is this a maximal double?

[ctbridger]

N. E S. W

p. 1d 1h 1s

2h 2s 3h. p

p. X p

 

My question is whether this double is a maximal double - W has already passed, also Spades isn't E's original suit. If West had X, I'd see that as a maximal double.

Thoughts?

[sfi]

East's chance to make a game try was the round before, so this is simply a penalty suggestion. West's only chance to try for game was to double - the maximal double.

 

Put it another way. East thought the hand was only a simple raise initially. How can they now be worth a game try?

[apollo1201]

If E wanted to invite game, they shouldn’t bid 2S on the 1st round, but 3S most likely. Similarly, if they had a good offensive hand that wants to compete, they’d just bid 3S now.

 

X can therefore only mean a strong desire to penalize, to protect the +110 score (this X is much more common at pairs than at teams!).

 

On the contrary, W only chance to invite game is to X 3H, since bidding 3S is just competitive. That is probably what you call « maximal » X?

 

Facing the penalty-ish X, W should sit unless they have unexpected hands, but this is rare as those kind of hands would often have competed to 3S. And it is not the moment to be ashamed of the 1S bid, putting the green card on the table was completely possible!

[benlessard]

i recommend a takeout style at imps, a hand that desire to compete but can also stand 3Hx.

 

??? (pick a holding wich you would like to bid over 3H)

x

AQTxx

AKJx

 

 

the logic is that the pen x isnt that useful in imps and its the hand with the H fragment and longer spades that is in a better position to see the off/def ratio.

 

To my talented students I like to give the example where having a void in opps suits make you want to compete but since its your partner who got opps trumps hes often in a better position to know what to do.

[helene_t]

A maximal double is a game try and clearly we can't have a game try here, at least not in standard methods.

The question is how penalty-oriented it is.

 

If you play that 1♠ shows 5+ and support doubles apply, then 3♠ is lawful so it is unlikely that defending 3♥X is right. Then again, I suppose it can do no harm to offer partner a choice. And maybe our 2♠ could be an 8-card fit, or even a 7-card fit, in which case a suggestion to defend doubled makes more sense.

 

Another issue as that we are under the long hearts so we are very unlikely to have a penalty double here, something we could have if we had KJT8 in the enemy suit and were sitting behind the overcaller.

 

So I think the double means "partner, I have a maximum so I think the board belongs to us, but my values are suitable for defense so you might chose to leave in this double".