JUMP OVERCALLS

[pran]

I think that is a very unusual way of playing the take-out double of an opening bid. AFAIK it is more usual unless showing significantly more than minimum opening strength to have interest in all other suit denominations other than that opened. (Equal Level Conversion can modify this rule for very specific combinations of suits.) If the suit opened is your best suit then you may well have no sensible call to make other than pass even if you have opening values and interest in another denomination as well as that opened.

To elaborate a bit more on takeout doubles over an opening bid:

 

My and my partners' understanding is that the doubler with support in all unbid denominations may hold just about opening values for a takeout double, typically around 13 HCP. In such cases his next call will often just be pass or a raise in partner's response denomination.

 

But he may also double with the intention to bid his own denomination regardless of his partner's answer. In that case he shows a hand that is far too strong to just bid in his own denomination directly over the opening bid. His strength will now typically be at least 16 HCP.

 

So the strength shown by the takeout doubler depends heavily on his next call.

[blackshoe]

This is hardly the right forum for discussions of bidding theory, but…

 

Max Hardy postulated four types of "takeout double":

 

1. Roughly the values of an opening bid, 2 quick tricks, short in the suit doubled, support (at least 3) for each of the unbid suits.

2. A hand too strong for a simple overcall, balanced or unbalanced. Doubler will bid again.

3. "Values". About 13 HCP, no clear cut bid. He points out that this is non-standard, and that most people doing it don't understand what they're doing.

4. "Equal level correction". Here, when advancer bids the lowest ranking of the available suits, and doubler bids the next higher, he is showing that suit and the highest unbid, and will not have the values for a type 2 double. If he has a type 2 double in the suit he has bid, he has to jump over partner's advance.

[barmar]

So the strength shown by the takeout doubler depends heavily on his next call.

I thought we were discussing strength shown by the passer, not the doubler. Specifically, a pass made when you could have made some kind of artificial double (takeout, negative).

[pran]

I thought we were discussing strength shown by the passer, not the doubler. Specifically, a pass made when you could have made some kind of artificial double (takeout, negative).

You cannot compare pass when a double would be negative and pass when a double would be for takeout (over an opening bid). They are two different "kettles of fish"

 

My point has always been that pass in a position where a double would be negative can show, but not necessarily does show values justifying a penalty double.

 

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

[WellSpyder]

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

I think this is the sentence where you seem to be parting company with the rest of us, pran. (I say "seem to", because I don't really believe you play things that differently from the rest of us.) To me, it is absolutely normal when you have a hand that wants to make a penalty double in a position where double would be for to takeout to pass instead, planning to pass again if partner is able to make a takeout double. Since you won't normally what to make a penalty double unless you have values, it follows that in any normal "natural" system, a pass where double would be for takeout can indeed have significant values if you want to take a penalty. You seem to be suggesting that this only applies in the "negative" double position after opponents have overcalled partner's opening bid, but for most of us I think it applies in more or less any takeout double position.

[pran]

You cannot compare pass when a double would be negative and pass when a double would be for takeout (over an opening bid). They are two different "kettles of fish"

 

My point has always been that pass in a position where a double would be negative can show, but not necessarily does show values justifying a penalty double.

 

I don't know of any "natural" system where pass when a double would be for takeout can show values.

 

 

I think this is the sentence where you seem to be parting company with the rest of us, pran. (I say "seem to", because I don't really believe you play things that differently from the rest of us.) To me, it is absolutely normal when you have a hand that wants to make a penalty double in a position where double would be for to takeout to pass instead, planning to pass again if partner is able to make a takeout double. Since you won't normally what to make a penalty double unless you have values, it follows that in any normal "natural" system, a pass where double would be for takeout can indeed have significant values if you want to take a penalty. You seem to be suggesting that this only applies in the "negative" double position after opponents have overcalled partner's opening bid, but for most of us I think it applies in more or less any takeout double position.

 

Sorry, I was inaccurate by not repeating "over an opening bid" in my last sentence but I really thought this was obvious from the context.

 

Can you show an example where second hand pass after an opening bid may suggest partner (fourth hand) to double for penalties based on values in second hand?

 

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

 

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

[WellSpyder]

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

 

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

So would I. I would expect the same of a double in this auction:

1♥- 1♠ - PASS - PASS - ???

[barmar]

Sorry, I was inaccurate by not repeating "over an opening bid" in my last sentence but I really thought this was obvious from the context.

 

Can you show an example where second hand pass after an opening bid may suggest partner (fourth hand) to double for penalties based on values in second hand?

 

1♥ - PASS - PASS - ???

 

I would expect a double here to be "balancing" (with some values) primarily intended as takeout and not for penalty?

I've reopened in auctions like that with minimum values, I think as little as 6 HCP. Opener and partner have at least 29 combined HCP, and partner is likely to have a decent chunk of that. His pass didn't "show" those values, but third hand's pass and my hand implied it.

 

Sometimes it doesn't work, because opener has an 18-20 count.

[pran]

So would I. I would expect the same of a double in this auction:

1♥- 1♠ - PASS - PASS - ???

The way I know negative doubles a double here is for penalty based on the knowledge that partner passed in a negative double position possibly with values likely to favourably set opponents contract. If opener can see from his own cards that partner is unlikely to hold such values he should not double.

 

And if partner does not hold such values he must take out opener's double after which opener quite likely will just pass.

[blackshoe]

Is opener required to double on this auction, unless as you say he can see that responder is unlikely to wish to double for penalties?

[pran]

Is opener required to double on this auction, unless as you say he can see that responder is unlikely to wish to double for penalties?

Let us say that it is more suggested the fewer cards opener has in the denomination of the intervening bid. With a void in that denomination it is (almost) required.

[barmar]

Is opener required to double on this auction, unless as you say he can see that responder is unlikely to wish to double for penalties?

That's often the crux of the question.

 

There have been cases where partner hitched, and opener doubled with a marginal hand. They then claimed that their agreement is that they're required to reopen, so the UI was not relevant, because they had no other LA.

[mycroft]

"Yeah, so you'd do it with 5 trump as well as 3? Yes, yes, of course not. Okay, show me in your notes what trump holdings you are REQUIRED to reopen on."

[helene_t]

In any case the original PASS could be a desire for a double (showing values) and should therefore be alerted.

Are you seriously saying that Norwegian pairs (assuming they are familiar with the regs) alert 1m-(1M)-pass* if they have the agreement that double by responder would not be penalty (and hence pass could a.o. be a trap pass)? I.o.w. that all non-novice pairs alert this pass?

 

I am not being sarcastic, I suppose it could be true. Just like all German pairs alert their 2M openings no matter what it means and all Dutch pairs alert their 2♣ response to 1NT, no matter what it means.

 

Still, it would surprise me. I haven't seen Norwegian pairs alert like that when abroad but of course they could have familiarized themselves with our regulations.

[pran]

Are you seriously saying that Norwegian pairs (assuming they are familiar with the regs) alert 1m-(1M)-pass* if they have the agreement that double by responder would not be penalty (and hence pass could a.o. be a trap pass)? I.o.w. that all non-novice pairs alert this pass?

No, many players have a relaxed relation to alert rules.

But I always do so myself (and if asked explain that partner's pass could suggest a double by me).

I (in my capacity as a Director) also encourage players to do as I do in such positions.

 

I am not being sarcastic, I suppose it could be true. Just like all German pairs alert their 2M openings no matter what it means and all Dutch pairs alert their 2♣ response to 1NT, no matter what it means.?

In Norway no opening bid within the range (including) 1NT - 2♠ shall ever be alerted. Our regulation requires any opening bid within this range to be immediately announced by opener's partner. There are many players that forget this too.

 

Still, it would surprise me. I haven't seen Norwegian pairs alert like that when abroad but of course they could have familiarized themselves with our regulations.

[blackshoe]

{M}any players have a relaxed relation to alert rules.

This seems to be true everywhere. Unfortunately. :(