[MFA]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding goes:

(1♣*) - Pass - (1♠*) - 2♥
(DBL) - ???

The opponents' bids:
1♣: Natural OR any 15-19 bal
1♠: Any negative 0-6 OR 6+ with diamonds.
DBL: Take-out. Could be the balanced hand if appropriate shape.

What's your plan? XX initiates penalty doubles, 2N would be natural. Pass followed by X would be take-out. Anything else is natural.

If you pass or XX, you can assume that it will go 2♠ by West passed to you.

EDIT: We are vul vs not.

[Jlall]

Redoubling the first time is in freaking sane, they made a takeout X of your stiff, 2H X is going to be the final contract pretty often, and my hand cannot XX that contract with a terrible trump split.

Once 2S comes back around color me wimpy but I'd pass again.

[MFA]

Saw I got the vulnerability wrong, we are vul vs not. Sorry.

[Fluffy]

if RHO is a wimp he will be scared of the redouble. I will be the first to vote for a 1♦ overcall.

Appart from many entries, we don' t have that much values, I'd prefer some AQxx AQxx under opener than these, if opps are serious I'd let them play.

[Codo]

I am not afraid of 2 HEart XX. LHO as balanced garbage and his partner a take out, they will run.

So yes 1 Diamond first round, missing that XX now. I would double 2 Spade, but this is so close that I may chicken out at the table.

[MFA]

Scoring: IMP

---

Hmm, not much response to this one. Sorry about the vulnerability confussion, because I think the vuln matters here, since one can expect more from a partner vul vs not.

This board was only two boards after my partner's heroic pass of 1♦R, so I felt obliged () to keep up the pace.

I chose to XX and X 2♠, which was a big success as it was. -3. It seemed to me that the opponents were very likely to be in big trouble, but perhaps I just got lucky.

I don't fancy a 1♦ overcall, but that's just my style. I feel it makes it too hard to get to spades or clubs later.

[gnasher]

I didn't respond because I didn't much like the methods. I'd like to pass, then make a penalty double of whatever LHO bids. I can't see why I would want to make a takeout double with a hand that couldn't bid on the previous round. And I don't want to risk going for 400 in 2♥xx.

On the actual hand, East's action seems very aggressive. What was he hoping to gain that he wouldn't get by passing?

[MFA]

gnasher, on Dec 13 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I didn't respond because I didn't much like the methods.  I'd like to pass, then make a penalty double of whatever LHO bids.  I can't see why I would want to make a takeout double with a hand that couldn't bid on the previous round.  And I don't want to risk going for 400 in 2♥xx.

That's a very reasonable objection here. Parhaps 2-2 in the majors can just compete with 3♥ instead of take-out doubling to get the minors in play. However it seems to me to be difficult in practice if we have to decide at table whether X would be take-out or penalties based on how likely we were to be able to show our hand earlier.

How about:
(1♦) - pass - (1♠) - 2♥
(DBL*) - pass - (2♠) - pass
(pass) - ???

*) strong, often 15+ bal in a weak NT context.
DBL= take-out or penalty? Will you get this right with partner at the table? How do you decide these?

For us it's easy at least. XX+X = pen, P+X = t/o.
Aside from that, are we really that scared of -400 here? It could happen, but I would expect partner to be a solid favourite to make his contract.

Quote

On the actual hand, East's action seems very aggressive.  What was he hoping to gain that he wouldn't get by passing?

Aggressive, yes, but hardly a crime. If his partner had had a 5-card suit or just 4-4 in the minors he rated to be fine. I would have doubled also.

[gnasher]

MFA, on Dec 13 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

That's a very reasonable objection here. Parhaps 2-2 in the majors can just compete with 3♥ instead of take-out doubling to get the minors in play.

I think it's better to use redouble for that hand-type, assuming it has reasonable values. That is, redouble is more of an invitation to compete than a penalty suggestion. With a weaker hand and the same shape, I might pass and then bid 2NT, offering a choice between the hearts and the five-card minor.

Quote

However it seems to me to be difficult in practice if we have to decide at table whether X would be take-out or penalties based on how likely we were to be able to show our hand earlier.

That's true, and I agree that's it's better to have an inferior agreement than an ambiguous one.

Quote

How about:
(1♦) - pass - (1♠) - 2♥
(DBL*) - pass - (2♠) - pass
(pass) - ???

*) strong, often 15+ bal in a weak NT context.
DBL= take-out or penalty? Will you get this right with partner at the table? How do you decide these?

In my list of situations where double is for penalty, I sometimes have "The doubler failed to take offensive action on the previous round, and could conveniently have done so." That would make a double here be for penalties.

That rule also covers sequences like:
  1♠ 2♦ pass pass
  dbl pass 2♠ dbl

[MFA]

gnasher, on Dec 13 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

In my list of situations where double is for penalty, I sometimes have "The doubler failed to take offensive action on the previous round, and could conveniently have done so."  That would make a double here be for penalties.

It all makes sense, but I guess it's just a big style issue.
The above rule would in my style be almost the opposite, so when we pass in direct seat and reenter with a double it's take-out. That doesn't necessarily apply when the opponents are balancing.

1NT - (2♣ art something) - pass - (2any)
pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

1x - (D) - pass - any
pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

(1♣) - 1♠ - (D) - pass
(2♣) - pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

Etc.

[gnasher]

MFA, on Dec 13 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

1NT - (2♣ art something) - pass - (2any)
pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

1x - (D) - pass - any
pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

The first of those, and the second in some partnerships, would be takeout for me, because the pass on the previous round denied a hand that would want to make a penalty double.

Quote

(1♣) - 1♠ - (D) - pass
(2♣) - pass - (pass) - D (=T/O)

That sounds like it's takeout too. I think the difference is that in this sequence they've both shown some life. I seem to have arrived at this rule:

"The doubler failed to take offensive action on the previous round, and could conveniently have done so; only one opponent has shown values; the doubler hasn't already denied interest in penalising."

Not particularly memorable, is it?