Define this double

[Guest Jlall]

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.

Agree with this. I want to maximize my chances of competing in a black suit where we likely have a fit rather than worry about diamonds. Passing throughout with KQxx xx xx AJxxx when the opps have bid the red suits is pretty much unthinkable to me.

[awm]

I think part of the point is to be able to penalize 1NT. People open on all kind of garbage these days (balanced 11 anyone?) and respond super-light. Having a "pure penalty double" of 1NT is probably overkill, but it might be nice for double to suggest a hand where defending is an option. Typically having diamonds behind the diamond bidder, not much in hearts in front of the heart bidder, and reasonable values will be key here. The issue is that if you will frequently double on a ten-count with 4-2-2-5 shape (i.e. nothing in diamonds and not much for values) then it becomes hard for partner to convert the double. If your double shows something like hand 1, then you expect partner to leave it in with good hearts and some points.

 

Obviously there is some value in being able to compete with hands 2 and 3, but you really want to be able to distinguish fairly weak shapely hands with no substantial interest in defending from hands where you really want to defend if partner has something half-decent.