fairly marginal and would not argue if partner passed. I would pass if we were vulnerable, or if my black suits were reversed (so three small in spades and ATxx in club).

[OleBerg]

X, but pass has merit too.

 

What I don't do, is pass and back in later. I will not force us to 2♠+

[JLOGIC]

Wasn't this exact hand posted in some other thread? Or am I going completely crazy... I coulda sworn I commented on this lol

[aguahombre]

Wasn't this exact hand posted in some other thread? Or am I going completely crazy...

 

Why can't it be both?

[akhare]

Wasn't this exact hand posted in some other thread? Or am I going completely crazy... I coulda sworn I commented on this lol

Since han replied to the other thread, perhaps the question can be reformulated as:

 

Is (han)P == (ha)NP?

 

Sorry, foobar couldn't resist the terrible pun :D...

[dake50]

Not so much a "would you takeout double here?" as

How much of our response structure is changed

to stay safe with eg. TOD with 10 and partner 4hcp;

invite with what - now that the responder

fears to show 7? 9? 12? opposite a 10.

If 10 is in, what does a TOD 17 do?

Quits response has a higher top; Invite higher; GF higher;

Show the scheme you use if this 10 is in.

I'm curious to see that.

[gwnn]

JLOGIC is going crazy!

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45473-bare-minimum-or-comfortable-subminimum/

 

not even close to the same hand!!

[Yu18772]

I think it mainly depends on partnership understandings and style. In my case I would pass, not because I think that it is not worth it, but my partner would expect just a bit better, and she will compete accordingly - which usually ends in -50 instead of +50. If we were NV vs V she would have lower expectations and I would X freely. If partner doesn't have competitive values it will only help the ops.

[whereagles]

I've been getting good results from dbling these hands. The reason is you get to compete very often and, since pard is a passed hand, he won't have the points to go berzerk over your dbl.

 

So yeah, dbl all of them.

[y66]

X here. If V, I'd double if partner knows I can be light.

[jdeegan]

:D Double, wtp? So partner can open light? It's not like I have a ratty minimum, and I'm not even vul.

[phil_20686]

The two principle downsides are that you give away information, and you make it hard for partner to make a penalty double. This is particularly true if you double light based on a void in their suit.

 

Obviously, you will never gain when the opposition have game on, so the lower limit is about balancing the information that you give away vs the likelyhood that this is a part score hand. With ten points, it seems quite likely that partner might have enough to beat game, particularly when you have two aces, therefore its likely a partscore hand and you should get in early. However, not all ten counts are equal. If you want to play a style where you can punish the opposition for bidding too many light games when the cards sit badly, then you have to avoid doubling without good defence when the trumps might be 4-0 or 5-0.

 

On the given hand you have two hearts so its very unlikely partner will try to make a penalty double, so you only need to think of the chance that you are giving away information. FWIW, I would dble. A prime 9 is about my lower limit when I have two trumps. I need about a prime 11 when I am void in their suit.

[Free]

Easy Dbl imo, I have a nice offensive hand and decent shape.

[Fluffy]

I don't double playing a standard system, I like that my partners go to game when they have a maximum (for a passed hand) with fit over my doubles and 2/1 overcalls. With the light opening system presented this might change.

 

Do doublers have the agreement that partner won't go overboard with good hands?