[gwnn]

xx
QJx
AK9xx
ATx

None at IMPS.

1S-x-p-2C
p-p-x-p
p-?

If you disagree with double, please seriously consider abstaining from posting. We already had that discussion before ;) The second double was maximal or something like that.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2013-October-13, 02:32, said:

If you disagree with double, please seriously consider abstaining from posting.

Then you won't get many replies.

Anyway, I will pass now. Usually, it is the last runout that is costly, not the first.

(I would hope that partner will ask a little more about the meaning of their double. With the right information, he might well make this contract.)

Rik

[mgoetze]

Would you like something to drink, partner?

[helene_t]

I think I bid 2♦. If either opp had five diamonds they might have bid them before.

Depends a bit who opps are. If I feel that they might have a misunderstanding about the second double then I pass.

[nigel_k]

Pass, though partner may need that drink mgoetze is getting him.

It really doesn't sound like partner has very many diamonds. He could well have four (or more) spades and three hearts since opponents are not bidding those. Even in the case where partner is 4324, we might find LHO with 2452 and RHO with 5314.

[ggwhiz]

Sounds bad. Why would I want to declare it?

[DJNeill]

Pass. Good problem, and I could XX for SOS with 3442 or similar. Choices are Pass and 2D. One thing going for Pass over 2D is that it appears the opps don't have 8 hearts (so pd has some hearts) and they don't seem to have 8 spades (so partner has 4 of those). These point to diamond shortness which increases the danger of 2D.

In 2C-X, at least I have proven cards (probably a heart trick and 2 diamond tricks and a hopeful ruffing value.. maybe they are overruffing with a natural club trick).

I think the initial double is reasonable based on honor location, shape, and hand strength.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2013-October-13, 02:32, said:

If you disagree with double, please seriously consider abstaining from posting. We already had that discussion before

Trinidad, on 2013-October-13, 02:45, said:

Then you won't get many replies.

O.K. Since I don't disagree with the initial Double, I don't feel barred from posting about that decision.

First: The OP wants to know whether to proceed, given the Double --- this is clear and deserves an answer from those who would have been in that situation. Good job by those who did so, even though they disagree with each other.

Second: I strongly disagree with Rik's sentiment about the double. As a frequent critic of random doubles to show 13 cards and some opening hand, I believe this time the takeout double is a better choice than a 2D overcall and far better than a Pass. IMO, it is too close to call on Passing the double of 2C vs bidding 2D ---but will not result myself out of the intitial t/o Double. The worst case would be if pard were 3-3 in the minors, and my pass would really suck. However, if pard were 4-4 in the two suits, she would have bid 2D in order to have some place to go if I cue'd. So, that leaves the 3-4 where bidding 2D would be better and the 3-5 where who knows and the 4-5??

[fromageGB]

I'll bid 2♦. It looks like opener has only 5 spades and some clubs, and responder notably did not bid hearts second time round, suggesting I think no more than 4. He rates to be balanced. Yet partner does not have 4 hearts, so he is 43xx weak, and is bidding the cheapest suit praying that you rescue him to your 5 card suit if you have one. If he is 33 in the minors then obviously diamonds is better, and it is also better if he is 24.

The downside is that 2♦ will be bad if opener has a singleton, but then so probably will 2♣.

[Codo]

I had my double and now I have my pass...

[Endymion77]

The initial double is quite reasonable, actually I don't see another option. Now I would inquire the opps about the double - is it penalty, or the opener converted it? And I would probably move to 2♦ unless I pick up from the response that they made a mistake - at least I have a real suit, while partner's bid doesn't promise anything but less than 4 hearts. Opps might not want to defend 2♦ doubled even if it's right, I mean opener has 5+ spades and one of them has a penalty double/pass of clubs - and someone also has QJTxx diamonds? Unlikely.

[gwnn]

Endymion77, on 2013-October-18, 14:46, said:

The initial double is quite reasonable, actually I don't see another option. Now I would inquire the opps about the double - is it penalty, or the opener converted it? And I would probably move to 2♦ unless I pick up from the response that they made a mistake - at least I have a real suit, while partner's bid doesn't promise anything but less than 4 hearts. Opps might not want to defend 2♦ doubled even if it's right, I mean opener has 5+ spades and one of them has a penalty double/pass of clubs - and someone also has QJTxx diamonds? Unlikely.

It's just a 'maximal' double. One of those words that is used in more and more situations thereby making less and less sense.

[kenberg]

I'm passing. But:

gwnn, on 2013-October-18, 15:39, said:

It's just a 'maximal' double. One of those words that is used in more and more situations thereby making less and less sense.

I guess my question would be "Are you two a regular partnership?" Playing on BBO, it would be very possible that nothing of this sort has ever been discussed, and they have too little experience with each other to say much of anything. Offhand, I would assume "He shows an unwillingness to play at 2♣ undoubled" is probably about all that can be said. If they mean any more than this, and they both have the same understanding of what more it means, they really should say something other than "maximal". Maybe he has QJTx of clubs and some king somewhere. I don't see that he can have more than that and pass after 1♠-X (I'll correct myself, he could have another Q and no good call) , and I don't see that he can have much less to double now. I stick, my hand looks decent enough, and I don't see diamonds as any sort of better spot.

[gwnn]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should admit that I am indirectly necroing a thread where OP did not provide any explanation to what X meant (the point of THAT thread was about our first-round action and the thread soon became a big mess -hence my not directly necroing it).

Maximal was first used as far as I know for auctions where you've shown already your support and say 6-9 points and then you would X to show a max balanced hand i.e. 8-9 with 2-3 in their hand or so. But nowadays it seems to be a copout word out of referring to it being penalty or takeout.

[kenberg]

It seems logical that this double is based on support for both red suits. And some values. But with something like Jx / Kxxx / Qxxx / Qxx it seems like 1NT on the first round would be the call. It seems descriptive, and descriptive seems good. It encourages partner to go on when appropriate. So maybe he has a stiff spade rather than two. That might suggest caution. I actually think it right that in the original version no explanation was provided, there is entirely too much expectation that partnerships have detailed agreements about exactly what is required for such a bid. At the highest levels, this might be reasonable. At all other levels I think "Unwilling to sell to 2♣ undoubled" is likely to be all that can be said without making something up. If they have a more detailed agreement then they should describe it, but I have little trouble believing that they do not.

Anyway, I don't much like my hand. Pard can ruff the third round of spades but he will be over-ruffed if he ruffs low. But the AK of diamonds appears to be a couple of tricks and maybe he can scramble some trump tricks.

At any rate, I would see 2♦ as a real shot in the dark. And maybe a shot in the foot. I pass and hope for the best. However it goes, I am doubling again the next time I am dealt this hand. Slow learner.

[gwnn]

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__460069 is the full hand. It seems it doesn't matter much if you pass or pull to 2♦. I was kind of surprised that no one even mentioned the possibility of 2♦.

[kenberg]

Thanks for the full hand. I can't really say I regret either the double, as I would, or the pass of 2♣, which I would. I suppose I could think about it. But sometimes things go wrong.

[aguahombre]

The linked thread adds Justin to the Double approvers....and not just mildly. He also passes 2CX, but applies more emphasis to advocating the Double vs. the 2D overcall.