[FrancesHinden]

I want to go back a step.
What should the double of a 4D transfer response to 1NT mean?
OK, without discussion it's lead directional.

But:

I play 1NT P 2D (xfer) double as showing a strong, usually balanced, hand.
I play the double of a 4D Texas opener (good 4S pre-empt) as showing a strong, usually balanced-ish hand (double then double penalty-ish, pass then double pure take-out).

So it's not inconceivable that one should play something similar: 1NT P 4D (x) could be played as one of
- strong balanced (less useful after a strong NT or if 4D shows a slam try)
- take-out of hearts

I rather like take-out of hearts. That implies you hold some diamonds so aren't going to play there, and it allowed partner bid over 4H, or make a t/o double, with impunity. Yes, I know you could bid 4H as t/o (Michaels) but it's much safer just to double. Wouldn't you just love to be able to act at favourable holding

Kxxxx
-
KJxxx
Axx

with virtually no risk?

[pclayton]

I suppose it depends on the vulnerability.

If its save-time, then double should be a save suggestion - at least 5 pieces. If its adverse, then double can be whatever you want led - including stiff aces. It depends on the rest of your hand of course.

[Trpltrbl]

4♥ is a 3 suited TO.
4NT is 2 suited TO for the minors
Double is 2 suited TO ♠ and minor.

GBB

[kenrexford]

A passed hand cannot suggest a save, logically, so the double by that person can be anything, even mild interest in the lead.

A save against a strong notrump into a five-level contract seems remote, so I'd also take a double of a 4H transfer to spades, after a strong NT, as mild+ lead directive.

A 4S save after strong 1NT-P-4D seems plausible, buty will 4D, showing diamonds and spades, be of use? Naw!!! Just whip out 4H and be done with it. So, any double after a strong 1NT should be mild+ lead directive.

How about Texas after a weak 1NT, doubling by an unpassed hand? Assuming that Michaels would be useful here in resolving takeout scenarios, and pass...double to handle "optional," the immediate double could logically show a weak takeout (delayed double being defense-oriented/penalty) or lead-directional. Not sure which would be best, but my heart says that an immediate double should suggest declaring and a delayed double defending. Fortunately, few playTexas after a weak NT.

[Blofeld]

kenrexford, on Oct 12 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

A passed hand cannot suggest a save, logically, so the double by that person can be anything, even mild interest in the lead.

Could you explain the logic here? I can't follow it.

[kenrexford]

Why can't a passed hand suggest a save?

First, you passed. With values to justify a possible save, you normally would have opened, perhaps preemptively. If the double suggests a save into diamonds, you presumably have diamond length. Normally, 3D would have been opened on a sufficient hand -- otherwise, you need a huge offensive hand from partner to justify a 5D sac.

Second, even if possible to construct such a hand (probably requiring four of the other major), these hands often feature partner making his own competitive call, over 1NT. Responder's long suit, couple with your 6-4 pattern, leaves a lot of clubs. Your mutual weakness suggests values to justify a call from partner.

Third, even if one can construct a hand appropriate to suggest sacrifice, partner passing, the utility of such a meaning is vastly less likely than the utility of a simple lead-director without concern for a phantom sacrifice.

[mikeh]

I would certainly expect some length to go with some high cards, and a strong dislike of any other lead: so not much in the non-trump suits.

KQ10x is about the worst I would hold.

I do not believe that over texas this should 'suggest' a save: I think partner is permitted to consider a save but if so does it based on his shape and at least a 5 card fit: since doubler (for me) should hold 4 but does not promise any more than that.

I would certainly double 4♦ with xxx xxx KQJ10 xxx at any vulnerability, and obviously this is not exactly textbook shape for a save

However, with your hand, I like the save very much. Partner's ♦ are a little less than I would expect: to me asking for a ♦ lead from xxx into my AJ9x with declarer sitting behind me with power is poor: I'd rather you made your ordinary lead, which might save a tempo... but it is very close.

Your hand is great for taking the save: shape, good fit, AQx over the likely King, partner probably not ultra short in ♥ etc. There is some risk of 800, but I'd expect 500 and there is that wonderful upside of +100.

I used to play disaster-avoidance bridge, but learned 10 years ago that disaster-creating bridge is both more fun and more productive: your 5♦ created the potential for them to have a disaster and it worked: good bid.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Oct 12 2005, 03:02 PM, said:

Why can't a passed hand suggest a save?

First, you passed.  With values to justify a possible save, you normally would have opened, perhaps preemptively.  If the double suggests a save into diamonds, you presumably have diamond length.  Normally, 3D would have been opened on a sufficient hand -- otherwise, you need a huge offensive hand from partner to justify a 5D sac.

Second, even if possible to construct such a hand (probably requiring four of the other major), these hands often feature partner making his own competitive call, over 1NT.  Responder's long suit, couple with your 6-4 pattern, leaves a lot of clubs.  Your mutual weakness suggests values to justify a call from partner.

Third, even if one can construct a hand appropriate to suggest sacrifice, partner passing, the utility of such a meaning is vastly less likely than the utility of a simple lead-director without concern for a phantom sacrifice.

While this is articulated very well, it makes no sense.

First, you passed. With values to justify a possible save, you normally would have opened, perhaps preemptively. If the double suggests a save into diamonds, you presumably have diamond length. Normally, 3D would have been opened on a sufficient hand -- otherwise, you need a huge offensive hand from partner to justify a 5D sac.

Why do I need 7 to suggest a save? Why can't we find our 5-4, or 5-5 or 6-4 save?

Second, even if possible to construct such a hand (probably requiring four of the other major), these hands often feature partner making his own competitive call, over 1NT. Responder's long suit, couple with your 6-4 pattern, leaves a lot of clubs. Your mutual weakness suggests values to justify a call from partner.

If we are saving, I don't want my pard to have defense. If anything, the lack of a call over 1N suggests less values, not more.

Third, even if one can construct a hand appropriate to suggest sacrifice, partner passing, the utility of such a meaning is vastly less likely than the utility of a simple lead-director without concern for a phantom sacrifice

I might agree with this if you had some justification. Hard to quantify lead-directing benefits versus sac potential in a vacuum. I (still) think that vulnerability plays a major role here.

[pigpenz]

I know one of the problems i always run into is what is
1nt pass 2♦ 2♥
1nt pass 4♦ 4♥

these should be some form of 2/3 suit take out

so double is either purely lead directing or one suited with diamonds, or like you say can be balanced 15-17.

[Blofeld]

Don't think that's necessarily true, pigpenz.

In particular, as Frances pointed out, after (1N) P (4♦), bidding 4♥ is dangerous, whereas if you can make a 'takeout' double then it's much safer to suggest a save.

I like the question of whether it's permissible to double with a void. I wouldn't at the table for fear that partner would sacrifice on our 'fit', but I'm not sure whether it ought to be permissible. My inclination is that suggesting a save somewhere is going to be more useful that lead directing with a void.

[Al_U_Card]

pigpenz, on Oct 13 2005, 11:32 AM, said:

I know one of the problems i always run into is what is
1nt pass 2♦ 2♥
1nt pass 4♦ 4♥

these should be some form of 2/3 suit take out

I use a michaels type bid so that after 2D, 2H shows S and clubs, 2NT is the minors and 3C is D and H.

As far as lead direction goes, at the higher level, the less you need lots of cards in the transfer suit but the more you want it to be headed by the ace.

[pigpenz]

trouble is if you double with a void and then it goes recrank then you better have a place to go

[cherdano]

Back to the original question (assuming X is lead direct): I think doubling with a void (or singleton A) is too dangerous. However, wouldn't you always like X with AK or KQT? I don't think requiring a 4-card suit so that partner can save with a 5-card suit is the right percentage thing. Of course, it is still very likely that partner has a 4-card suit, so you might still gamble 5♦ with distribution and a 5-card suit.

Arend

[han]

I think that you can play it both ways: lead directing with or without a suit. I prefer it to be a pure lead-director at the 4-level but showing at least a five card suit at the 2-level (assuming 1NT is strong).