[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1NT* - (P) - P - (2♠)
P - (P) - ?

---

*13-15

Our agreements are that double is penalty if RHO overcalls and takeout here in the passout seat.

1) Is that agreement sensible? playable? horrible?

2) In the passout seat with our agreement as above, what is your call?

[Chamaco]

Just my opinion here...

Quote

1) Is that agreement sensible? playable? horrible?

Playable.
However, I prefer the "all doubles are t/o" approach (which indeed loses some penalty chances when responder does have a penalty pass and opener cannot reopen because he is not short in opps suit)

Quote

2) In the passout seat with our agreement as above, what is your call?

Pass. If double is takeout here, then it is not an option, and any other option sounds weird.
Once we have decided (at the previous round, by passing) that this hand was not worth an invite, it makes no sense to bid 2NT, at least at IMPS: let's just defend undoubled and collect our small plus

[luis]

1) It's fine as long as what they bid is a real suit, you need -in my opinion- to have different agreements for 2♣ capp and 2♦ capp where the minors are not real suits.

2) From the Law Of Total Tricks perspective Pass is the right call, they have 7 trumps we have 7,8 or 9 in diamonds, not enough to bid 3♦ over 2♠.

Note: I wouldn't have passed 1NT I would have bid 2♣ Stayman, over 2♠ then I have an easy invitation, over 2♦ I can pass and over 2♥ I can stretch to bid 2NT and only then I'm overbidding a little.

Luis

[pclayton]

1) Its playable, and its seems to be more common than having a penalty in the balance seat UNDER the bidder. WIn some, lose some (you lost here).

2) I'll pass. Our weak NT has jockeyed them into a 6-1 / 5-2 fit (or worse). Seems trying for a plus in 2♠ is the best option.

[MickyB]

The agreement is reasonable, but I prefer takeout throughout - the takeout double is more useful for a hand that hasn't yet passed, IMO.

Pass looks obvious now.