[H_KARLUK]

Scoring: XIMP

---

1NT   DBL   2♥   ?

1NT (12-14 BALANCED)
DBL (PENALTY)
2 ♥ (NATURAL)

[CSGibson]

It depends on your agreements. If you agree that X here is take-out, which appears sensible to me, given that they should have a fit, then you have an easy call.

[mtvesuvius]

Double, which for me is takeout... i.e. WTP.

If Double is penalty, I bid 3♣ which since Lebensohl should apply here, shows values.

[mikeh]

another meaningless problem.. meaningless in the sense that there is no 'right' answer in the absence of information as to agreements... and being told 'we have no agreements' would not assist.. it would merely make this a pure guess.

Most players I know, of reasonable skill level, use takeout doubles here, altho this is not universal to the point that i would feel that partner would always guess the same way, if we had no discussion.

If we played takeout, then this is trivial. if we didn't then I would bid 3♣ or 3♥, depending on my level of aggression at the moment... with no discussion, I wouldn't assume lebensohl here, but 3♣ is not a complete 'nothing' bid... with nothing, I'd pass 2♥.

[Apollo81]

In my experience, playing a double as takeout here is near-universal among good players who have discussed this auction.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Jun 23 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

but 3♣ is not a complete 'nothing' bid... with nothing, I'd pass 2♥.

I have lost a bunch of IMPs for missunderstandings on this matter, is bidding your suit stronger now, or later?.

does it matter if you are vulnerable vs not?
and if RHO bid stayman and you bid 2♦ before you had to commit to the 3 level?

Its the price I have to pay for playing average 20 boards a year vs weak NT .

[jdonn]

LOL at doodlebug

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Jun 23 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 23 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

but 3♣ is not a complete 'nothing' bid... with nothing, I'd pass 2♥.

I have lost a bunch of IMPs for missunderstandings on this matter, is bidding your suit stronger now, or later?.

does it matter if you are vulnerable vs not?
and if RHO bid stayman and you bid 2♦ before you had to commit to the 3 level?

Its the price I have to pay for playing average 20 boards a year vs weak NT .

Depends on your agreements, of course, but a common approach is to play that the double commits the doubling pair to not allowing the opps to play 2minor undoubled, but allows them to play 2major undoubled, for the obvious reason that sometimes partner has a bust and the hand belongs to them.... and 2minor doubled isn't usually expensive... unless they make a lot of overtricks , while 2M doubled is a disaster at imps even without overtricks.

If we had zero agreements, then I would assume that the doubler is not committed to bidding when 2♥ came back around, so advancer needs to bid now with values and can afford to pass only with no biddable values.

All of this discussion just reinforces how meaningless the OP was, without information that we would surely have at the table

[Jlall]

Hence why playing wk nt vs bad players is a huge winner.

[Hanoi5]

I guess in this situatiuon double should be take-out and if it weren't then 3♣.

[H_KARLUK]

I wonder the other guy voted 2♠ like me.

Many questions : Pass forcing? X = t/o? Card-showing? Penalty-negative?
Say pass forcing, does bidding show less? More? That's one reason the weak NT is effective ---opps mostly haven't discussed their methods in detail. So one needs system there.
Tho most play X = t/o but aren't they forced to keep bidding till auction reaches 2♠ or some doubled contract?
It should be obvious with such modest values and stiff ♥ noone wants to defend 2♥--nor to bid 3♦ only to hear 3N, expecting more and better ♦. Then if there's a game it may well be 4♠, if not 3NT. For sure somebody has to bid that suit.

Interesting enough I heard a different plan of a good player. She bids 3♥. A good hand with 4 times ♠. Perhaps convinced herself that there's no book on follow-ups after penalty X vs weak NT. Who knows 3♥ is Stayman on some CC. Might be a bit upgrade to game going for simplfying the bidding.

One thing certain : Partner should have at least a strong NT for X. 3 ♥ may set a GF, also slightly overbid. Maybe not a bad reason to take high road while partner could have most of the missing high cards.

Oh I was nearly forget to tell that there were some players believed 2NT for t/o.

Different stories all around. Thanks for shared your ideas.

[the hog]

I wonder the other guy voted 2♠ like me.

2S is not a good bid. You should bid 2S with any decent 5 card S suit and out.

"Many questions : Pass forcing? X = t/o? Card-showing? Penalty-negative? "

Nearly all players intermediate and above that I know, play X as takeout

"Interesting enough I heard a different plan of a good player. She bids 3♥. A good hand with 4 times ♠. Perhaps convinced herself that there's no book on follow-ups after penalty X vs weak NT. Who knows 3♥ is Stayman on some CC. Might be a bit upgrade to game going for simplfying the bidding."

Anyone who bids like this is not a good player in my book, or is haveing a monstrous abberation.

"That's one reason the weak NT is effective ---opps mostly haven't discussed their methods in detail. "

Wrong! Only in places where the wnt is not played. Any half decent pair will have agreements over a wnt.

"One thing certain : Partner should have at least a strong NT for X."

Weak players will double on 14 or a flat 15. Terence Reese did a lot of work in this area and came to the conclusion that this is a very poor strategy.

"Different stories all around."

Not really. Most, (all) posters here recommend t/o doubles and a refusal to let opps play at the 2 level or undoubled.