[PhilKing]

I'm pretty sure a poll for how it should have gone would opt for p-p-x by a landslide.

[fourdad]

The fact that this is even a discussion is an offshoot of BBO bridge play that, for the most part, do not allow for solid partnership agreements as we play with so many different people.

With a regular partner, we would have already agreed that a X of a game bid is for penalty.

If a pair wants to agree differently, more power to them, but there must be agreement or we are all playing kitchen table bridge.

[GrahamJson]

I would never double with the N hand. A double at that laver should show cards not trumps and partner can take out with a suitable hand. 5nt looks ok to me for S.

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2014-October-30, 11:31, said:

I was North and I passed (didn't even cross my mind to X with that hand). Partner asked me afterwards why I did not double. I said "I didn't want you to pull it" and he explained 5th level doubles are always penalty. I found that curious, as I would have assumed even if a 5th level X can be passed, it still should show something other than long diamonds.

So there, just a sanity check post.

You were the sane one.

[mikeh]

fourdad, on 2014-October-31, 04:30, said:

The fact that this is even a discussion is an offshoot of BBO bridge play that, for the most part, do not allow for solid partnership agreements as we play with so many different people.

With a regular partner, we would have already agreed that a X of a game bid is for penalty.

If a pair wants to agree differently, more power to them, but there must be agreement or we are all playing kitchen table bridge.

I think that you would find that your agreement that such doubles are penalty would not be acceptable to most experts. I am not saying that it is unplayable. After all, on this hand it would be great.

40 years ago it was common, even amongst experts, to play doubles of 4♠ or higher openings as penalty, but that has become far from expert-standard. Nowadays, the usage is more about 'transferable values', as in a hand that means we are odds-on to go plus if we defend while also promising useful offensive values should partner want to move forward. Partner will pass most of the time, simply because on a frequency basis he won't have the values or distribution to think that 11 or more tricks are available. However, he is permitted, and indeed encouraged, to bid if his hand warrants it.

This is utterly different from 'penalty'. It isn't even the same as 'takeout'.

Double, in the modern game, is such a flexible concept that trying to capture the essence of the call, in all possible auctions, with 'penalty' or 'takeout', even refining the latter with 'negative' or 'responsive', tends to limit the understanding of advancing players. I think it was Kokish who coined, or at least popularized, the term 'transferable values' and I think it does a good job of capturing what most high-level doubles mean.