[karlabsl]

As best as I remember... my RHO bid 1 ♦. I had 4 hearts A, Q, xx., 3 spades xxx, 4 clubs K, xxx. And 2 diamonds, A x. I doubled.
My LHO bid 1 ♠
My partner had 6 spades, A, xxxxx. 2 ♥ xx, 4♣Axxx, 1 ♦ the jack

She doubled. Was that correct? I was supposed to know that was penalty? And my LHO took her bid? I thought my p had 4 hearts.

[kuhchung]

karlabsl, on 2015-January-30, 12:22, said:

As best as I remember... my RHO bid 1♦.

I doubled with xxx AQxx Ax Kxxx.

My LHO bid 1 ♠

My partner had Axxxxx xx J Axxx.

She doubled. Was that correct? I was supposed to know that was penalty? And my LHO took her bid? I thought my p had 4 hearts.

[gwnn]

The old style was that

1♦-x-1♠-x =penalty, 4 spades.
             2♠=natural, 5 spades

I recently heard, though, that more and more experts go back to play X as four hearts, just like you said. Originally, responders used to psyche these bids with hands like

xx
xxxx
Axxxxx
x

assuming that opponents have a big spade fit and trying to convince them that they don't. Against these people, penalty doubles would come in very handy, and you could even differentiate between 4- and 5-card suits, something you cannot do if had gone, say, 1♦-x-3♦-?? But since so many people switched to penalty doubles, people stopped psyching these bids and now people wonder if it's not better to differentiate between heart length instead (x=4 hearts, 2♥=5 hearts). The logical question is then, will people start going back to psyching, causing a resurgence of penalty doubles? Time will tell.

With your partner's hand I'd just bid 4 spades. It's what I'd bid without the 1♠ bid, it is what I'll bid now. It is probably a decent contract even with spades 4-0 (I did not look at partner's hand yet).

edit: now I did look at partner's hand, and I see that it would be a hopeless contract with spades 4-0, but I also see that spades are very likely not 4-0 since they have a lot of diamonds

[gszes]

There are times we really really REALLY want something to be a penalty double. Over
the long run the take out meaning will carry much more weight. Sure we will miss some
phantom penalties (are the opps really going to play 1sx (hugely doubtful) but by using the
much more (likely to occur) :negative: meaning we can help differentiate between our major
suit replies much more accurately.

The take out xer does not have to have spades they could be on their way to a wide variety
of contracts. the 1s bid can be natural in which case our playing in spades could be in
serious jeopardy but the real reason the :negative: meaning will normally work better is that
the 1s bid is forcing and we will almost always get a later opportunity to show our spade suit.

Pass for now and see how the bidding develops.

[FrancesHinden]

The double of 1S is still for penalties in most of the world so double is OK in that sense.
Usually double shows four spades, with 5 or 6 just bid 2S, 3S or 4S. However if partner really has no spade pips it might have worked better to double and then bid spades to show more high cards and less good spades.

[nige1]

karlabsl, on 2015-January-30, 12:22, said:

I had ♠ x x x ♥ A Q x x ♦ A x ♣ K x x x
My partner had ♠ A x x x x x ♥ x x ♦ J ♣ A x x x
(1♦) Double (1♠) Double
Was her double correct?

Without special agreement, partner's double usually shows 4 ♠. IMO, It's OK for her to have more ♠. It's also OK to agree to play it as T/O, instead.