Double

[han]

Consider this auction:

 

p - 1S - p - 1NT

Dbl - 2C - 2D - 4S

Dbl

 

What do you think that this second double should mean? Would you try this at the table undiscussed?

[hrothgar]

(All this is predicated on the assumption that 1N was forcing)

 

The 1NT bidder probably has a three card limit raise or so with either Diamond shortage or a Club fit. Given this assumption, I don't think that the doubler can hold enough cards for a penalty double to make much sense.

 

At the same time, the partner of the doubler has already made a free bid and expressed a preference for Diamonds over Hearts so much of the scrambling interpretations lose their appeal.

 

I guess that good defensively oriented 1=4=3=5 / 1=4=4=4 / 0=5=4=4 hand makes the most sense. Partner should pass with long trump, otherwise scramble.

 

not sure if I'd pull this at the table though

[mikeh]

Edit: I failed to see that the doubler was a passed hand

 

To me the auction doesn't exist.

[Guest Jlall]

you must have a spade void with good quick tricks, something like --- Axxx Qxxx Axxxx makes sense to me.

[han]

I would prefer to play this double as "I would like to sacrifice in 5D unless you really want to defend". If you have spade shortness then partner likely has 4 or even 5 spades (as it sounds like the opponents are in a 5-3 fit). It seems that partner will be in a much better position to make such a decision.

 

If you think that a passed hand should never act at this level after this start of the auction, fine (though I disagree). If you think that bidding 5D is a possibility then I think that double should have this meaning and is preferable to 5D on many of those hands.

 

If it matters, Csaba gave me x Kxxx KJ10xx Qxx at white versus red, matchpoints. I think it is very pushy to bid again with this hand but it is easy to imagine that 5D is a good sac (after all, you are white against red and partner freely bid diamonds). However, as partner can have something like KJ109 in spades I would much rather double than bid 5D, but maybe both are really bad.

 

Further thoughts?

[helene_t]

Agree with Justin and/or Richard. Not sure if it is necesarily based on a void, it probably is.

[Guest Jlall]

I would prefer to play this double as "I would like to sacrifice in 5D unless you really want to defend". If you have spade shortness then partner likely has 4 or even 5 spades (as it sounds like the opponents are in a 5-3 fit). It seems that partner will be in a much better position to make such a decision.

 

If you think that a passed hand should never act at this level after this start of the auction, fine (though I disagree). If you think that bidding 5D is a possibility then I think that double should have this meaning and is preferable to 5D on many of those hands.

 

If it matters, Csaba gave me x Kxxx KJ10xx Qxx at white versus red, matchpoints. I think it is very pushy to bid again with this hand but it is easy to imagine that 5D is a good sac (after all, you are white against red and partner freely bid diamonds). However, as partner can have something like KJ109 in spades I would much rather double than bid 5D, but maybe both are really bad.

 

Further thoughts?

I think that forcing to 5D with this hand is beyond hopeless. You could easily be going for 800 with this hand, I don't understand the desire to bid. HOW DARE YOU BID TWO DIAMONDS PARD! I agree with your concept but I think you must have a spade void to be considering driving to 5D as a passed hand, and you need a better hand also. No offense but making a PH takeout double and then competing seems like a novice mistake, you have nothing extra at all other than an extra diamond. Partner knows you have short spades, a max passed hand, and support for the unbid suits. Why are you trying to bid the same values twice? Having 1 extra diamond is not even close to reason enough to be bidding at the 5 level.

[pclayton]

I would definitely take a 2nd double as Han's meaning but

I don't think the hand he referenced is the right one for it. Maybe void QJxx Axxxx Kxxx.