[Echognome]

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P
2♦ - Dbl = ?

[jchiu]

Takeout seems all too normal, showing a 2434 hand with about 12-14, a 3424 hand with 10-11, or a 1444 hand in either range. Without the monkey option, I would expect this to be a curveball.

[rbforster]

Penalty seems all too normal, since you could have already doubled for takeout. If you're on 2434 or something, let partner balance if he's short in diamonds. Why bail them out of their misfit?

[Sambolino]

to

[nige1]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

(1♦) _P  (1♠)  _P
2♦  _X  = ??

IMO Optional = 10, Penalty = 8, Striped-tailed Ape = 2, Takeout = 1
More accurately: Good ♦ with ♣ and ♥ tolerance.
e.g. ♠ x ♥ AKJ ♦ KJxxx ♣ KQJx
e.g. ♠ - ♥ AKQx ♦ AJxx ♣ Kxxxx
e.g. ♠ x ♥ AKxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ AKxx

[gnasher]

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

[foo]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P; 2♦ - Dbl = ?

Welcome to partnership agreement territory.

Takeout is by far the most common meaning I've seen in more modern times.

[the hog]

Peanlty is by far the most common meaning. If you idn't have a t/o on the first round you haven't got one now.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jun 18 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

Peanlty is by far the most common meaning. If you idn't have a t/o on the first round you haven't got one now.

Most that I know play that (1m)-X should promise 44 in ♠+♥ or a hand strong enough not to care what Advancer bids.

...and that means it is very possible for you to have a 7- loser hand that has only 1 4cM and therefore must pass on the 1st round.

Jason gave some nice examples.

[helene_t]

With 4-5 I wouldn't force p to bid my 5-card at the 3-level and with better shape than that I would have acted before. I think this must be either penalties or optional.

Isn't it a problem with this is that it may help opps make the right decision of correcting to 2♠ or maybe 2♥?

If opener's suit was clubs I think it should be t/o though. Or maybe not. With a five-card diamond I could have bid over 1♣.....

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Jun 18 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

Agreed

[bid_em_up]

Takeout with spade shortness and diamond length.

[pclayton]

Its takeout, but my vote is still for sale.

[ArtK78]

Takeout.

A good hand without tolerance for spades. You could not make a takeout double the first time because of the spade shortness. Typically 44 or 45 in the rounded suits, distribution in the pointed suits unknown (but usually no more than 2 spades).

[kfay]

I think this is a penalty double.

If I've got some sort of hand that can takeout now I bid the round before unless I'm xx Qxxx Kx AQxxx or worse in ♥s (because I can't bid 1♥ with total crap). Even then I'm not sure why I'd want to take out now.

In my experience it's worked out well to get into auctions with a 4cM when you can't X for t/o if you don't want to have to start coming into the auction later. I don't go crazy bidding 4cMs but I'm definitely not afraid to, even with a longer minor. I pretty much always have a stiff. If partner is lawful then we don't play at the 3-level or above in a competative auction unless we've got an 8-card fit. Things are sticky when partner has power.

My philosophy might differ between IMPs and MPs since I'm just getting in there at MPs so this is a penalty since I would have bid before with reason whereas at IMPs I'd be more inclined to play it as t/o since I'm more happy to pass initially--but for the most part I just try to get in the round before.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Jun 18 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

Takeout, showing hearts and clubs. I'd guess that you're about 20 times more likely to hold this than a penalty double.

Depends entirely on style and whether you'd overcall 1♥ with an x=4=y=5 hand, where x<3. (since with a 3=4=1=5 hand you would double)

[Rebound]

It seems unwise, generally, to come late to an auction when the opponents have apparently failed to find a fit.

With any hand I can think of that could not double the first time, or overcall in a suit, I would pass 2♦ anyway, e.g. ♠ xx ♥ Q10xx ♦AQx ♣AJxx

Therefore I would expect this double to be penalty.

[Edit] I must apologize. This is just a restatement of Kfay's post. I somehow didn't see it before I posted. Anyway, I think it's a strong argument in favor of the interpretation of double as penalty.

[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Jun 18 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

While I agree (and have so stated earlier in this thread), it is apparent that others choose a different interpretation. So, whether or not we like it, there is a debate about it.