[mgoetze]

---

Our default is that doubles are takeout. Should this be an exception? If yes, can it be formulated as a more general rule (e.g. whenever they balance against our NT contract, all doubles are penalty?)

[cherdano]

Definitely takeout for me. I think the case for takeout is even stronger after responder has passed than over a direct overcall by second seat. When you have lots of hcp you might be happy to double them with Hxx in their trump suit, whereas with 7-8 hcp you'd need a good four-card holding. Plus you are less likely to lose out big if you try for a penalty with a pass an opener doesn't reopen.

[gordontd]

I can't see that this case should be an exception to your general agreements.

[lycier]

I don't know what's the meanings of 2♦ as takeout? is its meanings to support all the suits unbid except ♣?

[mgoetze]

lycier, on 2015-December-04, 10:37, said:

I don't know what's the meanings of 2♦ as takeout? is its meanings to support all the suits unbid except ♣?

2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx".

[lycier]

mgoetze, on 2015-December-04, 10:42, said:

2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx".

I got it, and thank you.
I think this is a penalty double by South,if by opener,of course,it is takeout for sure.
My reason is that there is no any evidence to show opps have found real suit fit,so logically it would be penalty.
What else?

[gwnn]

(bold face added by me)

lycier, on 2015-December-04, 11:22, said:

I got it, and thank you.
I think this is a penalty double by South,if by opener,of course,it is takeout for sure.
My reason is that there is no any evidence to show opps have found real suit fit,so logically it would be penalty.
What else?

By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.

[lycier]

gwnn, on 2015-December-04, 11:39, said:

By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.

Very interesting.

Logically what you said can't lead back to same thing.Now,please allow me to take a classic example:

---

XX=I usually have 10hcp plus,our joint strength is more than opps.
And then after XX,one of opps is forced to escape to one new suit,all the double by opener or responder are penalty because of misfit.
As for this hand,let's make a logic analysis.
Why does East escape to 2d after first double by West ? just because of weakish hand,Mgoetze said well," 2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx". in another word,East is forced to escape to 2♦,so proving by the same methods,I would decide the second double by South is only for penalty because of misfit.

[lycier]

gwnn, on 2015-December-04, 11:39, said:

By the same logic, 1♦-x would also be penalty as opps have not found a real suit fit. Let alone 1♥/1♠-x where opps are technically not guaranteed to have found a real suit fit, but OK, let's say that they are statistically likely to have one.

Very interesting.

Logically what you said can't lead back to same thing.Now,please allow me to take a classic example:

---

XX=I usually have 10hcp plus,our joint strength is more than opps.
And then after XX,one of opps is forced to escape to one new suit,all the double by opener or responder are penalty because of misfit.
As for this hand,let's make a logic analysis.
Why does East escape to 2d after first double by West ? just because of weakish hand,Mgoetze said well," 2♦ means "I have diamonds and I'm too weak to sit for 1NTx". in another word,East is forced to escape to 2♦,so proving by the same methods,I would decide the second double by South is only for penalty because of misfit.

[lycier]

Sorry,repeated post due to my connection delay.

[ggwhiz]

In auctions like this we go by the over/under principle. If you are under the bidder it's takeout, over is penalty.

And here a 2M bid should just show 4 of them as you didn't transfer over the 1nt bid. Might be a (rare) problem when responder has 4-4 in the majors but I'll pay off to that as they could have risked 2 clubs directly.

[gwnn]

You didn't address my argument at all. I didn't talk about 1D-x-xx-?. We can talk about that example once you addressed mine.

1. gwnn asks lycier something
2. lycier answers gwnn
3. lycier asks gwnn something
4. gwnn answers lycier

You skipped from 1 to 3 without skipping a beat. That's unfair and rude.

[lycier]

Double by south says
1- I have a good ♦ constructure with some strength in the hand,we can beat opps 2♦ contract because of opps misfit.
2- Or I have some defensive tricks in ♦,our joint strength are more than opps,we can beat opps 2♦ contract.

[gwnn]

OK sorry I asked.

[gordontd]

gwnn, on 2015-December-05, 01:54, said:

OK sorry I asked.

I think you are wasting your breath

[Jinksy]

ggwhiz, on 2015-December-04, 20:28, said:

In auctions like this we go by the over/under principle. If you are under the bidder it's takeout, over is penalty.

This seems weird to me. Wherever you have asymmetrical doubles, your partnership can only bid half as many hands.

[gwnn]

Jinksy, on 2015-December-05, 17:36, said:

This seems weird to me. Wherever you have asymmetrical doubles, your partnership can only bid half as many hands.

Well, the rationale is that half of the hands aren't meant to be bid at all (let's say, if the 1NT opener doubles for penalty when she's under the bidder but her p hasn't shown any points). I'm not sold on it (the half in my previous sentence is really less than half), but this is the standard defence of the method and it has at least some merit.

[Jinksy]

That seems more like a rationale for takeout doubles - now responder won't X with no points and the hand doesn't get bid.

[wank]

as far as i'm concerned, when opps protect and one of your partnership has yet to make a bid showing any values (which normally means any bid, double or redouble which wasn't forced), double is take-out, otherwise it's penalties.

as responder hasn't shown anything on this auction, doubles are take-out from both sides.

[helene_t]

Maybe it should have been penalty (or at least optional) if opps' suit was clubs, since responder would probably have used garbage stayman with a hand suitable for a t/o double on clubs?

But when they bid a red suit I think t/o is clearly superior. Probably also if they bid spades.