[kgr]

1x-(Pass)-1NT-(2Y)
Pass-(Pass)-DBL

1x-(Pass)-1NT-(Pass)
Pass-(2Y)-DBL

Is it best to play these DBLs as TO or Penalty?
(Or does it depend on x or Y; scoring and vulnerability)

My partner prefers to play penalty by responder after he bid 1NT; I prefer TO (especially at MPs)

Edit: 1NT is not forcing for us

[aguahombre]

Two separate situations, and a whole lot of permutations -- not to mention a problem with people's definition of "t/o" or "pen". Those labels are not inclusive. Re: the first one:

1x (P) 1NT (2Y)
P (P) DBL....Yes, X and Y make a difference.

If x is 1C, then 1NT is well defined as to strength and shape (8-10 for us, no major, etc.); so the double of 2D would certainly be penalty. Double of 2M (if it exists at all) might be used for 3-3-5-2, with 2N available for 3-2-5-3.

If x is 1D, then double of 2C should be penalty and perhaps a double of 2M should not exist.

After 1M and our forcing or semi-forcing NT, we agreed that double in rebalance by the 1NT responder is 11-12 invitational hand. Would you call that pen., t/o, or just what it is?

The 2NT rebalance is not natural for us after 1M-1N and interference.

When 1S-1N (2c) P (P) comes back around, we know partner doesn't have 4 of a red suit or 6 spades, so a T/O double doesn't seem practical.

[kgr]

Thanks for the reply

aguahombre, on 2012-June-26, 09:56, said:

Two separate situations, and a whole lot of permutations -- not to mention a problem with people's definition of "t/o" or "pen". Those labels are not inclusive. Re: the first one:

1x (P) 1NT (2Y)
P (P) DBL....Yes, X and Y make a difference.

If x is 1C, then 1NT is well defined as to strength and shape (8-10 for us, no major, etc.); so the double of 2D would certainly be penalty. Double of 2M (if it exists at all) might be used for 3-3-5-2, with 2N available for 3-2-5-3.

If x is 1D, then double of 2C should be penalty and perhaps a double of 2M should not exist.

After 1M and our forcing or semi-forcing NT, we agreed that double in rebalance by the 1NT responder is 11-12 invitational hand. Would you call that pen., t/o, or just what it is?

The 2NT rebalance is not natural for us after 1M-1N and interference.

When 1S-1N (2c) P (P) comes back around, we know partner doesn't have 4 of a red suit or 6 spades, so a T/O double doesn't seem practical.

Note: We don't play forcing 1NT.

Maybe it is best to have following rule?:
After 1x-(Pass)-1NT...(2Y), DBL by responder is:
- penalty if he did not yet deny a 4cY.
- maximal, semi-balanced TO, if a 4cY was denied
e.g:
1D-(P)-1NT-(P)
P-(2C)-DBL = PEN

1D-(P)-1NT-(2H)
P-(P)-DBL = Max, e.g: 2=3=3=5

1C-(P)-1NT-(2D)
P-(P)-DBL = PEN (D length still possible because T-Walsh)

1S-(P)-1NT-(2D)
P-(P)-DBL = PEN

[aguahombre]

I could have saved some ink if I had waited for the edit about 1N NF/1M. Oh, well. It would only change the paragraph about 11-12 HCP.

[SteveMoe]

Agree w/ Aguahombre that doubles here are very context dependent - lots of negative inferences to sort out. Need to factor in agreement for opener's double of interventions over 1NT (Opener's RHO). If takeout(better) regardles of strength, then responder might have to protect penalty passes. If penalty then responder might have to protect takeouts for, say, hearts under spades.

Where BOTH majors are denied by 1N, straight penalty or Balance of Power Penalty appear best choices. I prefer BoP - showing 3 cards in their suit and top of range for 1N (we hold BoP). Applies in front of or behind intervenor.

If one logical suit remains, (say 1♥ - P - 1N (denying ♠) - 2♣ - P - P - [Only diamonds remain]) the Double should be BoP, showing 2 cards for Partner's Major (perhaps 3 for partner's minor), 3 cards in intervenor's suit and 10-11 HCP.

If 2 logical suits remain (1♠ - P - 1N - 2♣ - P* - P [♦ and ♥ are live possibilities]) Double should be takeout independent of responder's range. (*= Does opener automatically double with 4 hearts?).

Responder has 3 of Opener's Major to show 3-card limit raises. Responder also has 2 of opener's major as 2-card "raise". 2N should show clear stopper for "Y" and 11-12 (wasted values for a BoP double). Suspect 1♥-P-1N-2y-P-P-2♠ should be a 11-12 2-card raise without stopper for "y".

[aguahombre]

SteveMoe, on 2012-June-27, 20:43, said:

If 2 logical suits remain (1♠ - P - 1N - 2♣ - P* - P [♦ and ♥ are live possibilities]) Double should be takeout independent of responder's range. (*= Does opener automatically double with 4 hearts?).

I would think opener would have already bid 2D or 2H...the bid he would have made without the 2C overcall which didn't interfere with the intended rebid. So, you are free to decide whether double in rebalance by the responder is more likely to be useful with extreme (5-5+) in the reds or with a penalty-oriented hand.

[SteveMoe]

Useful thought about extra length.
I had been thinking that a freebid in a new suit by opener shows either a better hand than a pure minimum opener, or perhaps 5-5.
This would put a bit more burden on Responder and not afford us the negative inference about whether opener holds say 4♥s in addition to 5 ♠s.
Do you think opener should pass on all 5 card minimums (11-12, say)?

[aguahombre]

SteveMoe, on 2012-June-28, 19:48, said:

Useful thought about extra length.
I had been thinking that a freebid in a new suit by opener shows either a better hand than a pure minimum opener, or perhaps 5-5.
This would put a bit more burden on Responder and not afford us the negative inference about whether opener holds say 4♥s in addition to 5 ♠s.
Do you think opener should pass on all 5 card minimums (11-12, say)?

IMO, opener should not let a bid (2C in the case being discussed) which takes up no room from the bid he/she intended to make to all-of-a-sudden cause him/her to not make that bid.

If opener was intending to rebid 2 red after a response of 1NT to 1s, he should bid 2 red.

[bluecalm]

Always t/o is sane imo but if you are willing to discuss some exceptions then I think double after club overcall and 1H/1D opening is interesting as it's impossible for you to have club shortness there. That being said even this double could be playing just as "points" so I would stick with always t/o to avoid complications.