[Fluffy]

---

[helene_t]

IMO, if we don't usually open 1NT with a 5-card major, this would be something like a 3523 15-count. OTO if we do open 1NT with a 5-card major, 3514 is the expected shape. Those who voted 80% or 90% obviously don't play Flannery

[gwnn]

It may also have a 4-card spade suit, depending on the system. I think even some non-F1NT people like to rebid 2C on good 4513's, no?

[Jinksy]

I lean towards penalties, but the defender with most Ss is surely S. E is allowed to have his bid, in which case a bunch of low Ss might not be enough to set the contract reliably.

Why aren't we told the form of scoring? Pass seems far more likely at MPs, unless S now confidently decides he can make three of something. Hard to imagine what hand he'd have for that: maybe xxxx KQ xxxx KJx or similar?

[gwnn]

Jinksy, on 2014-March-31, 06:21, said:

I lean towards penalties, but the defender with most Ss is surely S. E is allowed to have his bid, in which case a bunch of low Ss might not be enough to set the contract reliably.

Why is it 'surely S' ? In principle S denied 4 spades already, while N may or may not have a 4-carder. 3 spades is relatively common for both players and maybe N has slightly less of a chance of having 3 than S but your 'surely' is just false.

[EricK]

Jinksy, on 2014-March-31, 06:21, said:

I lean towards penalties, but the defender with most Ss is surely S. E is allowed to have his bid, in which case a bunch of low Ss might not be enough to set the contract reliably.

What does "having his bid" mean in this context? i.e. what is the typical hand for passing on the first round then protecting with 2♠?

[whereagles]

what helene said

dbl probably also shows a spade honor. Partner acts accordingly, so this dbl is either 100% take out or 100% penalty, depending on what he has

[ggwhiz]

I'm really surprised at the penalty orientation. Partner is under the 2♠ bidder, not over. How many trump tricks do you think they have?

IMO opinion this double just says the hand belongs to us (you could clearly be wrong opposite one of my responses) and I have no clear direction.

In a forcing 1nt context I might have 3 hearts and/or 4 clubs. Without an actual hand I voted 30% but against decent opps that is probably too high.

[PhilKing]

When someone wanders in with 2♠ on an auction like this they must be punished.

Well, maybe not "must", but I certainly feel unhappy if I can not do so. Opener's double suggests a 3514 (or 4505 yum yum) with about 15 points. If we have take-out double shape, we can bid 2NT. Don't worry that we are under the bidder - they usually have a terrible hand, a bad suit and bad shape.

[aguahombre]

If: (Our agreements)
1) 1NT followed by 2H cannot have 3 hearts.
2) 1NT was forcing, and 2C might be 4-5-2-2 or such.

They ventured into a misfit auction, and double suggests the other guys have made a mistake. I might have 4-5-1-3 and 16 count, but 4-5-2-2 and 13-16 are fine, too.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-31, 03:08, said:

---

It depends on system. For example, in some systems, a 1NT reply to a major opening bid is forcing or, more bizarrely, "semi-forcing" Without prior discussion, you would expect partner's shape to be 3514. rarely 4504, at a pinch even 4513. Hence, IMO, the double is optional. You hold at most 3 ♠, but if you hold 2-3 ♠ then you can pass. With fewer ♠ it may be safer to bid, especially if you have 4 ♣

[mikeh]

Methods are important.

Say one played constructive raises and a forcing 1N, with no gadgets over 2♣. Responder might now be xx Qxx QJxxx Qxx, and I don't care what double showed: at this heat it probably means we're in for a bad result. Playing a penalty style here seems dubious: to the point that I'd almost (nut not quite)be inclined to say that opener can't double.....responder has to be the one to double, which would show a maximum preference with, say, Hxx in spades. As it is, I'd suggest a good 4=5=1=3 or 4=5=2=2.

For comparison, change the agreed methods to what I happen to prefer: responder's sequence shows precisely 8-10 hcp and a doubleton heart....with the crap 'too weak to raise' 2♥ call we relay with 2♦, en route to showing a wide range of holdings, including (via pass) the crap hand.

Opposite a responding hand as defined as that, opener will far more often hold penalty ambitions, and I'd play the reopening double as strongly suggesting we defend. Responder would be allowed to pull....with say 1=2=5=5 shape I'd usually pull. We can have 5 clubs since for us 2♣ shows no more than 2+....indeed, there are some 4=5=3=1 hands where 2♣ might be the least of evils, since 2♦ strongly implies a 4 card suit and bidding 2♦ on 642 would be unappealing. 2♣ on a stiff might be worse, but by the nature of the call it is rarely passed. Plus, when you play BART (or similar) the advantages that flow from having BART available can be significant and worth some risk.

If playing something in between, then I think that it makes sense for this to be penalty oriented: as others have pointed out, 2N is available if one wants to compete....2N would bring diamonds into the picture.

As for being under the bidder.....when an opp passed white v red at the one-level, he doesn't have much...if his spades are good, they are short. If they are 5+, they are weak. Either way, positional values aren't that important.

[the hog]

I find it hard to believe that a decent player could pass over 1H and then come in witrh a protective 2S when the opps have limited their hands. I strongly lean towards penalties.

[mike777]

Great question

I keep going back to a JustinL post, which I cannot find, which said doubles are basically takeout or penalty, the rest leads to confusion. My words, not his.

[silvr bull]

After a few disasters with cooperative doubles, I needed a little more clarity in the intentions of partner and myself. The result of that is a KISS rule that says if partner has never bid (or only said pass), then all doubles below 3NT are 100% takeout. Conversely, if partner has bid anything other than pass, then all doubles (except clear negative or responsive situations) below 3NT are 100% penalty. While not perfect, that KISS rule does prevent misunderstandings about what partner meant when he said double.

[dboxley]

Whenever it's right.

[gszes]

the minority report puts forth the apparently odd idea
that the x in the given auction should never ever ever
ever never never be for penalty and is totally take out
oriented. Where does such a strange idea come from???

1 It is normally a poor idea to make a penalty x
in front of the hand with the long suit (vs behind).

2. Just because we have not found a fit so far does not
mean the opps do not have one and we might be stepping into
a buzzsaw if we choose to x here (again ahead of declarer).

3. The number of times I have a hand that looks like
KQJT AKxxx x Kxx where an actual penalty x might make some
sense rates to come up somewhere around never in my lifetime
so its utility as penalty is somewhat overrated.

I chose 0% since I felt the number of times my p should pass
my x is closer to zero than to 10%)))))))))))))

4. What the hey am I supposed to do with a hand like
x AQJxx Kxxx Kxx when the bidding comes around to me?? pass?
For me this is where the x as take out pays its huge dividends.

IMHO it borders on madness to play the x as penalty and we
really need it for those hands where take out would seem to
work much better.

[kuhchung]

I always feel like doubles of balances are penalty, and this one certainly doesn't feel any different

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2014-April-01, 15:37, said:

4. What the hey am I supposed to do with a hand like
x AQJxx Kxxx Kxx when the bidding comes around to me?? pass?
For me this is where the x as take out pays its huge dividends.

It borders on mindless to play with someone that would not recognise this as a 2NT bid (they have at least nine spades and you have a guaranteed minor suit fit, but what is really mindless is that NO ONE HAS EVER HAD THIS HAND ON THIS AUCTION, for reasons that should be pretty obvious). Whether your partners can spot a penalty double is not relevant.

[ggwhiz]

I can only conclude that this debate is a waste of time without an actual hand.

In the non-penalty camp I just can't believe I'm dealt a pass very often unless my rho is a complete moron for bidding to 2♠ this way and I never got rich for playing him to be.

Those in the penalty camp seem to be guilty of excess cruelty for smashing aunt Dolly but then we don't have actual hands. Are you really going to hold top of the range with defense against this auction like..... almost never? (Even against aunt Dolly) I voted 30% thinking sure... maybe but not very often.

Playing with Marshall Miles, Eddie Kantar for a while played (at Marshalls suggestion) that all doubles like this were either penalty or T.O., look at your hand to figure it out. The experiment failed after they defended a couple of smashed partscores on the opponents 11 card fits. They went back to extra 2-way convertible values which I didn't know had fallen so far out of favor.