[helene_t]

To my surprise I saw a very well-oiled and quite strong partnership having a misunderstanding about this basic auction:
(2♥)-pass-(3♥)-pass
(pass)-dbl*

Which hands would be suitable for such a double in the style you would assume if underdiscussed and playing with a good partner?

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on 2013-March-18, 09:00, said:

To my surprise I saw a very well-oiled and quite strong partnership having a misunderstanding about this basic auction:
(2♥)-pass-(3♥)-pass
(pass)-dbl*

Which hands would be suitable for such a double in the style you would assume if underdiscussed and playing with a good partner?

Marginal opening bids values with or without shortness in hearts. To me, an immediate takeout double of a preempt shows sound values. So with less I have to pass and depend upon partner to balance. The raise of the preempt took partner off the hook and put me back on it, so I have to decide whether to balance. If I choose to balance with a double, it is NOT for penalties. Partner is, of course, free to convert the double by passing it out. But he should not expect me to have a penalty double.

If your partnership makes immediate doubles of preempts on less than sound values, there is an argument to be made that the double of the raise of the preempt is for penalties.

[mikeh]

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of posters here play this as takeout, as per Art's comments.

I think a case can be made for this being a 'look at your hand' double.

If as advancer we hold a stiff or void in hearts, it is penalty. If we hold 2 or more, it is takeout. This assumes, reasonably enough, that the opps hold no more than 9 hearts between them. I think Zia and Rosenberg played a double a bit like this for a short time, before realizing the catastrophes that can result if one makes the wrong inference. I'd be comfortable playing this two-way approach at mps, but maybe not at imps.

[CamHenry]

This situation comes up infrequently enough that my regular partnerships have a meta-rule: "If I declined to double that suit for takeout earlier, I've missed the bus and now it's penalties". That does lead to some retarded doubles, but at least it doesn't cause frequent partscore-doubled-up-two accidents...

[gnasher]

There wasn't an overwhelming majority for "takeout" in 2008 (though that was after a 2♠ opening):

http://www.bridgebas...age__mode__show

[Fluffy]

I though the rule was doubles of retarded bids are for penalty.

It depends on the light you overcall live, I oercall sound and weak takeout hand makes sense. But obviously it makes less sense if you double a 4144 10 count at first round

[Antrax]

mikeh, on 2013-March-18, 10:11, said:

If as advancer we hold a stiff or void in hearts, it is penalty. If we hold 2 or more, it is takeout.

Is this a legal agreement? Isn't this some sort of encrypted bid?

[Free]

Penalty, doesn't need to be 2533 though

[mikeh]

Antrax, on 2013-March-18, 11:39, said:

Is this a legal agreement? Isn't this some sort of encrypted bid?

I've never played it: I read, years ago, that Zia and Rosenberg had been playing it. I've always been too risk-averse to actually use a gadget that is so prone to mishap, especially since the mishap is almost always going to be extremely expensive. So I have no idea as to its legality. I would think, however, that as it relates to bidding it wouldn't rule afoul of the prohibition against encrypted signalling in the play. I'm not going to look it up, since it will likely never be relevant to me, even if I resume playing.

[FrancesHinden]

Undiscussed, I would assume it is penalties.

Discussed, I play it the way Mike describes as 'two-way': either penalties (usually 5 but possibly 4+ trumps if opponents can be trusted) or light takeout (usually a void, at most 1 heart).

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-18, 09:28, said:

Marginal opening bids values with or without shortness in hearts. To me, an immediate takeout double of a preempt shows sound values. So with less I have to pass and depend upon partner to balance. The raise of the preempt took partner off the hook and put me back on it, so I have to decide whether to balance. If I choose to balance with a double, it is NOT for penalties. Partner is, of course, free to convert the double by passing it out. But he should not expect me to have a penalty double.

If your partnership makes immediate doubles of preempts on less than sound values, there is an argument to be made that the double of the raise of the preempt is for penalties.

This sounds like the sort of method that works best when opponents don't know you are playing it. Otherwise you will go for some substantial penalties. I can't see why I'd want to protect 3H with 'marginal values without shortness in hearts' Do you mainly play matchpoints?

[akhare]

Our agreement is that it's for for penalty.

[gnasher]

Antrax, on 2013-March-18, 11:39, said:

Is this a legal agreement? Isn't this some sort of encrypted bid?

It's just a two-way double. There's nothing encrypted about it. I think what Mike should have said was "If as advancer we hold a stiff or void in hearts, we assume it is penalty. If we hold 2 or more, we assume it is takeout."

The rules about what methods are allowed vary by jurisdiction. I don't know of anywhere where this two-way double is forbidden. It's allowed in the ACBL, in England, in WBF events and in EBL events.

[SteveMoe]

...adding <3♠, and >2♥, and <6 (♣ or ♦) with opening strength or better.

[ArtK78]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-18, 15:17, said:

This sounds like the sort of method that works best when opponents don't know you are playing it. Otherwise you will go for some substantial penalties. I can't see why I'd want to protect 3H with 'marginal values without shortness in hearts' Do you mainly play matchpoints?

The OP asked a question and I answered it. It doesn't mean that I would make such a double.

It is just the only thing that makes sense.

[Mbodell]

Antrax, on 2013-March-18, 11:39, said:

Is this a legal agreement? Isn't this some sort of encrypted bid?

Encrypted bidding is legal. Only encrypted defensive signals are banned. I've played encrypted game tries before.

[JLOGIC]

I had this auction like 8 years ago with Ari Greenberg in the US team trials. FWIW I had an opening hand with 3 small of their suit. These days I just make a t/o X of 2M with this hand but I feel like penalty is not the right way to play it, it is too rare/almost impossible.

Anyways I think most experts at that time thought it was pen. My partner also passed and we had a game and 3M was cold.

I think its a bad spot for either/or doubles and I like those. This is a situation where they can have 8-10 trumps. Pretty sure I posted this auction on the forums way back when if anyone can find it.

[1eyedjack]

I think that if you play it as takeout and the opponents know that you play it as takeout then they have an opportunity to play silly buggers and raise on a misfit. Particularly if they are 10 down going into the last 8.

[helene_t]

Doubler had a 4333 11count . Advancer with stiff hearts assumed penalties .
I tend to agree with Frances. Doubling with 4333 11 and also with 4045 9 might work if opps can be trusted to be in a 9 card fit. I recall having been in a 4-2 fit and also in a 7-4 fit on this auction (albeit at different vulnerabilitis).

[barmar]

Antrax, on 2013-March-18, 11:39, said:

Is this a legal agreement? Isn't this some sort of encrypted bid?

As someone else pointed out, there's no prohibition of encrypted bids.

And it's less "encrypted" than RKCB responses -- if you hold 3 key cards, and partner responds 5♣ or 5♦, you know he has the lower of the possible meanings, but the opponents don't. In the case of the retarded double, you only have an inferential count.