[GrahamJson]

oryctolagi, on 2016-February-17, 08:05, said:

You want to know something? I was first playing bridge when most of you guys on here (or your parents) were still in nappies, back in the 1960s.

I learnt a lot of my bridge back then from an excellent little handbook by Terence Reese, no less (and you're surely not about to dismiss him as a dumbass player or something....?)

In the book, he quite explicitly states "If partner has already made a bid, a double is for penalties with the expectation of defeating the contract".

Of course, I know full well that I can't play by that book any longer. Bridge has changed beyond recognition in the 50 years since, and I've had to learn my way into BBO systems the hard way, with many slip-ups on the way. I still don't understand much of plenty of other players' convention cards, even in the Acol Club. But I get by, now. And yes, I know that double of an opponents overcall at the one level no longer means penalties. After all, we have negative doubles now (which I do understand....)

So I'm wondering where we get by insulting other contributors to this forum, possibly for no other reason than that they were, like me, playing bridge a long time ago. Oh well, if someone else can be a p****, so can I.

The last time that I regularly played club bridge my partner liked to keep things very simple, so we played old fashioned penalty doubles. It proved to be very effective, catching many oppo by surprise and picking up many penalties. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but is better than playing more complex systems that aren't fully understood, as happens all the time on BBO.

It does strike me that the popular current method of playing all low level doubles for take out, with the expectation of partner reopening if you pass, just ends up exchanging the meaning of pass and double, with no real benefit.

As to the original question, double can have any of the meanings given, by agreement. However I think it depends on moe than the number of spades held. I would be less willing to double if I held support for partner, as it risks him making a penalty pass. So, without agreement, I would treat the double in the same way as a standard take out double; likely to hold four cards in an unbidden major but not guaranteed, especially if strong .

[Cyberyeti]

I think a) is most common particularly in club bridge here in the UK.

[manudude03]

GrahamJson, on 2016-February-17, 10:04, said:

It does strike me that the popular current method of playing all low level doubles for take out, with the expectation of partner reopening if you pass, just ends up exchanging the meaning of pass and double, with no real benefit.

Say you had something like xxx AJxx Axxx xx and you get a 1♣ opener from partner and 1♠ overcall on your right. If you played double as penalty, you would have no good option here. 1N would show a spade stopper and 2D/H would be a 5 card suit and probably a better hand. With that in mind, how do you ever safely find your fit? If you pass, a decent partner isn't going to bid 2H on a balanced or even unbalanced minimum. Playing negative doubles, you have an easy double and partner will be delighted to show you the hearts.

Also, how do you define a penalty double? If you say a hand that you expect the contract to go down, there is a world of difference between having KQJT9xxx in spades and out, and some 15 count with AQJx.

[GrahamJson]

manudude03, on 2016-February-17, 10:29, said:

Say you had something like xxx AJxx Axxx xx and you get a 1♣ opener from partner and 1♠ overcall on your right. If you played double as penalty, you would have no good option here. 1N would show a spade stopper and 2D/H would be a 5 card suit and probably a better hand. With that in mind, how do you ever safely find your fit? If you pass, a decent partner isn't going to bid 2H on a balanced or even unbalanced minimum. Playing negative doubles, you have an easy double and partner will be delighted to show you the hearts.

Also, how do you define a penalty double? If you say a hand that you expect the contract to go down, there is a world of difference between having KQJT9xxx in spades and out, and some 15 count with AQJx.

I did say "all" low level doubles. I prefer to play "most" low level doubles for take out, including the one you describe. However I think it makes sense for doubles to be for penalties whenever partner has implied values in the suit, such as by a TOD or bidding NT, or if you are in a forcing situation. So, for example , (1D) - X -(1S) - X should be for penalties, not TO, as should 1S - (P) -1NT - (2D) - X and 1S - (P) - 2C - (2D) - X.

[gwnn]

If those are your examples, you will find much less resistance to the idea of penalty doubles.

Most people today play
(1D) - X -(1S) - X
as penalties.
1S - (P) - 2C - (2D)
X
is also usually played as penalties.

1S - (P) -1NT - (2D)
X

Is more divided (not sure), but it makes much more sense to play as penalties than 1m-(1H)-x.

[lorserker]

i think that everybody i know plays a)
i live in slovenia

[GrahamJson]

gwnn, on 2016-February-17, 11:09, said:

If those are your examples, you will find much less resistance to the idea of penalty doubles.

Most people today play
(1D) - X -(1S) - X
as penalties.
1S - (P) - 2C - (2D)
X
is also usually played as penalties.

1S - (P) -1NT - (2D)
X

Is more divided (not sure), but it makes much more sense to play as penalties than 1m-(1H)-x.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. On BBO most seem to play these as TO, but perhaps that happens to be on the tables that I kibitz. Another popular treatment seems to be to play them as whatever you want them to be, with a message to the table to let partner know.

[manudude03]

GrahamJson, on 2016-February-17, 11:05, said:

I did say "all" low level doubles. I prefer to play "most" low level doubles for take out, including the one you describe. However I think it makes sense for doubles to be for penalties whenever partner has implied values in the suit, such as by a TOD or bidding NT, or if you are in a forcing situation. So, for example , (1D) - X -(1S) - X should be for penalties, not TO, as should 1S - (P) -1NT - (2D) - X and 1S - (P) - 2C - (2D) - X.

While I agree with the general sentiment, this topic is about the auction 1m-(1H)-X which I was assuming you were talking about. I would personally play 1S-(P)-1NT-(2D) as takeout, and 1S-(P)-2C-(2D)-X as penalty or cards depending on whether I am playing 2/1 or not.

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on 2016-February-17, 11:09, said:

If those are your examples, you will find much less resistance to the idea of penalty doubles.

Most people today play
(1D) - X -(1S) - X
as penalties.

This is played as penalties mainly as a psyche exposer.

Quote

1S - (P) - 2C - (2D)
X
is also usually played as penalties.

We play this as exactly 4 hearts with 2♥ showing 5 which can be a useful distinction if next hand raises diamonds and you have 3 hearts and less than 3 spades opposite.

Quote

1S - (P) -1NT - (2D)
X

Is more divided (not sure), but it makes much more sense to play as penalties than 1m-(1H)-x.

This would be T/O for us, as our arrangements are along the lines of all low level X's are T/O except ...

[gwnn]

GrahamJson, on 2016-February-17, 11:50, said:

Hmm, I'm not so sure. On BBO most seem to play these as TO, but perhaps that happens to be on the tables that I kibitz. Another popular treatment seems to be to play them as whatever you want them to be, with a message to the table to let partner know.

On BBO most people play 4-keycard blackwood (and all 4NT's are always 4-keycard blackwood), 1M-p-4M="I have a weak NT with 3-card support but don't know what to bid", and so on. I meant people who actually have partnerships and have thought about bridge for more than 5 minutes.

[GrahamJson]

Yep. Agree with you 100% on that.

[oryctolagi]

gwnn, on 2016-February-17, 09:46, said:

(which the poster in questions has done plenty of times in the past -- check out his posts).

I've tried to do that, but I don't know how to, on this forum. Clicking on his profile, I can only bring up his last five posts, none of which upholds your assertion.

Anyway, isn't it the Moderators' job to sort that sort of thing out?

[gwnn]

I don't think everything is the moderators' job. Anyway I'm done with this long meta discussion about what proper and improper ways are regarding penalty vs negative doubles on the 1 level. thanks for the tips, I will keep them in mind.

[oryctolagi]

I agree with the above, in that I think we've exhausted the topic. I shall remember not to double one-level overcalls for penalties - and make use of the negative double convention. Others are a bit too complicated for me to remember!

[PhantomSac]

rhm, on 2016-February-17, 06:53, said:

The critical path is if advancer will next raise or jump-raise hearts.
I find the difference between 4 and 5 spades in responder's hand crucial for opener to compete in spades effectively and it is in spades where the money is.
With negative free bids holding less than 4 spades it is rare you can not move over 1♥.
When it happens you are almost always balanced not short in hearts.

Yeah it is definitely not a bad agreement. A lot of people I know who tried the X=4/5 spades experiment have switched back to X=4 spades for this reason (like Greco-Hampson). In standard I would definitely play X=4 spades, in a system with a nebulous club or nebulous diamond I think it's debatable (I currently play X=4/5 spades in precision but go back and fourth mentally on if it is correct).

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2016-February-17, 09:46, said:

Maybe you can read my second post which explains my first post pretty accurately. There is a difference between supporting an outdated, inferior method and supporting an outdated, inferior method while naming everyone who disagrees with you (i.e., pretty much everyone) various names (which the poster in questions has done plenty of times in the past -- check out his posts).

I think he is kidding much of the time. I remember a post in which he advocated passing after RHO opened and he had about 19 points and two good 5-card suits. It was pure comic genius.

[diana_eva]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-17, 15:35, said:

I think he is kidding much of the time. I remember a post in which he advocated passing after RHO opened and he had about 19 points and two good 5-card suits. It was pure comic genius.

This post. Yes, was pretty entertaining. I wish he were kidding, but I doubt it.

[zillahandp]

Zelandakh, You seem to be insulting phil, y? he is entitled to his view, you say you are an intermediate, 203 hands to your name, if true hardly grounds fo laying the
la down, how would you feel if Phil wrote to you like that? Will we meet at the camrose? Let me know, should be fun.

[Zelandakh]

zillahandp, on 2016-February-17, 16:10, said:

Zelandakh, You seem to be insulting phil, y? he is entitled to his view, you say you are an intermediate, 203 hands to your name, if true hardly grounds fo laying the
la down, how would you feel if Phil wrote to you like that? Will we meet at the camrose? Let me know, should be fun.

If I were playing at the Camrose I would mark my profile as Expert, as per the BBO guidelines. I self-rate as Intermediate for the same reason. I also do not get why you think I have played 203 hands - I have been a member here for a long time and while I am currently not playing very much, in the past I was around a lot more.

As has already been pointed out, Phil sometimes likes to post a little for effect. I have no problem with his doing this but think it is wise to warn other readers that are perhaps not as familiar not to take the posts too seriously. The times I post rubbish, it gets trashed too. As for people going out of their way to be rude, well I have been around on the internet for a long time and seen pretty much everything by now in one form or another. And if I were to stop enjoying coming here I would simply stop.

What certainly does not work is trying to "even the score" or the like. All that does is ostracise you from the community and spoil your time at the site. I would like to think that all of our intermediates who think they are experts and all of our trolls can become constructive members of the community and have certainly tried to help in that regard on occasion. Sadly, it is not always possible, usually either because someone feel too aggrieved or because they simply want to troll. The question remains open for some of our current posters too. Hopefully any of those that read this will think about it and decide for the constructive route. I can promise that it will be far more rewarding and far more enjoyable than the alternatives.

[eagles123]

I thought this Zilla guy was meant to be banned for stalking me aha

as far as clueless posters go, at least PhilG cracks me up sometimes