[Phil]

Had a good chat with Gnome this AM about the "Boxed 0346" thread.

How do you play double in this sequence:

1♣ - pass - 1♥ - 3♠;
dbl?

Thanks.

[mfa1010]

Takeout. But we have to double with 18-19 bal w/o stopper also, as well as on many other strong hands with no good alternative.

[JLOGIC]

Takeout

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-12, 13:32, said:

Takeout

I think this is a minority view among experts.

Rainer Herrmann

[gordontd]

That may depend on where you are. What would you expect the majority expert view to be Rainer?

[karlson]

I would expect this double to be takeout undiscussed with an expert partner almost anywhere.

I think any of the first four descriptions could double except balanced hands with most of their stuff in spades. It's unfortunate that there are so many hand types, but at least we have left a lot of possibilities open.

[Fluffy]

takeout, but I never made a list of preference for partner's actions, dunno if he will bid 3NT or 4♥ with decent stopper and decet 5 card heart

[rhm]

gordontd, on 2011-January-13, 07:46, said:

That may depend on where you are. What would you expect the majority expert view to be Rainer?

Of course double is not penalty in this context.

"Ownership. Promises balance of power, may be vague on shape" probably comes closest what a majority of experts play no matter where.
But I think a majority of experts would not double with a void in ♠, at least when there is a decent alternative and there is almost always one with a void. With 2 cards in ♠ they would almost always double unless they had good support for ♥ or 3NT would be attractive.

Saying

mfa1010, on 2011-January-12, 13:20, said:

Takeout. But we have to double with 18-19 bal w/o stopper also, as well as on many other strong hands with no good alternative.

is just a mis-description of what takeout stands for. You might as well say I always double 3♠ unless I have a minimum in HCP. You can mis-describe hands and you can abuse the meaning of words too.

Rainer Herrmann

[mfa1010]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-12, 13:20, said:

Takeout. But we have to double with 18-19 bal w/o stopper also, as well as on many other strong hands with no good alternative.

rhm, on 2011-January-13, 09:28, said:

is just a mis-description of what takeout stands for. You might as well say I always double 3♠ unless I have a minimum in HCP. You can mis-describe hands and you can abuse the meaning of words too.

No it is not. It an indication of how partner is supposed to react to the double as well as a rough description of when we would double. We are doubling with the expectation that partner will bid as if we have a take-out shape, even though we sometimes are somewhat off such a perfect shape.

[helene_t]

We have to double with most strong hands that don't have a spade stopper and don't have 4-card heart support. 4♣ and 4♦ would be rare and maybe 4♦ should be used for a good heart raise as it is hard to think of a hand that would bid a natural 4♦ rather than double, pass or 3NT. With 5-6 minors we can bid 4NT maybe, although maybe that should be RKC for hearts.

Agree with Michael that 1345 is typical. But we don't promise 3-card support so partner will usually bid 3NT than 4♥ with a spade stopper and five hearts.

[han]

Takeout. That includes some balanced 18-19 hands without a stopper, but excludes a hand like AK10x x AQx Kxxxx, with which I would pass.

[awm]

It's somewhere in between "takeout" and "ownership" -= I think most everyone agrees on this actually, but there are a lot of quibbles about the actual term used.

I'd describe the double as "extra values, fewer than four hearts, not a strong spade holding." Partner is expected to pass with many balanced hands, but should always take another call with a shapely hand. It's similar to the expert standard treatment of doubling a 4♠ opening (i.e. "convertible values", although some now play that as more takeout-oriented). Of the descriptions in the poll, I think "ownership" is the best, although certainly it is closer to "takeout" than "penalty."

[han]

I play that a double of a 4S is takeout, and if there is a standard expert treatment here, I'd expect that this is it.

[655321]

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this discussion is well worth reading.

[han]

Thanks 655, great read.

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-January-17, 07:51, said:

Thanks 655, great read.

Me too.

[rhm]

While not exactly the same sequence the link below involves a hand played by Fred and has a stimulating discussion by top experts about the meaning of DBL of preempts and when to leave them in:

http://www.bridgewin...urther-review-i

For me it confirms that the "takeout brigade" here is a bit over the top.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2011-January-19, 05:15, said:

While not exactly the same sequence the link below involves a hand played by Fred and has a stimulating discussion by top experts about the meaning of DBL of preempts and when to leave them in:

http://www.bridgewin...urther-review-i

For me it confirms that the "takeout brigade" here is a bit over the top.

Rainer Herrmann

That's quite an amazing post. First you didn't notice that all three of the previous posts are discussing the same link. Then you fail to notice that in the thread you are referring to, every expert except Kit Woolsey calls this double a takeout.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2011-January-19, 05:40, said:

That's quite an amazing post. First you didn't notice that all three of the previous posts are discussing the same link.

True, I overlooked that reference. Big Deal.

Quote

Then you fail to notice that in the thread you are referring to, every expert except Kit Woolsey calls this double a takeout.

Sorry, but there are at least 3 different camps and maybe you next time read more carefully before you reply.

For example Rosenberg and particularly Cohen (among others) are neither in Kit Woolsey nor in the take-out camp.
Cohen calls his double explicitly "CARDS".
Nor seems Steeve Weinberg approve of Bobby's double. ("I strongly dislike double with Bobby's hand")
But maybe these are all not experts to you.

Rainer Herrmann

.

[han]

rhm, on 2011-January-19, 06:04, said:

maybe you next time read more carefully before you reply.