[foobar]

The bidding with your opponents dealing and opening 1♥ (red vs. white if it matters) has gone:

(1♥) - X - (XX) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X

How do folks treat the second X? XX showed at least 10 HCPs and likely denied 3+♥.

[DozyDom]

I suspect the answer might change if I could see my hand, but I'll assume I have values to bid that unforced 1S, which kills off most "bigger" hands as a possibility - there would be rather too many points in the pack if my partner has a hand too strong to overcall on.
I can imagine it being penalty of diamonds, but I'd like to see my hand before making that judgement - If I have a few diamonds that'll make it far less likely; if I have a better hand for my bid that will make it less likely as well.

[helene_t]

DozyDom, on 2018-April-15, 04:03, said:

I suspect the answer might change if I could see my hand, but I'll assume I have values to bid that unforced 1S, which kills off most "bigger" hands as a possibility

1♠ doesn't promise values. Since pass would ask doubler to bid a suit, advancer has to bid his 4-card spades if he has one. Pass followed by 2♠ would be stronger than the direct 1♠.

[FelicityR]

Given that the opponents are known to hold the majority of the points, and, partner could have bid 1♠ on very little, logic dictates that its unlikely to be for a penalty, but more likely shows general values to compete at a part score level, perhaps holding a hand such as ♠KQJ ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣AQJxx.

I'll be honest I am only half-guessing here. Penalty doubles below the level of 2♠ are very rare, and given that the majority of doubles at this level are for takeout, to treat it as a penalty double could be disastrous.

[gordontd]

Your options don't seem very distinct. A had could easily fit into all of the first three of them.

[DozyDom]

helene_t, on 2018-April-15, 04:07, said:

1♠ doesn't promise values. Since pass would ask doubler to bid a suit, advancer has to bid his 4-card spades if he has one. Pass followed by 2♠ would be stronger than the direct 1♠.

Huh, apologies. I knew I wasn't forced but I hadn't realised I should still bid with nothing. Still, larger hand-types for my partner aren't hugely likely nonetheless.

Also, having been corrected, I'm still not convinced by pass then bidding 2S later being a call I'm ever going to make.

[kenberg]

I cannot imagine myself intending that second double as a penalty double. Actually it is hard to imagine any meaning for it. But let's think a bit.

After
1 H - X - XX - 1S
opener would often pass. The redoubler has committed himself to either doubling 1S or bidding again to describe where his strength lies. So why is opener bidding again? I would assume he has about ten cards in the red suits and so is not all that much interested hearing about his partner's clubs. This does not sound to me like I want to double 2D for penalties. So what do I want to do? Well, I might like to find out if partner has five spades. Since I have already doubled once, it seems to me that passing might be a good way to find out if partner has five spades. He might decide to bid them. If I make this second double I am forcing partner to bid regardless of what he has, so his call will be less informative.

If I pass 2D that might be the final contract. That might not be a bad thing at all. So I have real difficulty imaging a case where I would make that second double. Partner is alive, he heard my first double, let's leave it up to him to see if he willingly competes further.

In the actual case, where he did make that second double, I will just do my best. I don't think I am leaving it in.

[Joe_Old]

FelicityR, on 2018-April-15, 04:17, said:

Given that the opponents are known to hold the majority of the points, and, partner could have bid 1♠ on very little, logic dictates that its unlikely to be for a penalty, but more likely shows general values to compete at a part score level, perhaps holding a hand such as ♠KQJ ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣AQJxx.

I'll be honest I am only half-guessing here. Penalty doubles below the level of 2♠ are very rare, and given that the majority of doubles at this level are for takeout, to treat it as a penalty double could be disastrous.

I agree with your reasoning. I would expect that overcaller's most likely intent is to force advancer to choose between 2♠ and 3♣, depending upon whether advancer has 4 or 5 ♠. Picture advancer with xxx xxxxx x xxxx.

However, could this be the 1 in a million AKx x AQJxx Qxxx hand where overcaller is shooting for a matchpoint top (+200)?

[Phil]

Someone is horsing around and its probably LHO. Double should mean "In spite of whats going on, I have a great hand". I'd expect 3235 or 3334 and 18-19.

[cherdano]

Phil, on 2018-April-15, 07:49, said:

Someone is horsing around and its probably LHO. Double should mean "In spite of whats going on, I have a great hand". I'd expect 3235 or 3334 and 18-19.

Yes - double denies four spades and shows a good hand, often balanced and too strong to overcall 1N. Who knows what LHO is doing - anyway, he may have made an honest XX with 9 nice-looking hcp and RHO has a normal minimum 10hcp opener.

[foobar]

foobar, on 2018-April-14, 22:11, said:

The bidding with your opponents dealing and opening 1♥ (red vs. white if it matters) has gone:

(1♥) - X - (XX) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X

How do folks treat the second X? XX showed at least 10 HCPs and likely denied 3+♥.

Thanks for the responses.

The hand that prompted the poll was:

A QJx AKTxxx Kxx

The person holding the hand insisted that the X of 2♦ was correct and that it was intended for penalty. The opponents had their bids and pard held the expected weak hand with ♠.

IMO, the only reasonable bid for this hand over 2♦ is Pass.

[gordontd]

foobar, on 2018-April-15, 11:35, said:

Thanks for the responses.

The hand that prompted the poll was:

A QJx AKTxxx Kxx

The person holding the hand insisted that the X of 2♦ was correct and that it was intended for penalty. The opponents had their bids and pard held the expected weak hand with ♠.

IMO, the only reasonable bid for this hand over 2♦ is Pass.

The real problem stemmed from starting by doubling instead of overcalling 2D.

[maartenxq]

foobar, on 2018-April-14, 22:11, said:

The bidding with your opponents dealing and opening 1♥ (red vs. white if it matters) has gone:

(1♥) - X - (XX) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X

How do folks treat the second X? XX showed at least 10 HCPs and likely denied 3+♥.

It should be penalty, but how can p know it will be down opposite my 0 count. So I vote3d something i.e. lunacy.

Maarten Baltussen

[foobar]

gordontd, on 2018-April-15, 12:06, said:

The real problem stemmed from starting by doubling instead of overcalling 2D.

That too, though I have some sympathy for the initial X.

[msjennifer]

I think everyone will accept that a voluntarily bid below 2S is not doubled to extract penalties against a partner who
has a very poor hand and probably 5 or at least 4 spades,4/5 hearts and about 4 cards in minors.The double of 2D has to be showing a desire to play in at least 2S.It should be a hand somewhat like the one suggested by Felicity.It has to be a distributional spade club two suiter but unable to use Michaels. The depicted hand should have bid 2D instead of a double and later competed with spade suit at what I suspect at 2 level.And another point is one never makes a Tod with a two suited hand in the SECOND seat.

[FelicityR]

foobar, on 2018-April-15, 13:02, said:

That too, though I have some sympathy for the initial X.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Doubling a minor suit at the one level when you have a good six card major suit and a strong unbalanced hand is preferable to doubling 1♥ with a good six card minor suit and unbalanced hand - with a singleton ♠. I wholeheartedly agree with gordontd that if partner has nothing, overcalling with 2♦ is unlikely to be a losing option. Yes, if partner has certain cards you could miss out on a 3NT game, but I believe always bidding what is in your hand: it's the most descriptive call.

[helene_t]

DozyDom, on 2018-April-15, 04:21, said:

I'm still not convinced by pass then bidding 2S later being a call I'm ever going to make.

No I wouldn't make it either unless I had discussed it with partner

A strong hand with spades could also start with a cuebid.

Btw, there's also a school of thought (advocated by AWM on this forum) according to which pass ought to be "to play" rather than "you chose".

[steve2005]

helene_t, on 2018-April-15, 15:40, said:

No I wouldn't make it either unless I had discussed it with partner

A strong hand with spades could also start with a cuebid.

Btw, there's also a school of thought (advocated by AWM on this forum) according to which pass ought to be "to play" rather than "you chose".

Weather doubler has the right hand is certainly debateable
Give double a big enough hand then there will exist a hand where double 1♥. on a ♦ 1 suiter is the right call.
So with that hand, do they now pass 2♦ with 6 or 7 diamonds and huge points or does 3D show that hand now?

[GrahamJson]

I think that any call that requires partner to trust the opponents’ bidding rather than your own in order to deduce it’s meaning is not a good one. Here you have made a take out double of one suit, implying strength in the others. You then double one of these suits. This must be showing willingness to defend, although in this particular sequence it also implies willingness to play in partner’s suit. Something like Axx x AQ10xx KQJx

[GrahamJson]

I think that any call that requires partner to trust the opponents’ bidding rather than your own in order to deduce it’s meaning is not a good one. Here you have made a take out double of one suit, implying strength in the others. You then double one of these suits. This must be showing willingness to defend, although in this particular sequence it also implies willingness to play in partner’s suit. Something like Axx x AQ10xx KQJx