[dickiegera]

The bidding goes:

1♦ P 1NT P
2♦ X

Is this take out or penalty?

Doubler holds 98x, J10x, Ax, AQJxx

Thank you for all comments

[mike777]

dickiegera, on Jan 10 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

The bidding goes:

1♦ P 1NT P
2♦ X

Is this take out or penalty?

Doubler holds 98x, J10x, Ax, AQJxx

Thank you for all comments

2c over 1d

See Sabine Aukin.

[pooltuna]

dickiegera, on Jan 10 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

The bidding goes:

1♦ P 1NT P
2♦ X

Is this take out or penalty?

Doubler holds 98x, J10x, Ax, AQJxx

Thank you for all comments

Generally IMO it is penalty. Of course in this particular case the X was mistimed and should have happened a round earlier and not now.

[ONEferBRID]

I agree with the Tuna.

[helene_t]

t/o but the hand doesn't qualify. P is not likely to bid 3♣ (responder has usually 4+ clubs) so you need 4-4 majors for this double.

[fred]

Perhaps the answer is "none of the above"...

Maybe it is an "either-or double". Partner looks at his diamond holding to decide.

Maybe it is a takeout double of clubs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Yes, the X is for T/O.

You could say that the X is for penalty, since he did not bid the round before,
but to make the X one round before, one would need opening strength.
In the discussed seq. both oponents are limited, and there is a risk, that they
play 2D, unless you can push them one level up.
As it is, the way the auction developed, you know that they have a fit - there
is no 100% certainty, but well.

You dont get rich, if you let them play on the 2 level.
If you have a pen., wait partner will reopen.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: You may or may not like to overcall with the given hand, Pass and 2C after
1D are both ok, that is basically a style thing, but to pass now, is giving up.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on Jan 10 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

2c over 1d

See Sabine Aukin.

Both are pleasant thoughts.

[nigel_k]

I would bid 2♣ over 1♦. We don't have the vul but I'd probably do it regardless and could get flamed for suggesting it vul in these forums. Double or pass over 1♦ are also ok though.

To answer the actual question, I doubt there is much mileage in playing it for penalties in this particular sequence but there are other similar sequences where the penalty interpretation would be the standard one. This really needs partnership agreement - e.g. double over the opening bidder is penalties if partner has acted but takeout if they have passed throughout.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Jan 10 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

dickiegera, on Jan 10 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

The bidding goes:

1♦ P 1NT P
2♦ X

Is this take out or penalty?

Doubler holds    98x, J10x, Ax, AQJxx

Thank you for all comments

2c over 1d

See Sabine Aukin.

X over 1♦. See "Bridge".

[whereagles]

penalty, because it makes no sense to double for take out at the 2 level when we couldn't double for take out at the 1 level...

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on Jan 10 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

penalty, because it makes no sense to double for take out at the 2 level when we couldn't double for take out at the 1 level...

unless you forgot to do so the first time, as happened here

[dickiegera]

I holding 98x, J10x, Ax, AQJxx

chose not to double [right or wrong] 1st time
however after opener limited his opening bid and responder denied 4 card major and limited
his bid I felt the need to balance with a double.

Maybe in future I need to be more careful??????

[Jlall]

I like to play this as the majors, something like AKxx AKxx xxxx x would be typical. I played it as penalty forever, but it just never came up when they responded 1N, and even if you have a penalty X partner will balance with a X a lot on this auction.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Maybe it is an "either-or double". Partner looks at his diamond holding to decide.

Partner looks at his diamonds? With good diamonds he passes or with really bad diamoinds? If the second, is this normal or correct? I've been on occasions of the idea that this was wrong (even though I tried to employ it nut was told otherwise).

[fred]

Hanoi5, on Jan 11 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Quote

Maybe it is an "either-or double". Partner looks at his diamond holding to decide.

Partner looks at his diamonds? With good diamonds he passes or with really bad diamoinds? If the second, is this normal or correct? I've been on occasions of the idea that this was wrong (even though I tried to employ it nut was told otherwise).

By "either-or double" I mean that you double both with hands suitable for a takeout double and with hands suitable for a penalty double.

Partner will usually be able to figure out what you have on a given deal by examining his diamond holding (among other things). Once partner thinks he knows if your double is for takeout or for penalty, he acts accordingly.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

They may have as much as 11 on this auction. I'd be afraid to expect p to get it. I really like the t/o of ♣ thingie tho.

[fred]

gwnn, on Jan 11 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

They may have as much as 11 on this auction. I'd be afraid to expect p to get it. I really like the t/o of ♣ thingie tho.

Maybe if your opponents are either super-smart or super-dumb they could have a lot of diamonds between them, but it is not really possible for average opponents (because your LHO will normally raise 2D to 3D with a diamond fit). Also note that, in this particular auction, partner's HCP count will often allow him to resolve the ambiguity - if his hand is very weak then a penalty double is likely.

But you are right that the main problem with these either-or doubles is that partner will sometimes have to guess what you have.

I am not necessarily advocating playing either-or doubles in this auction (or any other auction for that matter), but I thought it was worth mentioning since there are probably plenty of players out there who are not familiar with this interesting concept.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ggwhiz]

Kantar wrote a hilarious piece after Marshall Miles convinced him to play ALL doubles as two-way depending on your hand. I'll post it if I can find it.

The fact that they alerted them as such led to defending 1 spade doubled when the opps had 12 of them and he concluded that partnership agreements here should be "always" or "never", not sometimes.

[bluecalm]

Quote

X over 1♦. See "Bridge".

QFT. I mean I really can't see any problem.
I play the double as penalty but I admit that after 1♦ it won't come up too often (or never).

In similar sequences :
1♥/♠ - pass - 1NT - pass
2♥/♠ - double as penalty is much more useful though and I don't want to break the pattern.