[shugart24]

Wondering if there is a consensus on the meaning of the 2nd double : Case 1: 2D (opponents)-Double-3D -Double....Case 2 2D (opponents) -double -2S -Double and finally case 3 1H -Double -2H -Double

[mikeh]

1. Responsive. Classic example

2. Could be played either as hearts and clubs or, my preference, as penalty of spades. People don’t psyche much these days, but, even so,this is an easy ‘baby psyche’ position for responder, especially if the opps either don’t know what double is or have agreed that it’s takeout.

3. Another classic responsive double. The only issue is whether it denies 4 spades, based on the assumption that most takeout doubles of 1H will deliver 4 spades, thus allowing advance to bid 2S over 2H even with only 4 spades. In that agreement the double of 2H shows 4+ in each minor. But it’s playable to simply use it as ‘takeout’, including for spades, which caters to second seat being something like 3=2=4=4 and ensures reaching an 8 card fit somewhere.

[pescetom]

For consistency with other agreements and style I would play #2 as hearts and clubs and #3 as denying 4 spades and promising minors.
I can see the point about the baby psyche, but it's not an issue where I play.

[bluenikki]

shugart24, on 2024-December-21, 14:50, said:

Wondering if there is a consensus on the meaning of the 2nd double : Case 1: 2D (opponents)-Double-3D -Double....Case 2 2D (opponents) -double -2S -Double and finally case 3 1H -Double -2H -Double

Case 2 is problematic. In contrast to (1♦) - X - (1♠) , where responder may think bidding a terrible 4-card suit is the normal action, the responder to 2♦ would be bidding such a suit only with intent to deceive the opponents.

So after the pre-emptive opening, spades is highly unlikely to be the intervenors' best suit contract. Whereas after the 1-bid, there is a live chance that spades are where the intervenors need to declare, and it is a bad idea to let the opponents innocently take that chance away.

So even though I'm certain that the double of 1♠ should show 4+ spades (I refuse to call that a penalty double), a similar double of 2♠ would rarely come up. Whether it's worth the risk to have different meanings for the two doubles, I couldn't say.

[mycroft]

Wrinkle for case #2: many players play 2♠ (or any new suit, really) as "raise to 3♦, but want a spade lead on defence". Now the double is more likely to be "spades" than "other suits", even if it frequently is a spade suit.

[Shugart23]

Looking at modern bridge conventions by Root ( an old book), he has it that responsive doubles are off when opponents do a preemptive opening. As in 2h- double-3h-double is penalty. I can see how this may make sense. Guess it’s up to partnership agreement