[Cascade]

---

IMPs against a Datum converted to VPs.

Double is optional - described at the table as "takeout or penalty I have to decide".

What call do you make?

What other calls do you consider making?

If you consider it relevant, in a similar situation with a 2=4=3=4 3-count earlier in the match you pulled a double of 4♠ to 5♣ but that time the vulnerability was favourable.

[AlexJonson]

My choice is call the Director (as North). As East I get a new agreement or a new partner.

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-03, 15:15, said:

My choice is call the Director (as North). As East I get a new agreement or a new partner.

Why does north need a director?

[AlexJonson]

Inadequate disclosure.

[blackshoe]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-03, 15:36, said:

Inadequate disclosure.

Why? What's inadequate about it?

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-03, 15:36, said:

Inadequate disclosure.

She meant sometimes the double is penalties and sometimes it is takeout. I think that means she has to look at her hand and decide.

Anyway north didn't ask so he has no reason to call the director.

[pran]

I first began learning bridge (Culbertson) some 60+ years ago, and one thing I remember is that double of an opening bid (except NT) at the one or two level was for takeout while double of an opening bid at the three-level (weak) was "optional". This meant that doubler's partner had the choice of selecting between bidding his own suit and pass for penalties.

So I don't see how "optional" can be an inadequate description if a partnership still uses that kind of doubles today, especially not if they (when asked) explains the implication?

[Cascade]

Anyway the problem isnt with the explanation.

Anyone want to tell me what you would bid and answer the other questions in the opening post.

[ahydra]

4D, I briefly considered 3NT but think that's more than a bit dodgy.

ahydra

[jillybean]

Im not bidding a minor at the 4 level on this garbage, pass, I hate it but don't like any other option either.

[Cascade]

Oh I should have added Swiss Pairs scored by IMPs against the Datum if that makes a difference to anyone.

[nigel_k]

I would bid 4♦ and consider pass or 3NT.

But what is logical for me might not be logical on the planet inhabited by people who play double this way.

[mrdct]

I'm going to pass as I figure that if partner is good enough for us to be making 3NT, we are more than likely going to getting at least 500 which should score up pretty well as in a swiss pairs field the people who underbid and/or underplay will always drag the average for a hand where a vul game is makable to the high-400s/low-500s and we have some good upside if we happen to get it for 800 or 1100 and if we only get +200 we probably don't have game on anyway. The big danger is having to write down -730 which will probably happen one in five times, so I need to pick up my penalty on the other four hands!

[WellSpyder]

Pass seems clear to me.

[RMB1]

Cascade, on 2011-April-03, 14:25, said:

Double is optional - described at the table as "takeout or penalty I have to decide".

"optional" to me means "strong balanced, partner can decide to bid or pass"

"takeout or penalty [partner has] to decide [which it is]" sounds like strong unbalanced, either shortage or length in their suit.

Some play "takeout or penalty" of pass/correct bids: 2♦(=multi)-Pass-2♥(=P/C)-X(=hearts, or takeout of hearts)

So is this double optional (balanced) or "takeout or penalty" (unbalanced)?

[gordontd]

Cascade, on 2011-April-03, 16:26, said:

She meant sometimes the double is penalties and sometimes it is takeout.

That isn't the same thing as "optional", to my mind.

If I had to decide whether partner had a takeout double or a penalty double I would be sure it was a takeout double, so I would bid.

If I were told it was an optional double, I would pass.

[1eyedjack]

I would vomit and pass.
There is a fair prospect of going for a penalty of a similar magnitude as the cost of doubling them into game.

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-03, 15:51, said:

Why? What's inadequate about it?

I think you will find if you read the remaining posts that posters have radically different understandings of the meaning of 'optional double'. Otherwise why anyone would consider bidding 4D opposite a strong balanced hand escapes me.

You can't add up logical alternative votes (IMO) among people who understand the auction very differently.

[blackshoe]

It wasn't described (by the players at the table) as "optional" — that was something Cascade threw in. So I don't think the question 'what does "optional" mean?' is relevant. The question is whether "takeout or penalty, I have to decide" is accurate.

Assuming it is accurate, I bid 4♦. I consider passing.

[aguahombre]

Since the question is in "rulings", I will guess that East passed. And this time opener did not have an 8-bagger & catch the perfect dummy -- so, when East applied the LOTT, it worked and the opponents were unhappy.