Is this acceptable as a "penalty" double?

[helene_t]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skqxxxhaqxxxdaxcx&w=stxhktxxdktxcaqtx&e=sajxxxhjxxdjckxxx&s=sxhxdqxxxxxxcjxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♠-p-p-dbl

p-p-2♦-dbl*

2♥-p-2♠-dbl

p-p-?p[/hv]

Before her final pass, South asked what West's second double meant. East said "penalty". South maintained that she would have bid 3♦ if she had got a correct explanation. Are NS entitled to a corrected score?

Btw, West doubled because he was afraid that a pass would not be forcing. Is that correct?

[Free]

After the first Dbl, East passed on 1♠ doubled. So why would you ever go to 2♠ anyway? You KNOW you'll get penalty doubled, you KNOW where the ♠s are, and you KNOW you'll go 1 more down than in 1♠*...

 

If West's partner can convert and takeout dbl to penalty at the 1-level on his own, West himself can certainly penalty double with 2 ♠s from the Ten!

 

North should've just passed 2♦, and now, there's no way back. Even if the explanations would be wrong, it was still North's decision to bid 2♥ with great ♦ support, South's decision to bid 2♠ to play in a 5-1 fit which WILL be doubled again by either opponent, and 3♦ would be absolutely crazy with Qxxxxxx opposite nothing in ♦ (which North promisses by pulling 2♦).

 

It's just a matter of wacky bidding by both North and South imo.

[helium]

After the first Dbl, East passed on 1♠ doubled. So why would you ever go to 2♠ anyway? You KNOW you'll get penalty doubled, you KNOW where the ♠s are, and you KNOW you'll go 1 more down than in 1♠*...

 

If West's partner can convert and takeout dbl to penalty at the 1-level on his own, West himself can certainly penalty double with 2 ♠s from the Ten!

 

North should've just passed 2♦, and now, there's no way back. Even if the explanations would be wrong, it was still North's decision to bid 2♥ with great ♦ support, South's decision to bid 2♠ to play in a 5-1 fit which WILL be doubled again by either opponent, and 3♦ would be absolutely crazy with Qxxxxxx opposite nothing in ♦ (which North promisses by pulling 2♦).

 

It's just a matter of wacky bidding by both North and South imo.

Totally agree:)))

[inquiry]

Not that is matters, but after 1♠ was passed for penatly, with WEST hand I would also double 2♦. But here this would beGarozzo 2/3 Doubles... where the double shows 2 or 3 diamonds, with 1 or 4+ I would make a forcing pass.

 

I would not alert this as "penalty" of course, I would alert it as Garozzo 2/3 Double showing 2 or 3 diamonds and a willingness to cooperate in a doubled diamond contract. IF EW are not playing something like this, I don't see a horrible problem with WEST thinking this was a penalty double of 2♦, at least if it makes, it is not game. If I held that west hand playing that double was penalty I would pass, to see what partner wanted to do, but this is a matter of judgement.

[Chamaco]

Without special agreements, the second double by west is penalty.

 

This follow the rule that:

any double is for penalty if it was preceded by either 1) a penalty double, or 2) a penalty pass, or 3) a "natural" redouble.

 

I like the idea of the 2/3 Garozzo doubles, but I think it requirs a good ptship agreement (just as most cool conventions :D ).

 

Playing the "normal" penalty double, I would have made a forcing pass.