[yunling]

---

With doubleton in their suit, passing looks dangerous, but there's no convenient call I can make:(

[biggerclub]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 00:08, said:

---

With doublton in their suit, passing looks dangerous, but there's no convenient call I can make:(

You have to re-open. I choose x, and hope that P has at least 5♥ or even better, 5♦.

We will not get too high, because in my partnerships I would reopen without the K♦. My regular partners know that I almost always re-open in this setting and that I don't always have perfect shape.

[1eyedjack]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-29, 00:15, said:

We will not get too high ...

You MAY get too high, either because 2D undoubled by the opponents may be par, or because nothing makes but partner lacks the confidence to pass the double, or because partner bids 2H on a 4 card suit expecting 3 card support when 2S is a better spot.

I think that passing it out has merit. Partner's pass marks him either with (a) a hand too weak for game your way, or (b) a misfit. In case (b) he may be sitting on a penalty double that you may miss out on. That's life I think.

[Zelandakh]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 00:08, said:

With doubleton in their suit, passing looks dangerous, but there's no convenient call I can make:(

What is inconvenient about a double?

[helene_t]

I am not sure if partner should bid 2♥ with 2-4 in the majors. With 1444 obviously he should.

A trap pass by partner is unlikely when we hold ♦Kx and opps make a vulnerable 2-level overcall. 3NT is possible but can we bid it? If partner bids a lebensohl 3♣ I suppose we could try 3NT. But I wouldn't be particularly confident about it. We might have only one diamond stopper and no source of quick tricks.

I would double because I am used to playing in fields where the overcall could be on AJxxx in which case it is possible that p has a trap pass. But against decent opps I think pass is better.

[the_clown]

Easy pass for me.

[P_Marlowe]

X.

Same, if they had overcalled 2H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I don't feel like partner is trapping. So we need him to have at least 8 for a game, in which case he won't have support nor 4+ hearts.

If we pass we MIGHT miss a game if pard has 8-9 with 2335 or thereabouts (with any 10+ I think he'd have bid something), but other than that pass seems to have no inconveniences. I'll take my chances with that call.

[rmnka447]

I'm doubling. I'm not ready to concede the hand to the opponents just yet.

I don't think it is likely for partner to hold a ♦ stack and be making a trap pass. However, it isn't impossible. If partner decides to convert to a penalty double, opener's hand has some nice defensive cards.

With a doubleton ♠ and a smattering of points, partner can always comfortably rest in 2 ♠.

It is also possible for partner to be long in a rounded suit and we can find a good resting place there when pard bids his suit.

Also, white vs. red, off 1 in a part score will be good if 2 ♦ makes. Off 2 or off 1 doubled will be good if they can make 3. Even better if we push them to 3 ♦ and beat them when 2 ♦ makes then we'll get a great board.

If we compete further, then it puts the opponents under pressure to figure out what to do. That's good for you in the long run.

[trevahound]

Partner could easily be trapping here. Even if partner isn't happily trapping, partner could have as many as six diamonds (unlikely, but it does happen). Selling out at any form of scoring with this nice hand where we're not playing penalty doubles is like an alien language to me. I would think very unkind thoughts about a partner who didn't do me the courtesy of reopening when short in their suit, nevermind all the extras and favorable colors. I have (unsurprisingly) been set before, so I'm no longer protecting that virtue.

[1eyedjack]

If partner has a trap. then they can likely wriggle out into 2H. Typically East would be sitting there with a weak hand and a string of Hearts that he cannot bid non-forcing until you sit for 2DX.

My long term experience of trying to extract a double on every hand on which partner may have trapped, regardless of the consequences when he has not, have not been very successful, from recollection - no scientific study, mind. But I wonder whether you might not be better reverting to penalty doubles if that concerned.

[neilkaz]

I cannot bear to sell out to 2♦ with this prime 16 count so I X.

[1eyedjack]

I would call it a prime 13 count plus a useless Kx.

Not that that makes X wrong.

[yunling]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-29, 03:01, said:

What is inconvenient about a double?

May play in a 4-2 fit heart contract
And dunno what to do if p comes up with 3♥

[aguahombre]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 21:49, said:

May play in a 4-2 fit heart contract
And dunno what to do if p comes up with 3♥

Why would a partner who didn't neg double or freebid come up with 3H after our reopening double?

However, I go with the one-eyed guy here. They have a good heart runout of 2DX or partner is so weak and fitless we won't do well after I reopen.

However, this all assumes CHO knows what a Negative double looks like.

[yunling]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-29, 22:00, said:

Why would a partner who didn't neg double or freebid come up with 3H after our reopening double?

However, I go with the one-eyed guy here. They have a good heart runout of 2DX or partner is so weak and fitless we won't do well after I reopen.

However, this all assumes CHO knows what a Negative double looks like.

Robson and Segal says it is possible for
♠AQ742
♥63
♦Q54
♣J75
to pass and then jump to 3♠ after p's dbl after 1♥ (2♣) at vul IMPs

So maybe it is also the case for a 2-5-3-3 or 5♥-4♦ 9-10 count here

[aguahombre]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 23:05, said:

Robson and Segal says it is possible for
♠AQ742
♥63
♦Q54
♣J75
to pass and then jump to 3♠ after p's dbl after 1♥ (2♣) at vul IMPs

So maybe it is also the case for a 2-5-3-3 or 5♥-4♦ 9-10 count here

I don't know why, in their (4-cM?) system they wouldn't use a negative double with that hand, but I do know I would. So, the case for or against reopening with the OP hand is largely dependent upon too many possible non-responding hands to be resolved here.

[msjennifer]

Playing negative doubles I am going to reopen with 3 clubs as I am an aggressive bidder.

[mike777]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 00:08, said:

---

With doubleton in their suit, passing looks dangerous, but there's no convenient call I can make:(

I am going to pass

call me a conservative, old fashion, whatever

[Zelandakh]

yunling, on 2014-July-29, 23:05, said:

to pass and then jump to 3♠ after p's dbl after 1♥ (2♣) at vul IMPs

So maybe it is also the case for a 2-5-3-3 or 5♥-4♦ 9-10 count here

You are missing the difference in the suit order. In the R-S example Opener's double is likely to hold spade length as this is the suit that got preempted. With only the red suits they could have rebid 2♦ instead. In the OP case the preempted suit is clubs - with a major two-suiter we would have rebid 2♥. Yes there are hands where other distributions are possible but this affects the expected lengths in the unbid major. That is quite aside from the argument about whether that is really a pass + 3M hand.

I think you want to make this more complicated than it is. This is simply a judgement call about whether we want to compete or not. Some think the the risks are too great, others not. For me, I would sooner give partner a choice between 2♠, 3♣ and 3♥ (by continuing 2♠ over 2♥) than sell out to 2♦ so having the option to stop in 2♥ (or 2♦X) is like a bonus. This would be more of an issue at Game All for me.