Consider this auction:
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♥ | Pass | 2♣* | 2♦ |
| ? |
*Natural but forcing to game (2/1 style).
If you don't play 2/1 then imagine another GF auction, say:
| West | North | East | South |
| 2♣ | Pass | 2♥ | 2♠ |
| ? |
Do you do this?
| Action | Meaning |
| Pass | Either penalties or doesn't fit double |
| Double | Takeout/Support |
| Bid | Lots of shape |
This is what I call a backwards double. You have to pass when you want to double and double when you want to pass.
A takeout double asks partner to take action because you feel it is right but don't have a suitable bid yourself. Asking partner to bid in an auction that is already forcing makes little sense. I suggest the following system:
| Action | Meaning |
| Pass | Nothing to say |
| Double | I want to penalise |
| Bid | Suits or shape worth bidding |
Takeout doubles are much more flexible than penalty doubles. They keep the auction open for a round, meaning that you can double and bid to show a much greater variety of hands: X then bid, pass then bid, bid straight away, pass then pass a double, etc. They just allow for so many more auctions. Similarly, (1NT) X (run) X is so much better treated as takeout than penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe only benefit I can see of your scheme is the ability to make a penalty double, but this is a false benefit since it is exactly the same as passing a takeout double. "Nothing to say" seems to cater for very few hand types, but with these you can just X with a shortage, or pass then find another bid with some length in the overcaller's suit. It loses all of the nuances and extra options provided by takeout doubles and is therefore inferior, IMHO.