[Helmer]

Scoring: IMP

---

Pass - 1♣    - Dbl - 1♦
Pass - 1 NT - Dbl - 2♣
Pass - Pass - Dbl - Pass
???

What would you do?

Thanks all.

...........................




Well I bid like I learned to do - 3rd double is almost certain for penalty.
Pass - what other options did I have? 2 ♥.

2♣ won - because dummy made it possible for declarer to make a spade finess. It might go down if p played otherwise, but then it will all depend on declarer.

......................

Partner had:

Q8xx
AKJ4
AKJ
72

opps declarer:
KJ97
10875
Q8
AKJ

opps dummy:
A106
Q2
10976
Q865

[zzmiy]

blame the pd after the deal?
Would 2nt in this situation mean "pick a minor"?

[Gerben42]

Thou shalt not pass! I think the choices are between 2♦ and 2♥, but certainly not pass. Opponent was just being silly running from 1NT doubled, a contract that I would certainly go for as responder.

In that case you would have had the same problem, just a bit more horrible *g

I think your main mistake was not to think "what does Dbl mean" but "what's going on?"

Opps have a likely 8-card fit, rarely 7. Either way, partner has at most doubleton ♣ and NOT a penalty Dbl.

[helene_t]

No, the double is not penalties. In general, doubles show extra values but do not alter the suggested distribution. Thus the first double is ideally 11+ points and 4441, the 2nd (say) 18+ and 4441, and the 3rd is (say) 21+ and 4441.

If you imagine p has a 4441, 2♦ is the lawful bid. It is true that p does not promise 4 diamonds and also true that RHO has bid them, but OTOH when RHO bids clubs after first having bid diamonds he could easily have club support and wanted a diamond lead, say xxx-xx-KQx-xxxxx.

I voted pass, though. If p has a 4432, defending 2♣ is lawful.

P's third double was wrong. He already showed his hand with his 2nd double.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Mar 5 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

No, the double is not penalties. In general, doubles show extra values but do not alter the suggested distribution. Thus the first double is ideally 11+ points and 4441, the 2nd (say) 18+ and 4441, and the 3rd is (say) 21+ and 4441.

If you imagine p has a 4441, 2♦ is the lawful bid. It is true that p does not promise 4 diamonds and also true that RHO has bid them, but OTOH when RHO bids clubs after first having bid diamonds he could easily have club support and wanted a diamond lead, say xxx-xx-KQx-xxxxx.

I voted pass, though. If p has a 4432, defending 2♣ is lawful.

P's third double was wrong. He already showed his hand with his 2nd double.

Largely agree with this, though I would have bid 2H. Pd's 3rd double is pretty awful.

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

As was alredy say, the 3rd double was ...,
more precise it was an insuult to partner,
because it said, you did not hear my previous
two doubles.
I usually dont play with partners, who thing I
am an idiot.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Mar 5 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

No, the double is not penalties. In general, doubles show extra values but do not alter the suggested distribution. Thus the first double is ideally 11+ points and 4441, the 2nd (say) 18+ and 4441, and the 3rd is (say) 21+ and 4441.

I guess I don't agree.

In particular, I'm wondering how people play the second double. I would think:

(1♣) X (P) 1♦
(-P-) 1NT

and

(1♣) X (1♦) P
1NT X

would show the same hand. There's not a a lot of other ways to show balanced 18+ here. But if that's the case, then the third double doesn't just show more of the same...it ought to be penalty, IMHO. After all, at some point you have to accept that you've gotten your message across.

[FrancesHinden]

It's true that once partner has doubled once, subsequent doubles cannot change the meaning of the first double.

However, when partner doubled 1C, he said he had one of

i) a 3-suited hand with short clubs
ii) a (semi)-balanced hand too good to overcall 1NT
iii) a very strong one-suiter of his own

After 1C x 1D P 1NT partner would

i) pass or possibly bid 2C with a club void or possibly double with say 4441 18-count
ii) double
iii) bid his suit

So partner has shown either a strong balanced hand or a strong balanced-ish take-out double when he doubles 1NT.

Seeing all the hand, partner didn't have his third double.

As a problem with the 0-count over the third double I would pass 2C and hope for the best. Not so much because I am confident it is going off, but because alternatives look worse.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 5 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

It's true that once partner has doubled once, subsequent doubles cannot change the meaning of the first double.

However, when partner doubled 1C, he said he had one of

i) a 3-suited hand with short clubs
ii) a (semi)-balanced hand too good to overcall 1NT
iii) a very strong one-suiter of his own

After 1C x 1D P 1NT partner would

i) pass or possibly bid 2C with a club void or possibly double with say 4441 18-count
ii) double
iii) bid his suit

So partner has shown either a strong balanced hand or a strong balanced-ish take-out double when he doubles 1NT.

Seeing all the hand, partner didn't have his third double.

As a problem with the 0-count over the third double I would pass 2C and hope for the best. Not so much because I am confident it is going off, but because alternatives look worse.

agree

[skjaeran]

I pass.

The last double isn't penalties, it just shows a huge hand. I expect to beat 2♣ if partner's got what he promised. And it's hard to see where we'd do better than defending.

Partner had his two first doubles, but nothing to add to that.

[han]

Agree that partner wasn't close to having his third double (let along the second).

[gwnn]

His second double was so-so, his third double was atrocious.