Is this double for takeout or for penalty?

What is the meaning of opener’s double in the following class of auctions?:

Opener             Responder       Opener’s RHO

1 grape             1NT                 2 bananas

Double

Is opener’s double a penalty double or a takeout double?  Have you discussed this with your partner?  If  not, don’t you think you should?

This blog entry is motivated by a thread in Bridge Winners website. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/should-i-play-doubles-your-way/

One might play the double in multiple ways:

• Always as penalty – this will teach the whippersnappers to interfere with my auction!
• Always as takeout – who nowadays plays any low-level doubles as penalty?; we need to compete!
• Sometimes as penalty and sometimes as takeout – it all depends upon the tempo and emphasis of my double; who, me cheat?
• Sometimes as penalty and sometimes as takeout – it all depends upon which suit is grapes and which suit is bananas.  Yes, this is the right approach … but how to play this approach is the subject of this blog entry.

In part because I have read through the Bridge Winners thread, I can think of several ways of using the suits bid by opener and opener’s RHO to define when the double is for penalty and when the double is for takeout:

• The double is for takeout when grape is a major, and for penalty when grape is a minor.
• The double is for takeout when grapes outrank bananas and for penalty when bananas outrank grapes.
• The double is for takeout when responder has not bypassed 1 banana to bid 1NT and is for penalty when responder has bypassed 1 banana to bid 1NT.

Agreeing on any of the above three options is better than having no agreement at all.

Because the third bullet above is the most comprehensive, let’s assume that that has become the partnership’s agreement and let’s explore how that works.

1♠        1NT     (2♣/2♦/2♥)

Dbl

Because responder did not bypass 1♣/1♦/1♥ to respond 1NT, opener’s double is for takeout.  A typical hand pattern for opener would be five spades, one in the suit of the overcall, and 4-3 in the other two suits.  Responder’s most likely hand type is one where he has length in at least one of the two unbid suits, but had insufficient strength to bid a new suit at the two level.  Doubling is the action by opener that will inform responder to compete in his longest suit.  Let’s say that the overcall was 2♦ and that opener holds this hand AQxxx, KJx, x, KJTx.  Opener doubles 2♦ and finds responder with xx, Qxx, Qxxx, Axxx.  Responder bids 3♣, and opener and responder have competed over the opponents’ eight card fit at the two level to their own eight card fit.  All the Law of Total Tricks fans will approve.

 

1♣        1NT     (2♦/2♥/2♠)

Dbl

Because responder did bypass 1♦/1♥/1♠ to respond 1NT, opener’s double is a penalty double.  (The inference from responder’s having bypassed 1♦ is much less strong than the inference from responder’s having bypassed 1 of a major suit, admittedly.)  Why does responder’s having bypassed those suits mean that the preferred meaning of opener’s double is for penalty?  Because responder’s being short in the overcalled suit (at least short enough to have skipped responding in the suit) means that opener is increasingly likely to be long in the overcalled suit.  If opener, who sits immediately “over” the overcaller, has both length in the overcalled suit and strength in the overcalled suit, a juicy penalty double might await.  Let’s say that the overcall was 2♥ and that opener holds this hand AQx, KJ9x, xxx, Kxx.  With a probable three trump tricks, the penalty double will pay handsomely even when responder has some nondescript 1NT response such as Kxx, Qx, QJxx, xxxx.  Oh, don’t tell me that your opponents wouldn’t overcall 2♥ on xx, AT8xxx, Axx, Ax.  I have seen many, many more dangerous overcalls than this one.  And down two doubled at any vulnerability, when your side has two balanced hands and only 21 HCP combined, is very tasty.

As is the case with any bridge agreement, one of the most significant “ancillary” benefits of the agreement is derived from the negative inference when the agreement is not employed.  When opener passes the overcall in a situation where opener could have made a takeout double, responder can infer that opener has some length in the suit of the overcall.  If responder, too, has no shortness in the suit of the overcall, responder can often pass out the overcall, feeling comfortable that the opponents have settled in a contract where declarer will find his side’s tricks hard to come by.  Similarly, when opener passes the overcall in a situation where opener could have made a penalty double, responder can infer that opener does not possess both length and strength in the suit of the overcall.  With no special length or strength in the suit himself, responder can compete, feeling comfortable that each side can make a low level contract and pressuring the opponents to either choose to defend or to compete to a higher, more dangerous level in the overcalled suit.