[jillybean]

I think there is a big gap here between 'forum standard' and 'local club standard', please vote

[JLOGIC]

Takeout, I will venture to say in every universe!

[mich-b]

Did you perhaps want to ask about (1x) - X - (1y) - X ?

[jillybean]

mich-b, on 2011-September-01, 01:39, said:

Did you perhaps want to ask about (1x) - X - (1y) - X ?

nope, (1x) P (1y) X but while we are at it was is (1x) X (1y) X

[BunnyGo]

jillybean, on 2011-September-01, 01:42, said:

nope, (1x) P (1y) X but while we are at it was is (1x) X (1y) X

In the auction:

(1x) X (1M) X

the second X is showing the stolen bid suit. If you're playing against people who don't have this agreement (or some other agreement to take care of this) then you should consider psyching against them if you can safely run back to partner's x. They will learn to adopt this bidding eventually.

I am not 100% sure this same meaning is used in the auction
(1c) X (1d) X
but I believe it is as well.

[mich-b]

jillybean, on 2011-September-01, 01:42, said:

nope, (1x) P (1y) X but while we are at it was is (1x) X (1y) X

(1x) P (1y) X is takeout 100% , and I have never seen it used differently.
(1x) X (1y) X we play as penalty (4 card suit , some values) , which in practice rarely produces a penalty, but sometimes enables us to compete the partscore playing 2y. I did see quite a few people playing this as takeout though.

[BunnyGo]

jillybean, on 2011-September-01, 01:42, said:

nope, (1x) P (1y) X but while we are at it was is (1x) X (1y) X

Oh yes, and I completely agree that I've never seen

(1x) P (1y) X

as anything but takeout (expert standard or "otherwise", as I usually play "otherwise").

[marcD]

mich-b, on 2011-September-01, 01:39, said:

Did you perhaps want to ask about (1x) - X - (1y) - X ?

lol . i assumed this was the question . good reading test

[mgoetze]

I guess you only want North Americans to participate in the poll but...

JLOGIC, on 2011-September-01, 01:30, said:

Takeout, I will venture to say in every universe!

...definitely in my universe.

[BunnyGo]

marcD, on 2011-September-01, 03:52, said:

lol . i assumed this was the question . good reading test

Does that mean you meant to vote for "Takeout, and I don't know what expert standard is"?

[wyman]

JB, I'm too lazy at the moment to find it, but there's a thread from the last couple months where some people compiled a list of doubles that are not takeout. I think there were appx 15 situations identified as non-TO X's, and it's worth discussing the agreement with partner that "X is takeout unless it's one of these situations: ..."

Definitely worth finding. I posted in it, if you need help narrowing down threads.

edit -- ok, ok: http://www.bridgebas...lts-for-doubles

[gwnn]

Everybody plays it as takeout, but many people don't need 4-4 in the unbid suits for it. For example, 15 balanced with 4-3 in the unbid suits but a shabby stopper in one of the bid suits is a good hand to double with.

[mgoetze]

wyman, on 2011-September-01, 06:26, said:

edit -- ok, ok: http://www.bridgebas...lts-for-doubles

Just two months after mine.

http://www.bridgebas...enalty-doubles/

[jillybean]

Ok thanks, that is 100% clear.

Does anything change if you add sandwhich nt to the card?

(1x) P (1y) 1N*
(1x) P (1y) X

[wyman]

What I've always agreed with partner is that X is a value-based dbl, allowed to have the least shape but still t/o; 1N is a more shape-driven takeout; and 2N is a 5+/5+ takeout. But I only play sandwich by a PH.

[semeai]

mgoetze, on 2011-September-01, 07:44, said:

Just two months after mine.

http://www.bridgebas...enalty-doubles/

I wondered why I didn't get many responses! Thanks for the link to your thread.

[BunnyGo]

wyman, on 2011-September-01, 08:09, said:

What I've always agreed with partner is that X is a value-based dbl, allowed to have the least shape but still t/o; 1N is a more shape-driven takeout; and 2N is a 5+/5+ takeout. But I only play sandwich by a PH.

huh, that's what I've usually played too.

[jillybean]

Maybe some of the problem is the way we are playing sandwhich NT, I haven't yet met a partner
who distinguishes between S1N by a passed hand vs. unpassed hand. I like the idea of 1N by an UPH being natural, X showing a value t/o, sandwhich 1N by PH and 2N as 5+/5+

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2011-September-01, 18:19, said:

Maybe some of the problem is the way we are playing sandwhich NT, I haven't yet met a partner
who distinguishes between S1N by a passed hand vs. unpassed hand. I like the idea of 1N by an UPH being natural, X showing a value t/o, sandwhich 1N by PH and 2N as 5+/5+

I play sandwhich also here. Of course I think expert standard is 1nt as natural to stop the opp from stealing.

In any case for an unpassed hand, 1nt sandwhich would tend to be weaker, less than opening strength than x as takeout here in your example.


by a passed hand I guess I would take sandwhich nt as more dist than x.

[Vampyr]

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think that "sandwhich" is a bridge term made up from a nonsense word. The idea is that you are "between" the two opponents, as in a "sandwich".