[pilun]

Doubtless these have all been covered before. Apologies.
How do people play these doubles?

(1♦) - no - (1NT) - no
(no) - dbl ?

(1♦) - no - (1NT) - no
(2♦) - dbl ?

(1♦) - no - (1♠) - no
(2♦) - dbl ?

(1♦) - no - (1♠) - no
(1NT) - dbl ?

1♦ - (1♠) - no - (2♠)
no - (no) - dbl ?

Would your answers vary with the rank of the suits?

TIA

[fuzzyquack]

1. TO majors, any strength
2. Without prior discussion, penalty of D. I'm not particular about showing any club lengths in 1D-X so making it a delayed major TO is not in my blood. Note that keeping it as penalty makes additional sense in that 2DX if it makes is without a game bonus
3+4 H+C, strength of standard one-level TO
5. Penalty

[helene_t]

The last one is clearly penalty. The others are subject to agreement. I would play all of the others as t/o but I am not sure what my partners do. In some partnerships I have the general agreement that partscore doubles are t/o unless it's obvious that they can't be.

[sfi]

In general I like the meta-rule that if you passed when you had a chance to double the same suits for takeout last round, you don't get a takeout double this round unless you have information that might make it more attractive to do so. This might be because partner bid or doubled or because they raised the suit and now you want to get involved with a weaker hand.

Using that rule, 1 & 2 are penalties. 3 & 4 are takeout (they introduced a new suit). 5 is also penalties, but that's because there isn't a hand that would pass last round and want to encourage competition just because they raised the suit. It's different from something like (1S) - P - (2S) - P; (P) - ?, where you can infer partner's values but they haven't done anything to show them.

[bluenikki]

♦

pilun, on 2023-September-03, 01:03, said:

(1♦) - no - (1NT) - no
(no) - dbl ?

This is "please pass and lead a diamond." More specific than just "penalty."

It is the only one where partner is on lead.

What I don't know is what the difference should between between double and 2♦ on this auction. After all, they _will_ pull the double to 2♣, so you will probably be declaring 2♦ anyway.

[HardVector]

My basic philosophy is that if you could have made a take out double (or negative) initially, then subsequent doubles in that vein are penalty. So I would think that all the doubles except for the 4th case are penalty. The 4th case should be a hand that has 4-4 or better in hearts and clubs. They couldn't make a take out double initially because they didn't have spades. In all the other cases, there was an opportunity to make a take out double and they didn't.

edit: correction, #3 is also going to be takeout for hearts and clubs, sorry.

[fuzzyquack]

fuzzyquack, on 2023-September-03, 02:08, said:

1. TO majors, any strength
2. Without prior discussion, penalty of D. I'm not particular about showing any club lengths in 1D-X so making it a delayed major TO is not in my blood. Note that keeping it as penalty makes additional sense in that 2DX if it makes is without a game bonus
3+4 H+C, strength of standard one-level TO
5. Penalty

For 1., I actually used to play 2C = 4S, 4+H and 2D = 5S 4+H. That would leave X as a trap pass with D

[pilun]

A case can be made for adjusting the meaning of double according to the rank of suits.
I doubt that anyone goes for that memory strain though it makes sense.

(1♣) - no - (1NT) - no
(2♣) - dbl

for takeout has a lot going for it. Ideally a 4-4-4-1 10-count.

• The entire 2-level is available
  
• They almost certainly have a fit, raising the TNT
  
• LHO won't have four cards in one of your suits
  
• It's -180 if you are wrong

Compare the other extreme
(1♠) - no - (1NT) - no
(2♠) - dbl

when none of those factors are in your favour. (And that's ignoring the status of 1NT)

If your meta-agreement is takeout, the second auction will never happen. Which is okay.

[bluenikki]

pilun, on 2023-September-04, 15:25, said:

A case can be made for adjusting the meaning of double according to the rank of suits.
I doubt that anyone goes for that memory strain though it makes sense.

(1♣) - no - (1NT) - no
(2♣) - dbl

for takeout has a lot going for it. Ideally a 4-4-4-1 10-count.

A 4=4=4=1 10-count should be doubling on the first round, whenever the singleton Is a spot card. 13 dummy points.

Ultra-sound interventions create silly problems later.

[pilun]

bluenikki, on 2023-September-05, 04:04, said:

A 4=4=4=1 10-count should be doubling on the first round, whenever the singleton Is a spot card. 13 dummy points.

Ultra-sound interventions create silly problems later.

Well, make it a 9-count, or a 4-4-3-2 10-count.
Whatever doesn't qualify for the pair as a first round double.

Having it as 14-count with good clubs seems less useful.

[Gilithin]

A decent meta-rule for doubles is: first double constructive takeout; double and double extras; pass and double competitive takeout; subsequent doubles penalty. You do have to adjust sometimes because the base meaning makes no sense but starting from this sort of base point makes a lot of these discussions so much easier.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-September-03, 06:13, said:

In general I like the meta-rule that if you passed when you had a chance to double the same suits for takeout last round, you don't get a takeout double this round unless you have information that might make it more attractive to do so. This might be because partner bid or doubled or because they raised the suit and now you want to get involved with a weaker hand.

Using that rule, 1 & 2 are penalties. 3 & 4 are takeout (they introduced a new suit). 5 is also penalties, but that's because there isn't a hand that would pass last round and want to encourage competition just because they raised the suit. It's different from something like (1S) - P - (2S) - P; (P) - ?, where you can infer partner's values but they haven't done anything to show them.

Same logic that we use, but 3 and 4 for us specifically promise 4+ cards hearts (and by inference 2- cards spades).

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-September-09, 09:19, said:

Same logic that we use, but 3 and 4 for us specifically promise 4+ cards hearts (and by inference 2- cards spades).

I avoid words like "promise" in my notes, but in a practical sense I agree with you.

[shyams]

Thank you for these interesting auctions, some of which we had not considered in our (new-ish) partnership.

1. We play this as penalty of 1NT. In my partnership, we have agreed to occasionally overcall a 4-carder Major over a 1m opening.

2. Takeout dbl, limited HCPs both majors. Misguided or otherwise, we assume opps will always respond 1M with a 4-card Major so when responder bids 1NT, they have the minors and our dbl conveys that we have (or at least one of us has) the majors.

3. Takeout dbl, C+H

4. Takeout of spades, usually C+H but likely to have some length/HCPs in D. This was undiscussed, but when partner & I exchanged messages about it, we both thought of the same meaning.

5. 1♦ (1♠) pass (2♠); pass (pass) dbl.
Never thought about this or discussed with partner. If it occurred at the table undiscussed, I would assume the dbl as penalty.
We have now agreed to this.

[mycroft]

sfi, on 2023-September-09, 16:18, said:

I avoid words like "promise" in my notes, but in a practical sense I agree with you.

Heh. Actual explanation of 1m-1M; 2M in my K/S system: "Shows 15-17 playing points in support of (M). That's what it promises, she may not have it."

Cheapest Lie *always* applies, for bridge values of "always". (Okay, for regulation values of always, too.)

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-September-10, 10:40, said:

Cheapest Lie *always* applies, for bridge values of "always". (Okay, for regulation values of always, too.)

"Promises" is a sore point for me too...
In one partnership double of major really is a promise of 4+ in other, partner can splinter over it or whatever.
In others it's more like "I will have 4 unless I don't but just can't pass"... but as you say, that's pretty much the bridge meaning of promise anyhow.

The real issue is that our regulations impose an alert on doubles "that show or deny length in one more more specific suits"... which of course if taken literally means any takeout, and even if not must apply when the "takeout" makes a promise about the length of one specific alternative. But the indication to TDs is that a takeout double should not be alerted even if it promises 4 cards in the other major: which makes sense from a practical point of view, but in that case change the regulation.

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2023-September-10, 10:40, said:

Heh. Actual explanation of 1m-1M; 2M in my K/S system: "Shows 15-17 playing points in support of (M). That's what it promises, she may not have it."

Cheapest Lie *always* applies, for bridge values of "always". (Okay, for regulation values of always, too.)

A friend of mine always has the line "there are no unbreakable rules in bridge" at the top of his notes. Once that's there, you can make as many unbreakable rules as you like and not worry about it.

[mycroft]

My full quote:

In bridge, "always" always means "almost always"(*), and "never" means "unless you *know* you're right, and are willing to take 100% of the blame if in spite of that, you're still wrong."

(*)even here. Laws and regulations excepted :-)

[Gilithin]

sfi, on 2023-September-10, 16:38, said:

A friend of mine always has the line "there are no unbreakable rules in bridge" at the top of his notes. Once that's there, you can make as many unbreakable rules as you like and not worry about it.

With partner, yes; with the opponents, perhaps not so much,

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2023-September-11, 18:43, said:

With partner, yes; with the opponents, perhaps not so much,

Terence Reese said something along the lines that a convention was an agreement between partners, not a commitment to opponents.
But as you suggest, he may have misread the laws of bridge.