Double Trouble

[awm]

Opponents open 1♥ and partner bids 2♥ showing spades and a minor (at least five-five). The other opponent bids 3♦ (natural, non-forcing). What is double?

 

Would it be the same thing if opponents bid 3♣ (natural, non-forcing) instead of 3♦?

[Cyberyeti]

Our meta rules would say penalty, although I'm not sure that's the best use here.

[apollo1201]

What you put in 3H probably impacts what X can be. And if opps had opened S where there is no cheap cuebid anymore... good question, curious to see the answers.

Undiscussed I’d say X is pen. Partner probably has a fit for both opps and none for me.

[pescetom]

Undiscussed, but I would assume it showed other minor and no strong interest in spades...

over 3♣ I would be sure I could pass, but not here.

[FelicityR]

Not an expert (as I have said previously) but certainly would have needed to discuss this beforehand with a regular partner, and also know range of Michael's cue bid as could be weak or strong, and what 3♥ meant in this sequence (as apollo1201 says).

 

Like Cyberyeti I say penalty, too. Strength in minor overcalled and opponents' ♥s. The hand is probably a nasty misfit, and the opponents have found it first.

[Zelandakh]

Over 3♣, X should be pass/correct imho, with 3♦ forcing and 3♥ a good spade raise. After 3♦ it is trickier but I think I would still like X to be P/C, despite it being an apparently minority position, since that way it handles both competitive and constructive hands in a way that a pure penalty double would not.

 

Somewhat interested to see if any of our top contributors weigh in with a strong opinion that is opposed to P/C. What are you playing at the moment Adam? Normally you would be one of the posters I was looking to for advice on this type of question!

[lamford]

I think most useful is game try in spades. Similar to (1NT)-2H*-(anything)-3D, where 2H is hearts and a minor. Now many play that 2NT asks partner to bid his minor, but constructive, 3C is pass/correct and 3D is game try in hearts. If the bid had been 3C, rather than 3D, then I think double might well be pass/correct, as you still have 3D and 3H available.

 

I see that 3D was non-forcing, so one might need a penalty double here. OK, by agreement, then.

[Zelandakh]

I think most useful is game try in spades.

But the heart and spade cases are fundamentally different, in that here we have 3♥ available as a game try (good raise) in spades. In the (1♠) - 2♠ case, 3♠ is not available for this so it has to move down to 3♦. So in the specific case of (1♠) - 2♠ - (3♦) our game try gets lost and so here a maximal double does indeed make sense. This case though has far more in common with the auction (1♥) - 2♥ - (3♥) than the ones currently under discussion.

[Trinidad]

I think most useful is game try in spades. Similar to (1NT)-2H*-(anything)-3D, where 2H is hearts and a minor. Now many play that 2NT asks partner to bid his minor, but constructive, 3C is pass/correct and 3D is game try in hearts. If the bid had been 3C, rather than 3D, then I think double might well be pass/correct, as you still have 3D and 3H available.

 

I see that 3D was non-forcing, so one might need a penalty double here. OK, by agreement, then.

The difference between opponents opening 1NT and a Michaels cue is that in the later case there is an enemy suit that you can cue.

 

You need to have meta rules:

Our meta rule is that a cue in the opponent's suit (in response to an overcall or our opening) is a limit raise or better. Therefore, in principle, the invitations go through the cuebid.

 

We also have meta rules for cramped auctions. At the top of that list: When we don't have space, invitational bids are the first to go (either downgrade and simply compete or upgrade and bid game).

 

The reason is simple: 3M is simply a narrow target to aim for.

 

The cuebid below 3M (i.e 3♥ if we have shown spades and a minor) is invitational or better.

The cuebid above 3M (3♠ if we have shown hearts and a minor or 4♥ if we have shown spades and a minor) is a good raise to 4M.

 

We also have meta rules for either/or suits. These are cases where partner has shown the suit or another suit (Multi 2♦ or a Muiderberg 2M, or a Michaels cuebid). In all these cases, the double is takeout, asking partner to show his suit. This applies all the way up to game level. That means a double of 4♥ (when partner has shown hearts or spades) is P/C, but a double of 4♠ is simply penalty. The same for a double of 5♣ (when partner has shown clubs or diamonds) is P/C, but a double of 5♦ is simply penalty.

 

Why do we play these up to game level? No particular reason, except that the rule is easy to remember.

 

Are these rules as good over relatively short minors (4+ for a Muiderberg) as they are for long majors (6 for a Multi)? I don't know, but again, being consistent in similar situations is the easiest to remember.

 

So, I do not know whether our agreement (P/C) is the best. But I do know that we will not have a misunderstanding about the meaning of double in this auction, until old age takes over.

 

Rik

[msjennifer]

Sir, unless previously discussed this is a penalty double.