[Fluffy]

What do you think its the standard meaing for these?
1♣-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♦-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♥-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♠-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double

[aguahombre]

IME, the "standard" meaning of these doubles is that the opening side is headed for a good score in one of two ways:

--The double was ill-advised, or
--The double will be misconstrued.

My preference is for the doubles to show a lot of length and strength in Opener's suit, reducing the above to only "ill-advised" when we get our bad score.

[gnasher]

I think it's standard to play them for penalties, with length and strength in opener's suit.

You didn't ask, but I prefer to play them as a balanced hand of about opening strength, or some similar hand that doesn't want to pass 1NT. This is particularly a good idea against people who like to respond on very weak hands.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-July-04, 09:30

[JLOGIC]

Penalty, obviously based on length/strength in the opponents suit.

[JLOGIC]

 gnasher, on 2012-July-04, 09:27, said:

You didn't ask, but I prefer to play them as a balanced hand of about opening strength, or some similar hand that doesn't want to pass 1NT. This is particularly a good idea against people who like to respond on very weak hands.

You could try making takeout doubles to begin with with those hands, unless you have a lot of strength/length in the opponents suit. Maybe this is the kind of balanced hand you were talking about, I am not sure.

[gnasher]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-July-04, 10:44, said:

You could try making takeout doubles to begin with with those hands

Would you double a 1♠ opening with a 3334 13-count?

[Free]

 gnasher, on 2012-July-04, 13:40, said:

Would you double a 1♠ opening with a 3334 13-count?

Would you pass 1♠ and double 1NT with that?

[gnasher]

 Free, on 2012-July-04, 13:44, said:

Would you pass 1♠ and double 1NT with that?

No, I just thought I'd ask a completely irrelevant question.

[lalldonn]

Lol at last post.

Personally I would tend to double 1♠ with a 3334 13 count.

[dake50]

1m-1NT-, -X: 10 with MM: 4-3.
1M-1NT-, -X: 10 with 4oM.

[gszes]

i do not see the logic here from many of the responses---1M p 1n p p
your p is going to be on lead they will mostly be able to look at their
M suit cards and see if you are long in the opps M. An x in PO seat
(under these circumstances) seems to do nothing more than warn the
opps they are probably in a poor spot and gives them a chance to run
out if they have one.

IMO when the opps open 1M and the bidding goes 1M p 1n p p and X
should be a weak TOX. P has some power but may have been hamstrung
in the bidding because they had the wrong distribtuion to enter. The delayed
TOX should be very clear you were too weak to act initially but are balancing
because it is a lot safer now.

When the opps open 1m a much stronger case can be made for PO X being
penalty. This is mainly because there are far fewer places the opps can
run if things look poor for them. It is also much more difficult for p to have
a decent hand a poor distribution to enter the bidding earlier. P will not
normally be able to look at their m cards and tell you are long in the m suit
just from the bidding. IMO

1M p 1n p p x = TOX
1m p 1n p p x = long in m penalty try vs 2m = long and weak

[aguahombre]

Gszes: I think the flaw in what you are saying is that when we have the light takeout double, partner will only have his 4 or five spades under the opener and nowhere to go.

The trade-off of the double being length and strength behind opener's major would come only when Responder has a six card suit to bail out to, and we will break even with the FNT people on those hands.

[yin970902]

IMO,
1♣(p)1NT(p)P(Double)=delayed TOX(takeout double),opps maybe match up with minor C
1♦(p)1NT(p)P(Double)=delayed TOX,,opps maybe match up with minor D
1♥(p)1NT(p)P(Double)=penalty. good ♥suit,good hand card
1♠(p)1NT(p)P(Double)=penalty. good ♠suit,good hand card

[lycier]

 Fluffy, on 2012-July-04, 07:44, said:

What do you think its the standard meaing for these?
1♣-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♦-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♥-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double
1♠-pass-1NT-pass-pass-double

Hi,
if me, I think all of double bids belong to "Lead directive double" with penalty at the balanced seat.
player who made double think opp's 1NT can be down if lead opener's suit.
if we want to make take-out double,we can directely bid 2c.2c show it will support all of unbids suit.

[Phil]

I play all these as penalty.

[awm]

Playing this as a weak takeout seems like a bad idea. Over 1M-P-1N-P-P, opponents normally will not have an eight-card fit in M. So if I have a weakish 1444 (for example) that marks partner with a five-card spade suit. Quite often he will be 5(233) and we have no fit... opponents know their combined values (which could easily be as much as 24 hcp) and will usually be well-positioned to penalize us. Plus suits are not breaking.

Over 1m-P-1N-P-P, a light takeout in principle makes more sense since opponents could easily have eight or even nine cards in the minor. However, most of us will act pretty aggressively in direct seat when holding both majors over one of a minor, which means this sort of double will be quite rare.

I think the real question is not whether this is penalty or takeout, but "how penalty" is it? While it could be "I had a penalty double of the suit you opened, I have this beat in my hand" that seems like a really rare hand type to hold. Much more common is a sort of cooperative penalty double, typically something like 13-14 balanced with a good holding in the suit opened (i.e. about a queen short of an immediate 1NT overcall and the wrong shape for an immediate double). This type of double is more a suggestion to defend than a demand to do so; partner is allowed to pull if holding a very poor hand especially with a five-card suit of his own. While there is some risk entailed in this double (what if opponents have 24 hcp and wrap it up), it seems like our side "rates" to have the majority of the strength more often than not and given the location of our cards (strength behind strength, good holding in opener's suit behind opener) we will often do better than raw high card totals would indicate.

[steve2005]

Id say AWM has hit on the head

[gszes]

 aguahombre, on 2012-July-05, 17:00, said:

Gszes: I think the flaw in what you are saying is that when we have the light takeout double, partner will only have his 4 or five spades under the opener and nowhere to go.

The trade-off of the double being length and strength behind opener's major would come only when Responder has a six card suit to bail out to, and we will break even with the FNT people on those hands.

few of us would have a problem with say 14 count 4333 using x (after a 1s opening) even if it meant playing a significant humber of hands in a 43 fit. Even if p is marked with 4/5 spades they will
have one other 4 card or 2 other 3 card suits so our tox will almost always find us at worst in the same type fo 43 fit. Another benefit of the tox is that p (on lead) can easily convert to a penalty
if they happen to have long/strong spades and the opps will have significantly reduced chances of escaping.

Another problem with the x directly behind the 1M is that it does not require a 6 card suit to run a mere xx can warn p that they need to escape 1n and opps may easily escape to a
43 or even 53 fit and more rarely a 44 fit. Letting the opps play 1n is usually a poor idea (unless we have good reason to suspect we are beating it) playing 1M p 1n p p X as a weak tox gives
us our best chance to compete more often.