[Phil]

I would double and I don't think it is close. I would help to be at the table and have some kind of read on RHO however.

Partner will not make a negative double with a 5 card major, and 2 diamonds. He also did not raise diamonds the first time and he has to have something over there. So I think there is an excellent chance to catch at least a four card major and maybe 5.

[jdonn]

I think double is pretty bad. We are up a level with a total minimum and Qx of clubs. I think the doublers should be very happy to push them up a level, watch them make, and break even.

Btw here's a thought, some of the time partner wants you to reopen so he can pass for penalties the opponents will have actually belonged in diamonds and can now find them.

[jonottawa]

fascist test

[Cascade]

pooltuna, on Oct 17 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

cnszsun, on Oct 15 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦-2♣-ps-ps
??

---

in spite of all the naysayers who have gone before me, I feel either you don't open the hand or you protect on this auction and IMO it is practically foisted on you. There are too many hands where partner could not make a negative X over 2♣ or holds a penalty pass of 2♣. It just feels too anti-partnership to pass.

I thought you played penalty doubles.

[pooltuna]

Cascade, on Oct 16 2010, 06:15 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 17 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

cnszsun, on Oct 15 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦-2♣-ps-ps
??

---

in spite of all the naysayers who have gone before me, I feel either you don't open the hand or you protect on this auction and IMO it is practically foisted on you. There are too many hands where partner could not make a negative X over 2♣ or holds a penalty pass of 2♣. It just feels too anti-partnership to pass.

I thought you played penalty doubles.

I also play penalty passes

[655321]

Pass, but for some reason I don't really hate the double with this hand as much as I do on other similar hands.

Here are a couple of other discussions about opener's reopening decision:-

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=36267
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=37895

[ONEferBRID]

cnszsun, on Oct 15 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦-2♣-ps-ps
??

---

Again, as in this recent thread :
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=42203

I agree with Dwane ( keylime ), Fluffer, and the fish ( and others I may have missed).

Double to protect partner's failure to make a Neg-DBL.

[Lobowolf]

mr1303, on Oct 16 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

For partner to have a penalty pass requires either a freakish distribution, in which case it is likely that they have somewhere better to play, or partner to have made a poor bid.

I don't agree with this.

[655321]

ONEferBRID, on Oct 16 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

Again, as in this recent thread :
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=42203

I agree with Dwane ( keylime ), Fluffer, and the fish ( and others I may have missed).

Double to protect partner's failure to make a Neg-DBL.

ONEfer, do you notice any differences between the hand in this post, and the hand in the unrelated thread you linked to?
Comparing our holdings in the opponents suit would be a good place to start.

[Siegmund]

I would understand a double at matchpoints. There are good chances to get 110 instead of 50 or 100 / -50 instead of -90. At IMPs I see a lot more big downsides than big upsides and I stay fixed.

I've been wrong before.

[the hog]

mike777, on Oct 16 2010, 02:39 PM, said:

shevek, on Oct 16 2010, 02:02 AM, said:

Pass seems clear at the vul & scoring.
In my view, partner shouldn't have the hand that is looking for +800 instead of +430.
With
♠Kxxx  ♥AJx  ♦Kx  ♣KT8x

Sure you will get +800 but that is unusual. Better to bid 3NT with that, rather than have a style that obliges opener to reopen on nearly all hands.

You will  miss out on the occasional +300 when responder has a balanced 11-count.
The case for a reopening is greater nv vs vul, or at matchpoints.

that hand is impossible


pard must hve more

Disagree totally. That hand is perfectly possible for a re opening double.

[Viren169]

Hi,

This is a simple auction that most partnerships will have discussed, as it comes up frequently enough to warrant discussion and have some agreement(s).

Pd will usually have one of three (ignoring option 0) different types of hands.

0. Hand that should have acted over 2C (nothing we can do here!)
1. Hand too poor to act over 2C
2. Hand that has no sensible bid over 2C
3. Penalty dble of 2C

So there is a danger that re-opening with a dble could land you with a large minus score (option 1), however that is outweighed by the fact that this could be your hand (option 2) either in one of your suits or opponents playing in 2C dbled (option 3).

It is highly unlikly that the opponents will catch you with option 1, the risk is out weighed by the pluses, and allows pd to pass on good hands (with clubs) intending to pass the re-opening dble.

So I would reopen here, as I have shortage in the opponent's suit (even if I had a sub minimum hand).

BR
Viren