[pclayton]

1♣ - (1♦) - pass - (4♠)
Dbl

[Halo]

Now and until the rivers run dry, it is penalty.

[awm]

I think this falls into the category of "I have a big hand" doubles. Typically these doubles are not based on a trump stack and promise some degree of convertible values if partner wants to remove them... but they also promise that we're beating the opponents contract most of the time.

On this particular auction, given that partner couldn't find a call over 1♦ I think the chances of pulling the double are virtually nil -- if partner had the 5+♣ or 6+♥ required for a reasonable pull he would've found a call over 1♦. So I'll vote "penalty" on this one.

[xcurt]

I couldn't resist voting for "something new-age."

Seriously, how can it not suggest 4Sx as a final contract. If your partner has any hand he has a diamond trap. Furthermore, we could have bid 4NT with 5-6 in the rounded suits.

[jdonn]

Good hand.

[ArtK78]

Strong hand, expect to beat 4♠.

I would describe the double as "penalty" unless that implies a trump stack. Clearly, the double shows a great hand and a willingness to defend, but it says nothing about spades. If partner takes it out, he has to have a good reason. I have not denied a hand that is useful on offense ("transferrable values").

[gnasher]

A hand where I think we may have a game bonus to protect, even though partner couldn't bid over 1D. A strong 4-6 would be typical, and partner should bid with good shape. Definitely not a balanced 19-count.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

If partner will bid with a good reason to bid, that is takeout to me, and would imply that you can't just X with trumps + aces.

If partner needs a good reason to bid, that sounds like "transferrable values". Surely "takeout" means that I'm supplying most of his reason to bid, and all he needs to provide is ♥K10xxx?

[han]

Also voted for something new-age.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2008, 10:21 PM, said:

If you think a 4-6 hand is typical then how would you ever pass with KTxxx of hearts?

I'd suppose I'd bid with ♥K10xxx and three clubs, but might pass with a doubleton club. By the definition I made up earlier, that makes my double almost "takeout" but not quite.

[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 5 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

Strong hand, expect to beat 4♠.

I would describe the double as "penalty" unless that implies a trump stack.  Clearly, the double shows a great hand and a willingness to defend, but it says nothing about spades.  If partner takes it out, he has to have a good reason.  I have not denied a hand that is useful on offense ("transferrable values").

Maybe it is semantics, but to me penalty implies that partner will always pass in this context, and that you can freely X with something like KQJT of spades and 2 aces. If partner will bid with a good reason to bid, that is takeout to me, and would imply that you can't just X with trumps + aces.

I look at it differently. To me, "takeout" means that partner cannot pass without a very good reason, such as his own trump stack. So this is clearly not a takeout double.

On the other hand, it is not a "penalty" double, which implies that partner cannot bid without a very good reason. But it is close to a penalty double, as there are very few hands that he could have on this auction that would take a bid.

You are not inviting him to bid (as with a takeout double) but neither are you prohibiting him from bidding (as with a penalty double).

I believe a friend of mine describes this as a "bridge double."

The bottom line is that we may be quibbling over semantics.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

Wow, if you think partner is usually 4-6 then I think passing with KTxxx of hearts and xx clubs is a colossal error that will often cost you a double game swing.

Yes, I've been a bit inconsistent. "Strong 4-6" was going a bit far: something like x AQxx Axx AKJxx would be enough.

Maybe I should define double as "a hand that isn't sure whether it wants to be at the five level opposite ♥K10xxx".

[benlessard]

Optionnal. I expect partner to pass 85-90% of the times.

[helene_t]

Halo, on Jun 5 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

Now and until the rivers run dry, it is penalty.

Yes, it hasn't been raining for months here so it must be t/o.

As Justin says, it may be a semantics thing. Generally better to talk about the expected O-D, or (or, for LOTT diciples, how many enemy trumps it is typically based on).

When p dbls a 1♠ or 4♠ opening I base my decision to pass or take out on the idea that he typically has a 1444 or similar. So in that sense the two dbls are of the same kind. But of course I pass 4♠x more often than 1♠x.

I think p will assume 2416 or similar and often take the double out with a singleton spade but not with a doubleton.

[marcD]

4NT would be take out for me. So DBL shows a good unbalanced hand with convertible values (no trump stack, 5+ C) . Ok, get fixed when I have 18-19 balanced but so be it

[Edmunte1]

Strong hand, short spades for me. I consider strategically wrong to play this kind of double as a penality double. For me a double is for penality when it cannot be used as a take-out, not the case here. Doubling for writing +100 instead of +50 or so it's not a good policy. So i consider Hamman 100% guilty for this board.