I think I'm in trouble.

[han]

Red against white, IMPs.

 

1C - (1H) - p - (p)

Dbl - (2D) - Dbl - (p)

??

 

AQ9x xx xx AKJ9x.

 

Do you agree with the reopening double? If so, what does partner's double mean and what do you do?

[kenrexford]

I don't think we get lucrative by stretching too much to reopen with a double against 1-level openings. Accordingly, I would have reopened with the mundane 1♠, implying 4-5 in the black suits.

 

Now I am in trouble, I agree. But, I'm not rescuing myself. Pass and pray.

[pclayton]

I agree with the double. Pard has shown a heart stack and Hxx of diamonds or better.

 

While I might not be getting all of my black suit tricks, I like my chances against 2♦. They are no doubt in a 5-3 fit and a trump will hit the table. Before declarer can get back to hand for a 2nd ruff, I'll be able to shoot a trump back through.

 

Even if pard is a little light, -180 isn't terrible, especially considering I have no safe harbor in a black suit.

[mikeh]

I agree with Phil... I think the quality of our hand makes selling out to 1♥ wrong.. and I agree that the double of 2♦ says that he has a penalty double of 1♥ plus some defence, typically Hxx, in diamonds. A trump lead is virtually mandatory, but the good news is that I am going to win the first black lead, if partner errs, and now I lead a trump... hoping that the tempo lost on the opening lead won't be fatal.

[benlessard]

Pulling the X doesnt make any sense.

[jdonn]

It's true our diamonds aren't what partner hopes, but our overall defense is so good that this hand can't be a disappoint. Easy pass.

 

Han gave me this problem a round earlier. I instinctively almost bid 1♠, then considered it a long time and finally doubled. However I think it's very close.

[gnasher]

Partner's second double is for penalties, in the context of my having a reopening double of 1♥. I have the weakest possible diamond holding, but I do have plenty of defence and my quick entries will be useful for either leading trumps or giving ruffs. I think pass now is clear.

 

On the round before, the downside of a double was that partner might have bid 2♦ when we belonged in 2♣. This risk can be obviated by playing that

  1♣   1♥   pass pass

  dbl  pass 1NT

is two places to play, with 3 clubs and 4-5 diamonds.

 

Even without that agreement, I'd still double.

[han]

Well I lied, I did double but the opponents were silent and partner bid and made 1NT. I had some discussion about double vs 1S afterwards with one of the opponents.

 

My initial thoughts were actually opposite from Josh's, I first wanted to double, then considered 1S and decided to double anyway.

 

In the fake auction I agree that pass seems clear. I was trying to come up with the worst possible scenario after double and this seems it. If partner bids 2D he probably has 5 (in fact, my partner did have 5 diamonds and still bid 1NT!).

[dburn]

Would certainly double 1♥ (after all, in the good old days, if partner had doubled 1♥ for penalty I would assuredly sit for it). His double of 2♦ is nowadays defined as "I have a penalty double of 1♥ and some defence against diamonds". He expects me to pass it out and for us both to lead trumps, and maybe I should be happy to co-operate with this plan.

 

On the other hand... at unfavourable vulnerability and with those clubs, maybe 600 in 3NT is 300 better than we can get defending diamonds. At any other colors I would pass without a qualm. At these... well, partner can see them also, and understands the issues, so I would pass with many a qualm.

[han]

Oh, reading David's post I realize that I posted the wrong colors, yesterday we were white against red. Never mind, the discussion is more interesting this way.

 

Would certainly double 1♥ (after all, in the good old days, if partner had doubled 1♥ for penalty I would assuredly sit for it).

 

Yes we would, but we would sit for a penalty double with the majors reversed yet we would not reopen. I also think that there are quite a few hands and auctions where we would choose to reopen with a bid instead of a double even though we would have sat for a penalty double. I agree that this is not one of those hands though.

[dburn]

If partner bids 2D he probably has 5 (in fact, my partner did have 5 diamonds and still bid 1NT!).

Indeed, but the problem presented was one in which the 1♥ overcaller bid 2♦. I don't have a signature on this forum, but I am inclined to modify one that exists already:

 

I don't mind replying to joke questions, but would you mind not asking only joke questions? We already have one Han.

 

It's true that in the problem you meant to present instead of the one you did present (which was actually quite interesting): if you double and partner bids 2♦, you might feel uneasy. You should not. He will make it, or go down one at worst, and it will be your side's best spot.

 

How, if you think about it, could it be otherwise? As you say (believing it a miracle) your partner had five diamonds and yet bid 1NT! Good for him - maybe he had a few hearts also, and maybe with six diamonds and less promising hearts, he would have bid (gasp) 2♦.

[han]

I asked the question because I was thinking about this auction and wondered what other people would think. That seems an excellent reason to post it. Also, until recently there was nothing humerous written in this thread.

[matmat]

... until recently there was nothing humerous written in this thread....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humerus

[benlessard]

Offshape reopening double are a lot safer than offshape take-out double, this is because you already made 1 opening bids and partner already made a call (he pass)

 

However sometimes even thought the X is safe its possible that 1M is a more descriptive call especially if the vulnerability make a trap pass highly unlikely

[dburn]

Yes we would, but we would sit for a penalty double with the majors reversed yet we would not reopen.

This means, if I have understood aright, that if we had:

 

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦xx ♣AKJ9x

 

we would not re-open after 1♣-[1SP]-Pass-Pass.

 

I would consider it absurd not to re-open. I mean, what in the name of reason are we supposed to do if partner has a penalty double of 1♠ - by far his likeliest holding, unless LHO is some Kokish-freak? Or is he supposed to bid (and if so, what?) with such as ♠AQ10xx ♥KJx ♦xx ♣Qxx?

 

It's all very well to say that opener is meant to re-open only with shortness in the overcalled suit. But time after time (and this includes World Championship play) this policy leads to joke results - on more than one occasion, opponents have successfully sacrificed in 1♥ down four or five against 4♥ the other way. True, in those days they used to overcall in four-card suits more often than they do nowadays. But still..

[han]

I meant our majors reversed but the same auction. It is a bit of a silly example but clearly we should not reopen with a double any time we would sit for a penalty double.

 

A more typical example perhaps:

 

xx x AQxxxx AJxxx

 

1D - (1H) - p - (p)

??

 

I would not double here yet I would sit if partner made a penalty double.

[han]

... until recently there was nothing humerous written in this thread....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humerus

If you are going to comment on every word I misspell by only 1 letter then you are going to be quite busy.

[matmat]

... until recently there was nothing humerous written in this thread....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humerus

If you are going to comment on every word I misspell by only 1 letter then you are going to be quite busy.

heh. i thought you were trying to be punny.

[pclayton]

I meant our majors reversed but the same auction. It is a bit of a silly example but clearly we should not reopen with a double any time we would sit for a penalty double.

 

A more typical example perhaps:

 

xx x AQxxxx AJxxx

 

1D - (1H) - p - (p)

??

 

I would not double here yet I would sit if partner made a penalty double.

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

[gnasher]

heh. i thought you were trying to be punny.

Han doesn't have a punny bone in his body.

 

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

[dburn]

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

 

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

 

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

 

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

[cherdano]

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

 

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

 

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

 

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

Uhm, I am sure he would double if you promise him partner will pass!

[skjaeran]

I have such a hard time deciding what to do with 14 cards.

You must try to remember that Han is a mathematician. As such, he recognises 13 as a prime number, but does not recognise the integers on either side of it as numbers at all. He is more likely to present a hand with 14 cards than a hand with 12, because 14 (with only two divisors) is more nearly a prime than 12 (which has four divisors).

 

But if he would sit for 1M doubled with

 

♠xx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣AJxxx

 

and yet be unwilling to double 1M in the passout seat having opened 1♦, then ... well, I'd not award him the Fields Medal for contributions to consistency, would you?

Uhm, I am sure he would double if you promise him partner will pass!

Well, who's better in that regard than you?

Will you pass? :P

[han]

Maybe my previous hand wasn't such a good example (and not just because it had 14 cards). I still think that there are hands where we would clearly pass a penalty double from partner yet we will bid instead of making a reopening double.

 

How about this slight variation:

 

x xx AQxxx AJxxx.

 

The auction goes 1D - (1S) - p - p.

 

Would you double or bid 2C?