[Codo]

1. obv. pass
2. ugly double

[SteelWheel]

I'm with the people back a ways in the thread

1. Pass
2. Either pass or 1♥, depending on how I feel about the opponents, type of scoring, my partner's sense of humor, etc.
3. Generally double.

And I first started playing bridge in the '80s. I suspect that I've become an old man, because I know that in my youth, I would have doubled with all three of these, without even thinking about it...

[gnasher]

Doubling on 1 is horrible; on 2 it's just a misdescription.

[Fluffy]

The only one I have sure is 3, I would never double with that, I don't have the expected strenght.

On first The extra strenght makes it worth the double for entering the bidding now.


Second is a risk, one that pays off at MPs, but I might pass at IMPs (or bid 1♠).

[barryallen]

I would make a take out double on all 3 without any issues. Part scores are the majority at bridge and being able to compete effectively in that arena has to be a priority. As long as you have partnership understanding, no great harm will come your way overall. Competing for the part score can often result in you making a profit, even if you go down. Equally you may end up defending at a level the opposition are uncomfortable. Forcing the opposition up that one level can result in a line of play that magnifies rewards more than the one trick raise in contract alone.

[MarkDean]

I am watching the Cavendish on BBO, Rodwell just doubled after
(P) P (1♦) x, all red, with

AKx
Qxx
QT87
Axx

[neilkaz]

MarkDean, on May 9 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

I am watching the Cavendish on BBO, Rodwell just doubled after
(P) P (1♦) x, all red, with

AKx
Qxx
QT87
Axx

Why wouldnt he overcall 1NT instead? Does he consider it too risky or light?

[JLOGIC]

neilkaz, on 2009-May-09, 14:35, said:

Why wouldnt he overcall 1NT instead? Does he consider it too risky or light?

I imagine both, opposite a passed partner vul he didn't want to bid 1N so light because it was so risky.

I recently came across this blog: http://bobmackinnon....012/05/16/1122/

One hand, Rosenberg had Axx Jxx AKxx Qxx and doubled a 1D opener. The author was not just surprised by this, but surprised it was duplicated (by me) in the other room. Perhaps this is just going too far, but the point is to try and get in while it's safe an not miss a game/partscore swing.

[the hog]

The first is a clear pass because of the poor shape. The other two are doubles.
Just noticed the ancient thread. At least my answers did not vary.

[Siegmund]

I suppose there has been an evolution over time.

I at least understand why people double on #1 now, which I would never have considered ten years ago. If I look at the spades, hearts, and diamonds one at a time, I can imagine hands where I would double with that holding in that suit; and in clubs, I can pretend the queen just fell on the floor. With Axx Kxxx KQx x (sic), yeah, I'd double. I remain a little bit skeptical that it is the best way to play it, unless you are in an overcall-structure-type environment.

As for the hand on Mackinnons blog... oh my. Well, yes, there has been some movement in the last 10 years, or even the last 3. Ive seen a number of 4333 doubles with xxx in the opp's suit, but can't recall many with 4 in the opp's suit before.

[EricK]

For a while now I've been wondering if the best way to use a double of 1♣ is primarily as a weak NT hand; with Transfer Walsh responses by 4th hand if 3rd hand passes. Obviously you can include the classic 4441 take out hands and hands too strong for a normal overcall in there as well.

[chasetb]

I would make a takeout double with all 3 hands, I must admit.
1.) While the shape isn't perfect, we have 12 HCP outside of Clubs, and we need to fight for that part-score. Besides, partner can easily have 4 Hearts, or we find a 5-3 fit in Diamonds or Spades.
2.) With a good partner, I wouldn't expect him to bid 2♣ without at least 5 of them, so I don't mind only having 2. Even with most of my other partners, I will get to the Major-suit contract, or rarely a NT contract when partner has 2 stops.
3.) Perfect shape + two Tens = Let's Go (I like the nightlife baby)

[aguahombre]

Dunno. Sounds workable. Amusing disclosure, though: (1c) X "Alert". Then, "Could be short".

Please, no lesson on jurisdictional alerting or announcing. Pretend I used a smiley face.

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2012-September-08, 14:29, said:

I imagine both, opposite a passed partner vul he didn't want to bid 1N so light because it was so risky.

I recently came across this blog: http://bobmackinnon....012/05/16/1122/

One hand, Rosenberg had Axx Jxx AKxx Qxx and doubled a 1D opener. The author was not just surprised by this, but surprised it was duplicated (by me) in the other room. Perhaps this is just going too far, but the point is to try and get in while it's safe an not miss a game/partscore swing.

Do you routinely look through three year old threads looking for unanswered questions?

Though this is great necro.

[JLOGIC]

heh, the blog reminded me of this thread. In fact, maybe I doubled because I read in this thread about rodwell doubling with the same shape/hand type.

[the_clown]

I would auto X on hands 1. and 2. Passing hand 2 is just ridiculous.

The third one is trickier, I would X playing with my regular partner, but if we agreed to play very sound doubles I may pass.

[mikestar13]

By the way, hand #3 was a takeout double according to Edgar Kaplan back in the 60's.