[amateur_]

From the recent BBO forum tourney:

---

Various opinions were collected from around the table about the nature of the double and what shall be West's consequent bid.
To sum them up: it might not be obvious that it was intended to be a penalty. Could be competitive with minors and 2 hearths, since, the rewards of playing take-out doubles is greater, moreover since partner will balance often so you get the benefit of passing that take-out double as well.
However, this approach deprives East from a penalty.
Clearly, there is a need for some consensus about an apparently standard situation.

[hrothgar]

amateur_, on 2016-January-24, 15:44, said:

From the recent BBO forum tourney:

---

Various opinions were collected from around the table about the nature of the double and what shall be West's consequent bid.
To sum them up: it might not be obvious that it was intended to be a penalty. Could be competitive with minors and 2 hearths, since, the rewards of playing take-out doubles is greater, moreover since partner will balance often so you get the benefit of passing that take-out double as well.
However, this approach deprives East from a penalty.
Clearly, there is a need for some consensus about an apparently standard situation.

Without previous discussion, I believe that penalty is the standard meaning of this double.

If I have a hand with heart support, I'll raise.
If I have a hand that wants to scramble, I'll bid 2NT

[nige1]

amateur_, on 2016-January-24, 15:44, said:

From the recent BBO forum tourney:Various opinions were collected from around the table about the nature of the double and what shall be West's consequent bid. To sum them up: it might not be obvious that it was intended to be a penalty. Could be competitive with minors and 2 hearths, since, the rewards of playing take-out doubles is greater, moreover since partner will balance often so you get the benefit of passing that take-out double as well. However, this approach deprives East from a penalty. Clearly, there is a need for some consensus about an apparently standard situation.

---

I've taken the liberty of changing the diagram, presuming that West has the problem rather than North.

• (1♠) Pass (Pass) 2♥; (2♠) Double (Pass) ?? Hrothgar makes a good case for penalty but I agree with Amateur's reasoning that this double is competitive or T/O, usually with ♥ tolerance.e.g. ♠ Q x ♥ x x ♦ A K J x ♣ x x x x x
• 1♥ (1♠) Pass (Pass); 2♥ (2♠) Double (Pass) ?? IMO this double is penalty because partner failed to double 1♠.
• 1♥ (1♠) Pass (Pass); Double (2♠) Double (Pass) ?? IMO, this double is penalty too but some of my partners disagree.

[gszes]

Same principle of negative doubles should apply here. It is much more likely advancer will have some 10 count and the minors than they originally had a penalty pass. The power of the overcaller is a bit more suspect than an original opening bid making it less likely a penalty x will be successful. At least playing it as cards gives our side a wide range of plausible contracts and keeps advancer advised we have some "stuff" over here we couldnot show before. If you want to penalize 2s pass for now (it should still be a good contract for us even undoubled) and hope the overcaller can reopen with x so we can convert to penalties.

[kenberg]

I imagine that with most pairs this auction is undiscussed.
OP says "it might not be obvious that it was intended to be a penalty."
True enough. It also is not obvious that it is not for penalties.
A reasonable approach is to agree that undiscussed calls that could reasonably be played as natural are natural.
If I had any doubt as to what partner might think I meant with my double, as here, then I would not double.
So doubler thought the meaning was clear.
If I were W, I would pass. I voted for Penalty. But I would be nervous.
I would expect E to have about a 14 count with a decent spade holding. K9xx maybe. Plus significant outside values.
If they have discussed it then it of course means whatever they agreed to. I have never discussed this with any partner, not that I can recall.

[wank]

there are 3 perfectly sensible uses.

1) penalties
2) take-out
3) good heart raise

penalties is the more traditional meaning, but you can choose whatever you like.

[helene_t]

I think "optional" is also be an option. Something like a 3244 14-count. Penalty is rare against opps who don't bid 2♠ just because they have some random 6-card spades, and even if you have a penalty double you can pass and hope for a reopening double.

[PhilG007]

amateur_, on 2016-January-24, 15:44, said:

From the recent BBO forum tourney:

---

Various opinions were collected from around the table about the nature of the double and what shall be West's consequent bid.
To sum them up: it might not be obvious that it was intended to be a penalty. Could be competitive with minors and 2 hearths, since, the rewards of playing take-out doubles is greater, moreover since partner will balance often so you get the benefit of passing that take-out double as well.
However, this approach deprives East from a penalty.
Clearly, there is a need for some consensus about an apparently standard situation.

Unless there has been prior partnership agreement,I would view the double as for penalties since partner
has already made a free competitive bid.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-January-24, 19:13, said:

A reasonable approach is to agree that undiscussed calls that could reasonably be played as natural are natural.

The problem with this is that double being natural means 2NT is artificial, so there is no reasonable natural approach here. I think the 4 sensible meanings are penalty, take-out, DSIP and clubs (transfer). Using double for a good heart raise makes little sense to me when 2NT is available for this with little downside.

[Caitlynne]

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.

To those who think it is takeout now - or even useful as a takeout - I ask: What possible hand (that could not find an unusual 2NT overcall at the first opportunity or cannot raise hearts now) would justify that action over a partner who may simply be balancing protectively?

[helene_t]

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-25, 08:30, said:

To those who think it is takeout now - or even useful as a takeout - I ask: What possible hand (that could not find an unusual 2NT overcall at the first opportunity or cannot raise hearts now) would justify that action over a partner who may simply be balancing protectively?

Ax-Jx-xxxxx-AJxx maybe?

[kenberg]

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-25, 08:30, said:

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.

To those who think it is takeout now - or even useful as a takeout - I ask: What possible hand (that could not find an unusual 2NT overcall at the first opportunity or cannot raise hearts now) would justify that action over a partner who may simply be balancing protectively?

I reply as someone who voted for penalty but does not see it as unequivocal. W balanced with hearts. If E does not have harts this easily explains the non-double at East's first call. If this later double is to be take-out, I think E needs to not have hearts, to have the minors, but not have such a minor two-suiter as to be suitable for 2NT at his first call. A 2=2=5=4 hand would meet these requirements. Of course playing in a 4-3 club fit at the three level is unappealing but that could be dealt with by playing that, after East's double, a 2NT call by W asks E to bid his longer minor. That would work some of the time at least.

I do agree that if not discussed, penalty seems most likely.

Meta-agreements are useful. I suggested "If it could be natural, then undiscussed it is natural". Of course another would be "If a double at the 1 or 2 level is undiscussed, it is for take-out". For me, this in the main thing. Unless you are Meckwell, playing together for forty years or so, you have undiscussed sequences. A pair needs to have ways to resolving that "whatsit" question. Meta-agreements won't always solve this but they are a good start.

In the case at hand, if EW have not discussed it, I believe a pass by E would be a fine choice whatever the actual intent of his double was. The double is only going to be effective if partner understands it.

[mgoetze]

PhilG007, on 2016-January-25, 07:33, said:

Unless there has been prior partnership agreement

One of the first agreements I like to make with any partner: when in doubt, doubles are for takeout.

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-25, 08:30, said:

East had a chance to make a takeout Double of spades at his/her first turn to call and did not.

Are you saying you would routinely double 1♠ for takeout with only 2 hearts?

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-25, 08:30, said:

To those who think it is takeout now - or even useful as a takeout - I ask: What possible hand (that could not find an unusual 2NT overcall at the first opportunity or cannot raise hearts now) would justify that action over a partner who may simply be balancing protectively?

2254/2245 shape seems prototypical, but a failure to overcall 2NT vulnerable certainly doesn't deny 1255 shape for me. I would not overcall 2NT with x Kx Qxxxx QJxxx but that seems like a good double now.

[Caitlynne]

helene_t, on 2016-January-25, 08:50, said:

Ax-Jx-xxxxx-AJxx maybe?

Insane. Partner does not need much to balance with 2H. You can go for a number easily.

Partner could easily have something like xxx, AQxxx, Kx, xxx. You really want to be at the 3 level or defending 2Sx opposite something like that?

This is a PENALTY double. Period. It appears in almost all books by credible authors (e.g., Lawrence, Ewen, Kaplan, Reese) in classic bridge books. Of course, you can always struggle to invent some hand where an optional kind of hand might make sense, but those holdings are so rare on a frequency basis compared with holdings similar to KJTxx, x, AJxx, KTx.

[hrothgar]

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-25, 09:55, said:

This is a PENALTY double. Period. It appears in almost all books by credible authors (e.g., Lawrence, Ewen, Kaplan, Reese) in classic bridge books. Of course, you can always struggle to invent some hand where an optional kind of hand might make sense, but those holdings are so rare on a frequency basis compared with holdings similar to KJTxx, x, AJxx, KTx.

Strongly agree with Caitlynne

Even if I had a meta agreement that all unusual doubles are for take out, I would interpret this as penalty since this is so very very standard

[kenberg]

I tried (although not exhaustively) looking in references. I tried the acbl Bridge Encyclopedia and I tried Double, New meanings for an old bid, by Lawrence. I set out to find the following
Bid-P-P-Balance
2Bid(same suit)-X

No luck. But it is true, I did not devote myself to the search.

But we are not that much in disagreement. Having passed originally, I would be disinclined to do much later unless I had a fir for partner's balance. And even if I did I would be cautious. Partner pushed them up a notch and helped me choose a lead, let it be. Even with a hand that I expect to beat 2S, I would be inclined to let it be. Penalty maybe, raise hearts maybe, compete at 3m, not likely. So i'm chicken, what else is new.

Maybe we could see the actual hands? I'm curious both about the intent and the result.No need to identify the players, that's not the point.

[manudude03]

---

My gut says it should be DSIP, something like a 3244 weak NT hand.

[kenberg]

manudude03, on 2016-January-25, 11:51, said:

---

My gut says it should be DSIP, something like a 3244 weak NT hand.

I can understand East's choices:

X: If pard passes, how bad can it be?

X: If pard pulls, I will bid 4H

W has more than he needs for his balance, E cannot be sure 4H will make so he probably hoped for a pass. I tend not to balance just because it is my turn to bid, but I could do it with a bit less than here.

All's well that ends well.


I'm not big on DSIP. Whenever it goes wrong, pard explains that I did SU, something unintelligent. Often I just had no idea what he had in mind.

[Phil]

2 ♠ is terrible. It deserved to be crucified for 1100.

Lol at anyone considering this x to be 'obviously' penalty or 'obviously' takeout. Both are reasonable but you have to discuss this one and there are excellent players that go both ways on this.

[amateur_]

Thanks Wayne for posting the whole hand.
Well, it happened to be not so straight sequence. To me, partners should build gradually upon each other's auction.
What I would take for granted being in the balancing seat after double, is that partner offers a sound penalty.
Alternatively, East would choose between PASS (when penalty is uncertain), further calls showing his trap-pass: 2NT (natural, up to 13-count, clear tollerance in minors), 3♣ is at least 45 in minors.
Thus, the balancing seat is about to choose accordingly.

As per the actual table, 3♦ followed by West and 4♥ by East for 620, surprisingly scoring only 30% (good effort by Forum members at the remaining tables:-).