[skjaeran]

All three looks like automatic doubles for me. And they have since I started playing more than 30 years ago.

[mikeh]

I'd say #1 and #2 werent popular doubles 30 years ago, in NA, but have been for at least 15 years.

I don't think you'd find universal support for them in most bidding panels, in part because many bidding panels have members whose main successes were 30+ years ago... roth, for example, was on the MSC panel for decades after he stopped serious competition.

I don't think that the current practice is based on the historical italian fondness for off-shape doubles... if memory served, the practice wasn't that successful for them: it was more that the seat-of-the-pants US habits back then were even worse.

I think the trend is simply part of the move to aggression in the bidding, in all aspects of the game. Indeed, offshape doubles are rendered more dangerous now, than they used to be, because advancer is now often faced with bids by responder, including preempts, when historically responder would pass.

So I don't think that we see more 'offshape' doubles, but I don't see 4333 as that 'offshape'... and a double of 1♣ on 4=4=2=3 may be offshape, but not in the sense of a 2=4=4=3 hand.

[Bende]

MarkDean, on Mar 16 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

1. Kxx KQxx Axx Qxx / 1♣

2. KJTx AQxx xxx Kx / 1♦

3. AJxx x KTxx QTxx / 1♥

1. Pass
2. 1♥
3. Double

[Flameous]

1. Double, might be the only chance to enter the auction.
2. I'll bid 1H, both actions lie one card and I rather lie with overcall than double.
3. Easy double.

[keylime]

1. I pass. Wrong shape, decent values, but 4333 is meant to defend.
2. I overcall a heart. Allows for a spade rebid.
3. Double (1NT takeout with Larry). Happy times.

[TimG]

...

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 17 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

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.

Not that weird. The rest of the world has always been out of step with England about the requirements for a takeout double. Although our standards have relaxed somewhat over the past few decades, so have theirs.

For me:
- 3 has always been a takeout double.
- I've been bullied into accepting that 2 is a takeout double.
- I can't stomach a double on 1. A double doesn't just show a balanced hand without enough points to overcall 1NT: it shows a different hand-type.

My requirements for a double don't vary with the vulnerability.

[the hog]

I would certainly double on the second and third. Pass on the first.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Pass, I hate to double with a min. hand and 3 cards in their suit
#2 Pass, I think double is reasonable, given xxx in diamond, but see #1
#3 Pass, if facing a partner, which did not have the chance to bid, otherwise X,
if I am forced to make at least one t/o on the 3 hands you presented,
than this hand would be ok for me

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I have learned to play Bridge in Ireland, i.e. there was an strong english
influence.

[david_c]

For me it's #2 which is the automatic double. #1 and #3 are both borderline.

[paulg]

gnasher, on Mar 21 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 17 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

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.

Not that weird. The rest of the world has always been out of step with England about the requirements for a takeout double. Although our standards have relaxed somewhat over the past few decades, so have theirs.

I think it was at a Brighton Summer Congress a few years ago that David Burn covered this, during a morning review of the previous session.

He reckoned that the English had been taught that you needed a 5-5-5-1 distribution with at least a good opening hand to make a suitable takeout double. Whereas the Scandinavians were taught, at an age when they could pull bidding cards from the box and perhaps before they could talk, to remove the red double card whenever they held the majors and something approaching an opening bid.

Paul

[JLOL]

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

I'm sure you do great when you're dealt a real 4441 hand but have fun waiting for it.

Also Clee even though doubling with all 3 hands can work against you when they're declaring it can really work for you. You are doubling a lot more with a larger range of hands so when you do double it can be tough for them. Like on this hand 1 if they probably won't guess the club queen if they have to, and on hand 3 they may misguess an honor partner has etc.

[JLOL]

Also regarding hand 2, I don't believe that Adam's partners bid clubs that often. If they have a 4 card major they will bid it, if they have a diamond stopper and values they will bid it in preference to clubs, and if they have no values LHO will probably let partner off the hook. Usually when partner bids clubs they have 5, this is especially true in competition. Although maybe Adam's partners are happier bidding 4 card club suits in competition than I am since he averages more clubs

[Old York]

Maybe we have different alerting rules in England. If it is your partnership agreement that the double shows "opening values", then this must be alerted here

My main concern is to responses to the double. If you devalue your take-out doubles then your partner must deliberately underbid to compensate. This will mean that you are forced to bid twice with a normal hand, just to prove that you were not ridiculously light. This will inevitably lead to bad results.

If you are determined to enter the bidding on moderate hands, then we need a new set of responses to these doubles

Doubles against Acol players should be fully up to strength, an opening bid here is natural and often conceals extra strength because we open 1NT with 12-14hcp hands, so suit openings often conceal a strong balanced hand. Doubles against Sayc players can be lighter because most 1♣ openings show a weak balanced hand

Tony

[hanp]

I think you've got it backwards York.

[blackshoe]

The problem with 1, at least in NA, is that while there may be some experts who double with this, those experts know what they're doing, so does their partner, and the experts properly disclose their methods. The majority of people who double with this hand, however, don't know what they're doing. So either their partner doesn't expect it, and they probably get to the wrong contract, or their partner does expect it, and they have a CPU, because they don't disclose it properly.

I pass with hand 1.

I pass with hand 2, for much the same reason, though I can understand doubling with both majors.

I double with hand 3, and I'd be surprised if somebody didn't.

I'd have done the same ten years ago.

[gnasher]

JLOL, on Mar 21 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

Partner is allowed to overcall at the one level with a five card suit and a seven count; in my partnerships a jump overcall will often be an option too.

With the first hand, I might pass and act later if the bidding suggests that they're about to stop at a low level. After, for example,
  1♣ pass 1♠ pass
  2♠
or
  1♣ pass 1♠ pass
  1NT
I'd double.

Whilst that strategy may make it easier for the opponents to double us, it also makes it easier for partner to judge how high to compete - he knows that a first round double shows an offensive hand rather than some balanced tat, and that a delayed double is flawed in some way.

Finally, of course, if everyone plays solid first-round takeout doubles, you may not notice any disadvantage to doing the same. English pairs who are successful in World and European events don't necessary play in an English style.

[gnasher]

JLOL, on Mar 21 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

What you'd regard as opening light would just be regarded as normal here, so I don't think anyone would regard it as needing special consideration. That might, in fact, be a good reason for keeping an initial takeout double fairly pure: the more likely we are to have game on, the more reason for making our actions well-defined.

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Mar 22 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

JLOL, on Mar 21 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

How do people who pass hand 1 avoid getting stolen from? Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

It's not even just missing game opposite another balanced 11 to 13 count even though that is a factor to me, it's missing partscores when partner has like a 5 card suit and a 7 count and the opps get a free run also. Doubling 1C just makes it easy to compete effectively in those cases.

Partner is allowed to overcall at the one level with a five card suit and a seven count; in my partnerships a jump overcall will often be an option too.

With the first hand, I might pass and act later if the bidding suggests that they're about to stop at a low level. After, for example,
  1♣ pass 1♠ pass
  2♠
or
  1♣ pass 1♠ pass
  1NT
I'd double.

Whilst that strategy may make it easier for the opponents to double us, it also makes it easier for partner to judge how high to compete - he knows that a first round double shows an offensive hand rather than some balanced tat, and that a delayed double is flawed in some way.

Finally, of course, if everyone plays solid first-round takeout doubles, you may not notice any disadvantage to doing the same. English pairs who are successful in World and European events don't necessary play in an English style.

I dunno man. The first hand looks like if you pass the 1st time round, you should just be keeping shut for the rest of the auction. The auctions you specified doesn't exactly suggest that they're about to stop at a low level. Our LHO is still unlimited and coming in after those two auctions get be quite deadly. Yes, I agree that it will make it (very much I might add) easier for the opponents as they already had a chance to exchange information, but I'm not too sure that it will make partner judge better.
Say it was
  1♣ pass 1♠ pass
  2♠
If we X now, doesn't it typically show 2-4-4-3 (very unsuitable for a 1st round X)?

Not saying I know what's right, but I feel like getting into the auction with those balanced hands is like a now-or-never, and if it's never we can be getting stolen blind with a lot of partials.

And yeah, most people's overcalls these days can be light. But if we pass and LHO responds 1♥/1♠, partner isn't very likely going to overcall at the 2 level, as what we want is to find a fit after our 1st round X (rather than pass and hope partner has a good suit to bid).

It's true that partner may still be able to balance, but not sure if we can always hope for him to do that.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 21 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

JLOL, on Mar 21 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Would you english people be more likely to double against someone who rarely passes the 1 bid, and/or opens light?

What you'd regard as opening light would just be regarded as normal here, so I don't think anyone would regard it as needing special consideration. That might, in fact, be a good reason for keeping an initial takeout double fairly pure: the more likely we are to have game on, the more reason for making our actions well-defined.

That is such a backwards statement. The more likely you are to have game on, the more likely you have to act on a wider variety of hands.