[helene_t]

Playing 5-card majors, strong 1NT.

1♣-(1♠)-1NT-(pass)
pass-(2♠)-dbl

How penalty-oriented is this double?

[gwnn]

I would assume it's perfectly penalty-oriented. what are we looking for? opener passed 1nt and all..

[paulg]

I don't think opener has a spade void for passing 1NT, so I expect it to be left in almost all of the time.

[peachy]

leave it in. Responder has something to tell: he is maximum with defensive hand.

[wyman]

The only 0 spade hand one could posit for opener (who failed to rebid clubs) is 0=4=4=5, but even with this hand opener should have decided what to rebid over the expected 1S or 1N response (presumably not pass) and should have bid that over 1N, so this hand too is impossible.

In any case, this is 100% penalty oriented, and we should be happy to sit for it, imo.

[mtvesuvius]

Penalty. I'd pass with 1, pull with 0 I think

[ggwhiz]

By agreement, my partnership plays this double as maximal, a black check box on the ACBL convention card.

It shows a defensive max. for the previous bid (balanced). Double of 1♠ would be takeout, not this double.

With almost any balanced minimum, I pass and will probably lead trump as soon and often as I can, at least twice.

With an unbalanced hand, I'm bidding 3♣ to make unless I have a stiff in a red suit and a couple of spades. Especially if the Opps are white, I'm not into a white knuckle defence for down 1, +100 when 3♣ is a near certainty for +110 or 130. Pass might work if they are red at Matchpoints but it's a shot not to be taken at IMP's

If I had a strong potential source of tricks in a 6-card ♣ suit, 3nt could be on but I would NEVER pass 2♠ with anything like that.

All starts with checking the "Maximal Doubles" box on the convention card. The other doubles check box there in black that I love is "cards". Duh! Denies a yarborough?

[gwnn]

3♣ is a near certainty? what are you playing partner for? you passed 1NT remember?

[ggwhiz]

A freely bid 1nt for us promises 8 hcp's minimum. You are allowed to have 7 and too much caffein but it's your problem.

Probably not mainstream anymore but when we learned bridge, 1♣ - p - 1nt promised 8-10 and you bid 1♦ reluctantly with less. Same flavour, our nt bids are constructive hands. We pass with less and opener re-opens aggressively.

[gwnn]

but does it make 3♣ a near certainty?

x
Axx
Kxxx
AQxxx

do you bid 3c with this?

[ggwhiz]

I opened 1♦ with that and "near" certainty doesn't mean always. If I go down in 3 clubs, they were often making 2 spades doubled on the same bad distribution (for us).

[the hog]

gwnn, on 2011-February-08, 16:46, said:

but does it make 3♣ a near certainty?

x
Axx
Kxxx
AQxxx

do you bid 3c with this?

This is a 1D opening. Do you really want to rebid those tatty clubs?

[655321]

the hog, on 2011-February-08, 18:51, said:

gwnn, on 2011-February-08, 16:46, said:

but does it make 3♣ a near certainty?

x
Axx
Kxxx
AQxxx

do you bid 3c with this?

This is a 1D opening. Do you really want to rebid those tatty clubs?

This thread should show you that these days you are very much in the minority opening 1♦ with a longer club suit.

[Lurpoa]

I voted zero.
Which doesn't mean I will always leave it in. By the way: the less spades I have, the more partner "could" have, the more reason to leave the double in.

The fact he did bid 1NT, limits his hand. I will count him for 3 sure tricks.

I will need 2.5 quick tricks to leave it in. This would be the case on a normal opening.
However if my opening was weak, but distributional, I will bid.

could this be called a DSIP double ? Cooperative ?
The question I ask mysel here: if this is for IMPS: is that double really usefull ? Maybe if they are vul, yes.


(DSIP=Do Something Intelligent Partner).

[gwnn]

ggwhiz, on 2011-February-08, 16:43, said:

I opened 1♦ with that and "near" certainty doesn't mean always. If I go down in 3 clubs, they were often making 2 spades doubled on the same bad distribution (for us).

how many clubs does your partner promise? I don't understand anything. I am not married to the Law but I don't think it's good bridge to bid with a 7 card fit over their (alleged) 8 card fit, and it sounds like wishful thinking to assume you make 'almost always'.

finally, it is not a "bad distribution" that we bid 3♣ over 2♠ with a 5-2 fit and went down, it's just a bad bid. when neither side has a fit, it is not unlikely that neither side makes anything.

[ggwhiz]

1. I'm passing with 2 or more spades.

2. The only shape pard can have that matters with only 2 clubs is 4-3-4-2. If they are 3-3-5-2, I'm not defending 2 spades doubled against a nine card fit.

3. I have a minimum opener and pard knew that before doubling but didn't know much else. Certainly unable to support clubs with 3. I'm the one that knows if my min. is defensive or not.

If I have say AKJxx(x) in clubs with a couple of Queens and a STIFF spade, all it takes is a stiff club (or anything else) in one of their hands to have a shot at making it.

This whole Maximal double thing is a specific partnership agreement (DSIP)and I never put it forward as standard. There is a reason you have to specify it on the convention card.

Even if it's not to your taste to play it, you will have to play against it and should know what it is.

For example, p - p - 1♣ and the rest of the auction proceeds as in your example except your partnership has bid the spades. IF your opponents play maximal doubles and the 3rd seat 1♣ opener was at favorable vul you should at least consider bidding over a 3♣ runout bid.

[bluecalm]

In my opinion it's clear pass unless somehow I passed 1NT with 0-4-3-6 (which I wouldn't).
Amount of overthinking in the simplest of situations in this thread amaze me

[FrancesHinden]

It's actually a very strange auction. From responder's point of view, he didn't want to defend 1Sx, his side could have the minority of the HCP and a minority of the spades, yet he still wants to defend 2Sx?

The auction 1C 1S 1NT 2S P P x is more common.