Do you all have an agreement here?

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skj3hq53d7632ck75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1♦ p 1♠ X

2♦ ?

 

Your bid with an expert pickup partner?

Your bid with your regular partner?

 

EDIT 1NT from partner instead of Dbl would have been natural, as would 2♠. 2♦ would also have shown a 2-suiter.

[paulg]

No to both questions, not close in my opinion.

 

Of course, this assumes that partner could bid a natural 1NT (note the zeal of a fairly recent convert) and that other bids, such as 2♦, were available for more extreme two suiters.

 

There is still plenty of time for partner to bid again.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

If you have answered, please read the hidden comment

 

 

A long time ago (early 90s) Leufkens doubled here, seeking partner's 4-card suit and ready to play 2S if he had 4 - 4. Westra passed, interpreting the Dbl as penalty, which added up to -380.

 

[ArtK78]

Looks like a pass to me. If we belong in this auction, partner can double again.

[ralph23]

Pass in both cases. I'm not smart enough to imagine anything else.

[lowerline]

If you have answered, please read the hidden comment

 

 

A long time ago (early 90s) Leufkens doubled here, seeking partner's 4-card suit and ready to play 2S if he had 4 - 4. Westra passed, interpreting the Dbl as penalty, which added up to -380. 

Hidden answer:

 

Westra was right. Leufkens should have passed.

 

[skjaeran]

Clear pass IMO.

Double would be penalties to me, unless otherwise agreed.

[jdonn]

Seems like a pass to me. We may even have the majority of the strength, but only barely and with no proven fit so why not defend.

[mikeh]

Clear pass IMO.

Double would be penalties to me, unless otherwise agreed.

agreed

[pclayton]

It would be nice if double is responsive, but I usually play it as penalty.

 

This should be a mandatory discussion for partnerships when responsive doubles come up.

 

I suppose I pass, but fudging a 2♥ call isn't horrible.

[glen]

I would pass in both cases. To answer the question posed by the title, my agreement is that double is "values with no good bid" - if the ♠s were a little weaker and a rounded suits a touch stronger, I would double bidding with my regular partner.

[awm]

While I am sure that I play double here as responsive in most partnerships, I wouldn't bid it. Why am I in a hurry to play in a 4-3 fit with the 3-card hand being 4333? We likely have the majority of the values but not by any great margin. Partner can always balance with extras (especially since partner is a favorite to hold short diamonds).

[helene_t]

Looks as if my spades are ill placed and I would have to ruff diamonds with the long trumps. Dbl shows approximately this hand but I'm too weak. Pass.

[han]

I would pass.