[Hanoi5]

Bidding goes:

2♦* 3♦ 3♥ Pa
3♠ Pa Pa X

Where 2♦ shows weak in a Major.

[karlson]

Takeout.

[helene_t]

I voted penalty but on further thought that is probably wrong.

Over a natural (2♠)-3♦-(3♠) we play responsive doubles, and over a multi sequence (2♦)-x-(3♥) we play responsive, too.

So I think here a hand with four spades could have doubled 3♥, so that is not what the delayed double shows.

Besides, a dbl by overcaller is obviously t/o and we generally play dbl as having the same meaning by both players.

[gwnn]

You were definitely wrong.

[campboy]

helene_t, on Feb 2 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Over a natural (2♠)-3♦-(3♠) we play responsive doubles, and over a multi sequence (2♦)-x-(3♥) we play responsive, too.

So I think here a hand with four spades could have doubled 3♥, so that is not what the delayed double shows.

I think that is exactly right -- this double should be the same as (2♦)-3♦-(3♥)-dbl. Whether they are both penalty (my choice) or both takeout is less important.

[bid_em_up]

Takeout.

Assuming 3♥ is Pass or Correct, it just doesn't make sense (to me) to treat an X in this position as penalty. Responder was willing to hear 3♠ when he bid 3♥ so I would expect that his playing strength in spades to be as good as it is for hearts and it may well be better. We are also under the 3♠ hand which makes the availability of a penalty double here even less attractive.

jmoo.

[whereagles]

Given pard could have cued 3♠ earlier with some sort of good hand, I would say penalty.. not necessarily loads of spades but sure got some points.

[gwnn]

whereagles, on Feb 2 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Given pard could have cued 3♠ earlier with some sort of good hand, I would say penalty.. not necessarily loads of spades but sure got some points.

cued 3♠?! why would 3♠ be anything but natural?

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on Feb 1 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

Bidding goes:

2♦* 3♦ 3♥ Pa
3♠ Pa Pa X

Where 2♦ shows weak in a Major.

might this be a negative X that was unwilling to X 3♥ for penalties or maybe the X of 3♥ was a negative X as well

[gwnn]

I think
2D*-3D-3H**-x
should also be a "takeout or penalty" double but that may be taking a questionable idea too far

[whereagles]

gwnn, on Feb 2 2010, 06:19 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 2 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Given pard could have cued 3♠ earlier with some sort of good hand, I would say penalty.. not necessarily loads of spades but sure got some points.

cued 3♠?! why would 3♠ be anything but natural?

oh sorry. I read weak with both majors.

[peachy]

Hanoi5, on Feb 1 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

Bidding goes:

2♦* 3♦ 3♥ Pa
3♠ Pa Pa X

Where 2♦ shows weak in a Major.

What did 3D show?

[gwnn]

What could it show?

[peachy]

gwnn, on Feb 4 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

What could it show?

If I knew what they had agreed for it to show, I would not ask.

[655321]

peachy, on Feb 4 2010, 02:27 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Feb 1 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

Bidding goes:

2♦* 3♦ 3♥ Pa
3♠ Pa Pa X

Where 2♦ shows weak in a Major.

What did 3D show?

Diamonds?

[Hanoi5]

3♦ is natural. I believe the double of 3♥ should have the same meaning as the double of 3♠, but is this meaning 'natural' or does it depend on an agreement?

[NickRW]

IMO, the X is 'naturally' take out.

The 3♥ bidder will usually have xxx or maybe Hx for both majors at least, so, even on the first round we know they have an 8 card, quite likely 9 card fit, albeit that we are not sure which major yet. So it is not a lot different from the sequence (1♠)-2♦-(3♠)-? If you play X as TO there, then you should here.

Nick

P.S. To answer your question, the second round double is, IMO, definitely TO. The first round one probably should be too - but I suppose one can argue a case for it not doing so.

[gwnn]

peachy, on Feb 5 2010, 12:24 AM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 4 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

What could it show?

If I knew what they had agreed for it to show, I would not ask.

I am not an expert in English so please forgive me for using sloppy language. By

sloppy english gwnn said:

What could it show

I meant to ask "what are the possible alternative meanings for 3♦ for you?" -- for example if there was an RKC auction and someone had bid 5♦, we would like to know if it shows 03 or 14 (especially when we are defending!!). I did not mean to ask "what does it show?". It is my understanding that "could" is usually an expression of possibility and not certainty and is therefore a different word from "does". Well, in a way it is a different word because it consists of different letters.

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

I think
2D*-3D-3H**-x
should also be a "takeout or penalty" double but that may be taking a questionable idea too far

I think it is fairly normal to do this if partner has passed, but surely there is a difference when partner has bid. What this implies, exactly, I do not know. I think it is an interesting issue to explore.