4-4 point low approach, diagonal contact then pincer

This is the game continuation which I played on the premise that if Black would normally have played at then it was obviously a good place for White to play.

The alternative I thought of was an underpowered extension at a or b; but it seems hard to justify if your extension will be underpowered and Black can then secure the other side with a play at . Anyway, just curious whether I made the right choice, as the game continuation was not in my favour.

Charles The usual thing is here, though I wouldn't call as played a bad idea. This sequence has been played by pros (Ishida Yoshio tried the + idea at one stage).

The important differences between this and are

1. contact moves are good for defence, and
2. getting split up (e.g. Black at c above) doubles the trouble.

Andre Engels: It seems that this has even been played enough by professionals for a joseki to have been developed.

The follow-up in this diagram is what is most played by professionals, although the location of is actually quite variable; a and capping the pincer (when it has been played on the third line) are also seen.

The thing is, I have nowhere near enough experience to get an idea about where these lines would go but it seems to me black has to give up the corner or allow the extension attempted with (only in a different place obviously). Sorry if this is going a little off topic but this sort of play from black is quite common at lower levels and I would like to have as many ideas as possible to combat it :). Thanks in advance!

ps. I don't like the look of but I can't think of a stronger way to support whilst not forcing black to play a specific side.

Andre Engels: White 8 is a very strange shape. White's stones are not working at their fullest. I think that after (which has been denounced above), the best way to answer would be white a-black b-white c. White's two stones on the top might come under attack, but white still has the 3-3 point invasion at d, which threatens to link up to both sides if things get too problematic. looks like a good move, but e instead gives a standard double approach move joseki.

Andre Engels: At second thought, white a-black b-white d probably looks even better.

LovedInEmerald The usual thing is here, though I wouldn't call as played a bad idea.

I'm just checking to make 100% sure here but that doesn't sound like a denouncement per se ie. it doesn't sound like there is no constructive follow-up to . I am reading everyone's advice and taking note of it but I was curious as to what possibilities there would be with my original idea (other than getting split up and then owned as happened in my game). I also (at an unclassified but unarguably low rank) do not want to limit myself to knowing only one move in any given circumstance as it is as useful to know why some moves aren't played as it is to know why some moves are played. Hope that clears up why I asked the question in the first place :). Thanks for your input anyway! :D

Charles Playing on the other side might be considered typical of handicap go: you can argue that it's wrong in principle and unsound, but in practice it produces a complex situation which gives White chances and some ways to exploit Black's shape.