Is this a TO double?

[Behemont1]

[hv=pc=n&e=s84hqj62d952ckjt2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d2cp2spp]133|200[/hv]

What about in other vulnerabilities?

1!d is 4+, 2!s is max with 5+ spades.

[bluecalm]

This depends on your agreements and I think you will find a lot of different answers depending who you ask.

I like the rule that if we pass and double in trapping pas situation it means we have a trapping pass to the first suit (clubs) and t/o to 2nd (spades). This may seem artificial but putting it in different words: it's a t/o double but only having club values justifies it (as otherwise you would've bid something round before).

[MrAce]

Deleted, just saw in the title that it is MP.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=s84hqj62d952ckjt2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d2cp2spp]133|200|

What about in other vulnerabilities?

1♦ is 4+, 2♠ is max with 5+ ♠.[/hv]

IMO Double = 10, Pass = 8 (Agree with Bluecalm).

[aguahombre]

What Bluecalm said is what we do as well. But, I have a problem doing that on this hand. I didn't really have a trap the first time; I was just too weak to make a neg double. If I couldn't Neg double for the two-level --not having enough to convert Spades to 2NT or 3D -- I still don't have enough to go for the 3-level. If Partner has a decent minimum with 4S, my reopening double might work out very well. If Partner has some other semi-balanced array, it is probably best to let this one go.

[dake50]

What Bluecalm said is what we do as well. But, I have a problem doing that on this hand. I didn't really have a trap the first time; I was just too weak to make a neg double. If I couldn't Neg double for the two-level --not having enough to convert Spades to 2NT or 3D -- I still don't have enough to go for the 3-level. If Partner has a decent minimum with 4S, my reopening double might work out very well. If Partner has some other semi-balanced array, it is probably best to let this one go. -- aguahombre

 

*** Even more so if partner would double with 4xH - backing into this auction over 2S.

Maybe he's too weak or has Spades, but he was there over 2S wasn't he?

And made no attempt. I don't have enough to be contrary to partner.

[mikeh]

What Bluecalm said is what we do as well. But, I have a problem doing that on this hand. I didn't really have a trap the first time; I was just too weak to make a neg double. If I couldn't Neg double for the two-level --not having enough to convert Spades to 2NT or 3D -- I still don't have enough to go for the 3-level. If Partner has a decent minimum with 4S, my reopening double might work out very well. If Partner has some other semi-balanced array, it is probably best to let this one go. -- aguahombre

 

*** Even more so if partner would double with 4xH - backing into this auction over 2S.

Maybe he's too weak or has Spades, but he was there over 2S wasn't he?

And made no attempt. I don't have enough to be contrary to partner.

I don't like the bluecalm approach.

 

I agree that a reopening double here is revealing a trap pass of the initial overcall, but to play this double as 'takeout' seems flat out wrong to me. That may be a question of semantics, and I do note that for many on this forum they see competitive doubles as either takeout or penalty, which is a shame since often times the best use (and indeed the actual use that some of these people play, despite the names they use for the double) is 'action' or 'cards' or 'do something intelligent' or 'hand ownership'.

 

A takeout double, by definition is made with the expectation that partner will not pass unless he has an unusual hand within the context of the auction so far. A penalty double is made with expectation that partner will not pull unless he has an unusual hand within the context of the auction so far. Many people seem to overlook that critical part about context.

 

A double here should never be based on an inability to defend 2♠. It isn't 'penalty' of spades, but we make the double in the hope that partner can leave it in. He doesn't need a surprising, unexpected trump holding to sit for the double, tho he should pull with shortness.

 

On these hands, he can frequently sit with a 3 card holding (and an otherwise suitable hand) and often lead trump, secure in the knowledge that we control dummy's suit.

 

Thus this is an action double, or a transferable values double or a hand ownership double, whatever term you like. It is not a takeout double anymore than it is a penalty double.

 

Seen in that context, pass is obvious. We don't want to defend if partner has a weak 1N hand with 3 spades and we sure as heck don't want to be playing 3 red either.

[ggwhiz]

I don't like the bluecalm approach.

 

I would have thought this approach most common and the labeling is indeed a matter of semantics and semantics only.

 

Of more interest to me is that calling it "takeout" would imply the possibility of 4 cards in hearts and calling it "action" would tend to deny them for the lack of an initial negative double. I have no idea what consensus or best practice would be but in my partnership this double is much more passable and 2nt becomes a viable takeout "suit" before we would play partner for 4 cards in hearts.

 

Anyway, with min values for a trap and the unexpected 4th heart I have to pass.

[whereagles]

Just pass. You got nothing, hand is screaming defense and pard might have some spades over LHO.

[neilkaz]

The proper technical term for a double in p/o seat is balancing double. I'd not consider balancing here at these colors as this hand seems too weak to me.

[Trinidad]

In general, the Bluecalm approach is fine. In this case you don't have a trap pass of 2♣. You had a hand that couldn't make a negative double since it didn't have spades.

 

However, in deciding whether to double now, it is somewhat irrelevant whether you had a trap pass of 2♣. The question is whether you will be happy:

• 
   
  
• defending 2♠X when partner passes
  
• playing 3♦ when partner bids 3♦
  
• playing 3♥ when partner bids 3♥
  
• defending 3♣X when partner chooses to double 3♣
  

I will be happy in all these cases, so I double.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

I'd pass

[bluecalm]

That may be a question of semantics, and I do note that for many on this forum they see competitive doubles as either takeout or penalty, which is a shame since often times the best use (and indeed the actual use that some of these people play, despite the names they use for the double) is 'action' or 'cards' or 'do something intelligent' or 'hand ownership'.

 

but then you say:

 

A takeout double, by definition is made with the expectation that partner will not pass unless he has an unusual hand within the context of the auction so far.

 

That's what I expect in this auction and that's what about everybody I know would expect. Partner won't pass without heavy 4 spades and even then they will be reluctant.

 

A double here should never be based on an inability to defend 2♠. It isn't 'penalty' of spades, but we make the double in the hope that partner can leave it in. He doesn't need a surprising, unexpected trump holding to sit for the double, tho he should pull with shortness.

 

So you are making the double expecting partner to pass often and you are calling it "cards" or "action".

I am making it expecting partner to pull without KJTx of spades or something similar and I am calling it takeout for that reason.

After all it's not semantics. It's different approach.

While this hand may not be a double something like xx KJx Qxx KJTxx certainly would be and I would rather not have partner passing it frequently unless I am feeling like donating -470. I find your approach good against very bad players but it won't fly against decent ones.

While I am convinced your approach to doubling here is a bad strategy we can both agree it's not semantics. It's different way of playing. Yours is "cards". Mine is t/o to spades. I am not doubling with KJx xxx Qxx KJxxx for example if I am ever dealt that hand in this position.

[r_prah]

I play the "Bluecalm" approach as well, but this hand does not have the strength to make a penalty double of 2♣. Partner may not be able to penalize spades, and if our side decides to take a call, we could go for a number. I pass.

[jogs]

I would have raised to 2♦ on the previous round. Now I pass. Unlikely we can make anything on the three level. Not likely we can beat 2♠ two tricks. In mps the difference between +50 and +100 will be small. The difference between -110 and -470 will be huge.

[johnu]

Behemont1 - Just for clarification, what is your opening 1NT range? This affects the expected range of your opening 1♦ bid if you have a balanced hand.

 

I really don't like double at this vul. You have much less defense against 2♠ than I would expect as your partner, and if partner takes out, you don't have much offense for the 3 level.

[gnasher]

I play the MikeH style with everyone, but I'd prefer to be playing the Bluecalm methods. In my experience a "cards" or "ownership" double in this position can have any spade holding from xx to AQJx. I don't see how opener is supposed to judge when to leave it in.

 

On the actual hand, I don't understand why people are so happy about passing. It wouldn't a surprise to find partner with a 3451 13-count, with 2♠ and three of a red suit making.

[gszes]

I am curious--having read all of the above opinions I am not

torn btn choosing the mikeh or bluecalm method as I am worried

about what I would bid if I had a hand similar to

 

xx QJxx Kxx Kxxx

 

What does this hand do over 2c??? I see no reasonable choice though

one could make a case for 2d if not playing inverted. Then lho bids

2s p p and back to you? This seems an ideal time to trot out a TOX

(essentially showing 4 hearts and an inability to x the first time

around mainly due to distribution). I would have a much greater

tendency to pass when I hold good clubs since defensive prospects

seem much greater then and at imps getting a plus is going to lose

at worst small potatoes if we have a partial. Getting shut out of

the bidding with my example hand, where we have greatly increased

prospects of making a partial, does not seem to make any real sense.

 

This is not a matter of semantics my x in this position is being made

with a hand that has reasonable offensive potential and very little desire

to play 2s x. P may convert if they are sitting all over lho but otherwise

they should compete somewhere at the 3 level knowing p is weak.

 

With the example hand given I would pass since I appear to have little

stomach for a 3 level contract and probably would be unhappy to see p pass

my x.

 

I think a 2n bid over 2s would handle bluecalm type hands where we had a

penalty pass originally and now find ourselves stuck competing against 2s. I need

the x for my weak offensive hands and the 2n bid xx KJx Kxx KJTxx for ex should

leave p well placed as to where we should play. We give up some rare big penalties

playing this way but gain a lot more overall flexibility.

[Behemont1]

1NT is 15-17..so it turns out that there is not an obvious call here. We had some discussion in the club as well, without any relevant conclusions, except that this card is a pass. I've doubled at the table, but after taking all the answers into account, I think I'm leaning towards passing in a similar situation next time. And yet I'm not sure whether the double should be short in spades (I believe I should be holding clubs) and showing hearts and diamond tolerance, or suggesting partner to leave it in with some defensive strength...