[strong 1c]

How sound would the following agreement be: Unless one of the partners opened 1C, there are no doubles at the one or two level that are intended to be penalty by the one who bid it

I could see an exception for (1Nt)-double but maybe that’s not needed as an exception .

[awm]

Here are some classic situations for low-level penalty doubles:

1. Opponents overcall 1NT (i.e. 1♦-1NT-X or 1♦-P-1♥-1NT-P-P-X).
2. Opponents bid a new suit after a takeout double (i.e. 1♥-X-1♠-X).
3. Opponents bid over our preempt (2♥-2♠-X).
4. Opponents rebid a suit we could've doubled for takeout earlier, without support from partner (1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠-X, 1♠-P-P-X-2♠-X).
5. Opponents run after we convert a double to penalty (1♠-P-P-X-P-P-2♣-X).
6. After we make a double or redouble indicating penalty interest (1♦-X-XX-1♠-X, 1♥-2♥-X-2♠-X).

Some of these are playable as non-penalty (I think #6 is okay, especially if pass is forcing) but others almost have to be penalty (like #4).

[strong 1c]

awm, on 2026-October-30, 05:24, said:

Here are some classic situations for low-level penalty doubles:

1. Opponents overcall 1NT (i.e. 1♦-1NT-X or 1♦-P-1♥-1NT-P-P-X).
2. Opponents bid a new suit after a takeout double (i.e. 1♥-X-1♠-X).
3. Opponents bid over our preempt (2♥-2♠-X).
4. Opponents rebid a suit we could've doubled for takeout earlier, without support from partner (1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠-X, 1♠-P-P-X-2♠-X).
5. Opponents run after we convert a double to penalty (1♠-P-P-X-P-P-2♣-X).
6. After we make a double or redouble indicating penalty interest (1♦-X-XX-1♠-X, 1♥-2♥-X-2♠-X).

Some of these are playable as non-penalty (I think #6 is okay, especially if pass is forcing) but others almost have to be penalty (like #4).

Thanks for the feedback. For sure, there are situations where the low-level double will give you a better score than having the double mean something other than penalty. But for soundness, I think it can't go both ways: eg. the double might be for penalty, or it might have some other purpose and "partner, you decide what I meant" doesn't seem like a sound idea

Just looking at your examples:

so on number 1, for instance, is it more sound to have a double in the pass out seat intended to be penalty always (vs takeout always)
on number 2, is it more sound for the 2nd double to be responsive or penalty (all the time) by the doubler
on number 3 We don't preempt at the 2-level but if we did, I think the double as penalty all the time makes sense
on number 4 and 5, is it better to be able set the 2-level contract undoubled and retain the double as take out or is the double intended as penalty always the better agreement to have

Of course, partner can pull the double, but I wonder if you would really lose a lot by saying a low level is not intended to be penalty with very few well-defined exceptions

In your examples, if you double are they always intended to be penalty ?

[steve2005]

Most penalties over a strong 1♣ opening occur after an overcall, a pass that is negative or trap
and opener doubles for takeout and responder leaves in for penalty.

[strong 1c]

steve2005, on 2026-October-30, 07:39, said:

Most penalties over a strong 1♣ opening occur after an overcall, a pass that is negative or trap
and opener doubles for takeout and responder leaves in for penalty.

I was excluding where we open 1C but all other auctions where either I or partner doubles the opponent at the one or two level.
The question I ask " is it always better for the double to have some other meaning besides penalty (in match point) as a partnership agreement. I think there are two exceptions so far:

a) Opponents open or overcall 1NT then a direct double for penalty seems like a sound agreement
b Opponents overcall a 2-level preempt at the 2 level, a direct double for penalty seems sound to me.

Adam gave some other examples where the agreement for a penalty double might make sense, but in those examples, one is giving up take out or responsive doubles, so I'm not swayed

I suppose some might say the low-level double meaning can be nebulous and your partner should be able to figure it out, but I don't like that as an agreement

[awm]

strong 1c, on 2026-October-30, 07:29, said:

In your examples, if you double are they always intended to be penalty ?

Yes, these doubles are penalty. They're not "partner, you figure it out."

As far as not playing these as penalty, my view would be:

#1 needs to be penalty to punish some silly notrump overcalls, and takeout doesn't really make sense.
#2 depends on how often opponents psych -- if the answer is close to "never" you're fine with this as takeout/responsive
#3 doesn't make sense as takeout and this penalty double is a big part of the point of preempts in my opinion
#4 doesn't make sense as takeout and has been lucrative in my experience
#5 can perhaps be played as "cards" (logically it kind of means this anyway) but if it's not left in most of the time it's too easy for opponents to escape
#6 is the only one where takeout is pretty workable, although it should be more like "I am willing to defend if you have a penalty X" than true takeout

[DavidKok]

I would play most doubles as takeout. I think, if you are struggling with the definition of when a double is takeout or not, a good starting place is to say 'never penalty'. However, there are lots of sensible exceptions, and you will be behind in those cases. Oh well.

I think after a strong 1♣ opening a takeout double is extremely important, and making this an exception seems very bad to me.

[strong 1c]

Actually I am reading ‘Larry teaches doubles’ and he is suggesting that . I’m a bit in between Adam and Larry. (I’m excluding 1c bid openings from this discussion. )