[straube]

 WesleyC, on 2012-March-15, 17:29, said:

One situation that I got into a discussion about recently was:

1D - P - 1S - P
2D - X

The consensus was that this double should be take-out (usually full opening strength and short spades, something like 1435/2425/2434 shape).

However in the almost identical auctions:

1D - P - 1S - X
2D - X

1D - P - 1S - 2C
2D - X

Where partner has shown values, most people favoured using the double to show an original penalty pass.

Wes

We play the exact opposite. The first situation is penalty and the second is responsive. I think we got this from Mike Lawrence. My guess at his reasoning is that in the first situation doubler could have found a bid instead of passing intitially at least most of the time...like either 1N or an overcall. He btw makes an exception for 1m P 1N P dbl which is takeout based on assumed fit. In the second situation, though it may seem more attractive to penalize after pd has bid something (relying on him for some values), it also is more attractive to rely on those values to find our own fit. Let's say it goes 1D P 1S X 2D and I have Axxx Kxx xxx Axx. I want to do something because opponents could have an 8 or 9 cd diamond fit, but I don't want to guess what is hopefully our own 8-cd fit...so I make a responsive double.

[FrancesHinden]

 BnBeever, on 2012-December-22, 21:04, said:

..Many of the consequences of this small rule set fly in the face of accepted wisdom, allowing many more takeout doubles than the norm, but the key point which many experts miss, is that takeout doubles usually perform the job of the penalty double (just from the other side of the table), in addition to removing the guesswork when a penalty double isn't called for by either partner. In addition, it is important that both partners' doubles mean the same thing, otherwise their doubles clash with duplicated utility, rather than being synchronised to overcome an optimal variety of situations.

The following example shows how the above rules sometimes prescribe a takeout double that flies in the face of tradition:

1NT - X - 2♥ - X

Many experts would assume penalties for both doubles, but IMO some thought should convince anyone with an open mind that the 2nd double should be takeout, despite the first being penalties. The crucial situation is one where neither opponent of the 1NT opener holds a good heart holding, nor a 5 card suit (otherwise it probably matters not whether you play pens or t/o); here both of you are impotent when playing penalty doubles of the 2H (or require guesswork in bidding the right 4 card suit).

I think you should be careful about this sort of blanket statement.
Every good player I know* who has discussed this auction, plays this double as take-out.

*Except for Gunnar Hallberg, who feels strongly it should be penalties. He knows he is sufficiently unusual here that he expects people to laugh at him about it...

[FrancesHinden]

 BnBeever, on 2012-December-22, 21:04, said:

I play and advocate the following 5 rules for doubles of natural bids (artificial bids need their own set of rules to determine whether they are cards or suit-showing or whatever - will give these if people are interested):

Double is penalty if any of the following are true (takeout otherwise):

1) Doubled bid is 4S or higher
2) You and p already agreed a suit
3) 3 or 4 suits have been shown
4) Bid is NT (excepting 1/2NT response or rebid)
5) Doubler had chance to do t/o of same shown suits earlier, but passed instead

Your rules lead to the following consequences where you would definitely find yourself out of step possibly with your own philosophy:

4S dbl is commonly played as either take-out or transferable values, as is 1S 2H 4S dbl, 2S dbl 4S dbl and all similar auctions.

Your rule makes 1H p 2H p p dbl for penalties, which is playable but not the standard approach
1C dbl 1S dbl these rules would make for take-out, where penalties is massively superior and more common

You've missed out the rule "partner has pre-empted", otherwise 2H 3D dbl and 3H 3S dbl become for take-out (or do you mean to play them for take-out?)

Rule 4 is a bit odd, it makes 1C P 1S P 2NT dbl take-out (why would you want to make a t/o double here?), but 3S P 3NT dbl penalties

Rule 3 makes 1D 1S dbl 2S dbl penalties (3 suits shown) which obviously some people play, but not those who play many other take-out doubles

Rule 3 also makes 1H 2NT (unusual) dbl 3C dbl penalties (3 suits shown) but 1H dbl redbl 3C dbl penalties which seems internally inconsistent.

[PhilKing]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-23, 15:59, said:

I think you should be careful about this sort of blanket statement.
Every good player I know* who has discussed this auction, plays this double as take-out.

*Except for Gunnar Hallberg, who feels strongly it should be penalties. He knows he is sufficiently unusual here that he expects people to laugh at him about it...

He agreed to play it as take-out, but ended up doing it with a penalty double anyway, so we have all had to fall in line when playing with Gunnar and double for blood.

[gnasher]

Quote

1♦ dbl 1♥ 1♠
2♦ pass pass dbl

 BnBeever, on 2012-December-23, 07:25, said:

... I don't see why you would want this as values rather than penalty - after all, a 2♥ UCB could be used for values purposes.

I'd expect 2♥ to be natural here. What else would I do on a competitive hand with 4-4 in the majors?

I want double to be values because I think I'm more likely to hold a 4234 shape than a 4153.

[flytoox]

I like this discussion and would like to take a ride and ask a related question. Suppose the bidding goes:

W N E S
1S P 1N 2H
2S X?

What should this dble mean? Is this different from

W N E S
1S P 1N P
2S X

[BnBeever]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-23, 16:10, said:

Your rules lead to the following consequences where you would definitely find yourself out of step possibly with your own philosophy:

a) 4S dbl is commonly played as either take-out or transferable values, as is 1S 2H 4S dbl, 2S dbl 4S dbl and all similar auctions.
b) Your rule makes 1H p 2H p p dbl for penalties, which is playable but not the standard approach
c) 1C dbl 1S dbl these rules would make for take-out, where penalties is massively superior and more common
d) You've missed out the rule "partner has pre-empted", otherwise 2H 3D dbl and 3H 3S dbl become for take-out (or do you mean to play them for take-out?)
e) Rule 4 is a bit odd, it makes 1C P 1S P 2NT dbl take-out (why would you want to make a t/o double here?), but 3S P 3NT dbl penalties
f) Rule 3 makes 1D 1S dbl 2S dbl penalties (3 suits shown) which obviously some people play, but not those who play many other take-out doubles
g) Rule 3 also makes 1H 2NT (unusual) dbl 3C dbl penalties (3 suits shown) but 1H dbl redbl 3C dbl penalties which seems internally inconsistent.

(I've added the letter references)
Firstly, many thanks Frances - I really appreciate your input. So specifically:
a) Perhaps I don't play often enough against top opposition (and I will look into 'transferable values'), but I haven't found any problems playing double of 4S as pens so far in any situation.
b) Yes I agree this isn't standard, but my philosophy is, if you weren't worth a t/o double the first time, you aren't worth it at all. But then, I routinely make 1st round takeout doubles on 9 or 10 points.
c) My rules agree with yours here - this as penalties, as we have had 3 suits shown (1C=1, dbl=1, 1S=1, total=3).
d) Yes I do mean these as takeout, which will occasionally come in handy. Besides, I'm usually quite happy to pass if they opps bid over ps pre-empt and are going down. I can't tell which method is better than the other here, but as you say, you would need an extra rule about doubles after pre-empting, and I like to keep the number of rules down unless one method is clearly superior.
e) I could ask the same question about penalty doubles - seems unlikely their 2NT is going down here. 3NT? Well you only need 5 tricks to take that off, which seems a fair bit more likely than 6. And again, I'm not saying these 5 rules are optimal, just that they get pretty close.
f) Fair comment. You may have noticed, conformity isn't my priority.
g) First part I agree with. In the 2nd auction you give, the final double is in fact takeout under my rules. Counting the suits: 1H=1, dbl=1, rdbl=0(values), 3C=0*, total = 2, so dbl = takeout.
* "However, when a (re-)double is taken out to a suit by the doubling side, this doesn’t count as an additional suit." Another way to think of it is that the first double doesn't need to count as a suit anymore after their partner bids one in response to it. Counting a takeout double as an unspecified suit is purely a mechanism to ensure the auction matures into 'penalty double' state eventually. Eg. (1♥)-dbl-(1♠)-P -(2♥)-P-(P)-dbl = pens.

[wyman]

 BnBeever, on 2012-December-28, 11:25, said:

(I've added the letter references)
Firstly, many thanks Frances - I really appreciate your input. So specifically:
a) Perhaps I don't play often enough against top opposition (and I will look into 'transferable values'), but I haven't found any problems playing double of 4S as pens so far in any situation.

It is far more likely that you will have values and spade shortness than a spade stack after 4S. People reserve 4N as 2-suited t/o. Additionally, you can make use of 4N after (4S) X for a variety of things (one approach is that 4N puppets to 5C, and advancer can pass or drop elsewhere, whereas a direct 5X has slam interest opposite a suitable TOX).

Quote

b) Yes I agree this isn't standard, but my philosophy is, if you weren't worth a t/o double the first time, you aren't worth it at all. But then, I routinely make 1st round takeout doubles on 9 or 10 points.

It's hard for partner to know when to take you seriously, then. Also, routinely doubling into a live auction with 9 HCP will result in -1100s after XX. But it's much safer to double into an auction opps are letting go at 2H.

Quote

c) My rules agree with yours here - this as penalties, as we have had 3 suits shown (1C=1, dbl=1, 1S=1, total=3).

I'd say that our side has offered up spades as a place to play, so X should show spades -- "penalty" might be a misstatement, since I would bid spades (naturally) over 1S with a lot of hands with good spades (a great 4 card suit or any 5 -- X should show a 4 card suit that is not great).

[BnBeever]

Re:
1♦ double 1♥ 1♠
2♦ pass pass dbl

 gnasher, on 2012-December-25, 09:54, said:

I'd expect 2♥ to be natural here. What else would I do on a competitive hand with 4-4 in the majors?

I want double to be values because I think I'm more likely to hold a 4234 shape than a 4153.

Personally I'd bid 2♠ if I had no game ambitions, though you could argue this leaves the door open for a psyche 1♥ to do some damage. I rarely meet anyone who would dare to psyche, lest someone record their 'unsportsmanlike conduct', but if I regularly met such opponents.... Even then I don't think either of our treatments of double & 2♥ is clearly better.

[BnBeever]

 flytoox, on 2012-December-27, 20:28, said:

I like this discussion and would like to take a ride and ask a related question. Suppose the bidding goes:

W N E S
1S P 1N 2H
2S X?

What should this dble mean? Is this different from

W N E S
1S P 1N P
2S X

In your first example my rules would say takeout (e.g. with 3=2=4=4 or 2=2=5-4 or perhaps a weak 5-5 minors outside the range for your unu 2N).
In the 2nd, they would say penalties, as N passed at the chance to t/o double spades earlier. I guess some may have the double as takeout on a hand they considered too weak (or in some other way unsuitable) to double 1♠. Clearly both methods are playable.

[BnBeever]

 wyman, on 2012-December-28, 12:46, said:

a) It is far more likely that you will have values and spade shortness than a spade stack after 4S. People reserve 4N as 2-suited t/o. Additionally, you can make use of 4N after (4S) X for a variety of things (one approach is that 4N puppets to 5C, and advancer can pass or drop elsewhere, whereas a direct 5X has slam interest opposite a suitable TOX).


b) It's hard for partner to know when to take you seriously, then. Also, routinely doubling into a live auction with 9 HCP will result in -1100s after XX. But it's much safer to double into an auction opps are letting go at 2H.

c) I'd say that our side has offered up spades as a place to play, so X should show spades -- "penalty" might be a misstatement, since I would bid spades (naturally) over 1S with a lot of hands with good spades (a great 4 card suit or any 5 -- X should show a 4 card suit that is not great).

(letter references added)
a) I am fine with pen dbl of 4♠, and 4N as takeout. If I know you don't have a penalty double of 4♠ available I may well open 4♠ on a 5 or 6 card suit at favourable vul as your opp I think the point is that partner isn't going to play you for a spade stack even if you agree penalties; with doubles of 4♠ or higher one must be more pragmatic.
b) I don't remember a -1100 after making a light takeout double at the 1 level (at least not for the last 5 years or so). If you really believe takeout doubles should be more than 10 points, then either you keep your overcalls up to similar strength, or else you must justify why your minimum overcall strength is lower than your minimum t/o doubling strength. Neither seems palatable IMO.
c) Re: 1♣ dbl 1♠ dbl. Your treatment here seems very subtle. I won't say it's unplayable, but I'm happy with penalties, which partner will interpret as something like 8+ HCP and ♠Hxx+. Of course vulnerability would be taken into consideration.

[wyman]

(a) and if you bid 4s with a 5-bagger, GL having partner make an intelligent 6-level decision when we DO bid on.

( b ) I can make a 1 level overcall with a wide range, since it's a 1-level call. X over even 1H may force us to the 2-level. Also, partner may face a 3 or 4-level decision. Then what does he do with an 11 count?

( c ) it's not really subtle, and it's played by many. I'd venture to say that it's pretty standard.

Also the idea that your initial tox is 9+ but you're ready to snap me off at the 1-level with 8hcp and Hxx seems unwise. Vulnerable doubled overs are worth 200 apiece you know...

[han]

 wyman, on 2012-March-15, 08:25, said:

(P) 1C (P) P
(X) 1N (3H) P
(P) X

(1) Does anyone disagree that this is penalty?

No, it seems to me that penalty is the only possible meaning for this double.

Quote

(2) Does anyone care to fashion a meta-rule that would cover this.

Meta rule: If a call has only 1 possible meaning then that is what it means.

[han]

 wyman, on 2012-March-15, 08:25, said:

(P) 1C (P) P
(X) 1N (3H) P
(P) X

(1) Does anyone disagree that this is penalty?

No, it seems to me that penalty is the only possible meaning for this double.

Quote

(2) Does anyone care to fashion a meta-rule that would cover this.

Meta rule: If a call has only 1 possible meaning then that is what it means.

[wyman]

 han, on 2013-January-02, 07:08, said:

Meta rule: If a call has only 1 possible meaning then that is what it means.

This is why I love han.

[han]

Of course I meant to write it somewhat humorously, but I think that this really is how it works. No matter what general rules you come up with, there will always be auctions where they don't make any sense. If logically a double can only be penalty (or can only be takeout) then that's what it should be.

In 2011 (ages ago!) my partner and I had the following auction:

1C - (p) - p - (Dbl)
Rdbl - (1H) - Dbl

Given that I virtually always respond with a 5-card major and very often with a 4-card major (and certainly with a 4-card major as good as KJxx) I don't think that this double can be penalties. I think that there is just no hand that would pass over 1C and then would like to make a penalty double of 1H. Therefore, I think that this double should be takeout, no matter what your other meta-rules are.

[han]

By the way, I think I had something like Jxxx xx Kxxx xxx in the auction above.

[helene_t]

I am going to necro this one because I couldn't find the more recent thread in which AWM mentioned his agreements with Elianna, which made me think.

I think that the main criterion should be the extent to which partner's hand is described, rather than the level. The more well-described partner's hand is, the more sense it makes to give yourself captainship and define your doubles as penalty; when partner's hand is more losesly defined, a t/o double is more useful since it's a good tool for enquiring about partner's shape.

So here are the rules I just made up:
- We double an artificial bid: Lead directing
- We double notrumps: Penalty
- We double a natural suit bid and partner has only passed (not trapped), or made a single bid introducing a new suit without jump: Take-out
- We double a natural suit bid after partner has made two bids, a jump bid, a t/o double, a raise, a notrump bid, a trap pass or conventional two-suited bid: Penalty

Some exceptions are obvious but these are important to discuss:
- We double after they run from a doubled 1NT opening
- They interfere over our notrump opening
- To which level responsive doubles apply. Maybe 4♦ opposite a double and 5♣ opposite an overcall, or some such.
- To which level delayed doubles apply (we already had one chance or doubling the same suit (or combination of suits))
- We double certain not-so-constructive conventions such as Michael's cuebid, Bergen Raises, Drury
- Various situations in which we double a 1NT rebid or freebid.
- Various situations in which we double them after we have found a fit. The default is penalty.
- We double after partner has made a 1NT response.
- We double after partner has bid two suits at the 1-level not denying a balanced hand.
- We double a notrump response to a preempt. I would play this as t/o in direct seat but penalty in balancing seat.

[awm]

There are a bunch of (I think) important exceptions to a double of an artificial bid being penalty:

1. Pass/correct bids. If double isn't takeout of the bid suit, it becomes hard to compete in a lot of auctions.
2. Bids which show a particular suit without a lot of values (i.e. transfer preempts, various artificial raises, some defenses to 1NT, michaels cuebids); here it is often better for double to be takeout of the shown suit and/or general values.
3. Openings which are either natural or balanced (while technically artificial, often it's best for double to be takeout of the suit).

[aguahombre]

 awm, on 2014-September-16, 09:44, said:

There are a bunch of (I think) important exceptions to a double of an artificial bid being penalty:

2. Bids which show a particular suit without a lot of values (i.e. transfer preempts, various artificial raises, some defenses to 1NT, michaels cuebids); here it is often better for double to be takeout of the shown suit and/or general values.

Perhaps I am not the only one who doesn't quite understand this particular one.

Transfer preempts: If Double of a one-under preempt is agreed as takeout of the next suit, isn't it also penalty of the suit bid?

Double of Michaels: takeout of Hearts and Spades? Wouldn't u/u be better for this, with Double to suggest cooperation for penalty of the chosen major?

Similar with artificial raises, but forgive and kindly explain if I just plain missed the point.