[Flame]

a.
(1♠) P (P) D
(2♠) D

b.
1♥ (1♠) P (2♠)
P (P) D

Penalty or T.O ?

[Free]

Both penalty for me:
1. you can bid 2NT as takeout.
2. passing first means you don't have a takeout. When it can't be takeout, it's penalty.

[whereagles]

According to Robson/Segal's rules,

1. Take-out. The rule is "Delayed doubles are for take-out of the second suit (penalty of the first suit if relevant), except if RHO has opened and pard took positive action in 1st round". The 1st case falls under the exception, so double is for take-out. Also following R&S, 2NT would be Lebensohl here.

2. Penalty. See rule above. Not that this sort of double will come up very often (especially if 1♠ gets supported), but oh well

Now, if you don't play any rules for these doubles, the situation can very easily get muddy

[david_c]

Just for a bit of variety -

a. penalty
b. take-out

I think a is well-known as being a penalty situation. b doesn't seem clear but I would interpret it as take-out unless I had agreed otherwise.

[mikestar]

a) Is penalty. Partner's double imples spade shortness and I am likely to have spade length. This is the equivalent of a penalty pass if opener had passed (but the spades needn't be quite so strong as the contract is one level higher). The RS excption shouldn't apply to this case.

If I wanted partner to bid a minor, why didn't I double the round before? Clearly penalty, though rare.

[awm]

Both takeout for me. I play virtually no penalty doubles at the two-level or below. If I actually had the penalty double, it's virtually certain that partner would double on both of these hands (especially since partner has shown values on both hands).

[luke warm]

i can't understand how a. can be anything other than penalty... first, he didn't x 1S, and over 2S he has 2NT for takeout... if it isn't penalty, you have to play like adam and say opps have free reign until 3 level

same for b., imo... there was no negative double and no 2NT over 2S... at matchpoints it seems automatic for both of those to be penalty... not auto at imps, but i'd still play both as penalty

[mikeh]

Penalty for both.

In both sequences, partner had takeout bids available on both rounds of the auction, and did not use them. Thus, no negative double over the initial overcall and no takeout 2N over the second round. I play relatively few low level penalty doubles but I cannot understand the logic of using these doubles as takeout: especially over the ♠ suit, we have 2N available (we need not cater to opener having a penalty conversion of the double in either case, so a takeout double will be taken out: so why not bid 2N instead?)

[whereagles]

I like this thread. We have advocates for all 4 possibilities.. lol.

[luis]

Both for takeout to me. I hate playing penalty doubles at the 2 level specially when they have supported the suit.

[hrothgar]

I would assume penalty in most of my partnerships

[han]

The second one is clearly penalty imo, the first one could go either way.

[Winstonm]

Can you change methods depending on your opps?

There is room for the first to be played either way and a matter I think of what you find most useful - I believe undiscussed it is penatly; however, there is a case for not punishing the balancer and using this bid to simply say I have a pretty good hand over here and am willing to compete to the 3 level or try for game, Possibly a hand such as Axx, KJ, AJxx, Jxxx or similar. On a frequency basis, I think one would be prone to hold the goodish hand that has no action available rather than a penalty double of 2S, more so against good opponents than weak.

The second is no sot clearly penalty as the raise makes it less likely that partner wanted to double 1S. Although somewhat rare, it might be best used as a "do something intelligent" double with a hand like Kx, 8743, Kxxx, KJx where there was no good bid available over 1S.

It seems harder to me to show the unbiddable hands rather than the doubling hands so that is the assignment I like to make - and it saves me from bad low level doubles.

Of course, my views are based strictly on imp play where I don't mind too much the random +200 instead of +500 if it avoids the occassional -790 and from what I viewed of the Bermuda Bowl there were a number of down 2s that went unpunished and who am I to argue with those guys?

Winston

[Winstonm]

Quote

Mikeh: In both sequences, partner had takeout bids available on both rounds of the auction, and did not use them. Thus, no negative double over the initial overcall and no takeout 2N over the second round

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, Mike. over 1H-1S then X would be for the minors so why would pass and 2N be for the same minors? Seems if this method is used, then 2N is just "action" with no clear direction - keeping the ball in the air - and then double would be for penalty; however, might not there be a case for using the negative double for 44 types with a smattering and the pass and 2N for weakish 55, leaving double as "do something wise, my man"? The give up is no penalty double - not much give up for me.

Winston

[FrancesHinden]

I also think the second one is clearly penalties. I don't think this is close, nor do I see any possible loss from playing it as penalties.

Without agreement, the standard meaning for the first is penalties. I have agreed to play it as take-out in my regular partnerships. There are arguments in favour of both, but against sound opposition I think take-out is more useful (and I can't be bothered to change my agreements depending on the soundness of opposition - if they can't play bridge I expect to beat them anyway!).

[pclayton]

The 2nd should be penalty, typically showing a trap over 1♠.

We've gone back and forth on #1, but have decided it should be penalty sitting over the bidder.

[MickyB]

Penalty for both. A takeout double on the second would be something like a 1255 3 count, just bid 2NT on that, will be rare that you want to take a penalty. You can't have a pure takeout double on the first or you would have doubled on the first round - maybe "values" (typically a weak NT with 3-4♠) has some merits, but I'd assume penalty without discussion.

[helene_t]

a) Played as penalty by most experts, afaik. In one partnership I play raptor so the double suggests something like a hand that would have overcalled a natural 1NT, or possibly weaker: you may call it an optional double

b ) Penalty, no doubt. A hand that could double for t/o here would have done so in the first round.

[han]

I agree with Phil, second is clearly penalty, first could be either (I prefer take-out).