[pclayton]

Played with Gnome on Thursday / Friday in San Diego and had a nice time. One auction came up that seemed interesting:

1N - (pass) - Pass - (2♣)
pass - (2♦) - double..

1. 1N is 14-16
2. 2♣ is capp
3. 2♦ is pass / correct.

What is your understanding of the double? Is it some 6-7 point hand short in diamonds?

Or is it a hand with diamonds length (probably 5, since the hand didn't transfer initially) that wants to penalize 2♦ or compete to 3♦?

[mike777]

It seems x must be penalty otherwise how do we double 2d to play?

[jdonn]

2♦ is an artificial bid so double shows diamonds. Frankly this seems obvious to me. The purpose is not really to double them if they have diamonds, it's to compete in diamonds yourself when they have some other suit.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

2♦ is an artificial bid so double shows diamonds. Frankly this seems obvious to me. The purpose is not really to double them if they have diamonds, it's to compete in diamonds yourself when they have some other suit.

Ditto.

Without discussion, doubles of artificial bids show that suit and willingness to compete there.

[helene_t]

Without discussion, this should be t/o with short diamonds, because our doubles on other pass/correct bids (Multi, Muiderberg) are t/o as well.

I'm not saying this is necesarily "best" but it's better to have some agreement than no agreement.

[whereagles]

I have a nice definition for dbls of pass/correct bids:

If LHO passes, it's take-out
If LHO corrects, it's pen



Not perfect, but playable.

[inquiry]

2♦x shows ♦'s. QED

[pclayton]

2♦ is more or less forced, so no one would argue that the meaning would probably be considered as penalty.

What I'm wondering about is whether or not its better to be played as takeout. You have the opportunity to penalize 2♦ when pard has a stack over the bidder. Furthermore, if pard doesn't have a stack, we will outrank them and can compete to a 4-4 major suit fit.

If LHO has diamonds, and double shows diamonds, you are under the bidder, which is less appealing.

I discussed this sequence with Justin at San Diego, and he mentioned that the only pair he knows that plays it as TO are Greco / Hampson, so they've at least considered the meaning.

[awm]

I think this double should definitely be takeout of diamonds.

If responder has a hand with diamonds, he will always get another chance to bid. Normally the 2♣ bidder will correct to his real suit. Otherwise, opener almost surely has a balancing double available. But if responder has a takeout double of diamonds, he will never get to bid again. He will pass, 2♣ bidder will pass, and opener has the wrong shape to balance (plus he doesn't know that partner has any values).

The general rule is that doubles of "pass/correct" type bids where bidder's partner often has the suit named and will be passing, should be takeout.