[Huibertus]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-11, 03:40, said:

No, it's I'm minimum and don't actually have clubs, I'd rather not play in a 2-1 or 3-1 club fit redoubled.

I'm minimum is simply irrelevant partner will assume you are anyway when he doubles them, the only relevant thing is you are NOT sub-minimum in which case you should bid something to warn partner.

I don't have clubs is not very relevant either. Opponents will bid, West is saying "I don't have any preference, you pick a suit. East will do so. If it turns out east DID have a penalty double after all and passes, a TD should have a look. And you're not even down yet, I've made 1♣ redoubled with an overtrick in a 3-2 fit after such a sequence (second level imps competition in the Netherlands), it happens and nothing they could do about it.

Now of course if you want to be able to always accurately get +90, +120 or +400 then 1NT to show a minimum if fine, just realize it comes at the expense of letting the opponents of the hook and NOT getting the juicy +200, +500, +800 in these occasions. If both partners agree to such an approach, sure why not, it's not mandatory to get good results as often as you can.

[Cyberyeti]

Huibertus, on 2025-June-11, 14:39, said:

I'm minimum is simply irrelevant partner will assume you are anyway when he doubles them, the only relevant thing is you are NOT sub-minimum in which case you should bid something to warn partner.

I don't have clubs is not very relevant either. Opponents will bid, West is saying "I don't have any preference, you pick a suit. East will do so. If it turns out east DID have a penalty double after all and passes, a TD should have a look. And you're not even down yet, I've made 1♣ redoubled with an overtrick in a 3-2 fit after such a sequence (second level imps competition in the Netherlands), it happens and nothing they could do about it.

Now of course if you want to be able to always accurately get +90, +120 or +400 then 1NT to show a minimum if fine, just realize it comes at the expense of letting the opponents of the hook and NOT getting the juicy +200, +500, +800 in these occasions. If both partners agree to such an approach, sure why not, it's not mandatory to get good results as often as you can.

This doesn't tally with my experience at all, particularly when opps are playing a short club, I've had 1600 out of 1♣xx by passing it out on a partscore board when I was thinking anything I bid would be worse.

And is 11-12 balanced sub minimum ?

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-June-11, 13:01, said:

Just standard 10+, desire to defend. I don't know why you'd want it to promise both majors, but even if it did, why would partner let them off the hook when it's looking like a juicy penalty?

I don't play the X promises both majors. I think this is a continuation of negative doubles and the forcing 1C, "don't leave me in 1C" that some newer players are playing.
"If I've opened a minor and the opponents have doubled, you have to have both majors to XX, because I have to bid. I am not playing in 1CXX"

---

Many North/South pairs struggled with this hand.

[mycroft]

if "I am not passing 1♣XX" then the blue card isn't in my box (or it shows diamonds, as MikeH said). XX for blood says "we have enough cards that we can make 7 tricks even opposite a bad club break, and they can't make anything", and partner saying "I so don't believe you that I am going to take them off the hook just by them saying 'no, partner, you pick'", *especially* to bid the hardest contract to make with a known bad break (surely if you couldn't make 1♣xx, they're putting a club on the table (if they have one, I guess)?) seems fun. Hopefully as opponents I will know that, so I can pass with my 3-count next time.

This seems like the same partner who won't raise 1♣ with AKxxx because "you could have 2", or will rebid 2♣ instead of 1NT with KT832 because "I wanted to let you know I didn't have 2".

Now, I no longer play penalty doubles after 1NT-interference, because the opportunity cost is so high. But when I did, I didn't pull partner's double with xx...

[DavidKok]

6 tricks from the top in 1♣XX, though the 7th isn't trivial (but a double dummy solver claims it can be done - I see a throwin in hearts leading to a trump promotion as a possibility, but I think there's easier lines). But 1NT can also make, so if South finds a pass on that rebid there's still a positive score to be had. East-West don't make anything, and I don't see how they could escape if North just has the skill to pass.

For me the 1♣ opening is good, East's double is good but aggressive on 4333, South's redouble is good, West should very clearly bid 1♦ but maybe they knew their customer, and North cracked under the pressure and made a silly bid with 1NT.

To me the fear of playing in clubs after a short club opening (or in diamonds after a 3+ 1♦ opening) is a bad habit that people would do well to grow out of. North should be especially comfortable, holding four clubs and no other suit of equal length. There's several lessons that can be learned from this hand.
However, being a tad more gentle for a second: it's a rare auction, and the cost wasn't even all that big. A lot of bad bridge habits usually work out fine, and sometimes even work out better than the 'good' habits. I think for people looking to improve this is a good opportunity, but at the same time it's no cause for panic if one does not.

[jillybean]

So...

---

Ops may run but they will be doubled.

[DavidKok]

For me North's double there would be takeout-oriented, but I'd get to 1♦X by West through the slow route 1♣-(X)-XX-(1♦); P-(P)-X-a.p.
I think EW have 6 tricks in diamonds, or are there only 5?

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-12, 15:16, said:

For me North's double there would be takeout-oriented, but I'd get to 1♦X by West through the slow route 1♣-(X)-XX-(1♦); P-(P)-X-a.p.
I think EW have 6 tricks in diamonds, or are there only 5?

Depends how you defend, I can see it making 7 on a bad day