what is this double?

[Vampyr]

East had a chance to make a takeout Double of spades at his/her first turn to call and did not. This is UNEQUIVOCALLY a penalty double in the absence of a VERY RARE yet clearly discussed partnership agreement otherwise.

 

Penalty is the traditional meaning, but I am sure I am not the only one who has found that some people are not aware of the traditional meaning of bids. Especially if they have been playing for, say, ten years or less.

 

Similarly, in their live playing environment there may be a call that "everyone" plays in a non-standard or non-traditional way. A player may assume that this way is totally normal and universal.

[Zelandakh]

Similarly, in their live playing environment there may be a call that "everyone" plays in a non-standard or non-traditional way. A player may assume that this way is totally normal and universal.

Good exanples are 1NT - (P) - 2♥ or 1♠ - (P) - 4♥, both traditionally weak and natural but usually played differently these days.

 

Incidentally the traditional rules for doubles during the later were laid down by Culbertson back in the 1930s - this one comes under the "penalty if we had a previous chance to double the denomination" rule. But absolutely noone uses them any more so they are meaningless and the test you quoted an obvious overbid.

[billw55]

I say penalty on this one. Agree with hrothgar and others that 2NT is the scramble here.

 

However, doubling two of a major is iffy business. You rarely set sane opponents very much, and it is pretty ugly should they happen to make it. I would want to be pretty sure of partner's intention to leave this in.

[PhantomSac]

Does this mean you personally prefer takeout for both of these auctions, Justin?

 

Yeah that is my preference

[kenberg]

If my partner is under 40 and I have that meta agreement, t/o. If partner is over 40 and I have that meta agreement, penalty. If no meta agreement I would need partner to be under 25 or under 30 and european to assume takeout :P

 

In all seriousness this is just one you need to discuss with a new partner (as well as 1S p p X 2S X).

 

I will now put my age in my bbo profile. This could clear up many auctions.

[Zelandakh]

Yeah that is my preference

Thank you, that is actually very useful to know, particularly with hrothgar (who is usually an excellent guide to good bidding agreements) on the opposite side. It fits with what I perceive as the modern bidding style but these auctions are such that there are enough reasons to doubt whether real experts play it like that.

[WellSpyder]

In all seriousness this is just one you need to discuss with a new partner (as well as 1S p p X 2S X).

While we are on the subject, what about this one 1♠ P P X; 2♥ X?

 

I have one partner who has the clear agreement that this auction, like the other two discussed in this thread, shows a penalty double of spades. Of course, 4th hand can leave it in if he has good hearts for his TO X....

[helene_t]

It probably depends a lot which opponents you are facing. Strong players will have a 7-card spades here, so you are rarely getting rich by penalizing. At my local club where many 4-card majorites think they have a duty to bid any 5-card suit twice, it is obviously better to play penalty or at least optional.

 

But of course it is more interesting to discuss what it should mean against sane opps.

 

It also depends on your overcall style. If you adhere to Ulven's philosophy, most hands suitable for a take-out double would have overcalled directly, so it is probably better to play double as either optional (3244 typically) or pure penalty.

 

With my prefered meta-agreements this is take-out but I think penalty is standard. If I were to make specific agreements for this situation I would not be sure what to prefer.

[Vampyr]

Thank you, that is actually very useful to know, particularly with hrothgar (who is usually an excellent guide to good bidding agreements) on the opposite side. It fits with what I perceive as the modern bidding style but these auctions are such that there are enough reasons to doubt whether real experts play it like that.

 

There is no room for doubt. Just ask Caitlynne :D