[Siegmund]

You are vul, opps are not. RHO deals and opens a strong notrump.

♠K832
♥QT87
♦75
♣KQ7

You pass, LHO passes, partner doubles, playing Capp. You haven't discussed exactly how strong the double is in balancing seat.

Opener runs to 2♦. Do you do anything? If so, what? If not, what are you hoping partner does next? How many matchpoints do you expect if it swishes and you set 2D for 100 or 150?

[Lurpoa]

♥♥

Siegmund, on 2011-July-08, 21:39, said:

You are vul, opps are not. RHO deals and opens a strong notrump.

♠K832
♥QT87
♦75
♣KQ7

You pass, LHO passes, partner doubles, playing Capp. You haven't discussed exactly how strong the double is in balancing seat.

Opener runs to 2♦. Do you do anything? If so, what? If not, what are you hoping partner does next? How many matchpoints do you expect if it swishes and you set 2D for 100 or 150?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥


Most important: you should agree on the strength of the double in balancing seat. There is little reason to play it different than in second seat: 15-18(19)HP.

This said: it looks like opener has an upgraded 1NT opening with long ♦.
Double by you should be for penalty: not a good idea at this vulnerability, at best it is 2 down, probably only one.
Only one bid seems possible: 3♦ in search for 4 card major.
you will raise his 3 of a major response to game, and pass a 3NT bid.

[GijsH]

There is a lot of reason to play this double weaker as compared with the direct seat: for the same reason that 1♥-pas-pas-dbl is weaker: it is the last chance to compete a part score.
So the double in 4th seat is about 11-16 points and it is by no means certain you will have game on this hand. I would double 2♦ (penalty) showing "cards" and I trust partner to bid again with 16-17 HCP. Even then a game is not certain as opps strong hand is sitting over your strong hand: always a big disadvantage, worth 3 or 4 points.

[FrancesHinden]

What does double mean "playing Capp"?

If double is penalties, I double 2D for take-out (assuming that is my, sensible, agreement).
Actually, I double for take-out pretty much whatever partner's double meant

[shintaro]

With Frances Double for Take Out not getting enough at this Vul with Penalties

[pooltuna]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-July-09, 03:15, said:

What does double mean "playing Capp"?

If double is penalties, I double 2D for take-out (assuming that is my, sensible, agreement).
Actually, I double for take-out pretty much whatever partner's double meant

Yes this is the hand for a TOX of 2♦ but generally meta-agreements seem to be once we have Xed for penalties, Xes of runout suits also are penalty oriented or am I misremembering this.

[shintaro]

pooltuna, on 2011-July-09, 05:59, said:

Yes this is the hand for a TOX of 2♦ but generally meta-agreements seem to be once we have Xed for penalties, Xes of runout suits also are penalty oriented or am I misremembering this.

Still down to partnership understandings we play doubles up to and including 2♠ are T.O. (obviously partner can stand it if they wish

[FrancesHinden]

pooltuna, on 2011-July-09, 05:59, said:

Yes this is the hand for a TOX of 2♦ but generally meta-agreements seem to be once we have Xed for penalties, Xes of runout suits also are penalty oriented or am I misremembering this.

I can't tell you what your meta-agreements are.
If pass is forcing, you can play double as penalties if you want (although I prefer take-out), but if pass were forcing and double penalties, you have an easy pass.
If pass is non-forcing it's much better to play double as take-out.

[Gerben42]

The hand is a perfect T/O Dbl of 2♦ in this situation. If you don't play T/O here then at least pass should be forcing and I choose that.

Suppose it now goes

---

, you should bid 3♦ next as partner doesn't promise 4♠ 100%.

The key to this meta-agreement is that the Dbl of 1NT is not "penalties" but instead "I am strong, it could be our hand". In such cases, I play the XXX convention:

X = points
2nd X = T/O
3rd X = penalty

I prefer it also in redouble sequences like:

---

[Siegmund]

The hand came up online with an unfamiliar partner (whose profile implied he was better-than-clueless), but it seemed to still be an interesting question even with a regular partnership.

Playing with an unknown, and with the usual description of the Capp double being 'penalty-oriented' rather than just 'strong', I do think you have to assume 'doubles of runouts also penalty-oriented' with an unfamiliar partner and no contrary meta-agreement. But this hand is enough to make me question that

3D is an interesting option. I didnt think of that at the table. Maybe I should have. With one fewer diamond I probably would have.

[Cyberyeti]

We have the agreement (reasonably common in my neck of the woods) that once we have doubled 1N, we won't sit 2m undoubled so I would make a forcing pass.