[jillybean]

From early in my bridge life, doubles have been a constant source of dread, confusion, and guesswork — from the often-forgotten support double,
to my most memorable auction, (1♥) 2♣ (X) XX

Now we have "protective" doubles (P) 1♥ (3♣) P (P) X — could someone please explain how these work? Specifically interested in both forms of scoring, vulnerability considerations, and any other pertinent information.

Assumption #1. They are only played through to the level of your value showing negative and responsive doubles.
#2. The "protective" aspect is that partner can and is expected to convert to penalty with the right cards.

Thanks! xxx

---

[mike777]

Yes dastardly

I always have trouble with

1y=X=1Z=X
Example
1C=X=1H=X


Seems the second double should be penalty to me but everyone seems to play it takeout

[DavidKok]

Protective doubles are a flavour of takeout doubles. They tell partner that we have a desire to not defend the current contract undoubled, and to pick something intelligent.
They are special compared to regular takeout doubles because they are made in passout seat. This adds pressure, and it is common to double more often in this position as it is the most flexible call. Some partnerships also have explicit rules about balancing, such as the "borrowed king" or "balancing doubles on the 2-level are mandatory with shortage, regardless of strength".

Note that you do not double with a strong hand with length in their suit. Poor partner, with a weak hand and shortage, will run to a long suit that you can't support. This turns a plus into a minus. I've seen some players then further punish their partner by pulling to NT. Such actions can very well be right, but they usually aren't.

This hand looks really dangerous. Where are the clubs? Partner must be quite short in them, maybe the opponents failed to raise despite the great fit. The points are also missing. With this hand I'm scared that partner has, say, 18 hcp with short spades.
Anyway, we were asked to run to our suit or choose to defend with long clubs. We're running to 3♠. Bidding 4♠ immediately is probably better hand evaluation, but I will bid slowly to get room to potentially bid 4♦. Plus, partner rates to be strong, and likely won't pass 3♠ (or if partner does, it will likely be right). Repeating for emphasis: partner's X denies holding a hearts-clubs two-suiter, so we can expect to find a fit somewhere.

[mikeh]

I agree with David, except that at imps, if vulnerable, I’d bid 4S. I’m strongly tempted to choose that all the time, but I’ll pass the buck instead with 3S…bid in tempo. If I hesitate, I have to bid 4.