This problem, posed in the previous issue, asks how you would interpret partner’s double. Is it takeout, penalty, something else?
LHO Partner RHO You
1D 1H
1S Pass 1NT Pass
Pass DBL
If RHO passes, what’s your call holding ♠6 ♥AJ953 ♦Q102 ♣K764 ?
Even long-term partnerships probably haven’t discussed this exact auction, but there are several ways to sort it out. One is to compare it to situations where you do have agreements and decide if this is similar enough to apply the same guidelines.
Another is to rely on broader default agreements. A popular one for ambiguous doubles is “If it could be takeout, it is.” That’s not as easy as it might sound, as it doesn’t mean that any undiscussed double is takeout. You have to first be sure that the takeout meaning is actually a logical possibility.
The more sophisticated your bidding methods, the more difficult it may be to analyze the “could be” part of that default. Modern systems have incorporated so many new types of takeout doubles that there’s a tendency to assume that any low-level “mystery” double must be cooperative or “action” or “Do Something Intelligent” (DSI) – or something other than penalty.
If your partnership has adopted these treatments, your first thought might be that partner’s double in the above auction is the DSI variety, suggesting that you compete for the contract (or pass and penalize 1NT). Most of the conditions seem right for a DSI double – the opponents stopped low, you haven’t found a fit and partner is in the pass-out seat.
Then again, a DSI double should almost always shows some undisclosed values Given that partner has already passed, can he have enough strength to justify competing now? And can his double be for takeout when there’s only one unbid suit?
The best way to solve this type of problem is to think past bidding rules and default agreements and rely on your bridge logic. Asking and answering questions like these should lead you to a reasonable conclusion about the meaning of partner’s double. Test your idea by constructing a possible hand that’s consistent with the bidding and that couldn’t have been described in a clearer way.
If you’ve reasoned that the double is takeout, partner should have clubs and, as a fail safe, probably heart tolerance. With only four clubs, he would need good high-card values to make up for the lack of playing strength. A hand such as ♠Q876 ♥103 ♦A72 ♣QJ106 fits that description, but with that, he would have either bid 1NT at his first turn or he would be happy to defend 1NT now. Anything weaker and he would not be bidding at all.
Could he hold longer clubs – ♠9876 ♥103 ♦A2 ♣QJ1064 ? This hand is unlikely if you play the Snapdragon convention, which would have allowed partner to double at his first turn to show this hand (5+ cards in the unbid suit, two cards in your suit).
What if you don’t play Snapdragon? Another good question to ask is, “If he has the hand I’m imagining, would he really expect me to field a double?” The answer with this example hand should be no, as partner would surely bid a simple 2C if he wanted to balance over 1NT.
All of this should have talked you out of the possibility that partner intends his double as any type of takeout. With both opponents bidding and you holding 10 points, you know he’s not loaded in high cards, so the next question is, “What type of hand would be right for a pass at his first turn but worth a penalty double now?”
The answer is that it’s a hand that grew in defensive strength because of what partner learned from the auction. Here, he should have decent high-card values, but his main asset will be spade honors sitting over dummy’s suit. He expects you to pass and lead a spade. A possible hand: ♠KJ976 ♥103 ♦982 ♣AQ4 .
This could be called a penalty double, but it’s a special type because it also shows that you want the lead of a specific suit. There are numerous other ways to use doubles to tell partner which suit to lead – and which to avoid. More about these in the next issue.
© 2025 Karen Walker