[gwnn]

   

[rbforster]

I think a simple rule for delayed doubles is that they are takeout of the last bid suit, spades here (NT gets ignored).

Specifically here after 1C-1S-1N, it makes little sense to have a t/o of C+S, since then you'd have a 5 card red suit which you could have overcalled.

[awm]

I normally play this as showing a good "weak notrump" type hand (like 13-14 balanced) with a strong club holding. Probably "optional penalty of clubs" is the best description. Partner can leave it in with some values (even if the values are roughly evenly divided, the club holding behind the club bidder tends to beat 1NT) or can pull to any five-card suit (including clubs). If holding a lousy hand with no five-card suit, then partner can try 2♣ -- this is almost always a reasonable spot if advancer has four of them, and otherwise 2♣X can be redoubled for rescue to get to partner's four-card red suit.

Basically, I think it is pretty frequent in this sequence that we get a number out of 1NTX, or we get to a good 2-red which might be hard to reach if the person in direct seat passed a second time, and the net tends to compensate for the times that we get stuck at the two-level in something doubled.

True penalty doubles of clubs are few and far between, and when you have one the opening side is annoying likely to raise spades rather than rebid 1NT.

[hanp]

I prefer takeout double of spades.

[Free]

hanp, on May 26 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

I prefer takeout double of spades.

same here

[gnasher]

As far as deciding between the two "takeout" meanings goes, this one's easy, because, as Rob says, the shortest you can be in clubs is 2443.

In the equivalent sequence starting with 1♦, I think double would have to cover a wider range of hands - 2425 and 1453 would both be possible.

[andy_h]

I remember (I think) Josh saying that there are two things he doesn't like doing when undiscussed and this auction was one of them.

[whereagles]

I use the Robson/Segal meta-rule:

"Take-out of the 2nd suit, penalty of the 1st."

[dake50]

Would have 'sandwich 1NT', but they bid that.
Now we are on whatever we have discussed about "sandwich NT".
Eg. losers is jj; defense tricks is kk; points is nn, shapes are Ss.

[aguahombre]

awm, on May 25 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

I normally play this as showing a good "weak notrump" type hand (like 13-14 balanced) with a strong club holding.

Presumably those who agree with that interpretation would also double an opening 12-14 NT to show equivalent pattern and strength, rather than a strong NT hand. Only this time the doubler knows that his lefty has at least enough strength to respond.

It seems rather dangerous to come between two bidders in a potentially misfit auction with a flattish hand. Think I would rather have a real takeout of spades.

[Jlall]

andy_h, on May 26 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

I remember (I think) Josh saying that there are two things he doesn't like doing when undiscussed and this auction was one of them.

I think takeout of spades is completely standard. I have played it as penalty of clubs in some partnerships but that is really not standard imo (though not a bad agreement).

[awm]

aguahombre, on May 26 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Presumably those who agree with that interpretation would also double an opening 12-14 NT to show equivalent pattern and strength, rather than a strong NT hand. Only this time the doubler knows that his lefty has at least enough strength to respond.

It seems rather dangerous to come between two bidders in a potentially misfit auction with a flattish hand. Think I would rather have a real takeout of spades.

It is a little bit different situation.

One issue is that over 1NT (12-14) you really need to have a bid with 15+ balanced, and if you make the same call as you'd make with 13 balanced (where having a bid is less necessary) you get in some trouble.

Another point is that having strength in opener's minor means that certain cards are badly positioned for them. After a weak 1NT (12-14) you don't really know much about opener's shape.