[eagles123]

---

DBL here is takeout right as I'm a passed hand? If so should I Matchpoints

Thanks

Eagles

[broze]

Double cannot logically be anything other than takeout and there is no logical alternative to double here.

[mcphee]

It would be t/o for most and that action looks ideal with this hand. Even is partner were to pass I think we rate to be happy.

[billw55]

I rarely get a good score defending two of a major at matchpoints. And white on red to boot? Balancing double for me.

Due to the concentration of values, I also consider 3♦ a reasonable choice, but not pass.

[monikrazy]

 billw55, on 2013-September-16, 07:09, said:

I rarely get a good score defending two of a major at matchpoints. And white on red to boot? Balancing double for me.

Due to the concentration of values, I also consider 3♦ a reasonable choice, but not pass.

Agree.

I would double and if partner bids 3♣ we should always correct to diamonds.

[jeffford76]

 broze, on 2013-September-16, 07:00, said:

Double cannot logically be anything other than takeout...

Regardless of what you think best, it's certainly not illogical to play double as penalty (and 2S showing the hand in question).

[broze]

 jeffford76, on 2013-September-16, 14:17, said:

Regardless of what you think best, it's certainly not illogical to play double as penalty (and 2S showing the hand in question).

What hand passes in response to 1NT but wants to double 2♥ for penalty? Having said that 2♠ would be a suity takeout for me anyway - maybe 4=0=(54).

EDIT: Have just noticed we are in a weak NT context - perhaps that changes things..

This post has been edited by broze: 2013-September-16, 14:33

[jeffford76]

 broze, on 2013-September-16, 14:30, said:

What hand passes in response to 1NT but wants to double 2♥ for penalty? Having said that 2♠ would be a suity takeout for me anyway - maybe 4=0=(54).

A 9-10 count with good hearts. It's matchpoints. Beating it 1 trick undoubled isn't going to be a great board if we were making something. My opponents don't promise the world's fair when they balance in this auction.

[MrAce]

 eagles123, on 2013-September-16, 06:45, said:

---

DBL here is takeout right as I'm a passed hand? If so should I Matchpoints

Thanks

Eagles

Double being take out has nothing to do with you being passed hand or not, it is take out. Coming from pass gives you more freedom to use take out dbl here, in regards to strength, but you have way more than that anyway. At IMPs you would probably bid previous round anyway if not at MP. Coming from pass, i would have doubled with the hand you posted even without ♦ A


Here are some similar situations when I played yesterday with Sathya vs George Jacobs and Steve Beatty

---

We failed to dbl 2♠ for take out for +140 or possibly +300-500 if W competes, and defeated them in 2♠. I can not blame pd when he is playing with someone the first time and not sure about methods, this was also the first board of the game.

---

Not quite the same auction but basically the same thing. Of course it is more obvious when opponents bid and raise to play it for take out, when don't have any agreement. (We were EW this time because our opponents opened a new table to put vu graph deals)

[mycroft]

I play takeout doubles over NT, including our weak NT.

But penalty doubles, especially after a weak NT, are a source of pocket money (it's just that for every hand that takes 800, I have no call for 4 hands that give up -110 into our +110). I played it that way for years, and would continue to play it that way with random weak NT player I haven't had discussions with.

"Passed hand" here is special, because partner is limited and just over average. a balanced or 1=4=4=4 9 or 10 count, or crappy balanced 11, is going to pass here - and will eat 2♥ for lunch.

It's a matter of partnership agreement - just warning you that it's not automatically takeout; and it's not automatically taken out, even if it is systemically takeout.

[CamHenry]

Unless I had an agreement that X was pure penalty here (which I do in some partnerships), I would double. I expect to come off badly when partner holds KJx/KJxx/Kxxx/Jx, but I had to construct a hand that would lead to bad results from doubling.

[PhilKing]

I would reopen with 2♠. Sure, double is for take-out, but I have one defensive trick opposite a weak no trump, so I think it will lead to more -670s than +200s.

Logically, 2♠ should show a four-card suit, short hearts, and insufficient high cards for a take-out double, but you have to agree this before springing it on partner. He should generally not pass without four spades. I will pass a removal of 2NT (which I do not play as the overrated scramble), but convert 3♣ to 3♦. Partner can bid a four-card minor freely over 2♠ since I have promised suitable distribution.

[Zelandakh]

When you play a weak NT, you really have to be prepared to scrap for the part score at MP. That also means Opener doubling on many hands with a doubleton heart. This philosophy leads to a set of agreements emphasising competition and cooperate penalty.

Double from us is takeout but shows willingness for partner to convert it with heart length (ie convertible values). I cannot see how we can have a real penalty double without having transfrred or used Stayman but if we did it is highly likely that Opener would have doubled to allow us to convert.

2♠ from us instead of double is a purely competitive takeout - we cannot have 5 spades here or we would have transferred the previous round. Similarly, 2NT is a competitive takeout for the minors (not natural as most players in the Acol club use it!).