Take-out vs penalty doubles by the 1C bidder

[Shugart23]

I am teaching a good 2/1 player Precision. My problem is I played Precision for about 7 years, then switched to MICS for 3 years ( keeping much of the 1C bids intact) and now haven't played in 3 years due to pandemic and wife retiring from the game, I have forgotten a lot.

 

Assume Partner opens 1C ,is overcalled and then two passes follow and we are back to the Opener. My 3rd hand pass would show 0-4 HCP or that I have Opponents suit and want Opener to double on my behalf.

 

so, 1C-1H-P-P -double by opener is a double on my behalf which I remove if weak.

 

But what if bidding went 1C-2S -P-P- double or 1C-3H-P-P ? Can anyone who plays precision pass along some words of wisdom ( for me to absorb and pass along) on when the strong hand doubles, when is it for penalty vs. reopening ? DO we just say that if the 1C bidder doubles any bid over 'X' it is for penalty and any double below 'X' is doubling on my behalf ?

 

 

Please assume that I have passed in 3rd seat, so Opener knows I do not have 5-7 HCP. Thank you very much

[helene_t]

1♣-(anything)-pass-(pass)

dbl

is take-out at least though 4♥, similar to your defence against pre-emptive openings.

[Shugart23]

1♣-(anything)-pass-(pass)

dbl

is take-out at least though 4♥, similar to your defence against pre-emptive openings.

 

 

I played a guy who bid like that, so I could just throw in any interference bid against his 1C bid and not worry that I would be penalized ( especially when his partner was already a passed hand)

[helene_t]

I played a guy who bid like that, so I could just throw in any interference bid against his 1C bid and not worry that I would be penalized

Well, sometimes responder can double for take-out and opener can pass it, or opener doubles and responder can pass it. It's the same argument as for playing t/o doubles against preemptive openings, I don't see much difference.

 

But some play that responder's pass is forcing from a certain level, and then it might be different, similar to the defense against interference over an SA 2♣ opening. It may be sensible to play forcing pass from 4♣ onwards, since below 4♣ responder can always bid 3NT if they have a trap pass hand that is too strong to risk it being passed out (i.e. pass is not forcing). From 4♣ onwards it becomes awkward if you want to penalize opposite a balanced 17-count and pass is not forcing.

 

But as long as responder's actions or something like

pass: 0-4 any OR a trap pass

dbl 5-7 not a trap pass

other: GF

 

then I think you need to play t/o double from opener's side.

[Shugart23]

Well, sometimes responder can double for take-out and opener can pass it, or opener doubles and responder can pass it. It's the same argument as for playing t/o doubles against preemptive openings, I don't see much difference.

 

But some play that responder's pass is forcing from a certain level, and then it might be different, similar to the defense against interference over an SA 2♣ opening. It may be sensible to play forcing pass from 4♣ onwards, since below 4♣ responder can always bid 3NT if they have a trap pass hand that is too strong to risk it being passed out (i.e. pass is not forcing). From 4♣ onwards it becomes awkward you want to penalize opposite a balanced 17-count and pass is not forcing.

 

But as long as responder's actions or something like

pass: 0-4 any OR a trap pass

dbl 5-7 not a trap pass

other: GF

 

then I think you need to play t/o double from opener's side.

 

 

Thanks...I'm not disagreeing. I'll see if anyone else has suggestions as well...

[steve2005]

It would be rare to penalize at the one-level but it does happen.

Can happen in two ways

1C-(1S)-X-P-P

or

1C-(1S)-P-P-double (takeout)-P-P

[Shugart23]

It would be rare to penalize at the one-level but it does happen.

Can happen in two ways

1C-(1S)-X-P-P

or

1C-(1S)-P-P-double (takeout)-P-P

 

Yeah, I was wondering more about the higher level bids by the Opponent over the 1C bid. For instance is 1C-3H-P-P - double always take -out ( which partner can leave in with a suitable hand), or is it always penalty oriented ( which partner could take off) ? Or is it just dependent upon partnership agreement of what level 'X' the double shifts from take-out to penalty ? I think this is the right answer as was suggested

 

On a somewhat related question...what if Responder has given a positive response, would all doubles by Opener be penalty oriented...eg. 1C-Pass 1H-2S -double and 1C-1H-1S-Pass- double.......would everyone consider opener's double a penalty double in both cases ?

[Shugart23]

. It's the same argument as for playing t/o doubles against preemptive openings, I don't see much difference.

 

 

 

If Opponent's bid a preemptive contract ( not necessarily over a 1C bid), would your double being interpreted as take-out vs. penalty be different if partner wsa passed hand or not ?...eg 3H-double by you -Pass- ? or pass-3H-double by you - P-? both cases being a double, but being a little more cautious if i have passed already ?

[helene_t]

If Opponent's bid a preemptive contract ( not necessarily over a 1C bid), would your double being interpreted as take-out vs. penalty be different if partner wsa passed hand or not ?...eg 3H-double by you -Pass- ? or pass-3H-double by you - P-? both cases being a double, but being a little more cautious if i have passed already ?

IMHO it shouldn't matter if partner is a passed hand. You might vary your requirements w.r.t. shape and strength a bit depending on partner being a passed hand (and other factors).

 

Where it may become penalty is when doubler had a chance to double the same contract at a lower level, for example

(1♥)-pass-(3♥)-pass

(pass) - dbl

 

I think I would play this double as penalty from 3♦ and onwards, but I haven't discussed it with anyone.

 

and when doubler's partner has given some shape (or lack of shape) information, for example

(1♥)-1♠-(4♥)-dbl

I think I would play this double as penalty from 4♥ and onwards.

[helene_t]

On a somewhat related question...what if Responder has given a positive response, would all doubles by Opener be penalty oriented...eg. 1C-Pass 1H-2S -double and 1C-1H-1S-Pass- double.......would everyone consider opener's double a penalty double in both cases ?

Here we are in a forcing pass situation, so you may apply your general forcing pass rules.

 

My favourite rule is:

- pass in direct seat is ostensibly penalty, partner will usually double

- dbl in direct seat is in-between, in the given auction maybe a balanced hand with 2-3 spades.

[mycroft]

I agree with most of the things being said.

 

I would respond to the stink bidders who "can't be doubled for penalty" with my response to the NTer who would send the bidder away to find out if their double (showing a suit) was forcing: "yes. And I'm passing it, because *I have* a penalty double."

 

Especially as the overcalls get higher (as Helene says, just like doubles of preempts or my "negative doubles through 7♥"), the "takeoutishness" of the double goes down and the chance that partner will pass "best chance" also goes up, somewhat precipitously after the 2 level.

 

Having said that, bridge is a bidder's game, even after a strong 1♣, and your sights should be first on your own contracts, and only second on taking penalties. With the obvious caveat of "let 'em know we are happy to drop the axe if they get too frisky, if we can do that early enough that it matters if they remember; even if it is mildly minus this time."

[foobar]

Over a third seat pass, or after 1♣ - (P) - 1♦- (bid), my preference is to pretend as if they opened the bidding.

 

For example:

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - 2♥ (Michael's; pretending as if they opened 1♥)

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥) - X (takeout; pretending as if they opened 1♥)