Is the double for penalties or take out?

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sa1096hjdkqj753c76]133|100|Scoring: MP

East passes, you open 1♦, West overcalls 1♥, pd passes, East bids 2♥. You decide not to compete further and pass, west passes and now pd doubles. Is this a penalty double? [/hv]

[Guest Jlall]

yes X is penalty. And I would never have passed 2H, but now I will pass. If partner wanted to make a t/o X he should have bid over 1H immediately.

[ochinko]

I follow the rule that a double after only we have found a fit is penalty, after only opps found a fit - takeout, but since partner failed to double immediately, and I look at hust a single heart, I'm torn apart. I still prefer to bid 2Sp and be at the safer side. The danger of making a game score for the opps when there is no game for them is too big.

 

I agree with Justin though. If you had bid 2Sp over 2H partner would have been better informed about your distribution.

 

Petko

[luke warm]

how can 2H be anything other than penalty? it can't be t/o else x 1H...

[han]

When no fit is found double is takeout unless it can't be. Here it can't be, so penalty.

 

I would have doubled 2H myself.

[Flame]

I dont agree that there is no point in t.o now, there are 2 hand type that would want to t.o

1. a hand with right shape for initial double but a bit too weak.

2. a hand with no 4 spades if u play double to show 4 spades. (not recommanded but most still play this) something like 3235 with 9 hcp.

OFcourse looking at my hand and the bidding it sounds like partner ment it as penalty.

[MickyB]

I agree that this double sounds like penalties, partly because responder chose not to double 1H for takeout...however 1S-P-2S-P, P-X is takeout even though that hand could have doubled for takeout immediately. Does anyone know of a rule to formalise when doubling a suit at the 2nd opportunity is for takeout, and when it is for penalties?

[Chamaco]

agree with Han, Flame and Micky.

 

Easy to infer from or hand that X is penalty*here*, but I do think that is useful to uise it as takeout with a weeakish hand that wd not takeout at first round.

As opener I'd have doubled right away, to relieve the pressure on balancer.

[luke warm]

take mickey's example bidding

 

1S-P-2S-P, P-X

 

i don't agree that this should be for t/o, nor am i convinced 'all doubles t.p until fit found) is sound... pass is still available, you know... on sheer probabilities, what type hand is more likely to *not* double 1S the first time and do so the 2nd time? a hand with or without spades?

[david_c]

take mickey's example bidding

 

1S-P-2S-P, P-X

 

i don't agree that this should be for t/o, nor am i convinced 'all doubles t.p until fit found) is sound... pass is still available, you know...  on sheer probabilities, what type hand is more likely to *not* double 1S the first time and do so the 2nd time? a hand with or without spades?

I'd imagine a hand without spades is much more likely. Probably didn't double the first time because the hand wasn't strong enough. Hands suitable for a penalty double here would likely have overcalled 1NT on the first round. (That's not guaranteed of course, but a spade stack is less likely after the raise.)

[Chamaco]

The main test to decide what to do over this "unagreed " double is not the kind of hand posted in this thread.

The main test is when opener holds a 5332 hand with 3 spades.

 

In that case opener would not have any inferences on whether the double shows length or shortness in opps suit.

 

When pard doubles in the balancig seat we have to be sure whether to balancing X is conmpetitive or going for blood :-)

[Fluffy]

Its penalty because otherwise, you might end up with a strong hand that has no way to be bid, not like weak hands, where you can just pass.

[kgr]

Takeout for me. Something like 3=2=3=5 or 3=1=3=6 and not strong enough to bid over 1H. (around 8 or 9 pts)

[luke warm]

I'd imagine a hand without spades is much more likely.

why? what kind of hand without spades would pass the first time, then double 2S to balance? a 1444 10 count? double the first time..

 

Probably didn't double the first time because the hand wasn't strong enough.

 

so it got stronger?

 

Hands suitable for a penalty double here would likely have overcalled 1NT on the first round. (That's not guaranteed of course, but a spade stack is less likely after the raise.)

 

i think the penalty double has become endangered for no good reason... i also think that if made even a partial comeback, some of these weak openings would suddenly get stronger

[han]

I agree that this double sounds like penalties, partly because responder chose not to double 1H for takeout...however 1S-P-2S-P, P-X is takeout even though that hand could have doubled for takeout immediately. Does anyone know of a rule to formalise when doubling a suit at the 2nd opportunity is for takeout, and when it is for penalties?

Yes here is a good rule:

 

Double is penalty if we could have made the same takeout double last round but passed. The auction (1x)-p-(2x)-p-p-Dbl is the ONLY exception.

 

 

As for the auction 1m-(1H)-p-(2H)-p-p-Dbl, that one is absolutely clear. We don't have spades because we would have bid them. We don't have support for partner's minor, since we would have bid it last time. How can we have a take out double? Too weak to act the first round can't be the case, we need almost nothing to bid spades or raise.

 

BTW, if we want to compete now and have the minors (say 3 in partner's suit, 5 or 6 in the unbid minor) we can bid 2NT. This can't be natural as we passed the first time. But many sensible people use the first negative double for these hands, and bid 1S with only 4.

[MickyB]

Hannie,

 

Would you not play 1♣-P-1♥-P, 2♥-P-P-X as takeout?

[ochinko]

I would have doubled 2H myself.

I would not. Partner could well pass the double if he has nothing better to bid, and I'll contribute with only 1 or 2 tricks meaning that I expect partner to take at least 3 or 4. How likely is that after his initial pass?

 

Double and 2Sp suggest the same distribution but I compete with a weaker hand, and double with a stronger, so that partner is in the clear.

 

Petko

[david_c]

I'd imagine a hand without spades is much more likely.

why? what kind of hand without spades would pass the first time, then double 2S to balance? a 1444 10 count? double the first time..

♠x ♥Axxx ♦Kxxx ♣JTxx

 

♠xx ♥KJxx ♦Axx ♣Qxxx

 

♠x ♥Qxxx ♦AKxxx ♣xxx

 

etc. etc.

[han]

Mickey, yes I do play the double as take-out in that auction, good point. Although that auction is basically the same, I will go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a new rule.

 

Ochinko, if you play 2S as weaker than double, that is fine, I hope your partners know that. I treat 2S here as a reverse and would need a better hand than this. If this is all wrong, please correct me.

 

 

BTW, this thread has been very bad for me. Today I was playing with Cherdano and the following auction occured (at MP): (1S)-p-p-2H-(2S)-Dbl. Our rule is "doubles in competition are takeout unless a fit is found". However, Arend had read this thread and concluded from my remarks that I consider this a clear penalty double. I had xx Kx Qxxx KJ10xx, a takeout double is perfect for this hand! 2S doubled made 3.

 

I think that this auction is very tough, Arend's 2H bid has changed the meaning of my double. While an original double would have shown (roughly) 1-4-4-4 shape, the later double (if takeout) denied as many as 3 hearts.

[ochinko]

Ochinko, if you play 2S as weaker than double, that is fine, I hope your partners know that. I treat 2S here as a reverse and would need a better hand than this. If this is all wrong, please correct me.

I can't say you're wrong because it seems more like a matter of a partnership agreement.

 

After many misunderstandings at the table we reached an agreement that a reverse will show a strong hand (17-19) only if made with both majors or both minors. We like to compete but don't like bad results, so we decided that in a competitive bidding the stronger hand doesn't compete further, the distributional one does. That way if partner decides to double for penalties, she takes into account only her defensive tricks outside our fit(s).

 

But you make a good point. I got so comfortable in our agreement that I'm likely to bid like that with a pickup partner, and deceive them for showing a much stronger hand than I have.

 

Petko

 

Edit: By distributional I mean a hand with an unexpressed distribution. We try not to bid our hand twice.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

yes, partner made a trap pass, expecting

you to reopen the bidding in case East did

not raise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luke warm]

Hannie,

 

Would you not play 1♣-P-1♥-P, 2♥-P-P-X as takeout?

han might, but i don't think i would... my lho bid 1C, my partner passed(!) my rho bid 1H and i passed(!), my lho raised to 2H, partner again passes, and i double? what do i have? spades and diamonds? wasn't it safer to compete over 1H?

 

remember, partner could bid nothing over 1C... i am not strong enough, even with the other 2 suits, to bid over 1H... maybe the double should be takeout here, but it seems to me i can double 1H or simply pass all the way

[han]

I think I would like to play double as takeout in that auction, even though I couldn't double earlier. The fact that the opponents have found a fit and are willing to stop at the 2-level gives me a strong incentive to reopen.

[1eyedjack]

I play a fairly simple "meta" system of agreements on doubles with reg p.

This is born out of a realisation that more points are lost through misinterpreting the meanings of doubles than most other misunderstandings. The OP is a case in point. Looking at your own hand you can predict that the double is penalties. But having a system that relies on partner interpreting whether your X was t/o or pen depending on his own cards is a recipe for disaster, however clear it might be on this hand.

 

The general rules that p and I follow are to answer the following questions in priority:

 

Q1) Have we expressed a fit? If yes, then X = penalty If no, proceed to Q2

Q2) Are oppo in a fit at the 2 level? If yes then X - t/o. If no, proceed to Q3

Q3) Do any one or more of the following conditions apply:

... a ) Pass is forcing

... b ) Oppo are in NT

... c ) Either of us has expressed or implied length in oppo suit

... d ) Doubler trap passed when he had opportunity to double the same suit for t/o earlier

... e ) Either of us has preempted

... f ) Oppo are at level higher than 4H

If yes, then X = penalty

If no, then X = t/o

 

There may be some more subtle inferences about (eg) additional shape requirements for the t/o X etc, and there are additional agreements required to flesh it out, eg:

 

If we have doubled their 1NT for penalty, and they wriggle, pass of 2m is forcing but not of 2M (however long it takes to get there).

If we open 1NT we have NOT implied length in a suit that opponents overcall

If we overcall 1NT then we HAVE implied length in the suit overcalled (but not another), UNLESS oppo support their suit

If opponents give preference at 2 level by bidding, then a fit is NOT implied, but if they give preference by passing then a fit IS implied.

 

I expect that if I think hard enough there are other little add-ons that we have come to agree on in order not to disturb the basic algorithm.

You might want to add a proviso that if double is the only available game try after we have found a fit, then it is for take-out (personallyI just bid game :-))

 

We also have a few nasties that b*gger up the flow diagram a bit, for example

(1m) - P - (1-suit) - X we play as 3-suited t/o of opener, and 1N as 3-suited t/o of responder, and artificial X of strong 1C opener.

 

Anyway, applying this algorithm to the original post, I would have to conclude that the X is take-out, because the question "Are they in a fit at 2 level" comes as a higher priority in the questions than "did partner trap pass earlier". Well, some other posters have suggested that the X should be t/o anyway, so I guess that doesn't render the algorithm totally ridiculous (on this hand, anyway).

[Beto]

I hate to double part-score for penalties... but in this case...

 

Pass in 1♥ and then double after the raise means that partner would like to double 1♥!!!

 

If you play this double as takeout, you will get opps only when opener has 16+ pts and doubles for takeout... And with 16+ and a trap pass you probably make 3N anyway...

 

In this case, if partner want me to takeout he would bid 2NT which is clearly some kind of scrambling. I guess even 2♠ in this bidding should be something ART, because after passing 1♥ partner does not have spades.