[pclayton]

(1♦) - pass (1♥) - pass
(1N) - Double

What hand type would expect for a double here?

[Sambolino]

numero uno; with numero quattro 2d

[andy_h]

Takeout that was unsuitable previous round. 4225 or 4234 or 4144 probably fits the picture.

[ArcLight]

>Takeout that was unsuitable previous round. 4225 or 4234 or 4144 probably fits the picture.

I generally agree. Spade and Club length, with heart shortness.
But the opps can have some clubs or spades, so it should be a decent hand.
The Doubler didnt overcall Spades so wont have 5. They could have overcalled 1 Spade on a 4 card suit, though not everyone does that.

Also, there is a hint that opener didn't raise hearts so might not have 3. Some will raise 1 Heart to 2 if they have 3 hearts.

[kenrexford]

Option #1.

But, would 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2♦ be an ELC???

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 16 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

1/2/3 are all ok.

Yes. It's nice to be presented with a poll where I agree with three of the answers, rather than none. Not that it makes it any easier to vote, of course.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Jun 16 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

[ArtK78]

cherdano, on Jun 16 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 16 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

As I am 52, I take offense to that.



Seriously, if you hold #4 you can bid 2♦ over 1NT. Don't dream that you are going to beat 1NT 6 tricks doubled.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Jun 16 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 16 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 16 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

As I am 52, I take offense to that.



Seriously, if you hold #4 you can bid 2♦ over 1NT. Don't dream that you are going to beat 1NT 6 tricks doubled.

Well, more seriously I think this used to be showing a penalty pass in expert standard. 2♦ would show less I suppose.

[kfay]

If I made this double most of the time I'd be holding hand #2. Probably the rest of the time I'd be holding hand 3.

Personally I'd bid 1♠ on hand 1 usually. Not happily, though.

[rogerclee]

cherdano, on Jun 16 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Well, more seriously I think this used to be showing a penalty pass in expert standard. 2♦ would show less I suppose.

I didn't think this double was played as penalty since takeout doubles were invented.

Are you thinking of an auction like:

(1♦) - P - (1NT) - P
(P) - Dbl

where I agree this is penalty?

Also agree that hands 1-3 are all doubles in this position.

[655321]

cherdano, on Jun 16 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 16 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

1/2/3 are all ok.

Except when partner is older than 50, in this case only 4 is ok.

I confess that I still play this double as penalty.

But it seems I am living in the past, and need to think about modernizing.

The double (as I play it) is probably a stronger hand than 4 - yes, a diamond stack, but probably not a 6 card suit, and likely offshape (no 1NT overcall).

[david_c]

Interesting, I thought the choice was between 1 and slightly-stronger-version-of-4. Either way it shows stuff in diamonds. In any case it really wouldn't have occurred to me to do anything with 2.

[mikeh]

I think the standard for old guys like me (55) is 1. I suspect that the younger folks would tend to agree with Justin. However, I really think that there is a problem mixing 1 with 2&3. The entire point of the double with type 1 is to bring diamonds back into the picture. Partner, with 3=4=4=2 or 2=4=4=3 hand types should bid dianonds opposite type 1 and a black suit opposite 2 and 3. If we include all these types, then we have a problem.. but, to a lesser or greater extent, we have a problem if we limit the double to either 1 or 2/3.. what do we do with the other type(s)? We surely do not want to have to commit to overcalling in a black suit, either originally or (gasp) on the second round in front of an unlimited opp.

[awm]

What does a 2♣ overcall show here? (1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♣)

It seems weird not to have bid 2♣ initially, especially since it's such a space-consuming bid over 1♦ that will make things difficult for opponents. I'm sure some people would define it as "weaker than a direct 2♣ overcall" but this is not at all a pre-balancing situation (opponents have not found a fit) and responder is still unlimited. In fact I think the chances of being penalized here for a crappy overcall are more substantial than in direct position, since opener's hand is very much a known quantity and responder has already tried and failed to find a heart fit.

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)? Then this would be the bid with hands 2/3 and hand 1 doubles (double being basically "takeout of hearts" with a good diamond holding).

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jun 16 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)?

I usually use it to show 4 clubs (or a bad 5), decent points, and denies 4 spades.

Go figure.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jun 16 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

What does a 2♣ overcall show here? (1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♣)

It seems weird not to have bid 2♣ initially, especially since it's such a space-consuming bid over 1♦ that will make things difficult for opponents. I'm sure some people would define it as "weaker than a direct 2♣ overcall" but this is not at all a pre-balancing situation (opponents have not found a fit) and responder is still unlimited. In fact I think the chances of being penalized here for a crappy overcall are more substantial than in direct position, since opener's hand is very much a known quantity and responder has already tried and failed to find a heart fit.

So perhaps 2♣ here shows clubs and spades (probably 4♠ and 5♣ since with 5♠ and a hand worth bidding in this auction we would've overcalled 1♠ over 1♦)? Then this would be the bid with hands 2/3 and hand 1 doubles (double being basically "takeout of hearts" with a good diamond holding).

I actually thought of that when posting earlier... I think it makes some sense, but I've never discussed it with anyone and I don't think that it is, in any way, standard... maybe it should be.

[kenrexford]

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs. That is why I voted #1, but with the possibility of an ELC. In other words, I would have included 2&3 if the longer suit was diamonds. I think that approach better handles Mikeh's legitimate concern of Advancer's duties while enabling the double on more hands.

2♣ = 5+ clubs, 4 spades
X = 4144 or 4♠/5_♦(ELC)
2♦ = natural

Oh, and this is of course what everyone plays and completely standard. LOL

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 16 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

I was thinking the same thing about 2♣ showing clubs and spades, longer clubs.

So what do you do with, say, 2344? 3244? 2245?