[MarkDean]

When I learned takeout doubles, they showed shortness in the opponents suit and a reasonable hand (one you would open). Neither of these seem to be a requirement anymore (but you usually have at least one). When did this happen?

Would y'all double, white vs white, IMPs with the following hands?

1. Kxx KQxx Axx Qxx / 1♣

2. KJTx AQxx xxx Kx / 1♦

3. AJxx x KTxx QTxx / 1♥

Do you think these hands would have usually doubled ten years ago?

If things have changed, do you think it is in response to other parts of the game, or just that people found this to be winning bridge?

[qwery_hi]

I'd dbl all three, although for different reasons

1. Only 3 in spades don't bother me. I want to fight for the partscore.

2. With both majors, this is an automatic dbl.

3. Ideal shape - this is more a matter of style though, unlike 1 and 2 (where dbl is more good than bad).

[Tomi2]

since I learned this game only 6 years ago I can proudly say that there was no moment in that time, where I would not have doubled all the hands.
#3 is a classic double and #1 has less shape but more values so the strenght of the hand is ok. #2 you can double since one always will prefer to show majors first, then bid NT, even w/o stopper on a flat hand. So bidding 2C after 1D will nearly always be on 5 cards.
If you reverse your clubs and a major that hand becomes a pass of you bid your long major if its very good.

If you pass with all hands, then:
#1 opps bid 1NT, partner will not bid bis intermediate 5 card suit and opp passes. You have no bid again so they make 1nt while you are cold for 110

#2 you will sellout to 1nt or 2m again

#3 you miss 4 spades after 1h - p - 3/4h - p - p - ?

[Cascade]

Without doing the research my recollection is that the Italians made many off-shape doubles in the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps it started around then.

When did you learn?

[hanp]

I would double with all three.

As for 10 years ago, I don't know what you mean by "usually". 10 years isn't that long, I don't think the different is very large but probably people are a little more aggressive now, I would guess.

[rogerclee]

I think all three hands are clear doubles. I don't know what the attitude about takeout doubles was ten years ago, but these are the standard reasons why takeout doubles are being made more frequently now:

1) It's easy to get stolen from if you never show values. With people opening 10-11 counts and responding on 0-counts these days, it's important to get into the auction, especially because a lot of 24-point games (especially 3N) are quite easy to play when you know where all the cards are.

2) The risks of making a light takeout double and going for a number have, in my opinion, always been exaggerated. A much larger risk, in my opinion, is passing, and then being put in a much harder position about whether or not I want to double later when the opponents have already bid up to 2M.

3) I think it is a good example of a situation where you can either make a minor misdescription of your hand or pass, saying absolutely nothing at all about your hand. I think an active style of bridge that always tries to say something about your hand, even if it's not perfect, is a winning style.

The downsides of making frequent takeout doubles are:

1) It can help declarer out in the play by quite a bit. I actually think this is the largest downside.
2) You can just easily play in game down 1 when partner was expecting more.
3) Sometimes LHO redoubles and you go for a number; for this reason I am pretty sound about making a takeout double of spades.

[quiddity]

I think Lawrence's "complete book of t.o. doubles" has similar examples, and it was published 15 years ago.

[hanp]

rogerclee, on Mar 16 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

The downsides of making frequent takeout doubles are:

1) It can help declarer out in the play by quite a bit. I actually think this is the largest downside.
2) You can just easily play in game down 1 when partner was expecting more.
3) Sometimes LHO redoubles and you go for a number; for this reason I am pretty sound about making a takeout double of spades.

I think you are missing one downside, and I actually think it is the largest downside: partner won't play you to have a classic takeout double when you actually do.

[kfay]

I'd auto double 1 and 2.

3 is really close. I hate to play bridge based on my state of mind but... it probably depends on my state of mind More often than not I'd double.

[lexlogan]

I've generally doubled with hands like #2, since odds are better than even partner has a four-card major. I'm always prepared to apologize if he plays it in clubs and things go badly.

My partners double with hands like #1 (and worse), leading to many disasters when I bid aggressively expecting a takeout double opposite. The flat shape and wasted Queen are major liabilities.

#3 is a tad light for my taste, but far better than #1 in my experience.

You left out #4: KJxx -- KJxxx Jxxx . These usually end in some high level heart contract, doubled (by me, the unsuspecting partner) and making, often with overtricks.

[mikestar]

Let's take the hands in order.

#1 is a clear cut double, but the hand I like least for it--the 4333 shape and wasted ♣Q are horrible. But I do support all unbid suits and have a hand even Al Roth would open.

#2 is much better. An opening hand, good support for both majors, the ♣Kx is a flaw. However, how often will partner bid 2♣ with only four of them?

#3 is fine. Though a sub minimum opening, the shape is dead perfect.

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose to pass one of these, it would be #1.

[awm]

I wonder sometimes if this is a "modern trend" or a "bbo forums trend." Certainly doubling with a lot of hands is popular amongst the forum crowd. And it has been the italian style for quite some time. But I'm not sure how universal these doubles would be if you put them to a panel of top flight players like you might see in various expert bidding columns.

Anyway, I like the second hand the least for a double. I've found that partner bids clubs a lot more often than other people seem to believe, since my relative shortness in clubs increases the chance that partner has some length. And even if partner isn't bidding clubs, he may get excited about a diamond holding like xxx (opposite my presumed singleton or small doubleton) and overbid his hand.

The first hand has extra values, which compensate at least somewhat for the lousy shape. The last hand seems like a totally normal double to me, with "perfect shape" compensating for the lack of values.

[jdonn]

All three are plainly obvious doubles to me. In fact I think you have exactly one high card point too many in each hand to prevent them from being 3 very close problems.

[FrancesHinden]

Weird.

I would never double on the first.
I would double on the second, but not at all other vulnerabilities.
I would always double on the third.

[helene_t]

Opposite a passed partner 1) is borderline for me and I might not double with 3) at IMPs and/or vulnerable. Opposite an unpassed p I would double with all 3.

[Hanoi5]

I'd certainly double on the first and third but wouldn't on the second. My partners always bid my 2-card suits in these situations.

[hatchett]

I would double on all three.

[marcD]

I would routinely double on #2 (partner knows not to expect too much minor support) and #3 (light but perfect shape) . I would double #1 only at these colors (passing is theorically right but risks being stolen)

[RichMor]

What goes around comes around.

In ancient Goren - where jump overcalls and cue bids and 2NT overcalls were strong and overcalls were light - a takeout double was limited by exclusion of other strong actions.

In ancient Italian (actually Roman) - where jump overcalls and cue bids and 2NT ovecalls were specific shapes and overcalls were light - same thing. But the Roman style also used a Herbert negative response to a takeout double.

In the dawn of 'scientific' bidding - where jump overcalls and cue bids and 2NT overcalls were weak and overcalls were wide range - a takeout double was most often based on shape.

In the current era some of the difficult hands for 'scientific' methods cause players to consider alternate ways to enter over LHO's opening bid. Agreements like ELC (equal level conversion) and lebensohl responses to some doubles and Ruebens' advances, etc, etc seem like progress to me.

I don't believe there is any perfect method for defensive bidding.

I also don't know if this post adds anything useful to the discussion.

RichM

[jmcw]

Seems right to DBL with all 3. For me 2 & 3 would be pretty much auto.
#1 is close to a 1NT overcall. I like the pre-emptive value, but the lack of intermediates argue against.
I don't like passing any, since it would likely be far more difficult to act later.