[mgoetze]

For one of my partnerships, I'd like to set up some rules as to when double is penalty. The idea is, if none of the rules apply, double isn't penalty. I'm going to try a rough draft and then hope to polish it with your comments and suggestions.

1. When we have established a fit, with the exception of game try doubles (of 3♦ when we have a heart fit or 3♥ when we have a spade fit).
2. When we are in an absolute game force, e.g. via a fourth-suit bid, a 2/1, or a 2♣ opener.
3. When one of us has made a nonforcing notrump bid of 2NT or higher.
4. When we redouble opponents' takeout double.
5. When one of us doubles, in direct seat, a suit he could previously have doubled for takeout but instead passed or overcalled NT.
6. After opponents have had an uncontested, nonpreemptive auction to 3M or higher, except 1M-3M.
7. All subsequent doubles once we have made a penalty double or penalty pass.
8. Double of opponents' weak 1NT opening.

I'm sure I missed a few.

[awm]

Some other common ones:

(9) When partner opened with a preempt (2♠-3♥-X).
(10) When our side doubled an artificial bid to indicate desire to penalize (1♠-2NT-X-3♣-X).
(11) When the opponents bid notrump intending to play there (1NT-2♠-3NT-X).
(12) When all four suits have been bid naturally (1♦-Pass-1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass-1NT-Pass-2♣-X).

[gnasher]

(13) When one of us has promised five of the suit
(14) When the doubler has promised four of the suit
(15) When partner has made a takeout double that implies holding the suit doubled, eg 1D dbl 1S dbl.
(16) When we both bid and they balance
(17) When they overcall in a major after our Stayman enquiry
(18) When partner has shown a defined one-suiter and the double isn't needed to ask for a stopper
(19) When partner has shown a defined two-suiter
(20) When the doubler has previously declined an opportunity to show offensive values, and has received no new information that might encourage him to bid, eg
1S 2C pass pass
dbl pass 2H dbl

[gnasher]

I think your rule 1 needs at least two more exceptions
(a) Double by a hand which has only raised an opening or overcall to the two-level, and not been invited to act again, is just a balanced maximum.
(b) When we have agreed a minor and have no room to ask for a stopper, double asks for a stopper.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-May-25, 17:39, said:

(13) When one of us has promised five of the suit

This one is not really germain to the OP's discussion, because they are not playing it there anyway. Double by pard of the one who has shown five indicates a high honor. Double by the one who showed the 5-bagger is probably best used to suggest leading something else.

In any case, yeh I guess the double is willing to defend that suit, but that won't happen.

[1eyedjack]

I am just off to work so may polish it later, but I have been down this road and found it necessary to prioritise the questions as well as list them.
As a simplified taster it went something like this:

Q1: Is it a special situation where double has a particular defined meaning (ie lightner or transfer)?
If so, apply that meaning, else:
Q2: Have we bid and supported a suit and have at least one other game try available?
If so, double is penalty, if not:
Q3: Have the opponents bid and supported (otherwise than by forced preference) a suit at the 2 level?
If so, double is takeout, if not
Q4: Do a whole host of situations apply similar to those listed in the OP and responses?
If so, double is penalty, if not
Double is takeout.

[Tomi2]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-25, 15:41, said:

For one of my partnerships, I'd like to set up some rules as to when double is penalty. The idea is, if none of the rules apply, double isn't penalty. I'm going to try a rough draft and then hope to polish it with your comments and suggestions.

1. When we have established a fit, with the exception of game try doubles (of 3♦ when we have a heart fit or 3♥ when we have a spade fit).
2. When we are in an absolute game force, e.g. via a fourth-suit bid, a 2/1, or a 2♣ opener.
3. When one of us has made a nonforcing notrump bid of 2NT or higher.
4. When we redouble opponents' takeout double.
5. When one of us doubles, in direct seat, a suit he could previously have doubled for takeout but instead passed or overcalled NT.
6. After opponents have had an uncontested, nonpreemptive auction to 3M or higher, except 1M-3M.
7. All subsequent doubles once we have made a penalty double or penalty pass.
8. Double of opponents' weak 1NT opening.

I'm sure I missed a few.

to 5:
(1sp) - pass - (pass) - double
(2sp) - ?
you give up to option for makig a responsive double / to just show your points to have the double for the hands, where you had the trapping pass AND partner cant reopen once more. Had a long discussion about this after my last tourney but I belive that NOT penalty is best in this seat

to 8:
playing 2nd double after the penalty double on 1NT sems pretty much standard these days

back to 5:
(1he) - 1NT - (2he) - pass
(pass) - ?
you wait for the day when you have 4 heart tricks and two aces? what about 42(43) with only a single heart stoper but within the range of 1NT or 3244?

to 1:
1sp - (pass) - 2sp - (3minor)
pass- (pass) - ?
3(45)1 you sell out to 3 clubs?

let's go to 4, you open 1club (12-14 bal or stronger hands, may include bal hand with 4dias)
1cl - (x) - xx - (2 or 3 he)
4135 and 16 hcp, good luck, make it 4144

I think bridge is not a game of such rules, because they either cant cover all situation or it will be too many rules

[fromageGB]

Gosh ! Way too complicated to remember this all. Much easier to double and hope partner does the right thing

[bluecalm]

Quote

1. When we have established a fit, with the exception of game try doubles (of 3♦ when we have a heart fit or 3♥ when we have a spade fit).

Should be changed to "major suit fit" because auctions like:
1S - 2D - 2S - 3D
3S - dbl should be t/o, extras

Quote

2. When we are in an absolute game force, e.g. via a fourth-suit bid, a 2/1, or a 2♣ opener.

I am not a fan but it's classical way to play. Modern style eis that it doesn't matter much if we are in force or not and doubles are t/o.

Quote

3. When one of us has made a nonforcing notrump bid of 2NT or higher.

Really ?

1D - pass 2NT (limit) - 3H
dbl should be extras/to

Quote

4. When we redouble opponents' takeout double.

If you want to play penalty doubles in those auctions just make general rule "when we are in force double is penalty".

Quote

5. When one of us doubles, in direct seat, a suit he could previously have doubled for takeout but instead passed or overcalled NT.

Really ?

1D - pass 2D dbl
3D - dbl = ? You want to play it as penalty ?

Quote

6. After opponents have had an uncontested, nonpreemptive auction to 3M or higher, except 1M-3M.
7. All subsequent doubles once we have made a penalty double or penalty pass.

OK

[mgoetze]

Tomi2, on 2011-May-26, 04:53, said:

to 5:
(1sp) - pass - (pass) - double
(2sp) - ?
you give up to option for makig a responsive double / to just show your points to have the double for the hands, where you had the trapping pass AND partner cant reopen once more. Had a long discussion about this after my last tourney but I belive that NOT penalty is best in this seat

I guess this is a good example of why 1eyedjack said rules need to be prioritised.

Quote

back to 5:
(1he) - 1NT - (2he) - pass
(pass) - ?
you wait for the day when you have 4 heart tricks and two aces? what about 42(43) with only a single heart stoper but within the range of 1NT or 3244?

No, this is actually the exact auction I had in mind when I wrote "in direct seat" - this is a balancing double so rule 5 would not apply.

Quote

let's go to 4, you open 1club (12-14 bal or stronger hands, may include bal hand with 4dias)
1cl - (x) - xx - (2 or 3 he)
4135 and 16 hcp, good luck, make it 4144

OK guess it depends what you play redouble as. I believe it should show serious penalty interest in at least one suit, and I would play pass as takeout here. But of course it's just as possible to play it the other way around.

Quote

I think bridge is not a game of such rules, because they either cant cover all situation or it will be too many rules

Yeah I am starting to see in this thread that it's more complicated than I thought. Yesterday I was just thinking, "hey noone plays penalty doubles anymore, it can't be that hard to list all the doubles that are still penalty" but that may have been an overbid.

[bluecalm]

And gnasher's rules:

Quote

(13) When one of us has promised five of the suit

OK more or less but in defense "don't lead this" doubles are modern style

Quote

(13) When one of us has promised five of the suit

+

Quote

(15) When partner has made a takeout double that implies holding the suit doubled, eg 1D dbl 1S dbl.

Yes, one of the best rules imo.

Quote

(16) When we both bid and they balance

Bad imo.

1D - pass 1NT pass
pass 2H dbl = ? Should be t/o, extras, something like 3-2-3-5 not penalty

Quote

(17) When they overcall in a major after our Stayman enquiry

Was discussing it recently we settled for t/o :-) but both are playable imo.

Quote

(18) When partner has shown a defined one-suiter and the double isn't needed to ask for a stopper

+

Quote

(19) When partner has shown a defined two-suiter

+ but Italians play it as t/o. I saw auctions like:

1S - 3C* - 3S - dbl = t/o - some points and some support. They play Ghestem.


One more thing to discuss is:

1S - dbl pass 2H
pass pass dbl

Classical way is penalty, imo t/o is way better because:
1)we may want to compete with 2-2-4- 7-9pc
2)we want to be able to double them if we have trump stack behind them, playing penalty double here it's impossible;

Even for 2) alone penalty double here is weak agreement often played by pretty good players (like some reigning world champions ).

[mgoetze]

bluecalm, on 2011-May-26, 05:22, said:

1D - pass 2NT (limit) - 3H
dbl should be extras/to

Why do you need a t/o double when you know partner is exactly 3334 or 3325?

[bluecalm]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-26, 05:31, said:

Why do you need a t/o double when you know partner is exactly 3334 or 3325?

Or 3-3-4-3 or (2-3)-4-4 with packed majors or (2-3)-3-5 any.
It's of course all system dependent but even playing 1D as 5+ I could have those distributions so I guess standard bidders could as well.
Also it doesn't matter that much. We need a bid to let partner bid 3NT if he has hearts stopped but 3S is still needed for 6D-4S.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-25, 23:08, said:

This one is not really germain to the OP's discussion, because they are not playing it there anyway.

What a sweeping generalisation!

1♥-p-1♠-p
1NT-p-p-2♥

(for example)
is natural, and both players should have a penalty double available.

[1eyedjack]

I would be interested to know what rules GIB applies in this area (assuming the most sophisticated version). No doubt a lot less sophisticated than what has been suggested here - but presumably rule-based nonetheless.

[xxhong]

Gib plays very few penalty doubles. One of the gib requirements to double at high level is when it assumes that its side has a game somewhere. Most low level doubles by gib are takeout or card showing. I think gib should play penalty doubles when opps voluntarily bid something at 3 level or higher after a long sequence, here takeout double makes no sense. However, gib usually makes wrong constraints and assumes that opps may make it or have a better spot to run, that's why you rarely see gib doubles with trump stacks.

1eyedjack, on 2011-May-26, 10:50, said:

I would be interested to know what rules GIB applies in this area (assuming the most sophisticated version). No doubt a lot less sophisticated than what has been suggested here - but presumably rule-based nonetheless.

[mgoetze]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-25, 15:41, said:

5. When one of us doubles, in direct seat, a suit he could previously have doubled for takeout but instead passed or overcalled NT.

More exceptions needed here, as (1♣)-p-(1♠)-p-(2♣)-X seems to be a clear takeout double for Mr. JLOGIC (and it makes sense to me, too).

[semeai]

<apology type="necro">Sorry.</apology>

I started a thread a while ago not knowing about this one.

Here's the list we had in that thread. Note that these are for when double is not takeout. It still may be cards instead of penalty, but we didn't get into that. Some are repeats of those in this thread. I've put B in front of the numbers so as not to confuse with the numbering in this thread.

Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless:
B1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (maybe this is supposed to be more restrictive)
B2) We have a known fit
B3) All four suits have been shown
B4) The opponent's bid is artificial
B5) Pass is forcing
B6) Our side preempted or showed a defined 2-suiter
B7) The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid
B8) The opponents have shown 3 separate suits
B9) The opponents have bid game and doubler has passed before
B10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play]
B11) Our side has rebid 1NT
B12) We've both bid and they balance
B13) We've shown a defined one-suiter and have room for a cuebid below 3NT

Test for #3 and #12: 1D P 1H P; 2C P P 2S; X. Should this be takeout instead?

Test for #11: 1C P 1S P; 1N 2H X. Should this be takeout instead? This one's a bit implausible. Maybe 1C 1H 1S P; 1N 2H X instead.

mgoetze, on 2011-May-28, 05:42, said:

More exceptions needed here, as (1♣)-p-(1♠)-p-(2♣)-X seems to be a clear takeout double for Mr. JLOGIC (and it makes sense to me, too).

The "and no new suit has been bid" clause of my #B7 takes care of this.

[ehhh]

It's a lot easier to read what authors; such as Mel Colchamiro in his book 'How to Play Like an Expert...', have to say
as they usually outline these situation in orderly patterns.

[semeai]

ehhh, on 2011-September-01, 11:49, said:

It's a lot easier to read what authors; such as Mel Colchamiro in his book 'How to Play Like an Expert...', have to say
as they usually outline these situation in orderly patterns.

I don't have that book, but is it as complete as we've attempted to be here? I've seen lists in various intermediate-to-advanced articles and they're usually similar to the things we've been writing here but less complete. Not to say we've been so complete, but more so than other sources I've seen at least.

Certainly the above lists could be merged and edited for clarity and order at some point.