[sathyab]

MP, Both Vul

---

Trouble with doubles here. It could be argued that the first double is penalty, else why is East rebidding 2♠ ? But what about the second one ? Is it competitive or penalty ?

[MrAce]

sathyab, on 2011-March-08, 22:40, said:

MP, Both Vul

---

Trouble with doubles here. It could be argued that the first double is penalty, else why is East rebidding 2♠ ? But what about the second one ? Is it competitive or penalty ?

Penalty for me % 100.

You denied 4 cards ♥ already, they bid 2 other suits, and you passed 2♠ bid telling you do not have a penalty double for 2♠.

[Poky]

Both doubles are takeout, partner has x4x6 or 2425. Bid 2NT or 3NT.

[Phil]

Penalty for me too. Sathya and I have had offline conversations about this, but in essence, double is penalty because it doesn't make sense to play it as takeout. In other words, what strain are we attempting to find, after partner has bid 1N, and after we have made a penalty double of 2♦?

[Fluffy]

The thing about penalty double of 2♦ ain't that clear to me.

IMO partner is 3433 with 18-19. We can guess to pass or to bid 3NT, pass is more solid since 300 will be there for sure.

[chasetb]

Fluffy, on 2011-March-09, 10:45, said:

The thing about penalty double of 2♦ ain't that clear to me.

IMO partner is 3433 with 18-19. We can guess to pass or to bid 3NT, pass is more solid since 300 will be there for sure.

I disagree- it seems clear that the first X is penalty, since what else could it be? Therefore, all further X are for penalty as well. If partner has the hand you describe, then I feel that 2♠X will be going for 500+ 90% of the time.

[Free]

sathyab, on 2011-March-08, 22:40, said:

It could be argued that the first double is penalty, else why is East rebidding 2♠ ?

This is a very poor argument imo. It's like saying North should think as follows: "If LHO bids 2♠ my Dbl will be penalty, but otherwise it will be takeout. So should I double or not? Hmmm, lets see, how much chance do we have LHO will bid 2♠ so partner can interprete my Double correctly?".

For me the first Dbl is takeout (although I'm not claiming that this is the best approach), the 2nd is penalty. If I would agree that the 1st Dbl is penalty, then the 2nd Dbl would still be penalty as well.

[sathyab]

Free, on 2011-March-10, 07:32, said:

This is a very poor argument imo. It's like saying North should think as follows: "If LHO bids 2♠ my Dbl will be penalty, but otherwise it will be takeout. So should I double or not? Hmmm, lets see, how much chance do we have LHO will bid 2♠ so partner can interprete my Double correctly?".

For me the first Dbl is takeout (although I'm not claiming that this is the best approach), the 2nd is penalty. If I would agree that the 1st Dbl is penalty, then the 2nd Dbl would still be penalty as well.

I doubt if anyone can think along the lines that you suggest. I cited East'rebidding of 2♠ as a way to "work out" that the double of 2♦ was more likely to be penalty even if you didn't have an agreement about it. The one who doubled knew what he meant, he didn't intend it to be interpreted in the light of further bidding. There're other situations in bidding where you have to "work out" the meaning of a bid without prior agreement. Say for instance when determining if a bid is forcing or not, one way to figure that is to examine if the bid could have been made or implied earlier in the bidding thereby making the more circuitous one forcing and the direct one non-forcing.

[Free]

sathyab, on 2011-March-10, 11:07, said:

I doubt if anyone can think along the lines that you suggest. I cited East'rebidding of 2♠ as a way to "work out" that the double of 2♦ was more likely to be penalty even if you didn't have an agreement about it. The one who doubled knew what he meant, he didn't intend it to be interpreted in the light of further bidding. There're other situations in bidding where you have to "work out" the meaning of a bid without prior agreement. Say for instance when determining if a bid is forcing or not, one way to figure that is to examine if the bid could have been made or implied earlier in the bidding thereby making the more circuitous one forcing and the direct one non-forcing.

Suppose you play with screens, North and East will sit together. Before bidding 2♠ East asks North what the Dbl means, and North responds "we have no clear agreement, but I think it should be interpreted as takeout". East is a joker so he bids 2♠ for fun. Result: you, without an agreement, will interpret the Dbl wrong just because your opponent bid something.

When interpreting your partner's calls, you should only take into account what happened before he bid, not after.

Quote

It could be argued that the first double is penalty, else why is East rebidding 2♠?

One reason might be that he thinks we have a ♥ fit and just wants to keep us from bidding ♥ at a low level. Another simple reason can be that he has 6♠ and is stronger than a jump over 1♣.