[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, on Jun 16 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

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?

Pass?

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jun 17 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

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.

When I double with Hand 1, my objective is to offer clubs and spades. My diamond length is incidental (although logic says I must have two, so partner is welcome to bid them with five himself).

I can't see why anyone would want to be able to show four diamonds here. Opener has at least four, and responder has two unless he is specifically 4414, 3415, 2416, etc, so we're unlikely to have a fit and when we do it's not breaking well.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 16 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 16 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

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?

Pass?

Yeah, that works. I might double with the right 3244.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 17 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 17 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

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.

When I double with Hand 1, my objective is to offer clubs and spades. My diamond length is incidental (although logic says I must have two, so partner is welcome to bid them with five himself).

I can't see why anyone would want to be able to show four diamonds here. Opener has at least four, and responder has two unless he is specifically 4414, 3415, 2416, etc, so we're unlikely to have a fit and when we do it's not breaking well.

In theory, this is true. However, low-odds options can still occur. More importantly to me, however, is that the auction works smoothly this way and is translatable to nebulous diamond sequences, where the importance of showing diamonds is elevated. Consistency is good.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Jun 16 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

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

With a weak hand with lots of diamonds I would just pass. P who is short in diamonds would probably have bid something if he had values. So responder rates to have values and my 2♦ bid will not make it more difficult for them.

[awm]

I think part of the point is to be able to penalize 1NT. People open on all kind of garbage these days (balanced 11 anyone?) and respond super-light. Having a "pure penalty double" of 1NT is probably overkill, but it might be nice for double to suggest a hand where defending is an option. Typically having diamonds behind the diamond bidder, not much in hearts in front of the heart bidder, and reasonable values will be key here. The issue is that if you will frequently double on a ten-count with 4-2-2-5 shape (i.e. nothing in diamonds and not much for values) then it becomes hard for partner to convert the double. If your double shows something like hand 1, then you expect partner to leave it in with good hearts and some points.

Obviously there is some value in being able to compete with hands 2 and 3, but you really want to be able to distinguish fairly weak shapely hands with no substantial interest in defending from hands where you really want to defend if partner has something half-decent.