Double

[Cascade]

1NT (2♠) 3♥ (Dbl)

 

3♥ is natural non-forcing.

 

The doubler's card is marked with both:

 

i/ Negative doubles to 4♥

 

ii/ Responsive doubles to 4♥

 

1. Would you be surprised that this double is penalties?

 

2. Would you have expected a prealert if double is penalties in this situation?

 

"This is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you

have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts,

unusual two level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the

opponents’ 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents’ suit, etc. Pay particular

attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be

verbally pre-alerted."

 

Doubles are self-alerting in Australia.

 

3. Would it make a difference if 2♠ is spades and a minor rather than simply showing spades?

 

4. Would you call this a responsive double in that it is responding to partner's overcall?

[blackshoe]

No x 4.

[karlson]

If I played this double as takeout, I guess I might call it responsive.

 

Otherwise, no, no, and no.

[Coelacanth]

This double is neither responsive nor negative (based upon my understanding of the definitions of those terms). I would expect the "standard" meaning of this double to be penalties (from my North American point of view; no idea what would pass for standard Down Under).

[Cascade]

This double is neither responsive nor negative (based upon my understanding of the definitions of those terms). I would expect the "standard" meaning of this double to be penalties (from my North American point of view; no idea what would pass for standard Down Under).

 

What is the definition of a responsive double?

 

My understanding it was a double after partner overcalled and the opponent bid.

 

In many ways the auctions

 

1♥ (1♠) 3♥ (Dbl)

 

and

 

1NT (2♠) 3♥ (Dbl)

 

seem analogous to me especially if 3♥ is weak in both auctions.

[Cascade]

I am a little surprised by some of the early answers particularly in regard to there being no need to prealert.

 

The system card gives the impression that this pair play takeout doubles to high levels (4♥) in competitive auctions. In that context I feel it is surprising that in another competitive auction on the first round of bidding they play penalty doubles and they do that without any attempt at prior disclosure.

[Coelacanth]

What is the definition of a responsive double?

The original definition of a responsive double (to which few people still seem to adhere) is limited to the auction

 

(1X) - Dbl - (2X) - Dbl

 

Note that the opponents have bid and raised a suit (not bid two different suits) and that partner has made a takeout double, not an overcall.

 

Current common usage would call a double after (1X) - 1Y - (2X) responsive. Whether you call it responsive, negative, or whatever, it's obviously for takeout.

 

It would not occur to me that any double would be "responsive" after the opponents have bid notrump, but I agree the auctions are analogous.

[awm]

1. Not really surprised. This auction is similar to 2♠-(3♥)-X which is very commonly played as penalty, as well as being similar to the auctions you mention. Certainly this is not a negative or responsive double situation, and though double certainly could be takeout I don't see the MI.

 

2. I don't imagine that opponents need to arrange a special defense to penalty doubles at the three-level. I also wouldn't call this a "very unusual double" -- it might be a minority treatment, but I bet it's not an uncommon one. Opponents can always ask what the double means.

 

3. No

 

4. No

[jallerton]

No x 4

 

Let's get this straight. Australia has a rule (no alerts) that makes it difficult to disclose what methods you are playing at the point where the opponents might actually want to know, but someone is suggesting that the opponents have to be told in advance when a double has its most natural meaning, on the off-chance that a natural double might come up!

[bluejak]

No x 4

 

I agree with Coelacanth's last post, except for the final seven words.

[campboy]

1. Neither penalty nor takeout would surprise me here. 3♥ as non-forcing, on the other hand, is very unexpected.

 

2. No, of course not.

 

3. It would make double more likely to be penalty, since more is known about overcaller's hand.

 

4. No. Suit-double-raise-double is definitely responsive, suit-overcall-raise-double most would call responsive, but I haven't heard it used in any other situation.

[mycroft]

Unless one is playing one-of-a-suit bids as limited to a 3 HCP range and fairly rigid off-suit lengths, I don't see anything analogous between 1suit-overcall-raise-double and 1NT-overcall-suit-double.

 

Traditionally, doubles when one side had bid NT naturally were penalty, even if that same auction when everybody had bid suits (or bid NT artificially, even if it *could have been* balanced and limited) were takeout. Things are moving, but I would still assume that that is penalty, unless agreed otherwise.

 

The only thing that might make a difference to me is if 2S was "5+4+ spades and another", where it's possible the double of 3H is "pass or correct".

 

I know there's this weird thing going around here where 1x-double-1y-double is considered "responsive". Don't do it when I'm your partner, is all I can say; and tell me about it in advance so I can bid 1S with 3=4=0=6 and pick off your suit, thanks.

[peachy]

What is the definition of a responsive double?

 

My understanding it was a double after partner overcalled and the opponent bid.

 

In many ways the auctions

 

1♥ (1♠) 3♥ (Dbl)

 

and

 

1NT (2♠) 3♥ (Dbl)

 

seem analogous to me especially if 3♥ is weak in both auctions.

 

Responsive Dbl originally was after opponent opened, we overcalled, other opponent gave a single or double raise, now our Dbl is responsive, showing the other suits and also short (or xx at most) in their suit. Other scenarios are also called responsive nowadays, but all responsive doubles occur when our side is the overcallling side. A weak two overcall is not the same as a non-jump overcall, so the OP Dbl is up to agreements though my take on it without agreements would be penalty. Takeout certainly makes no sense since the jump overcaller doesn't have anything but spades under normal circumstances; also, if it is not penalty, then there is no penalty double even available in that auction because the weak-jump-overcaller is certainly not reopening the bidding to allow for Dbl to be left in.

 

Anyway, this is my understanding and preferences, probably unnecessary babble. But I answer No to all four of the OP questions.

 

No agreement, be it penalty, responsive, optional, cards, are unusual enough to require an Alert in jurisdictions where some doubles are alerted. Certainly not a pre-alert.

[Cascade]

No x 4

 

Let's get this straight. Australia has a rule (no alerts) that makes it difficult to disclose what methods you are playing at the point where the opponents might actually want to know, but someone is suggesting that the opponents have to be told in advance when a double has its most natural meaning, on the off-chance that a natural double might come up!

 

Yes in the context that they disclose they play takeout doubles to 4♥ in many situations.

 

I thought this was a responsive double situation and therefore that the disclosure that they play responsive doubles to 4♥ would apply.

[nigel_k]

1. I would be a little surprised.

 

2. I wouldn't expect a pre-alert. The (foolish) rule that all doubles are self-alerting makes it harder, but I just don't think it's practical to pre-alert the meaning of double in every sequence which the opponents might not expect. You need to retain enough time to actually play the hand. I could spend two full minutes describing agreements about doubles in situations at least as common as this one. I wouldn't pre-alert any double that is either 'takeout' or 'penalty' but would pre-alert other doubles that have an unusual and artificial meaning (e.g. DONT).

 

3. No difference.

 

4. For me, a 'responsive double' only occurs after partner doubles for takeout and they raise. I would describe a double in the given sequence as 'negative' or 'takeout'. Anyway I think it's ok for them to write on their card that they play negative doubles or responsive doubles and still have exceptions. The rule that stops them alerting doesn't create a corresponding obligation to write about 100 times more on their system card than they normally would, or to write nothing at all if they can't list all the exceptions.

[gordontd]

Responsive Dbl originally was after opponent opened, we overcalled, other opponent gave a single or double raise, now our Dbl is responsive, showing the other suits and also short (or xx at most) in their suit.

Actually, originally it was when they opened, partner doubled, they raised and we doubled for takeout. Then it was expanded to include other situations, like the one you describe above, and called by some an "extended responsive double".

[paulg]

If I have to pre-alert this double then my pre-alerts are going to take most of the round. Of course the opponents would also have to pre-alert that they play non-forcing three-level bids after we overcall their 1NT or am I supposed to pre-alert every instance of a penalty double independent of their methods?

 

JUST ASK!

[Cascade]

If I have to pre-alert this double then my pre-alerts are going to take most of the round. Of course the opponents would also have to pre-alert that they play non-forcing three-level bids after we overcall their 1NT or am I supposed to pre-alert every instance of a penalty double independent of their methods?

 

JUST ASK!

 

Asking is too late.

 

"Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership

understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The

Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

 

"A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided

that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership

understanding (see Law 40C1)."

 

I need to know in advance that they play penalty doubles so I can make my bid knowing that I am more likely to be penalized. The laws and regulations are clear that they cannot surprise me. To me the surprise it greater when they create an impression that they play takeout style doubles to high levels when the opposite is true in some situations on the first round of the bidding.

 

The regulations require disclosing "as much as you can" and "this is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them" and "pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls".

 

In a context in which takeout style doubles are disclosed and played to high levels then I think a situation in which your side plays penalty doubles on the first round of the auction is likely to surprise and be unexpected and is therefore unusual.

 

I can't see how it can hurt the opponents to disclose this and it obviously could harm them.

[Trinidad]

No x 4

 

I agree with Coelacanth's last post, except for the final seven words.

+1

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Asking is too late.

 

"Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership

understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The

Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

Good, Down Under they prescribe system cards, prealerts and forbid alerts of doubles.

"A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided

that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership

understanding (see Law 40C1)."

You mean to say that all your partnership understandings are disclosed to the opponents?

I need to know in advance that they play penalty doubles so I can make my bid knowing that I am more likely to be penalized.

Did you tell the opponents in advance that you play a 3♥ responses to a 1NT opening after an intervening 2♠ bid as natural and non forcing? If not, how were the opponents supposed to be able to tell you that they play penalty doubles against non forcing natural responses of 1NT?

Actually, the opponents might not need to tell you anything here, even if you did disclose your 3♥ response. It may well be that they know from general bridge knowledge (rather than through partnership understanding) that such a double is for penalties.

 

You may have noticed that one is supposed to disclose in the order that the bids are made. You need to disclose first what 3♥ means, and then they need to disclose what a double means. You are not allowed to change the meaning of 3♥ depending on what the opponents' subsequent calls mean.

The laws and regulations are clear that they cannot surprise me. To me the surprise it greater when they create an impression that they play takeout style doubles to high levels when the opposite is true in some situations on the first round of the bidding.

 

The regulations require disclosing "as much as you can" and "this is the stage where you should draw the opponents’ attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them" and "pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls".

Now since when does a penalty double in a NT auction fit in the category "unusual agreements"?

In a context in which takeout style doubles are disclosed and played to high levels then I think a situation in which your side plays penalty doubles on the first round of the auction is likely to surprise and be unexpected and is therefore unusual.

What context? What takeout doubles? You stated that they played negative and responsive doubles to 4♥. These are very well defined bidding situations (responsive a little less than negative) that have one thing in common: They apply in auctions that started with an opening bid in a suit.

 

I can't see how it can hurt the opponents to disclose this and it obviously could harm them.

Do you prealert your doubles in this particular situation? Can their meaning be found anywhere on your card?

If no, why do the opponents need to do that and you don't?

If yes, how much time do you spend on prealerting each round?

 

In short, the opponents play the standard meaning of the double in this situation. Therefore, they do not need to prealert. They also do not need to write that on the system card. And finally, nowhere did they indicate that this was not a penalty double.

 

Rik

[Cascade]

Yes we disclose that we play negative free bids.

 

Yes we disclose the meanings of our doubles on the first round of the auction and many other auctions. I didn'g go and double check but I am pretty sure that on our WBF card we have a description of when we play penalty doubles. Where this occurred we were using a less complete ABF card although we had our WBF card at the table in case the opponents needed more information.

 

If they play penalty doubles then it is not that I want to change my methods but I can judge differently. This I am entitled to do.

 

"unusual" could easily be interpreted as unusual relative to their other agreements.

 

What you think is standard may not be standard for others therefore I think there needs to be considerable care in disclosure.

 

Standard or not the laws require prior disclosure before making any call. Not to disclose and surprise the opponents can easily be surprising to the opponents.

[Phil]

Wayne, I think you are doing a lot of rules lawyering here.

 

I think its preposterous to request a pre-alert of a double in this sequence. The match would never start if pre-alerts of this nature had to be disclosed.

 

I would use my energy to devise countermeasures in the future, depending on what the meaning of double meant. As a seasoned player, I think you have a lot of responsibility to ask even if the opponents have some technical obligation to alert.

[Cascade]

Wayne, I think you are doing a lot of rules lawyering here.

 

I think its preposterous to request a pre-alert of a double in this sequence. The match would never start if pre-alerts of this nature had to be disclosed.

 

I would use my energy to devise countermeasures in the future, depending on what the meaning of double meant. As a seasoned player, I think you have a lot of responsibility to ask even if the opponents have some technical obligation to alert.

 

I am not so sure obviously.

 

The language in the regulations is pretty soft in terms of the standard for "surprise" - "which might surprise them" etc. I think this correspondingly places a hefty obligation on the opponents to disclose.

 

Here is another statement from the regulations "A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score".

 

Personally I usually go out of my way to have available a comprehensive system card with many supplementary sheets. To me this seems to be the standard required by the regulations.

 

In the current case I was surprised. It did not occur to me that they might play a penalty double after this 3♥ bid given the information on their card. Could the opponent have known that I might be surprised? I don't think it is too long a bow to draw to argue that they could have known that. Thus they had an obligation to pre-alert.

 

A prealert could be as simple as "we play penalty doubles after either side has opened 1NT". I really don't think that is too much to ask.

 

Why have a regulation that effectively says you need to take care to make sure your methods are known when you are not willing to enforce that regulation when an opponent is "surprised" at the method?

[paulg]

Wayne,

 

It seems that we are unanimous that your expectations are too high in this instance. The forums rarely agree on anything, so perhaps time to let this one go.

 

Paul

[Finch]

To answer the original question:

 

No x 4

 

I wouldn't be particularly surprised at double being either penalties or take-out here.

 

I play "negative and responsive doubles" but still play this double as penalties. This is neither a negative or responsive double.

 

In a context in which takeout style doubles are disclosed and played to high levels then I think a situation in which your side plays penalty doubles on the first round of the auction is likely to surprise and be unexpected and is therefore unusual.

 

I _would_ be very surprised if they played, say, 3H (3S) x as anything other than penalties. I would be fairly surprised if they didn't play (1H) 3S (4H) dbl as penalties - all first round auctions.

 

Personally I usually go out of my way to have available a comprehensive system card with many supplementary sheets. To me this seems to be the standard required by the regulations

 

I would not accept "many supplementary sheets" as pre-alerting anything. Do you expect your opponents to read your comprehensive card with its many sheets before starting play against you? The only benefit that has is when you wish to provide evidence of your methods to a TD.