[kenrexford]

Two doubles caused poor results when partners miscued. Interested in general thoughts here:

Case #1:

1♠-P-1NT!-2♥
2♠-P-P-3♥
X?

Case #2:

1♥-P-P-3♣
3♥-X?

Are these typically viewed as Penalty, Cooperative, or high offense-to-defense (takeout-ish)? Are these two cases different?

[mikeh]

Interesting that you are already sure that it was partner who screwed up, while asking for opinions as to the meaning of the doubles.


1. Good hand, nearly a 3♠ bid, co-operative, does not suggest a trump stack

2. Penalty. I have Q10xx or K10xx in ♥s, short ♣s, a little outside, and opener gambled and lost.

[pclayton]

Mike - in fairness Ken said 'partners', not partner.

I agree; #1 is card showing / cooperative / max 2C call.

#2 is penalty.

[jdonn]

First one, takeout in context with very good cards for offense and defense, like Justin's example. Partner would almost always pass or bid 3♠, but if he is like 1336 and very minimum I don't see why he couldn't go to his minor, stranger things have happened.

Second one, penalty, sometimes doubles like this show other the two suits but partner's 3♣ bid here seems to imply he is not so interested in any other suit.

[kenrexford]

For the record, I did mean that the partnerS miscued. In no way did I mean to suggest that MY partner was the one at fault. Actually, I believe that I was the one who made the errors.

I was interested in the thinking more than the answers, because the thinking bolstering the "right" answers seems odd to me.

As to Case #1. The partner of the doubler held 1-1-7-3 pattern. This seems like an odd pattern to hold, given the auction so far, but stranger things have happened. That being said, what is the impact on the analysis when Opener did not jump to 3♠ over 2♥ and did not double 2♥ directly? Sure, this appears to be a typical high offense to defense takeout with 6133, but then why not double 2♥? One pro player (JK for the youth in the know) would have doubled "100 times out of 100" with 6331 pattern. So, what the heck is a delayed double? 7330? Are penalty doubles completely gone these days? Is Opener boxed in by expert analysis if he happens to holds something like AJ10xxx-AJxx-x-Ax?

As to Case #2. If Opener in Case #1 would/could double 3♥ with a high offense-to-defense hand and short hearts, then is not a double by Responder in Case #2 somewhat redudant? Can't advancer simply pass and then convert an expected double from partner? What should advancer do with a positive hand but a need for heart help for 3NT? Why is this auction substantially different in offense-to-defense doubling theory?

[inquiry]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

As to Case #1. The partner of the doubler held 1-1-7-3 pattern. This seems like an odd pattern to hold,

Ahem to that brother... Someone picked off a piece of your Swan there....

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

For the record, I did mean that the partnerS miscued. In no way did I mean to suggest that MY partner was the one at fault. Actually, I believe that I was the one who made the errors.

My apologies, Ken... I read far too quickly and jumped to an erroneous conclusion

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 19 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

Is Opener boxed in by expert analysis if he happens to holds something like AJ10xxx-AJxx-x-Ax?

Yes. It is much more important to have the chance to make a bad position good than to make a good position better. Plus you are more likely to be short than long in a suit the opponents are rebidding. And you will still get penalties when partner can pass, even though trumps are onside then they will still have trouble with a bad break and a very weak dummy.

[kenrexford]

I sort of get the Case #1 auction more and more, especially if the delayed double is sort of a "2 1/2 spades with short hearts and two fragments" bid.

I'm still not sure that I get Case #2, though. What is the effective difference here?

[Double !]

re hand #2.

If the double of 3H is business, then how does responder ask the 3C bidder to bid 3N with a heart stopper? Suppose you hold something like Kxx, xx, Axxxx, KTx or some hand that rates to solidify partner's clubs suit with an outside trick or two. What would a 3S bid at this point mean?

dhl

[P_Marlowe]

#1 I assume 1NT was forcing and 2S showed a
6 carder?
The double by opener is certainly
optional not a pure penalty, responder
should bid 3S if he holds 4-7 with fit,
because opener does not know about the 9
card fit.

#2 penalty, 3C promised some life and was a fairly
tight describtion of the hand

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

Funnily enough I disagree with many of the eminent posters here.

In my regular partnerships I have a general rule about doubles, which in short form is "once a player has defined his hand, all subsequent doubles by either side are penalty".

The difficulty with this rule, of course, is twofold: what "defining your hand" means, and what "penalty" means. Two parts of the list of what "defining your hand" includes are:
- once opener has bid twice (or bid and made a support double) his hand is defined, and double is penalties
- double by the partner of a pre-emptor is always penalties

On case #1, opener has defined his hand and I would play double of 3H as 'penalties'. It won't have a trump stack -that's not consistent with the auction - but is likely to be suitable for defense in the context of being likely 6-3 in the majors with at least one trump trick. What responder looking at a 1-1-7-4 is supposed to do opposite that I have no idea, it's a horrible problem.

Case #2 is very tough. My feeling is that an intermediate 3C jump (assuming that's what you play 3C as) is specific enough to define the hand and thus double is penalties, but I've passed the question on to my regular partners - what do you bet I get one answer each way?

[000002]

case#1:
3♥ bidder has most possibility of holding 6322/6331 ,otherwise his rebid is 2nt or 3 minor.this conclusion imply ours ♦-q or ♣-q has some value when defend 3♥,and it improve the total chance to set this alone 3♥ down many tricks.
i believe my partner can understand that alone 2♠ is an offensive hand ,in this case, taking DBL-3♥ as a co-operation might lost a lot of plus score--- partner imply his poor hand by pass 2♠.if partner can't raise 3♠ directly or balanced subsequently,it's very dangerous to forced ourself to climb 3♠

why openner didn't leap 3♠ immediately?the only propriety reason is weakish ♠ suit,if it's weak suit and partner can't raise 3,why u forced to select ?4-1 distribution is normal alloting.
with a weakish suit and good hand,why openner didn't bid t/o following 2♥ overcall?that is the same reason for punishment of 3♥----his shape isn't short in ♥.
take instance:
AKxxxx
AQx
Axx
x

BTW, i sld indicate it's stopper probe if openner cuebid 3♥ immediately,it's a little help to analyse why openner can jump 3♠ with his 6cards self-solid ♠.

regards
000002

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 20 2007, 04:04 AM, said:

Funnily enough I disagree with many of the eminent posters here.

In my regular partnerships I have a general rule about doubles, which in short form is "once a player has defined his hand, all subsequent doubles by either side are penalty". 

The difficulty with this rule, of course, is twofold: what "defining your hand" means, and what "penalty" means.  Two parts of the list of what "defining your hand" includes are:
- once opener has bid twice (or bid and made a support double) his hand is defined, and double is penalties
- double by the partner of a pre-emptor is always penalties

On case #1, opener has defined his hand and I would play double of 3H as 'penalties'. It won't have a trump stack -that's not consistent with the auction - but is likely to be suitable for defense in the context of being likely 6-3 in the majors with at least one trump trick.  What responder looking at a 1-1-7-4 is supposed to do opposite that I have no idea, it's a horrible problem.

Case #2 is very tough. My feeling is that an intermediate 3C jump (assuming that's what you play 3C as) is specific enough to define the hand and thus double is penalties, but I've passed the question on to my regular partners - what do you bet I get one answer each way?

Of course knowing what you play is most important at always, but I find this treatment very unusual.

1♣ p 1♥ 1♠ DBL 2♠ p p, with double being a support double, playing a double as penalty here would be extremely strange to say the least, and I don't think you could convince me it's a good idea.

[kenrexford]

I think there is a difference between a late repeat of a prior double that sounded takeout and a late double after a prior non-double that sounded like not takeout shape.

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Apr 20 2007, 04:04 AM, said:

Funnily enough I disagree with many of the eminent posters here.

In my regular partnerships I have a general rule about doubles, which in short form is "once a player has defined his hand, all subsequent doubles by either side are penalty".  

The difficulty with this rule, of course, is twofold: what "defining your hand" means, and what "penalty" means.   Two parts of the list of what "defining your hand" includes are:
- once opener has bid twice (or bid and made a support double) his hand is defined, and double is penalties
- double by the partner of a pre-emptor is always penalties

On case #1, opener has defined his hand and I would play double of 3H as 'penalties'. It won't have a trump stack -that's not consistent with the auction - but is likely to be suitable for defense in the context of being likely 6-3 in the majors with at least one trump trick.  What responder looking at a 1-1-7-4 is supposed to do opposite that I have no idea, it's a horrible problem.

Case #2 is very tough. My feeling is that an intermediate 3C jump (assuming that's what you play 3C as) is specific enough to define the hand and thus double is penalties, but I've passed the question on to my regular partners - what do you bet I get one answer each way?

Of course knowing what you play is most important at always, but I find this treatment very unusual.

1♣ p 1♥ 1♠ DBL 2♠ p p, with double being a support double, playing a double as penalty here would be extremely strange to say the least, and I don't think you could convince me it's a good idea.

In a match last night, my partner an I had the following agreements, nothing more...

2/1, 3/5 leads, 4th against NT, udca

We played at a table with some really good stars... they are vulnerable, you are not and you hold

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (1♦) - 1♥ - (2♦)
DBL

---

Here this double could be a lto of things. Cards, takeout, penalty, support (I guess). If you have an agreement, then you clearly know what to do. If you have no agreement, what do you bid? With no specific agreement, what would you think the default agreement should be? This was the last hand and EW were trailing by 7 imps. Would the state of the match affect your decision?

[Poky]

T/O both.

The 2nd case shows a hand:
- with ~9-14 HCP,
- without heart stopper,
- with club honor (remember, partner didn't bid 3♥ but 3♣).

Say:
♠Kxx
♥xxx
♦Kxxx
♣Axx

If you play double as penalty, an easy 3NT will be missed when the balancer has something like:
♠Axx
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQJTxxx

Whenever it has sense that double is TO, double is TO!!!

This double cannot be penalty because the 3♣ bidder must double again with 6/7♣ and heart shortness.

[skjaeran]

inquiry, on Apr 20 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (1♦) - 1♥ - (2♦)
DBL

---

Here this double could be a lto of things. Cards, takeout, penalty, support (I guess). If you have an agreement, then you clearly know what to do. If  you have no agreement, what do you bid? With no specific agreement, what would you think the default agreement should be? This was the last hand and EW were trailing by 7 imps. Would the state of the match affect  your decision?

Playing with someone I know, but still no agreement, this would be an obvious support double to me.
The default meaning would depend on where you're playing. Playing with a total stranger - I've frankly no idea.