[FrancesHinden]

I'm not interested in what the agreement is, just whether you have any agreement in your most regular partnership for the meaning of the double.
If you would have to guess at the table, you don't have an agreement (even if partner would guess the same)

(Selecting an answer means "yes" other than the last one)

There's a reason I'm asking, and it's not to be rude (or polite) about how detailed your system is.

[paulg]

In each case we treat it as a takeout double of RHO's long minor. It helps that we play a short club and so this is still feasible after we have opened 1♣.

[Gerben42]

I voted options 2, 5 and 6.

1NT 2♣ Pass Pass Dbl not sure if opener would ever double this for T/O.

2♦ Pass Pass Dbl is in our system script for art. opening bids as T/O vs ♦ and their 5+card suit. If this is the most useful agreement is something else but no point trying to agree something else and forget.

1♣ 2♣ Pass Pass Dbl would be T/O if 2♣ would be natural but again 5 - 5 majors have already been bid, so T/O seems weird.

1♠ 1NT Pass 2♦
Pass Pass Dbl: This one is just too weird, did that really happen? Was 1NT a psyche?

1NT Pass 2♣ Pass
2♦ Pass Pass Dbl = T/O as per meta-agreement.

[OleBerg]

Checked 1,2,4,5 and 6.

Just to be precise: We have no agreements on the excact sequences, but they are explicitly covered by a general agreement: "When an artificial bid is passed, double is take-out of the suit they have decided to play in."

I think we would both guess it to apply to 3) too, but as our 1♣ is 11+Nat or 15-19 any bal., it may not be 100% certain, that the rule applies here.

Edit: And our definition of take-out is: Not penalty, but urging partner to bid. How that should be interpretet in some of the sequences, might indeed leave us more guessing than knowing.

For instance in 1), I'd say 3-3-5-2 and very good, but that is just a guess, although qualified (in the context of my partnership).

[Phil]

I don't have this agreement in any of my partnerships, but I like OleBerg's meta rule.

Perhaps one that should be added to the list is:

pass - pass - 1N - pass
2♣ - pass - pass - double

because to me this is a slightly different animal than the other choices.

[mtvesuvius]

2, 4, 5, 6 for me -- And I have explicitly discussed 2 and 6 with partner, 4 and 5 should logically be an awkward takeout type hand by a usual meta-agreement similar to OleBerg's.

[nigel_k]

OleBerg's rule is a good one, plus an agreement that you can play in a suit where they have shown four cards but not where they have shown five cards. That covers all except three which I don't think I have ever encountered and would have to guess.

[gwnn]

if you think after

2♦-p-p-

they have a long ♦ suit, I think you sohuld reconsider.

not aimed at anyone in particular, just saying...

this double should probably be 12-14 semibalanced, probably.

[mfa1010]

1 is unclear. It ought to be penalty, because T/O makes no sense. Partner might disagree.
2,4,5,6 are takeout, no problem.
3 is penalty. Can't bid a suit and then make a takeout double of the same suit later. Meta rule.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2011-January-29, 10:02, said:

In each case we treat it as a takeout double of RHO's long minor. It helps that we play a short club and so this is still feasible after we have opened 1♣.

Ditto

[nigel_k]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-29, 16:46, said:

1 is unclear. It ought to be penalty, because T/O makes no sense. Partner might disagree.

Why does takeout make no sense? A 4-1 break at the two level is only a minor inconvenience.

[awm]

I play these as takeout, with the possible exception of the third one. In some cases they can be off-shape, and certain ones (like the one after multi or after the apparent psych of 1NT) might be semi-mandatory on a good hand with no other reasonable action.

The third one is weird because it's a suit opener bid. Certainly playing strong club I would consider this takeout, but I'm not really sure what Elianna and my agreement would be. Probably penalty makes sense.

[mfa1010]

nigel_k, on 2011-January-29, 19:07, said:

Quote

1 is unclear. It ought to be penalty, because T/O makes no sense. Partner might disagree.

Why does takeout make no sense? A 4-1 break at the two level is only a minor inconvenience.

No sense was probably an overbid, but we are getting bad odds for a takeout double with say 4432. The opponents are having a likely misfit auction, both majors are spltting badly and RHO could have made a big guess when he passed 2♣. I don't think I would reopen with a T/O-double here even with perfect shape.
On the other hand a penalty double could be juicy, because if we have clubs locked up, partner could easily have length in the majors and they will have nowhere to run.

[gnasher]

On (1), here is another argument for playing it as penalties:

It's only crucial to protect if we can make game. If responder had enough strength for us to make game, he would normally have acted. With balanced values he would normally have doubled 2♣. The only good hand on which he might have passed is one with very short clubs, where he might be unhappy about defending 2♣x. If responder is short in clubs, opener will tend to be long in them. Therefore opener's double should be for penalties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that reasoning, but it's from the only book I've ever read that discussed this sequence, so I thought I'd share it.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on 2011-January-30, 13:47, said:

On (1), here is another argument for playing it as penalties:

It's only crucial to protect if we can make game. If responder had enough strength for us to make game, he would normally have acted. With balanced values he would normally have doubled 2♣. The only good hand on which he might have passed is one with very short clubs, where he might be unhappy about defending 2♣x. If responder is short in clubs, opener will tend to be long in them. Therefore opener's double should be for penalties.

I'm not sure that I agree with that reasoning, but it's from the only book I've ever read that discussed this sequence, so I thought I'd share it.

A partscore-swing is ½ a game-swing. This is my own reasoning, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

[mfa1010]

OleBerg, on 2011-January-30, 14:26, said:

A partscore-swing is ½ a game-swing.

Or potentially 100% of the matchpoints.

gnasher: Tear out that page, will you?

[JLOGIC]

People cannot figure out 1 because it is impossible. The 1N opener should never double for penalty or takeout. You have shown your hand type and partner has passed meaning he does not have invitational plus values. RHO has gambled on a pass. If our clubs are the nuts, he probably gambled incorrectly. Hopefully LHO is 5-6 in the majors with quite a strong hand, who knows. But we are certainly never giving them another shot, effectively letting them freeroll their gamble (when they are wrong, we crack them sometimes!).

Auction 3 is similar but differet in a key way, opener is unlimited enough that he might just have to double because his hand is too strong to pass it out. I would still expect bidding over this aution to be super infrequent, but if it happened I would take opener as extremely strong to where he felt like we were likely enough to make a game that he had to bid despite our pass of the 2C bid generally denying much in the way of values. I would expect opener to have good clubs obviously so I guess "penalty" but really it just shows a very good hand with game prospects which inferentially means good clubs.

[wyman]

I checked "none of them" since we've never explicitly discussed any of them. We have meta-agreements that *might* cover them in some cases, and in practice I think we'd even get several of them 'right' at the table. But I'd sure as heck be sweating it most of the time.

[nigel_k]

Obviously I would always pass on 1 with good clubs. It's much more likely they have guessed wrong than that we can take them for a number wherever they may run.

But with something like KQxx AQx KQxx xx I might choose to double especially if not vulnerable. Most times we will have a playable spot and defending 2♣ will not be great. Partner may pass sometimes as well. I like to fight pretty hard for part scores even at IMPS. Anyway, even if you don't agree with a takeout double on that hand, surely it makes more sense than a penalty double.

[MrAce]

Answer to your questions #1 #2 and #5, depends on our defense method against these conventional bids.

IF our defense requires responder or 2nd seat overcaller to PASS first and take action later with specific hands, after they clarify their suit, or make a preference, then pass is out of question when 2nd opponent passes the artificial suit. Which in this case DBL is considered auto.

This is not my agreement with my pds to be honest, i found these in system notes of a famous pair, they do pass with some strong hands vs a landy 2♣, and their direct DBL and waiting and DBL shows all different stuff.