What's this double?

[Coelacanth]

Matchpoints, none vul if that matters

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1n(15-18)2hd]133|100[/hv]

 

1NT was natural.

 

How do you play this double? In a "standard" SAYC or 2/1 structure in the ACBL, what is the default meaning (if any) of this double, and are there any other common agreements? Which agreements would be alertable?

[Codo]

My default is take out and I see no reason to change that here.

I have no idea what the default meaning is.

Where I life, alertable doubles do not exist.

With screens, I would expect anything what is not penalty to be alerted. But I would surely have to ask about the double to protect myself.

[Zelandakh]

The default meaning for double opposite a natural NT bid is penalty. However there are good arguments for playing many of them as take-out. If you have agreed "System On" after a 1NT overcall and "Stolen Bid Doubles" after NT interference then this would presumably be a transfer to spades...

[ggwhiz]

Standard and SAYC have the default agreement of penalty but I would play it as takeout with a 2/1 partner. Just my opinion and if this is undiscussed, it certainly will be after the hand.

[Coelacanth]

The default meaning for double opposite a natural NT bid is penalty.

This is what I assumed at the time (I was the 2♥ bidder).

 

However there are good arguments for playing many of them as take-out.

This is what I decided they must be playing when RHO (the 1NT bidder) took out to 3♣.

 

If you have agreed "System On" after a 1NT overcall and "Stolen Bid Doubles" after NT interference then this would presumably be a transfer to spades...

It turns out that this is what doubler was doing. After the hand she berated (mildly) her partner for bidding 3♣ after she'd "shown 5 spades".

 

All's well that ends well. The complete auction was

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1n2hdp3cp3sp4sppdppp]133|100[/hv]

Despite the fact that I didn't have my bid (I had basically ♥QJT-seventh and out) this was set one trick for a good matchpoint result.

[aguahombre]

IMO, and apparently Codo's, stolen bid doubles are required alerts. I would prefer that "take-out" in this situation be alertable, but am not quite as opinionated about that.

 

It seems as if North might have used the UI from her pard's failure to alert the stolen bid double. 3C is a possible bid with a slightly offshape NT overcall containing long clubs, and passing 3C must be a L.A. if the doubler has club tolerance.

[Coelacanth]

It seems as if North might have used the UI from her pard's failure to alert the stolen bid double. 3C is a possible bid with a slightly offshape NT overcall containing long clubs, and passing 3C must be a L.A. if the doubler has club tolerance.

 

Well, yes, this is true. The NT overcaller was 3235 and the doubler was 5233 I think. Fortunately there was no damage (3♣ was cold and EW aren't buying it for 3♥). In a tournament I would have called the TD had there been damage, but this was a club game and I was the director, so we just had a friendly chat about it after the hand.

[Vampyr]

Which agreements would be alertable?

 

In the EBU the double is alerable if it is not takeout.

[aguahombre]

In the EBU the double is alerable if it is not takeout.

Yes, but that alone doesn't answer whether stolen bid doubles should be alerted in EBU. In addition to being taken out most of the time, they show five or more of the next suit. They are not really the normal meaning of a "takeout" double; they are transfers.

[Vampyr]

Yes, but that alone doesn't answer whether stolen bid doubles should be alerted in EBU. In addition to being taken out most of the time, they show five or more of the next suit. They are not really the normal meaning of a "takeout" double; they are transfers.

 

Right; I was answering the question in the OP: Which agreements would be alertable?

 

Of course the "stolen bid" doubles would be alertable, if anyone around here had ever heard of them, which I doubt.

[dcohio]

I play systems on (including Lebensohl) after a NT overcall, so this double for me is penalty.

[shevek]

Penalty. This is a non-fit auction opposite partjner's well-defined hand.

Often 3rd hand is quite weak. That is, not enough to double 1NT.

Different of course if responder had raised to 2♦, then their fit takes precedence so double = tko.

[bluecalm]

The default meaning for double opposite a natural NT bid is penalty.

 

That might be in some parts of the world but for example you won't find a semi-decent player in my country who would want this double to be penalty and surely nobody would understand it as penalty without prior agreement.

I mean, it's time to stop calling agreements from 40 years ago "standard" when 95%+ of good players play it as t/o.

[kgr]

My default is take out and I see no reason to change that here.

I have no idea what the default meaning is.

Where I life, alertable doubles do not exist.

With screens, I would expect anything what is not penalty to be alerted. But I would surely have to ask about the double to protect myself.

All the same for me

[Quartic]

Despite the fact that I didn't have my bid (I had basically ♥QJT-seventh and out) this was set one trick for a good matchpoint result.

 

Why do you say you didn't have your bid? In this sequence 2♥ shows a weak distributional hand that wants to play in hearts, which is what you have.

[Zelandakh]

I mean, it's time to stop calling agreements from 40 years ago "standard" when 95%+ of good players play it as t/o.

I think it is a good idea to answer the OP's question. With a random (intermediate) partner the default agreement is penalty. You can disagree with this as much as you like but this is the simple truth. The OP went on to ask about other agreements. This means it is also right to answer that there are good reasons to play it differently and/or that most experts play it differently. The vast majority of top players also play some form of Smith, unusual over unusual, and many other things. That does not make these standard for most (lower-level) bridge players either.

[Coelacanth]

OK, maybe I just really am too old-fashioned. Last night we had the following sequence:

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1n(Nat%2C%2015-18)ppdp2hd]133|100[/hv]

 

OK, I'm not THAT old-fashioned; South's double was for takeout. I was North. I bid 2♥ on a 3433 six-count.

 

Even after posting this thread, it did not occur to me that East's double could be anything other than penalty.

 

As it turns out, East had a singleton heart and West held four of them. Obviously, both of them thought it was a takeout double (although West should have left it in anyway with ♥JT8x). West bid 2NT, which made exactly for avg-minus to EW. East was 4144 with the singleton ♥A and about 7 HCP.

 

I guess I'll never learn.

[mgoetze]

OK, I'm not THAT old-fashioned; South's double was for takeout.

 

Huh... takeout of what? Isn't "Director, please!" a better way to show 4-4-4-4 shape than "double"?

 

For me, South's double shows 18-19 balanced, and you are meant to pass with a 6-count.

[benlessard]

For post number 17.

 

South X isnt takeout its a big hand, usually 18-19 bal, but some unbalanced hand would have to start by doubling too.

 

East double should be penalty/ or penalty-ish since he can bid 2S for takeout (even with a 31(54) its safe to bid 2S since we denied 5S with our first pass) or 2NT for both m.

[P_Marlowe]

We play it as T/O.

 

Ignoring the opening bid, the old standard meaning of X was penalty, but

even 15-20 years ago experts started to switch to T/O.

 

If default meaning translates to common meaning 1 or 2 bridge player

generations ago, than penalty, but I dont think anybody would claim,

that todays default meaning of an 1NT opener is 16-18.

 

To answer the alert question - go to the law section, state the local

place the bidding took place, and you will get the answer for your specic

regulation set.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[phil_20686]

I think it is a good idea to answer the OP's question. With a random (intermediate) partner the default agreement is penalty. You can disagree with this as much as you like but this is the simple truth. The OP went on to ask about other agreements. This means it is also right to answer that there are good reasons to play it differently and/or that most experts play it differently. The vast majority of top players also play some form of Smith, unusual over unusual, and many other things. That does not make these standard for most (lower-level) bridge players either.

 

Even my dad plays this as t/o, and he is over 70.

 

If I sat down opposite a random club player, as I sometimes do in league matches for my local club, I would assume it would be t/o. So far no one has thought otherwise.