[pclayton]

Here's a few more ambiguous doubles. What do you think they mean?:

(1♣) - double - (1♥) - pass
(1♠) - double

(1♦) - pass - (1♥) - pass
(2♣) - double

[awm]

The first one I think is "cards." It just says "I have a takeout double of clubs with a lot of extra values." This is sort of a cooperative double of spades (it does imply a decent spade holding, but it's not purely "penalty" and partner shouldn't leave it in with a stiff spade for example).

The second one should be penalty-oriented with three suits bid. A likely hand includes opening values with strength in diamonds (thus no bid over 1♦), some club card, and fairly short hearts. In principle this can be removed to 2♠ by a very weak advancer (short hearts tends to imply some spade tolerance) but the expectation is that it will be left in.

[whereagles]

First should be extras, 18+ and no clear bid.

By Robson/Segal lore, second should be take-out of the second suit, 4441 or thereabouts.

[awm]

BTW I agree that 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass-1♠-X is takeout of spades. But these auctions are different, the first because of the initial double of 1♣ which seems a very unlikely call with 1444 shape. The second is different because opener's 1♦...2♣ sequence promises real length in diamonds and because many people would act immediately over 1♦ with 4-4 in the majors (but would not necessarily act over 1♣ with 1-4 or 2-4 majors).

[mikeh]

The first one is a big hand with 4+ good ♠s. Partner is expected to leave it in unless very short in ♠s. There was a similar auction in a BW MSC some time ago, and the consensus, with some disagreement, was that you cannot undo the first double, such that you now had some kind of takeout of ♠s.

On Saturday night, home team game, expert LHO and partner, intermediate RHO:

AJ72 A10 AK2 KJ82: Partner passed, RHO opened 1♦, which I doubled. LHO bid 1♥, passed by partner and RHO bid 2♥.

I passed and careful defence netted down 2 for +100, with our only makeable spot being 3♣ which would likely be 110. I asked LHO and partner their views as to double of 2♥: both felt it would be penalty-oriented.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

Here's a few more ambiguous doubles. What do you think they mean?:

(1♣) - double - (1♥) - pass
(1♠) - double

(1♦) - pass - (1♥) - pass
(2♣) - double

I would take the first one as penalty oriented. I doubled 1C for takeout, I must have some spades, right? It really shows extra values, along with reasonable spade cards, imo. Partner is expected to leave it in on any reasonable holding.

The second double doesn't exist, except maybe in the minds of those who enjoy torturing their partners.

It could mean:

1) Diamonds + spade length. (Especially if RHO can be 4♦/4+♣). No intial takeout X could well be because of diamond length combined with heart/club shortness.
2) Penalty holding ♦+♣.
3) Lead directional. (Egads!!)
4) Noise.
5) I forgot how to add the first time around and have now found a balanced 20 count in my hand.
6) I've lost my friggin' mind and wish to go for big numbers.

Of all of these, I consider #1 to be the most likely with #2 & 6 tied for 2nd.

[mike777]

Yep doubles sure are confusing.

[effervesce]

Quote

(1♣) - double - (1♥) - pass
(1♠) - double

The first double showed takeout, the 2nd double here showed cards (strong hand).

Quote

(1♦) - pass - (1♥) - pass
(2♣) - double

This should be takeout.

[skjaeran]

effervesce, on Apr 3 2007, 04:44 AM, said:

Quote

(1♦) - pass - (1♥) - pass
(2♣) - double

This should be takeout.

Takeout for what? Opps have bid three suits. Which one of these is it you're short in, and do you really want to be able to play in one of the other suits opps have bid?

Opps haven't found a fit yet. A t/o double would very often lead to us going for a zip number.

IMO this double should show a "strong" hand with good diamonds. It might show clubs too (ie a penalty double of openers minors) or 4c ♠'s (the unbid suit), thus giving us somewhere to play if partner is unable to convert it. That's a question of how you agree to play this double in your partnership.

[pclayton]

I'll take the 2nd example 1st. I was kibitzing two good players (the non-doubler the better of the two).

I think wading into an action that you've initially passed and doubling should be penalty (in this context anyway). It can function as a lead director in case they LHO rebids hearts. It does not imply or deny length in any suit except for clubs.

The 1st hand happened a few years ago. I was the doubler, and held some monstrous 4=4=1=4. I suppose I could have rebid 1N, but I felt a double of 1♠ was more descriptive. Pard pulled with 5 diamonds and struggled to make 6 tricks. Its one of those strange hands where diamonds happens to be the opponent's best fit, and they can't make anything.

[mike777]

I did this one last night but was surprised I seem to be the only one who made these doubles:

(1s)=x(me)=(1nt)=p
(2d)=x=p=p
p

Pard had something like Kxxxx...xxx...xxx...xx