Opener's Double in Pass Out Seat

[EUVID]

My partner opened 1NT and I was planning to pass with 3 points and 4 small spades. Before I did, however, RHO overcalled 2 diamonds. I had 2 small diamonds and passed the bid around to my partner, who doubled. When it came back to me, I passed. I assumed this was a penalty double, since we play mirror doubles and I could have handled any positive response on the first round if I had the values. They made an overtrick and I was in the dog house with partner who said the double was for takeout. He didn’t want to sell out to 2 diamonds and wanted my input. He said I should have bid 2 spades. I argued that my pass told the story of my hand and if he wanted to take the contract, he should have just bid something. Anybody have an opnion?

[rogerclee]

It's normal to play this double is takeout. The reason is that the opener, who is already very limited, is unlikely to have a pure penalty double opposite a partner who couldn't bid over 2♦. In fact, even if he does have a pure penalty double, he is reasonably happy to pass, since the opponents are probably already in a bad spot.

 

However if he has a diamond doubleton (which is also much more frequent than a penalty double!), then it is usually right to compete. Maybe this will push the opponents up a level, maybe partner can convert the double with a reasonable hand and some diamonds, maybe the best spot is for you to just take a shot at 2M or 3♣.

[Fluffy]

I think penalty doubles where the old style on this position, but on modern bridge everyone is playing take out now.

[hotShot]

There are not enough hands (if any at all) that partner would open 1NT and that can bring opps 2♦ down single handed. Since you showed "nothing".

I suggest you try to build one, and remember that the opponent must be able to bid 2♦ with what's left.

[neilkaz]

Opener's double here is just trying to compete for the hand, and is also likely if you play negative doubles.

 

When you have 3 hcp it is really unlikely that opener can want to defend 2♦x.

 

I'm sorry, but perhaps it is differences in language, but I don't know what a mirror double is.

[mikeh]

'standard' has been, at least in NA, that 1N (bid) P (P) x was takeout and 1N (p) P (bid) x is penalty.

 

The reasoning is that opener is limited both in strength and suit length, so even a maximumm hand can't be sure of taking 6 tricks if in front of the overcaller, but it is far more likely to have 'sure' tricks with the same hand behind the overcaller. Imagine a trump suit of AQ108 over the bidder, then in front of the bidder...

[rogerclee]

'standard' has been, at least in NA, that 1N (bid) P (P) x was takeout and 1N (p) P (bid) x is penalty.

I don't agree with this second statement (that it is standard, or that it is logical). Partner's double in the balancing seat is takeout, and I am happy to just defend undoubled if partner doesn't have the values to make a takeout double. Meanwhile, I think it's obvious that if I am 4423 and it goes 1n p p 2♦, I should be able to compete.

[mikeh]

'standard' has been, at least in NA, that 1N (bid) P (P) x was takeout and 1N (p) P (bid) x is penalty.

I don't agree with this second statement (that it is standard, or that it is logical). Partner's double in the balancing seat is takeout, and I am happy to just defend undoubled if partner doesn't have the values to make a takeout double. Meanwhile, I think it's obvious that if I am 4423 and it goes 1n p p 2♦, I should be able to compete.

I am going to guess that you play negative doubles at the 2-level, which is a fairly recent trend, and in that case, all doubles are takeout. Traditionally, doubles of 2-level overcalls were penalty. I agree (if I am correct in my assumption) that negative doubles are a good thing here, and they may now be expert standard, but they certainly did not use to be. My post was in the context of what I think is still taught by some as standard.. the old fashioned way.