[Apollo81]

All vul, IMPs

♠xx
♥Jx
♦AKJxxx
♣Qxx

(1♦)-p-(p)-Dbl
(1♥)-?

[JLOL]

1N obv

[skjaeran]

1NT, no other bid fits the hand. 2NT is an overbid with my values concentrated in RHO's suit.

[gwnn]

I hope this isn't hijacking but I'm wondering about expert std.

1NT is like 9-11?
X would be t/o?

[wclass___]

1N is silly.
(1st) I want to put my RHO on lead.
(2nd) We allow for them to get away from possible low level penalty.
(3rd) I have a better bid

Double = Would have opened 1♦
Not sure about experts and their std. for this situation.

[whereagles]

2NT, if natural 13-14.

Else 1NT (or 3♦ if natural).

[ochinko]

1NT is 8-10, and I am roughly a trick better than that, so 2nt it is.

[Apollo81]

JLOL, on May 16 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

1N obv

This is what I bid, but the other 3 players at the table (1 WC 2 expert) all said after the hand that they would have doubled, and that this action shows a penalty pass of 1♦x.

[aguahombre]

ochinko, on May 16 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

1NT is 8-10, and I am roughly a trick better than that, so 2nt it is.

Aren't advances in notrump after a balancing double subject to the same "king subtraction" as suit advances are? If so, then 1nt here would be about 10-12 (bad 13).

1NT seems right.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on May 16 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

I hope this isn't hijacking but I'm wondering about expert std.

1NT is like 9-11?
X would be t/o?

9-11 is a little light, I would bid it with 12 as well.

X is classically penalty, isn't it? Is there a modern trend towards t/o or is it different when p doubles in balancing seat?

[OleBerg]

helene_t, on May 16 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

gwnn, on May 16 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

I hope this isn't hijacking but I'm wondering about expert std.

1NT is like 9-11?
X would be t/o?

9-11 is a little light, I would bid it with 12 as well.

X is classically penalty, isn't it? Is there a modern trend towards t/o or is it different when p doubles in balancing seat?

Regarding a possible double of 1♥:

I would never expect an expert partner to bid or interpret this as a penalty of diamonds.

It may fit (very) classical definitions, but it is simply not often enough, that it is worth hunting the opponents at the 1-level.

One problem is: How is partner going to react to my double? With 4 hearts, should he leave it in?
That would be very unwise, if I can double with a singleton in hearts. So apart from promising diamonds, it should also promise a number of hearts? Simply to much guessing.

Furthermore, the double in the third seat of a one-level opening, is one of the most wide-ranging bids in bridge. We really need all the bids we can get, to use for constructive auctions, even discarding the hands that has been denied by not overcalling.

As the reopening-double can so easily be bid with only three spades, I would expect it to show exactly 4 spades. (Some diamond length will of course be implied, if the hand has something like 11+ points, but xxxx would be more than enough.)

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on May 16 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

JLOL, on May 16 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

1N obv

This is what I bid, but the other 3 players at the table (1 WC 2 expert) all said after the hand that they would have doubled, and that this action shows a penalty pass of 1♦x.

Double shows hearts the same as 1♦ X 1♥ X, how is that not obvious to them?

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on May 16 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

Apollo81, on May 16 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

JLOL, on May 16 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

1N obv

This is what I bid, but the other 3 players at the table (1 WC 2 expert) all said after the hand that they would have doubled, and that this action shows a penalty pass of 1♦x.

Double shows hearts the same as 1♦ X 1♥ X, how is that not obvious to them?

Didn't occur to me.

Probably even a better use for the double.

I wouldn't put to much faith in the WC and the expert players, as they are obviously easily influenced by seeing the actual hand.

[gnasher]

Without discussion, I'd assume that double showed hearts, but I don't think it's particularly useful.

After 1♦-dbl-1♥, a penalty double is useful because it's common for responder to psyche here. A psychic 1♥ by opener after 1♦-pass-pass-dbl is quite rare, so there's no great need for a penalty double.

[Fluffy]

After you failed to overcall 1♥, double or anything a penalty double in hearts is way less common than a penalty double of 1♦. But doubling 1♥ is more profitable, so IMO both are playable.

Or even a third option, I had a penalty double of 1♦ and now I can sustain to play 1♥ doubled if you want.

[NickRW]

On the example hand I agree 1N seems obvious to me.

On the subsequent discussion, hmm. 1♦-p-p-Dbl;1♥-? I don't see Dbl as meaning penalty for hearts to be a hand that we are at all likely to hold - we didn't overcall 1♥ in the first place after all. Showing a hand with a penalty double of 1♦ is more plausible - except that we can call 1N as here and, the 1♦ horse has bolted already. Seems more useful for it to mean - "yeah partner, I want to compete - pick a black suit" i.e. normal take out. Don't see what getting clever here does for us over the simple meaning.

Nick