What is the difference?

[the hog]

Based on this thread

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44164-is-this-double-still-penalty/

 

Most posters, including me, voted that

 

(1H) x (P) 1NT

(2H) x

 

is still for takeout. This got me thinking:

 

What would you play a 3H bid as rather than the second double? If you play the second x as takeout, doesn't the 3H bid become redundant?

[bluecalm]

Some reference:

Robson - Segal recommend penalty double in similar sequence (which, they say, could be called "defensive double"):

 

1♥ dbl pass 1♠

2♥ dbl

 

(giving examle hand: J84 K7 AK84 AQ96

 

Doubler of course doesn't have ♥ stack but has maximum and would like to rebid 1NT if opener passed.

They argue that in this sequence the t/o dbl is no longer needed.

I agree with their views on this one.

 

They don't mention our sequence (with 1NT instead of 1♠) but I would guess the same principle applies.

[Zelandakh]

I am reasonably confident that the majority of posters described the second double as something akin to value-showing rather than simply a second take-out. Presumably 3H here would be a hand unsuitable for a penalty pass from partner, perhaps something like 4=0=(4-5) unless your style of first round overcalls would allow doubler to also hold a 2-suiter here.

[1eyedjack]

I can envisage hands that are strong enough for a second take-out double but which are not strong enough to force as high as 3H+ opposite a potential bust. So I would still play the second double as re-takeout. If that makes a 3H cue a redundant bid then it is a price that I would be prepared to pay. Not sure that it does, though. There may be some hands, very rare I agree, that were initially worth a strong(+) jump overcall but which not playing SJO (or two strong for a NF SJO) might be worth this treatment.

 

I seem to be giving up on a hand that is NT-type but too strong for a 1N overcall. I can live with that.