[ardf10987]

Unknow, but EXPERT partner... after this start 1NT (2♦)... you have

Scoring: MP

---

What's your bid over natural ops 2♦?

[ArtK78]

2♠.

[helene_t]

2♠. Even if dbl is t/o (which we can't assume here), I would be worried about p passing a double which I think he should generally do with a 4-card diamonds.

[awm]

Perhaps the best answer is "it depends." If you have agreed that double is takeout then double is a reasonable choice.

However, if you have not discussed this auction (or have agreed that double is penalty) then you must bid 2♠. The standard meaning of double (in most places) is penalty.

[jtfanclub]

I play X as takeout, but I really want a tiny more playing strength to do so. I should feel comfortable if partner passes with no 4 card major and 4 diamonds. I don't here.

[han]

I would bid 2S with any partner.

[jdonn]

2♠ even if double is takeout. Partly since you have five of them, and partly since singleton diamond + no ace or king = inadequate defense if partner passes. If partner is 2-4 or even 2-5 in the majors it's just too bad.

[neilkaz]

2♠ for me as well.

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Nov 12 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

The standard meaning of double (in most places) is penalty.

This could be one of those areas where the standard meaning is not adopted by the majority.

[ardf10987]

Thanks all for you help, also if contrary to my feelings on this matter...

Why I think dbl is a better choice?

Simply...
a ) when we have a stack in their colour, we can anyway play 3NT (so any loss is a "differential loss", often near marginal)
b ) when we have a t/o dbl, we will play our best colour and, sometime, even a game opposite no point in ♦. This is particolary true when we open 1NT with possible 5 cards M. I'm sure you would NOT like to play 2♠ opposite Ax RF10xx xxx ARx...

Anyway I must some excuse to my occasional p, because I thought dbl as t/o was the expert meaning, and I was wrong. It happens... rarely neh?

[kenrexford]

Since the question carried a secondary question regarding restricted choice, which I find fascinating, I'll bite on that.

The idea seems to be that if I double for takeout and partner bids 2♥, will restricted choice "protect" my decision somehow.

This is interesting. We assume that partner will bid hearts with longer hearts, spades with longer spades, but perhaps either with equal length. Therefore, if that assumption is correct, then we can assume that a 2♥ call has maybe a 66% reliability that hearts are longer.

However, I think the default is actually to bid hearts with 3-3 regardless of which major is better. This would kill the restricted choice analysis, because Opener does not truly exercise choice when picking between equal threes.

In some situations, this might actually work, such as where we expect partner to just pick, dammit. I don't think this is one of them. But, perhaps a 2♦ overcall of a 1NT opening for the majors? Even then, I think the default is for a 2♥ call in case there is a very loud and enthusiastic double. Maybe closer, though.

[jdonn]

Even if you get past partner passing your double, he is sure not going to find the right suit when he is 3334 or 3343. You can't have everything and it seems to me you are catering to miracles instead of being practicle.

[ardf10987]

Playing t/o dbl doesn't garantee founding best fit.

When ops open 4♦ and we are 5♠-4♥ with some points we dbl... we dbl and hope...
Sometime p has 4+ cards M (which is fine)... sometime he has 3-3 and we will play our worst M.
But bidding 4♠ over 4♦ is by no means better, because it's easy to find others hands when our p will have 2♠ and 4+♥... or would have passed the dbl with a ♦ stack.

But in the long run p will bid some colours we have... and anyway, in the worst situation, HE will go down...

[ASkolnick]

After running simulations, between 16-17% of the time he will be 3-3 in the majors, and if he is 3-2 in the majors, your 5-2 may well play better than your 4-3 with such a weak suit, this happens 9% of the time. With this particular hand, it seems that 2♠ would be the better call.

[han]

Let me repeat that I think 2S is better than double when playing TO doubles. I don't like to double with a stiff in their suit and marginal values because I want partner to convert frequently. Since we have 5 spades here I don't need to.

[655321]

Agree with 2♠. Also agree that double (takeout) with a singleton when partner has opened 1NT is not great because partner will happily pass with many (most) 4 card holdings in their suit.

[1eyedjack]

655321, on Nov 12 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

Agree with 2♠. Also agree that double (takeout) with a singleton when partner has opened 1NT is not great because partner will happily pass with many (most) 4 card holdings in their suit.

Not my partner. It is true that opener might feel "fixed" by the double. In such cases he might be inclined to pass, particularly if it is a minor suit so they are not in game (although that would stilll be a zero at MP if it makes). But in my partnerships (as with the OP) double does not promise a game try, only willingness to compete, and it will regularly have a singleton (indeed will rarely have more than 2 in their suit). On the Garozzo principle I share the concerns of others when doubling on a void, but doubler willl pretty reliably hold either singleton or doubleton. Opener will stretch to find a bid rather than stretch to find an excuse to pass, holding a poorly placed 4 card trump holding.

And yes, he will sometimes pull it when it would have been right to pass. It is a numbers game.

For me, swap the minors and over 2C it is a clear double. As it stood I am ambivalent but tend toward 2S. If partner has 5 hearts and doubleton Spade I will feel sick, but then I often feel sick.

[ardf10987]

Okok... I'll give you the entire hand, just and only for history.

Scoring: MP

---

After 1NT (2♦) X (pas)...
my p opted to pass and we collect 2♦ x +1. 2♠ in this hand would have been fine.
Till now I don't know why 2♦ (not alerted) was bid with a red 5/5... but our problem here was not their bidding style...

[1eyedjack]

South does not have the best possible hand to make a double by North suitable. It certainly makes it harder to end in 2S, although with the South hand I would rather bid 2S than pass 2DX. In practice I may well end up in 3C (via 2N lebensohl with min), which is not a great success either. Like I say it is a numbers game, so I do not know that the precise hand is or can ever be particularly instructive. Am still wondering where restricted choice comes into play.

[jdonn]

You mean to say when you doubled partner passed, but due to your singleton diamond and complete lack of tricks there was no chance to set? Who could have guessed!