[pclayton]

♠KQJT ♥void ♦AQxxx ♣QTxx

1♦ by you - (pass) - 1♥ - (2♥ natural) - ?

What do you bid and do you have any agreements here?

[ArtK78]

Negative Double.

One has to treat the overcall the same as any other overcall or else your entire competitive bidding structure is thrown under the bus. If partner wants to convert my negative double to penalties, so be it. He should not be expecting any help in the trump suit from me.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Feb 22 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

Negative Double.

One has to treat the overcall the same as any other overcall or else your entire competitive bidding structure is thrown under the bus.  If partner wants to convert my negative double to penalties, so be it.  He should not be expecting any help in the trump suit from me.

You normally play negative doubles by opener? So 1♣ p 1♠ 2♦ X would show four hearts? Uh....ok.

Seems to me double should be penalties (most often 18-19 balanced) and g/b 2NT should be on. I wouldn't particularly mind bidding 2♠ here, there are many competitive auctions where reverses can be stretched to not get blown out by the overcaller.

[Cascade]

We had a similar problem a while back

Similar Situation

On your auction we have the meta-agreement that if they bid a suit partner has bid or implied then double is penalty.

On my auction from the other link where the bidding had gone (1♥*) 1♠ (2♠) ? * transfer opening showing spades could be canape we had conflicting meta agreements - penalty double of partner's suit and takeout doubles when they bid and raise so I didn't know what to do.

I had a similar auction another time where my RHO jumped to game in partner's suit - something like 1♦ (Pass) 1♥ (4♥) ... I foolishly assumed that he was well fixed in hearts and therefore that partner had at least some values outside hearts and with my heart void confidently bid a slam. RHO turned out to have bid 4♥ on used tram tickets and this was not a success.

Back to your problem if you play penalty doubles then you need to also have an agreement about how to force and whether 3♥ is a cue-bid. I am not sure we have sorted these things out properly yet.

Maybe double should be action - more takeout but with the expectation that partner will pass a lot since she has already bid that suit.

It seems to me that 3♥ should be a cue asking for a stopper or the start of better things with a very distributional hand.

[helene_t]

In Netherlands I played support doubles as everyone else so I suppose double would be penalties (not necesarily based on three hearts obviously )

Here in England we don't play support doubles and I hope my partners would agree with Art. Haven't discussed it though.

But the meta-agreement that a double of a suit implied by p in penalty, as Wayne mentions, also makes a lot of sense.

Given that the auction is rare I would like to play whatever is easier to remember.

[rbforster]

My card says support doubles through 2♥, so I guess I'm supposed to pass or bid since I don't have 3+♥ .

[kenrexford]

I'm not so sure, myself, why this specific auction should negate the usual preference for high ODR doubling theory. Odds seem to strongly favor Opener more often having a hand with short(ish) hearts and no clear direction.

As to the idea of Opener using negative doubles. I'm not so sure that this is an insane view, personally having used these in many auctions in the context of many systemic approaches. The classic is when you actually play (I do with some folks) a "montreal relay" 1♦ response to 1♣. Little makes sense after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠ except for Opener to use a negative double with four hearts. If it makes sense in that sequence, I would venture that it makes sense in many similar sequences.

Practically speaking, there is nothing all that unusual about a "negative double" by Opener. In the classic sense, a negative double is "negative -- ain't gots these," or, a high ODR double, at least distributionally high as to the ODR. It is the support double that runs contra this theory, it seems, insofar as the support double seems, at least definitionally, only tied to the length of the support suit and not to the overall pattern. Judgment seems to dictate limitation of the use of the support double for high distributional ODR, but then why do so many take a pass as a denial? Makes little sense to me.

In sum, I cast my vote for a double as the "should mean this" call, but an apparent inability to do this because of CW theory. Given CW theory, 2♠?

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

You normally play negative doubles by opener? So 1♣ p 1♠ 2♦ X would show four hearts? Uh....ok.

Yes, and this is the reason why I win and you lose

[P_Marlowe]

X, neg.

Of course partner will pass this one with
a fairly high frequency, and the question
you need to answer to yourself is, do you
really want, that partner does this?

I would say, yes, I have enough add. high
cards for compensation, but I will scan the
answers for counter arguments.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mcphee]

To my simple mind this is a support dble so I would pass with this hand and await partner.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 24 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

mcphee, on Feb 24 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

To my simple mind this is a support dble so I would pass with this hand and await partner.

support X? So with 4 hearts you bid 3H? lol.

http://web2.acbl.org...5spring/db5.pdf

Scan down to Page 6, top right side of page.

[jdeegan]

Pass seems obvious. Dbl cannot possibly be negative - the situation is like the cooperative competitive double where a double shows tolerance for defense - two cards in this case.

The hand looks a lot like a misfit. We may not have the balance of strength. If partner doubles 2♥ indicating strength and some good hearts, I can pull to 2♠. If partner bids something else, I should know what to do.

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Feb 22 2008, 09:54 PM, said:

Negative Double.

One has to treat the overcall the same as any other overcall or else your entire competitive bidding structure is thrown under the bus. If partner wants to convert my negative double to penalties, so be it. He should not be expecting any help in the trump suit from me.

I guess you mean take out double, not negative double. A negative double is a double my responder after an overcall. Sure, it's semantics, but one should really not use misnomers.

I'd prefer double as penalty here, but can also see the merits of using it as t/o.

For me it's between pass and 2♠ here. 2♠ is overbidding slightly, but I can live with that.

[Apollo81]

2♠, I dont see any alternative -- double should mean we want to defend and pass should mean that we would not be unhappy if partner also passed