Double after interfering 1NT

[eagles123]

I have no problem with you saying what you think, thanks.

I said 'expert' but did not say or intend at world level, just fourty years of experience and a habit of winning tournaments.

 

 

 

There was no tempo issue.

 

 

Let's agree that a 2♥ rebid was fortunate to get rewarded.

I'm more interested in opinions about double for takeout.

 

i agree double penalty or takeout is interesting question, i put a poll here https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/takeout-or-penalty-2-1vhjwlpgeq/

 

thanks

 

eagles

[nekthen]

Best bidder at the table was North! Followed by East

[Stephen Tu]

I think the double really ought to be penalty. If I OPEN 1nt, I play double of their suit bid for takeout. Because:

- not unlikely to have a takeout double

- caters to penalties if partner has a penalty pass playing partner's double as negative

- takeout double a ton more likely then having a trump stack and 6 tricks on defense.

 

But if I OVERCALL 1nt, to me I am never really going to have a hand that wants to change their mind and takeout double 2nd round. Because I would have takeout doubled the first time, catering to partner being able to play 1S/2m if weak, and still figuring to get to most good games if partner is strong. Why do I want to insist on 1nt with a flimsy single stop and suitability for suit contracts? Even I hold HAQ doubleton I don't see why I shouldn't double.

 

Now, since my takeout double hands are mostly gone, the trump stack hand seems most profitable.

[nullve]

Now, since my takeout double hands are mostly gone, the trump stack hand seems most profitable.

How?

[Cyberyeti]

How?

 

Because there are so few hands I'd want to overcall 1N then double for takeout, it's not worth using the bid for that, 99% of them I'd either X first time rather than bid 1N or happily pass over 2♥.

[nullve]

Because there are so few hands I'd want to overcall 1N then double for takeout, it's not worth using the bid for that, 99% of them I'd either X first time rather than bid 1N or happily pass over 2♥.

Does your penalty X of 2♥ show a different set of hands than the final pass in

 

(1♥)-1N-(P)-P

(2♥)-P-(P)-X*

(P)-P

 

* takeout

 

by someone using the same X of 2♥ as takeout instead? If not, aren't you wasting a call as well?

[pescetom]

Does your penalty X of 2♥ show a different set of hands than the final pass in

 

(1♥)-1N-(P)-P

(2♥)-P-(P)-X*

(P)-P

 

* takeout

 

by someone using the same X of 2♥ as takeout instead?

Please could you explain the kind of hand with which you see E making (or not making) this takeout double?

[rmnka447]

Here is the entire layout.

[hv=pc=n&e=s864h84d962cq9832&s=sa32ha9762da43cj5&w=skj9hkqjdkq75ck64&n=sqt75ht53djt8cat7&d=e&v=b&b=1&a=p1h1npp2hdp]400|300[/hv]

 

 

S made the contract of 2♥ doubled = 1% for EW (of 158 scores).

PAR for the board was 2♥ or 2♠ by S = 60% for EW.

3♣ by E (or 2NT by W) would go down 2 tricks = 22% for EW (or 3% if doubled).

 

Once partner doubled, you were headed towards a bad board no matter what you did. (2 ♥x=2%, 3 ♣=22%, 3 ♣x=3%)

 

Your partner's correct bid is PASS. Partner's hand is an A-less 18, but ♥ KQJ is only worth 2 tricks, and 4-3-3-3 isn't likely to be helpful to you if you pull the double. Looking at the tricks the hand can generate then 2 in ♥, 1 in ♦, and then everything else depends on finding values in your hand to generate additional defensive tricks. If partner has to defend solely out of hand, all those Ks look susceptible to possible endplay(s).

 

Change partner's hand slightly, and, IMO, a double would be more reasonable -- ♠ Kxx ♥ KQJx ♦ KQxx ♣ Ax (making dummy ♠ QJ10x ♥ 10x ♦ J10x ♣ K10xx). This revised hand looks to have at least 5 sure tricks, so defeating the contract is a lot closer.

[Cyberyeti]

Does your penalty X of 2♥ show a different set of hands than the final pass in

 

(1♥)-1N-(P)-P

(2♥)-P-(P)-X*

(P)-P

 

* takeout

 

by someone using the same X of 2♥ as takeout instead? If not, aren't you wasting a call as well?

 

I can easily be beating this opposite hands which are far too weak to double.

[rmnka447]

Depends on agreements but, IMO, the default understanding for West's double is T/O e.g.

♠ J x x x ♥ A J ♦ A K x x ♣ K J x

As East, I would reply 3♣s

 

I'm always doubling with this hand too rather than bidding 1 NT.

[nullve]

Please could you explain the kind of hand with which you see E making (or not making) this takeout double?

A hand with

 

* short hearts (ideally 1 or 2, never 3)

* tolerance for all unbid suits unless Advancer is able to bid again

* a few points, so that 2♥X can likely be defeated if partner passes for penalties.

 

The hope is to be able to compete as effectively as possible in accordance with LoTT.

[helene_t]

Three-suited takeout doesn't make much sense. W didn't double 1♥ so the best shape he can have is 4333. He doesn't want to force partner to bid 3m on that given then vulnerability and given that he already showed a strong balanced hand.

 

You could have the specific agreement that it shows 23(26) or 13(45) with plenty of quick tricks and gives partner the choice between 3m and pass. 2♠ from E could then be artificial scrambling.

 

But the normal agreement is penalty.

[Tramticket]

Most people who play penalty doubles here just don't understand how takeout doubles work, i.e. that instead of

 

(1♥)-1N-(P)-P

(2♥)-X*-(P)-P

(P)

 

* penalties

 

the bidding might go

 

(1♥)-1N-(P)-P

(2♥)-P*-(P)-X**

(P)-P***-(P).

 

* unsuitable for a takeout double, so usually 3+ H

** takeout double

*** penalty pass

 

Maybe the word 'takeout' is to blame, since it suggests that passing for penalties would be unusual? (In Norway we use the word 'opplysende', which means 'enlightening', instead.)

 

Its not that we don't understand the theory of takeout doubles. I would expect that 99%+ of our low level doubles are for takeout. The problem is that: (1) Having a suitable hand in this auction is a low frequency occurrence. It is difficult to construct a hand where East would overcall 1NT then want to make a takeout double. I guess that ♠KQX ♥AQ ♦AXXX ♣QTXX might be one of a very small number of hands where this would make sense. Meanwhile it is easy to construct hands where a penalty double is useful, perhaps ♠AK ♥QJTXX ♦AKX ♣XXX (or any number of similar hands). If you hold the second hand, you could wait for partner to make a takeout double, but partner will often have insufficient values - opener has bid twice and you have a strong no trump, so there aren't many points left for North and East.

 

(2) Making a takeout double and hoping that partner can pass for penalties will not work symmetrically on the hand. Even if West has the magic hand to bid 1NT and then make a takeout double, it is almost impossible to construct a hand where East can pass for penalties.

 

For these reasons I think it better on grounds of frequency to agree that West's double is penalties and if West passes and East protects with a double it is showing values. My general rule is that if you imply values in a suit by bidding NT, a subsequent double of the suit is penalties.

[mdgraham]

The 2♥ bid is so bad as to be laughable - one wonders if there was any extraneous table action that led to such a bid.

 

Overcalling 1NT and then doubling - this is one of those things you discuss with pard over a couple of beers. Preferably not after conceding a couple of 870's.

[mdgraham]

I play with two partners fairly regularly, and emailed them the problem. As I expected, one voted penalty and the other one t/o.

 

Just goes to show that you need to come to an agreement about these things.

 

FWIW, the 2♥ bid is almost laughable - you sort of wonder if there was any extraneous table action going on...

[pescetom]

i agree double penalty or takeout is interesting question, i put a poll here https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/takeout-or-penalty-2-1vhjwlpgeq/

For the record, the poll result is takeout 37% penalty 57%, people present reasonable arguments for both ways of playing it.

As usual the most important thing is to have a clear agreement, whatever it is.