Define this double

[pclayton]

(1♦) - pass (1♥) - pass

(1N) - Double

 

What hand type would expect for a double here?

[Sambolino]

numero uno; with numero quattro 2d

[andy_h]

Takeout that was unsuitable previous round. 4225 or 4234 or 4144 probably fits the picture.

[ArcLight]

>Takeout that was unsuitable previous round. 4225 or 4234 or 4144 probably fits the picture.

 

I generally agree. Spade and Club length, with heart shortness.

But the opps can have some clubs or spades, so it should be a decent hand.

The Doubler didnt overcall Spades so wont have 5. They could have overcalled 1 Spade on a 4 card suit, though not everyone does that.

 

Also, there is a hint that opener didn't raise hearts so might not have 3. Some will raise 1 Heart to 2 if they have 3 hearts.

[kenrexford]

Option #1.

 

But, would 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2♦ be an ELC???

[Guest Jlall]

1/2/3 are all ok.

[gnasher]

1/2/3 are all ok.

Yes. It's nice to be presented with a poll where I agree with three of the answers, rather than none. Not that it makes it any easier to vote, of course.

[cherdano]

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

[ArtK78]

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

As I am 52, I take offense to that.

 

:lol:

 

Seriously, if you hold #4 you can bid 2♦ over 1NT. Don't dream that you are going to beat 1NT 6 tricks doubled.

[cherdano]

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

As I am 52, I take offense to that.

 

:lol:

 

Seriously, if you hold #4 you can bid 2♦ over 1NT. Don't dream that you are going to beat 1NT 6 tricks doubled.

Well, more seriously I think this used to be showing a penalty pass in expert standard. 2♦ would show less I suppose.

[kfay]

If I made this double most of the time I'd be holding hand #2. Probably the rest of the time I'd be holding hand 3.

 

Personally I'd bid 1♠ on hand 1 usually. Not happily, though.

[rogerclee]

Well, more seriously I think this used to be showing a penalty pass in expert standard. 2♦ would show less I suppose.

I didn't think this double was played as penalty since takeout doubles were invented.

 

Are you thinking of an auction like:

 

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P

(P) - Dbl

 

where I agree this is penalty?

 

Also agree that hands 1-3 are all doubles in this position.

[655321]

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

I confess that I still play this double as penalty.

 

But it seems I am living in the past, and need to think about modernizing. :)

 

The double (as I play it) is probably a stronger hand than 4 - yes, a diamond stack, but probably not a 6 card suit, and likely offshape (no 1NT overcall).

[david_c]

Interesting, I thought the choice was between 1 and slightly-stronger-version-of-4. Either way it shows stuff in diamonds. In any case it really wouldn't have occurred to me to do anything with 2.

[mikeh]

I think the standard for old guys like me (55) is 1. I suspect that the younger folks would tend to agree with Justin. However, I really think that there is a problem mixing 1 with 2&3. The entire point of the double with type 1 is to bring diamonds back into the picture. Partner, with 3=4=4=2 or 2=4=4=3 hand types should bid dianonds opposite type 1 and a black suit opposite 2 and 3. If we include all these types, then we have a problem.. but, to a lesser or greater extent, we have a problem if we limit the double to either 1 or 2/3.. what do we do with the other type(s)? We surely do not want to have to commit to overcalling in a black suit, either originally or (gasp) on the second round in front of an unlimited opp.

[awm]

What does a 2♣ overcall show here? (1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♣)

 

It seems weird not to have bid 2♣ initially, especially since it's such a space-consuming bid over 1♦ that will make things difficult for opponents. I'm sure some people would define it as "weaker than a direct 2♣ overcall" but this is not at all a pre-balancing situation (opponents have not found a fit) and responder is still unlimited. In fact I think the chances of being penalized here for a crappy overcall are more substantial than in direct position, since opener's hand is very much a known quantity and responder has already tried and failed to find a heart fit.

 

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)? Then this would be the bid with hands 2/3 and hand 1 doubles (double being basically "takeout of hearts" with a good diamond holding).

[jtfanclub]

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)?

I usually use it to show 4 clubs (or a bad 5), decent points, and denies 4 spades.

 

Go figure.

[mikeh]

What does a 2♣ overcall show here? (1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♣)

 

It seems weird not to have bid 2♣ initially, especially since it's such a space-consuming bid over 1♦ that will make things difficult for opponents. I'm sure some people would define it as "weaker than a direct 2♣ overcall" but this is not at all a pre-balancing situation (opponents have not found a fit) and responder is still unlimited. In fact I think the chances of being penalized here for a crappy overcall are more substantial than in direct position, since opener's hand is very much a known quantity and responder has already tried and failed to find a heart fit.

 

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)? Then this would be the bid with hands 2/3 and hand 1 doubles (double being basically "takeout of hearts" with a good diamond holding).

I actually thought of that when posting earlier... I think it makes some sense, but I've never discussed it with anyone and I don't think that it is, in any way, standard... maybe it should be.

[kenrexford]

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs. That is why I voted #1, but with the possibility of an ELC. In other words, I would have included 2&3 if the longer suit was diamonds. I think that approach better handles Mikeh's legitimate concern of Advancer's duties while enabling the double on more hands.

 

2♣ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades

X = 4144 or 4♠/5_♦(ELC)

2♦ = natural

 

Oh, and this is of course what everyone plays and completely standard. LOL :)

[jtfanclub]

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs.

So what do you do with, say, 2344? 3244? 2245?

[rogerclee]

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs.

So what do you do with, say, 2344? 3244? 2245?

Pass?

[gnasher]

However, I really think that there is a problem mixing 1 with 2&3. The entire point of the double with type 1 is to bring diamonds back into the picture.

When I double with Hand 1, my objective is to offer clubs and spades. My diamond length is incidental (although logic says I must have two, so partner is welcome to bid them with five himself).

 

I can't see why anyone would want to be able to show four diamonds here. Opener has at least four, and responder has two unless he is specifically 4414, 3415, 2416, etc, so we're unlikely to have a fit and when we do it's not breaking well.

[kenrexford]

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs.

So what do you do with, say, 2344? 3244? 2245?

Pass?

Yeah, that works. I might double with the right 3244.

[kenrexford]

However, I really think that there is a problem mixing 1 with 2&3. The entire point of the double with type 1 is to bring diamonds back into the picture.

When I double with Hand 1, my objective is to offer clubs and spades. My diamond length is incidental (although logic says I must have two, so partner is welcome to bid them with five himself).

 

I can't see why anyone would want to be able to show four diamonds here. Opener has at least four, and responder has two unless he is specifically 4414, 3415, 2416, etc, so we're unlikely to have a fit and when we do it's not breaking well.

In theory, this is true. However, low-odds options can still occur. More importantly to me, however, is that the auction works smoothly this way and is translatable to nebulous diamond sequences, where the importance of showing diamonds is elevated. Consistency is good.

[helene_t]

Well, more seriously I think this used to be showing a penalty pass in expert standard. 2♦ would show less I suppose.

With a weak hand with lots of diamonds I would just pass. P who is short in diamonds would probably have bid something if he had values. So responder rates to have values and my 2♦ bid will not make it more difficult for them.