Double after 2C

[han]

What should the following doubles be:

 

1) 2C - (some bid) - Dbl

 

2) 2C - (some bid) - pass - (pass)

Dbl

 

and

 

3) 2C - (pass) - 2D - (some bid)

Dbl

 

Does it matter at what level "some bid" is.

 

What if "some bid" is artificial, for instance 3C showing either clubs or both majors.

[vang]

What should the following doubles be:

 

1) 2C - (some bid) - Dbl

 

penalty proposal (might be balanced weak). use PASS for take-out

 

2) 2C - (some bid) - pass - (pass)

Dbl

 

penalty proposal (including strong balanced hand). partner already bid PASS for take-out cf. 1).

 

3) 2C - (pass) - 2D - (some bid)

Dbl

 

penalty proposal. use PASS for take-out.

 

Does it matter at what level "some bid" is.

yes. but double is still penalty proposal. on higher levels, may be based on balanced hands, not necesarly on a trump stack.

 

What if "some bid" is artificial, for instance 3C showing either clubs or both majors.

 

dunno. that is another problem. maybe double = penalty to assumed real suit (clubs in this case)

[mikestar]

George Rosenkranz advocates responder's double directly over interference to 2C as a double negative (about 0-3 points). This allows for many profitable leave ins, as opposite a minimum 2C there is no game and +200 is a top.

 

Pass would show at least 4 points without a good bid. This shows game is probable oppoite a minimum 2C.

 

Opener's balancing double should be for penalties. 2C is forcing to game unless opener cancels his game force by bidding 2N or bidding and rebidding a suit after a negative response. So pass is forcing.

[han]

I think playing the double in (1) as a second negative is a good idea, and also playing the double in (3) as penalties.

 

However, if you play (2) as penalties, you're stuck with so many hands. Wouldn't it be better to play this one as take-out oriented? Pass is not forcing in the balancing seat ;).

[Trpltrbl]

Depends on what you play. I play that after a interference either a suit or a X that when I X or XX I have a negeative response, less the an Ace or King or 2 Queens.

Therefore if I pass I have a positive response, more then an Ace, King or 2 Queens. And when pd "reopens" the bidding he/she shows a balanced hand, and strong suggestion to defend.

On #3 my 2♦ shows a positive hand, again better then an Ace, King or 2 Queens. I could show a negative with 2♥.

So now the X shows again a balanced hand with strong suggestion to defend.

It covers all situations, and in most cases even helps out a lot. I prefer people to interfere against my strong 2♣ opener.

 

Mike ;)

[Fluffy]

after 2♣ opening we will either play a contract, or let the opponents play doubled, it creates a forcing pass sequences.

 

Then the easiest thing to play is double as penalty and pass with balanced on both sits.

 

Specially its important to play double from opener as penalty because you need to have a tool against psicick bids on your own suit.

[Gerben47]

In my partnership style, which is that double is always takeout, except when it isn't.

 

We play all 3 doubles as take out, assuming the (some bid) was made as an opening bid but realizing that partner has half the deck. It becomes "card showing" on the 4-level and penalty when it is higher than 4S.

 

If opener cue bids their suit this is NATURAL in case they are joking. We already know opener's strength so he does not have to cuebid to emphasize this.

 

If the some bid was at the 2-level, responder is in a Lebensohl situation. If it is an artificial bid, play whatever you play after the corresponding opening bid (i.e. defend a 2D overcall showing either major as if it were a Multi 2D).

 

What to play against a preempt that shows the suit bid or something else (3♣ showing ♣ or majors, for example) I have no idea, so that's why I play such a defence myself. If opponents don't succeed defending it, that's fine, and if I finally find opponents who do, I'll know how they did it :blink:

[mikestar]

The general rule for all of these cases (and many others not starting with with 2C):

 

If we are in a game forcing auction, they never play the hand undoubled. Therefor all doubles are penalty, and all passes are forcing.

 

The fact that we might stop short of game on certain sequences does not negate the game forcing character of the 2C opening, just like the fact that we might stop in 4C after a 2/1 sequence of 1S-2C when is there is no major fit and 3N is unplayable doesn't mean we aren't playing 2/1 GF.

[han]

The general rule for all of these cases (and many others not starting with with 2C):

 

If we are in a game forcing auction, they never play the hand undoubled. Therefor all doubles are penalty, and all passes are forcing.

Your use of "therefore" puzzles me. How does from "they are not allowed to play the hand undoubled" follow that "doubles are for penalty"? The increasing popularity of the pass-double inversion in forcing-pass situations seems to contradict this (as well as many other treatments).

 

Here is a scheme that I am toying with directly over, say, 2C-(2H):

 

Dbl = either second negative or medium takeout (with takeout, cuebid next).

Pass = implies some values. May be a positive hand without a suitable bid. Later cuebid shows good hand with penalty pass.

bid = positive, natural.

Cuebid = positive takeout.

 

Over 2C-(2H)-pass-(pass)-

 

Dbl = takeout oriented.

2NT = normal, usual structure is on (including transfer into their suit!).

suit bid = natural, forcing.

cuebid = natural, to expose a possible psych.

 

Over 2C-(2H)-Dbl-(pass)-

 

Pass = penalty!

any non-jump bid = non-forcing (or should it be forcing?).

cuebid = takeout.

 

Any thoughts?

[luke warm]

hannie:

2C-(2H):

 

Dbl = either second negative or medium takeout (with takeout, cuebid next).

Pass = implies some values. May be a positive hand without a suitable bid. Later cuebid shows good hand with penalty pass.

bid = positive, natural.

Cuebid = positive takeout.

dbl=negative seems superior

pass="it's our hand, this is forcing" seems correct

cuebid="we might have slam, but hell if i know where" seems correct

 

hannie:

Over 2C-(2H)-pass-(pass)-

 

Dbl = takeout oriented.

2NT = normal, usual structure is on (including transfer into their suit!).

suit bid = natural, forcing.

cuebid = natural, to expose a possible psych.

hmmm... sounds good but i need to think on the cuebid... at first blush, i like this

 

hannie:

Over 2C-(2H)-Dbl-(pass)-

 

Pass = penalty!

any non-jump bid = non-forcing (or should it be forcing?).

cuebid = takeout.

this is tough.. with, say, a "normal" 2C 23-24 hcp hand it might be better to pass the double, so that leaves unbalanced hands that were judged to be worth a 2C opening... i think any non-jump into a suit should be non-forcing... responder only raises if the distrtibutional points warrant (he's already known to be 0-3)... the cuebid as t.o. is fine, but it does place your lho in a better position