[FrancesHinden]

I agree with gnasher.
One of our rules is that if partner is a defined hand, then double is penalties.
With my regular partners, I play a two-suited defence to 1NT, so a 2major overcall is specifically a single-suiter, not strong enough for a penalty double. That makes double penalties.

It sounds as if your 2H bid was much less well defined, which argues for take-out (for example, we play 1S P P 2H 2S x as take-out because 2H could have a much wide range of hands).

[phil_20686]

Well i'm pretty sure that I would treat this as t/o at the table if hearts was a one suiter. More of a default setting, but mostly I play vs weak nt so the idea of a wk nt producing 2s is pretty unlikely. So as far as i can remember it has never come up.

However, i have never really discussed that situation, i nearly always play multi landy with dble =5m 4M, and 2!h was 5!h and 4+ minor partner can bid 3c p/c or 2N with a long minor or 3d with a game try in hearts. I.e., exactly as if there was no 2s bid, and that leaves dble for penalty.

[JLOGIC]

OleBerg, on 2011-January-14, 08:54, said:

If I know nothing else about my partner, I'd expect penalty. The logic behind this would be, that partners hand is well-described.

If I had the chance to make an agreement, take-out would be my choice, especially if 1NT is 15-17 and the opponents are not known jokers.

At MP's, BAM etc, and the opp. red, I'd prefer penalty.

Not sure if it's relevant to what X should mean but LHO (Hampson) was in "joker" mode, they were down a lot in a knockout match and Hampson was swinging quite a bit. 1N was 14-16 but he had opened 1N a lot so far iirc lol.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm not sure it's relevant to what double should mean, but it's relevant as to how warped his NT might be.

We added a new systemic agreement after playing the Hacketts when they were in "joker" mode: while we play (1x) 1suit (x) xx as Rosenkranz, we now play e.g.
P P 1S 2H
x xx

as strong, as the 1S bid is sometimes something of a joke

[JLOGIC]

You should play that always imo! Maybe I think my opps are always in joker mode, lol.

[OleBerg]

Slightly highjacking:

A partner and I played, that vs a specific pair:

(1m) - Pass - (1M) - X
was takeout of the last suit only.

[OleBerg]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-15, 07:36, said:

Not sure if it's relevant to what X should mean but LHO (Hampson) was in "joker" mode, they were down a lot in a knockout match and Hampson was swinging quite a bit. 1N was 14-16 but he had opened 1N a lot so far iirc lol.

In that case I'd be more obliged to treat it as T/O. I have to guard against swings against me, not to pick up more imps when the opponents have already messed up.

If 2♠ is wrong, it is wrong enough in itself. LHO has taken a unilateral guess, and all I care for, is not giving large swings away, like being robbed out of a game. If I collect only 100 where 200 were available, or only 200 where 500 where available, it doesn't matter, the board is already fine.

[awm]

Agree with Karlson that this should be the same as 1♠-Pass-Pass-2♥-2♠-X.

I'm pretty sure "expert standard" is that both these doubles are penalty, but it's increasingly common to play them as takeout for the minors. Thus I'd assume "penalty" opposite a random expert without much discussion of doubles, but play them as takeout with most of my regular partners.

[JLOGIC]

You are much more likely to be able to make a penalty X of 1N p p 2H 2S than 1S p p 2H 2S

[awm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-15, 19:05, said:

You are much more likely to be able to make a penalty X of 1N p p 2H 2S than 1S p p 2H 2S

Not clear. Opener has roughly the same range of strength. In both cases the spade bidder should have decent suit quality, but in practice you see a lot of people make those calls with lousy suits. It's true that the 1NT auction gives opener five spades rather than six, but against that many hands with five spades (and a few with four spades) might've acted over 1NT in direct seat. Hands with long spades usually pass over a 1♠ opening.

[whereagles]

I'd say take out is better.

[han]

I think that Frances and gnasher have a good agreement here: if 2H is a well defined single suiter, then double should be penalties, but when 2H can be a two-suiter, then double should be takeout.

Unfortunately I play this double as takeout in either situation.

[hrothgar]

han, on 2011-January-19, 06:37, said:

I think that Frances and gnasher have a good agreement here: if 2H is a well defined single suiter, then double should be penalties, but when 2H can be a two-suiter, then double should be takeout.

Unfortunately I play this double as takeout in either situation.

I've been quoted in someone's sig file!

My time is now!

[han]

Apologies for not quoting you any earlier, you certainly have posted enough oneliners worthy of quotation. But usually they couldn't be taken out of context as well.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-19, 07:05, said:

I've been quoted in someone's sig file!

My time is now!

Congratulations.