[gwnn]

How would you describe the second double in the following sequence:

p-p-1♦-p
1♠-p-p-X
1NT-2♣-p-p
X

?

[Echognome]

I would describe it as 'insane' (to quote mikeh).

I'm a passed hand and all of the sudden I think I should be bidding three times!

Partner obviously had a minimum for his pass of 1♠ and it looks as though righty was sitting on a penalty double of partner's diamonds. Why I'm going from our likely 4-3 (but maybe even 4-4) spade fit to 1NT seems odd. And now I'm doubling 2♣?

Sorry, I just can't think of a hand.

[kenrexford]

Partner's 1♦ opening could be sick. With four spades in support, he might pass a second time because he is that sick.

I might be very strong, contextually, but with 4-4 in spades/diamonds.

So, double seems to be takeout.

[skjaeran]

I'd never ever try this vs a 3rd seat opener - this is just sick. I don't really know what hand I'd have to rebid 1NT here, and I can't imagine any hand to follow up with a double afterwards.

[cherdano]

Double is penalty, of course, after we have implied H+C with 1N how on earth can we make a takeout double? With 4 diamonds, we can and should bid 2♦ at the second and 3rd round. Of course, it is very hard to imagine a suitable hand for the double. Maybe Kxxx ATx xx KJT9.

Btw, I don't think we can assume RHO's double shows a penalty pass, it could just be takeout for hearts and clubs.

Edit: Hmm, just realized such a hand would always XX instead of 1N. Ok, I really can't think of a hand.

[Fluffy]

I think it is penalty, but not as strong as Arend says because that would be a clear redouble, the hand in question must be one that by no means wants partner to bid game (otherwise redouble the roudn before), the only one that makes sense to me is 4315 with some good and well placed honnors (7-10 HCP)

[FrancesHinden]

According to my systemic agreements it's penalty.
But I don't think the auction exists: why didn't he redouble 1NT?
However I can't see take-out as a possible hand type either, if he wanted to bid, he would bid.

[foo]

gwnn, on Jun 19 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

How would you describe the second double in the following sequence:

p-p-1♦-p;
1♠-p-p-X;
1N-2♣-p-p;
X

psychotic or drug-induced.

[kenrexford]

OK, this does make no sense.

If it were to have any possible meaning, I have one that is plausible. If 2♦ now would show a 4♠/3♦ hand (plausible), then double could show the same thing. Why two ways? Well, 2♦ vocalizes the diamonds and is a strong diamond way to bid 2♦. Double sounds more like spades. Why the difference? In case partner is on lead against 3♣.

So, it now seems obvious. When I double, I have four spades, three diamonds, and a preference for a spade lead over a diamond lead if the opponents bid 3♣. Had I bid 2♦, I'd have a preference for a diamond lead against 3♣. Easy stuff.

[whereagles]

I don't think this is pure penalty because with such a hand I'd probably pass and take the sure plus on what's clearly a partscore hand.

So I'm inclined into dbl = "got a good passed hand, pls do something".

[SoTired]

100% penalty. We have both bid and found a (semi) fit. We want to warn partner not to compete further. Sometimes when the opps compete at the wrong time in a dbl misfit hand, we have to nail them.

[gwnn]

I held

AJxx Qxx xx QJTx

yea 1NT was a little silly... anyhoo, 2♣ would have been -500 or -800 and 2♥, -200 or -500. this was MP.