Double of interference in a game forcing situation

[pescetom]

Playing a national simultaneous tournament, in South I get the following hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s654h5d74cakqj762&d=n&v=e&b=1&a=1sd2c2hdp]300|240[/hv]

 

This is an occasional partner and our agreement is to play a system where 2/1 is a game force even after interference of Double. I decide to risk 2♣, LHO interferes 2♥ and partner... doubles. We haven't discussed this and come to think of it, I don't have a clear agreement about this case with my regular partners either.

 

Does anyone consider that there is a standard meaning for this double, or have a preferred meaning? If not, how would you interpret it, given the context?

[FelicityR]

I would take it as a takeout double showing extra values, perhaps a ♦ suit too. West didn't have to bid 2♥. It's very unlikely to be a support double as you bid a minor suit.

[Stephen Tu]

(1) I think playing 2/1 GF after double is nuts. 2/1s are rare to begin with. Over a double they are even more rare, to devote so many of your bids to cater to getting to games and slams is just bad. Try some system involving transfers, starting with 1nt (or maybe xx), so you can start showing your suits with weaker hands, and distinguishing raise ranges.

 

(2) That said, if 2c created a GF, the standard meaning of double is penalties. Because one can just pass with nothing to say and force partner to do something. You don't need a takeout double when a takeout pass is available.

 

I don't think it's right to leave it in though with undisclosed spade fit.

 

The takeout/extras interpretation makes more sense opposite a NF 2C, when not in a GF.

 

[ggwhiz]

Extra values and no clear direction but leaning towards penalty. I'm bidding 3♥ hoping partner bids 3nt but if they bid 3♠ instead I have to raise. I'm assuming west bid 2♥ with their eyes open but I doubt it.

 

2♣ being a game force after a double is sufficiently unusual, unexpected (and sorry, weird) I think it requires an alert. If you got to a successful and right-sided 3nt due to any but the most clear cut 2♥ bid by west I would be ruling against you.

[heart76]

100% penalties. You are in a forcing situation, so pass is forcing and denies a ♥ stop.

If you think of it, ♥ are 4441 and he's pulling the trigger out of the points you've promised.

I'd bid 2♠ now, partner will think a bit and bid either 3NT or 4♠, assuming he's limited.

 

What's 3♣ after their X? Not weak, since 2♣ shows less than 10.

[FelicityR]

100% penalties. You are in a forcing situation, so pass is forcing and denies a ♥ stop.

If you think of it, ♥ are 4441 and he's pulling the trigger out of the points you've promised.

I'd bid 2♠ now, partner will think a bit and bid either 3NT or 4♠, assuming he's limited.

 

What's 3♣ after their X? Not weak, since 2♣ shows less than 10.

 

Which begs the question 'Why did West even bid 2♥ on this auction with a four card suit and few points knowing that 2♣ is a game force and North/South are always going to outbid you, probably in ♠s"? The only reason I can think of why West is bidding is due to distributional shape and length in ♥s, not a meagre hand with a 4 card ♥ suit. He/she didn't have to bid.

[nekthen]

OK This is an odd one. I disagree with doubling for penalties, as partner is surely going to bid on most of the time, we need to take this down three to make a profit compared to the room in 3N. I would assume that this was a support double showing 3 card support with no implication of strength. I would now bid 2♠ to show my 3 card support and lack of a ♥ stop.

 

On the topic of bidding after the double, I generally start with a xx when holding a ten+ count. Now any double by partner is penalty but given the extreme distribution I would still bid 2♠ after p doubles 2♥, which would be GF.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who replied.

 

I would take it as a takeout double showing extra values, perhaps a ♦ suit too. West didn't have to bid 2♥. It's very unlikely to be a support double as you bid a minor suit.

No support doubles played here. I thought about a takeout double, but it seemed very strange and the ♦ inference seemed to work against it, as with a ♦ stopper and some ♣ he would probably have cue-bid ♥ or just bid 3NT.

 

 

 

I think playing 2/1 GF after double is nuts.

 

2♣ being a game force after a double is sufficiently unusual, unexpected (and sorry, weird) I think it requires an alert.

 

You're not the only ones who think this is weird, but it's part of the system he knows and it works surprisingly well.

It was indeed alerted as a game force.

 

(2) That said, if 2c created a GF, the standard meaning of double is penalties. Because one can just pass with nothing to say and force partner to do something. You don't need a takeout double when a takeout pass is available.

I don't think it's right to leave it in though with undisclosed spade fit.

 

100% penalties. You are in a forcing situation, so pass is forcing and denies a ♥ stop.

If you think of it, ♥ are 4441 and he's pulling the trigger out of the points you've promised.

I'd bid 2♠ now, partner will think a bit and bid either 3NT or 4♠, assuming he's limited.

What's 3♣ after their X? Not weak, since 2♣ shows less than 10.

 

Thanks to both, I agree this use of double makes sense. But I couldn't see it at 2-level when partner has promised game.

 

 

 

Which begs the question 'Why did West even bid 2♥ on this auction with a four card suit and few points knowing that 2♣ is a game force and North/South are always going to outbid you, probably in ♠s"?

I agree. Maybe she wished to scare us out of 3NT, without imagining East's ♦.

 

 

OK This is an odd one. I disagree with doubling for penalties, as partner is surely going to bid on most of the time, we need to take this down three to make a profit compared to the room in 3N.

My thinking at the time. I decided it must suggest some capacity to punish in ♥, probably extra values of some kind, unlikely a ♦ stop as he would then have better ways than this of moving towards 3N.

[pescetom]

Here is the full hand and bidding:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakqj8hk982dt2ct5&e=s7hqj63dakj983c94&s=s654h5d74cakqj762&d=n&v=e&b=1&a=1sd2c2hdp3sp4hp4sppp]400|300[/hv]

 

I decided that ♥ must be 4441 and whatever extra values partner held, the best prospect must be to play in the ♠ fit. So I bid 3♠ which in that context and system invites partner to control-bid; his unsurprising 4♥ denied 1st or 2nd round control in ♦ and so I put the brakes on with 4♠, which made.

PAR for the hand was 4♠ and at national level 76% of tables scored 420 or 450, so we were at least in the right place.

[RD350LC]

Playing a national simultaneous tournament, in South I get the following hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s654h5d74cakqj762&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2c2hdp]300|240[/hv]

 

This is an occasional partner and our agreement is to play a system where 2/1 is a game force even after interference of Double. I decide to risk 2♣, LHO interferes 2♥ and partner... doubles. We haven't discussed this and come to think of it, I don't have a clear agreement about this case with my regular partners either.

 

Does anyone consider that there is a standard meaning for this double, or have a preferred meaning? If not, how would you interpret it, given the context?

I really do not like the idea of continuing a 2/1 agreement when there is a takeout double. To show a strong hand (10+ hcp), you can either redouble, or bid 2NT (artificial). With that in mind, I would pull the double to 2 ♠.

[RD350LC]

Playing a national simultaneous tournament, in South I get the following hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s654h5d74cakqj762&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2c2hdp]300|240[/hv]

 

This is an occasional partner and our agreement is to play a system where 2/1 is a game force even after interference of Double. I decide to risk 2♣, LHO interferes 2♥ and partner... doubles. We haven't discussed this and come to think of it, I don't have a clear agreement about this case with my regular partners either.

 

Does anyone consider that there is a standard meaning for this double, or have a preferred meaning? If not, how would you interpret it, given the context?

I really do not like the idea of continuing a 2/1 agreement when there is a takeout double. To show a strong hand (10+ hcp), you can either redouble, or bid 2NT (artificial). With that in mind, I would pull the double to 2 ♠.

[pescetom]

I really do not like the idea of continuing a 2/1 agreement when there is a takeout double. To show a strong hand (10+ hcp), you can either redouble, or bid 2NT (artificial). With that in mind, I would pull the double to 2 ♠.

 

I take note of your preference, although in this case it sounds like you are about to miss game.

 

The system we were playing not only continues 2/1 but also uses redouble as showing the balance of points but tendentially in misfit. You may not like it and you are not alone, but it is known to both players which is the key concern, and it seems to work well at MP too.

[pescetom]

Just to say that the hand diagrams I posted showed all non-vulnerable instead of EW vulnerable which was really the case (thanks to @dond01 for pointing this out). I have now corrected this, but obviously the replies already made do not take account of it - my apologies.

[FelicityR]

I really do not like the idea of continuing a 2/1 agreement when there is a takeout double. To show a strong hand (10+ hcp), you can either redouble, or bid 2NT (artificial).

 

I was going to write that 2NT (artificial - showing a good raise to 3♠ after the Takeout Double) was a possible bid but thought better of it. But it would be against my religion to overlook that good ♣ suit, and partner has only got to turn up with ♠AKQxx ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣xx for a slam to be on, but I concede realistically it might be a very difficult slam to bid.

[pescetom]

I was going to write that 2NT (artificial - showing a good raise to 3♠ after the Takeout Double) was a possible bid but thought better of it. But it would be against my religion to overlook that good ♣ suit, and partner has only got to turn up with ♠AKQxx ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣xx for a slam to be on, but I concede realistically it might be a very difficult slam to bid.

 

We have the same religion :)

2NT in this system would have been artificial showing an invitational raise in ♠, with or without the Takeout Double, so it was a LA.

But it wouldn't even hint at that wonderful source of tricks and it would suggest 4-card spades, so I prefer the 2/1 Game Force even if it might not click.