[semeai]

I'm interested in good, fairly comprehensive defaults for doubles and when they should be takeout, cards, or penalty.

There are of course multiple systems of defaults, maybe one called "modern aggressive" with most doubles takeout and one called "modern conservative" with many doubles takeout but also many cards or penalty.

Here are a few auctions to test your agreements on (please add more controversial sequences if you like):

1. Berkowitz and Sontag disagreed (board 9) on this sequence: 1♠ P 1NT 2♣; 2♦ X.

Vugraphzfc said:

Sontag says the double shows diamonds, at least "I think so" -- Berk: no low level doubles are penalty; try to remember that

2. There was some discussion of the following sequence starting here. 1♦ P 1♥ P; 2♣ 2♠ P P; X. If the pass-and-then-come-in 2♠ offends, maybe 1♦ 1♠ X P; 2♣ 2♠ P P; X is good enough to consider instead.

Here is a poor attempt at the beginning of some defaults in the "modern aggressive" style, to show what I'm talking about:

Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless:
1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (maybe this is supposed to be more restrictive)
2) We have a known fit
3) All four suits have been shown
4) The opponent's bid is artificial
5) Pass is forcing
6) Our side preempted
7) The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid
8) The opponents have shown 3 separate suits
9) The opponents have bid game and doubler has passed before

[suggested by wyman below:]
10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play]

I haven't gotten into cards vs penalty or more detailed stuff here yet.

[gnasher]

 semeai, on 2011-July-27, 19:57, said:

1. Berkowitz and Sontag disagreed (board 9) on this sequence: 1♠ P 1NT 2♣; 2♦ X.
Sontag says the double shows diamonds, at least "I think so" -- Berk: no low level doubles are penalty; try to remember that

It's takeout in all my partnerships, because (depending on the partnership) either it's not on the list of penalty doubles, or we might need a takeout double here.

I think this is comparable with

1♠ 2♣ 2♦ dbl

which is normally played as takeout.

Quote

2. There was some discussion of the following sequence starting here. 1♦ P 1♥ P; 2♣ 2♠ P P; X. If the pass-and-then-come-in 2♠ offends, maybe 1♦ 1♠ X P; 2♣ 2♠ P P; X is good enough to consider instead.

I think that's just extra values and a desire to compete, because we can't have a penalty double here.

Regarding making lists of penalty doubles and saying everything else is takeout, I'm in two minds about this. I used to prefer this approach, because it helps to reduce uncertainty, but it does sometimes lead to the wrong conclusion. For example, if you have the rule "Penalties if we have a known fit", then you create a problem in a sequence like

1♦ 1♠ 2♠ 3♠

where 2♠ showed a diamond raise. If double is penalties, how does opener ask responder for a spade stop?

[wyman]

OP,

You may also want to consider adding a clause for (1C) X (1S) X, and all of its brethren. Perhaps

10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play]

[semeai]

 gnasher, on 2011-July-28, 02:46, said:

Regarding making lists of penalty doubles and saying everything else is takeout, I'm in two minds about this. I used to prefer this approach, because it helps to reduce uncertainty, but it does sometimes lead to the wrong conclusion. For example, if you have the rule "Penalties if we have a known fit", then you create a problem in a sequence like

1♦ 1♠ 2♠ 3♠

where 2♠ showed a diamond raise. If double is penalties, how does opener ask responder for a spade stop?

All I said was it wasn't takeout. I hadn't even attempted to undertake defining the ones that weren't takeout as penalty, cards/values, DSIP, etc.

That said, your point is good and this seems like a difficult undertaking. Do some professional partnerships have detailed lists like this that are basically comprehensive? Are they "trade secrets" if so?

 wyman, on 2011-July-28, 08:45, said:

You may also want to consider adding a clause for (1C) X (1S) X, and all of its brethren. Perhaps

10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play]

Thanks, good one.

[gnasher]

 semeai, on 2011-July-28, 09:18, said:

All I said was it wasn't takeout. I hadn't even attempted to undertake defining the ones that weren't takeout as penalty, cards/values, DSIP, etc.

That said, your point is good and this seems like a difficult undertaking. Do some professional partnerships have detailed lists like this that are basically comprehensive? Are they "trade secrets" if so?

As I said, in he past I've found it a rather unproductive exercise, but here are a few more that you may have missed out:
- We have rebid 1NT
- We have both bid and they protect
- We have made a defined 2-suited overcall
- We have shown a defined one-suiter and we have room for a cue-bid below 3NT

[semeai]

 gnasher, on 2011-July-28, 09:51, said:

As I said, in he past I've found it a rather unproductive exercise, but here are a few more that you may have missed out:
- We have rebid 1NT
- We have both bid and they protect
- We have made a defined 2-suited overcall
- We have shown a defined one-suiter and we have room for a cue-bid below 3NT

Thanks.

This would make the updated list:

Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless:
1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (maybe this is supposed to be more restrictive)
2) We have a known fit
3) All four suits have been shown
4) The opponent's bid is artificial
5) Pass is forcing
6) Our side preempted or showed a defined 2-suiter
7) The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid
8) The opponents have shown 3 separate suits
9) The opponents have bid game and doubler has passed before
10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play]
11) Our side has rebid 1NT
12) We've both bid and they balance
13) We've shown a defined one-suiter and have room for a cuebid below 3NT

Test for #12: 1D P 1H P; 2C P P 2S; X. Should this be takeout instead?

Test for #11: 1C P 1S P; 1N 2H X. Should this be takeout instead? This one's a bit implausible. Maybe 1C 1H 1S P; 1N 2H X instead.

I don't know where to start on the cards vs penalty definitions list. Does anyone have ideas here?

[wyman]

Bumping this with another auction that I think should be penalty because I can't for the life of me think of a hand that wants this to be takeout, but it's a slightly different flavor from the others:

(P) 1C (P) P
(X) 1N (3H) P
(P) X

(1) Does anyone disagree that this is penalty?
(2) Does anyone care to fashion a meta-rule that would cover this.

Does this really count as "our side rebid 1N," Andy? [I'm not sure I agree with that in general, but I'm not sure I disagree either.]

[gnasher]

The rule "Our side has rebid 1NT" should probably read "We have both bid, and our side has rebid 1NT". The same double at the two-level:

1♣ pass pass dbl
1NT 2♥ pass pass
dbl

is presumably takeout, if somewhat unlikely.

To cover the higher-level ones, perhaps you need another rule like "Penalty if it's inconceivable that we'd want to bid", or "Penalty when it's obvious"?

[wyman]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-15, 09:02, said:

"Penalty when it's obvious"?

Ah, the fodder for so many post-mortems

[mgoetze]

 wyman, on 2012-March-15, 08:25, said:

Bumping this with another auction that I think should be penalty

So why did you necro this thread rather than the other one?

http://www.bridgebas...enalty-doubles/

[awm]

Elianna and I have a sort of different approach that seems to work. Our general rule is that double at the two level is takeout/competitive and at the three level is penalty/cooperative. Then we have a few specific cases defined. This seems a bit easier than starting with "double is takeout except..." because there are actually a lot of cases where you want different treatment depending on the level.

[MrAce]

From an interview with Erick Rodwell...

Erick Rodwell said:

The main proponents, from what I can see, of “every double is takeout at the two or three level” seem to be the Swedes. If it goes 1H, Pass, 2H, 3D, then double is takeout, showing a desire to go to 3H but checking to see if partner has diamonds. It is a style I did not grow up playing. I did play in the Cavendish one time with a fellow who told me that he wanted to play that all doubles at the two level were takeout—so I said OK. It clearly doesn’t make sense when you have set up a penalizing situation—like 1S, Double, Redouble for example, or something, notrump overcall, double. So we had one of these, where it went like: 1NT, Double, and I redoubled showing values, and they got somewhere, and I had a penalty double but I couldn’t make it. I passed and he didn’t balance with a double, so I said if you are going to play this way you have to reopen with a double in case I have a penalty double. I think, in general, it is pretty clear when the opponents immediately find a fit at the two- or three-level that a double shouldn’t be penalty. What it should be depends on the situation—playing it “as do something intelligent” is a reasonable agreement. As far as over/under doubles, which could be at the two-level, unless you want to discuss specific sequences you could say unless somebody has set up a penalizing context, that the over/under principle would apply as long as they don’t have a fit and raise. In that case, all doubles are not penalty—like 1D, 1H, 1S, 2H, Pass, Pass, Double—even though you are over the hearts, they have a heart fit, so double shouldn’t be penalty.

[JLOGIC]

I would say the Italians are up there with the Swedes. Some of the ideas are definitely foreign to Americans (pun intended), but I do feel like we are "catching up" with them more than anything else, though I agree with Rodwell that some situations feel weird and I think they go too far with it.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It clearly doesn’t make sense when you have set up a penalizing situation—like 1S, Double, Redouble for example, or something, notrump overcall, double.

I think he is wrong on this one.
In such situations it's good to still play t/o double or at least "reversed double" which shows 2-3 cards.
For example if it goes:

1S dbl rdbl 2H

You don't want to pass with both balanced hands (to pass penalty double) and some sort of 5-1-2-5 with extras. The reason is that if you pass it, partner will often not have penalty double and he will be forced to bid something with his, most of the time, balanced strongish hand. You don't want that, because his bid will take space which is more needed for opener.

So better agreement than standard is to just reverse meanings of dbl and pass, thus:
pass = either penalty or shortness with extras
dbl = 2-3 cards, hand which would pass penalty double
direct bid = shapish minimum

You don't lose penalty double here but you transfer space to hand which is needs it more.
I guess that's the reason Bocchi-Duboin played that way.

Quote

2) We have a known fit

If anything, it should be "we have known major suit fit".
With minor suit you often want double to show extras/ask for stopper. For example:

1S - 2D - 2S - 3D
3S - dbl

1D - 2S - 3D - 3S
dbl

Should be just stopper ask.

Quote

4) The opponent's bid is artificial

Again, not really.
IF their bid is artifical and show either support or transfer to long suit it's very useful to play t/o double.
For example dbl to Namyats opening should be t/o and probably:

1N - p - 4D* dbl

should be shapish t/o to real suit too.

[WesleyC]

One situation that I got into a discussion about recently was:

1D - P - 1S - P
2D - X

The consensus was that this double should be take-out (usually full opening strength and short spades, something like 1435/2425/2434 shape).

However in the almost identical auctions:

1D - P - 1S - X
2D - X

1D - P - 1S - 2C
2D - X

Where partner has shown values, most people favoured using the double to show an original penalty pass.

Wes

[BnBeever]

I play and advocate the following 5 rules for doubles of natural bids (artificial bids need their own set of rules to determine whether they are cards or suit-showing or whatever - will give these if people are interested):

Double is penalty if any of the following are true (takeout otherwise):

1) Doubled bid is 4S or higher
2) You and p already agreed a suit
3) 3 or 4 suits have been shown
4) Bid is NT (excepting 1/2NT response or rebid)
5) Doubler had chance to do t/o of same shown suits earlier, but passed instead

A takeout double counts as 1 (unspecified) suit being shown, but if the double is taken out to a suit by the doubling side, then this is not counted as an additional suit. This rule ensures doubles become for penalties when the auction is sufficiently mature. Many of the consequences of this small rule set fly in the face of accepted wisdom, allowing many more takeout doubles than the norm, but the key point which many experts miss, is that takeout doubles usually perform the job of the penalty double (just from the other side of the table), in addition to removing the guesswork when a penalty double isn't called for by either partner. In addition, it is important that both partners' doubles mean the same thing, otherwise their doubles clash with duplicated utility, rather than being synchronised to overcome an optimal variety of situations.

The following example shows how the above rules sometimes prescribe a takeout double that flies in the face of tradition:

1NT - X - 2♥ - X

Many experts would assume penalties for both doubles, but IMO some thought should convince anyone with an open mind that the 2nd double should be takeout, despite the first being penalties. The crucial situation is one where neither opponent of the 1NT opener holds a good heart holding, nor a 5 card suit (otherwise it probably matters not whether you play pens or t/o); here both of you are impotent when playing penalty doubles of the 2H (or require guesswork in bidding the right 4 card suit).

[gnasher]

 BnBeever, on 2012-December-22, 21:04, said:

3) 3 or 4 suits have been shown
...
A takeout double counts as 1 (unspecified) suit being shown, but if the double is taken out to a suit by the doubling side, then this is not counted as an additional suit.

As I understand it, under your rules these doubles:

1♦ dbl 1♥ 1♠
2♦ dbl

1♦ dbl 1♥ 1♠
2♦ pass pass dbl

would be for penalties. Is that intentional? It would be normal to play both of these as extra values with nothing obvious to bid. I think this demonstrates how hard it is to make workable rules.

[BnBeever]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-23, 04:52, said:

As I understand it, under your rules these doubles:

1♦ dbl 1♥ 1♠
2♦ dbl

1♦ dbl 1♥ 1♠
2♦ pass pass dbl

would be for penalties. Is that intentional? It would be normal to play both of these as extra values with nothing obvious to bid. I think this demonstrates how hard it is to make workable rules.

Thanks - good point. Where a double cannot logically be for penalties (as in your first auction) but the rules prescribe it as such, then it should be taken as showing 'values'. More precisely:

A subsequent double of a suit by a player who doubled the same suit earlier for takeout, should show extra strength (4+ HCP more than previously known minimum), but is not an intention to penalise.

This rule would prescribe your first example as values, but not the 2nd one; here I don't see why you would want this as values rather than penalty - after all, a 2♥ UCB could be used for values purposes. The 1♠ bidder could have 5 diamonds and a reasonable hand - perfect for a penalty double, especially at green.

For those interested, my seminar notes (2 sides of A4) which cover doubles for takeout, penalty, values and suit-showing, can be found here:
https://dl.dropbox.c...-%20Doubles.doc

[kgr]

 semeai, on 2011-August-04, 10:55, said:

2) We have a known fit

We have a rule:
We have a known fit and opps don't have a fit then DBL is PEN:
1♥-(2♣)-2♥-(3♣)
DBL
=> Invite for 4♥, partner can Pass, bid 3/4♥
1♥-(Pass)-2♥-(3♣)
DBL
=> Penalty

(2♣;weak both majors or strong)-DBL1-(2♥)-DBL2
=> What are these DBLs?
We play:
- DBL1: multi, including 15+ with 1 or 2 Majors
- DBL2: still take-out (DBL by advancer after overcaller DBLed a 2-suiter for penalty is only penalty if he showed values before).

(1NT; weak)-DBL1-(2♦)-DBL2
=> What are these DBLs?
We play:
- DBL1: penalty
- DBL2: still take-out (DBL by advancer after overcaller DBLed for penalty is only penalty if he showed values before).

(1NT; weak)-DBL1-(Pass, forces RDBL)-Pass
(RDBL)-Pass-(2♦)-DBL2
=> DBL2: Penalty?

[BnBeever]

I agree with most of your treatments, with a couple of exceptions. Firstly, I would rather keep a penalty double than have an invite to game after both sides have agreed a suit (invites are over-rated anyhow IMO). Secondly:

 kgr, on 2012-December-23, 07:26, said:

(1NT; weak)-DBL1-(Pass, forces RDBL)-Pass
(RDBL)-Pass-(2♦)-DBL2
=> DBL2: Penalty?

I would much rather be using takeout doubles here; seems a similar situation to (1NT) - X - (2♦) - X; the second doubler (and subsequently the first doubler) would have to pass feebly most of the time holding a balanced hand (or 4441) and fewer than 4 diamonds if penalty doubles are in effect here.