[the_dude]

Swiss teams, Red vs White, playing 2/1 with a very occasional partner.

---

At the other table, NS got to 5C, over which EW bid 5D. We got sucked into doubling only 3D...

[fbuijsen]

It would seem you do not have a clear agreement over the meaning of doubles in competitive situations. North thought the dbl of 3♦ was competitive, south thought it was penalties.
Agreeing with each other which of these applies is paramount, more imprtant than actually choosing the technically best option.

A possible agreement that is useful and not too difficult to remember and apply: a dbl of a bid below the 4-level of a suit that has been bid by both opponents is competitive. Other dbls at the 3-level after the first round of bidding are penalty.

That would make this a competitive dbl, and south has an easy 5♣ bid: the dbl promises about what North has here: extra values, heart length, club length.

NOTE: if you play the dbl as pure penalty here, north is kind of stuck. 3♥ is pretty ridiculous, since partner probably has fewer than 4 of them. I'd guess between 3NT and 3♠ with the north hand.

[helene_t]

Dbl obviously can't be pure penalty and I don't think South took it as such unless he's a beginner. It is clear that North will have to double with a 2425 17-count. Also with a 3424 19-count, or with a 3415 16-count, double is the most practical call.

The problem is that North could also have a 3433 19-count without a diamond stopper. Even if that is a narrow target and North will usually have 4+ clubs, it is quite easy to contruct a North hand with two diamonds opposite which it is best to defend.

OTOH North's double shouldn't be pure takeout either. South will pass with a 4333 without a diamond stopper and if North isn't comfortable with that, he should try not to double.

North could have bid 3♥. While it's true that South is unlikely to have hearts, it does describe North's hand quite well, shows the extra club length, and gives South space for bidding spades again. But I have a slight preference for double. If South passes it it will often be right.

I voted that South should have bid 4♣. 5♣ or pass are both reasonable alternatives so I think it's close.

[whereagles]

It's hardly possible North's double is for penalties, so South should bid 4♣. Not 5 because he lacks shape/points.

[mcphee]

Double is t/o and IMO south has a 5C bid. I would be unhappy if partnr passed this dble holding that responders hand. 6C would be a better choice than passing!

[ggwhiz]

You should try playing negative doubles (by south).

[helene_t]

ggwhiz, on 2014-July-18, 11:30, said:

You should try playing negative doubles (by south).

standard is 1♠ with this hand since dbl would show both majors.

[quiddity]

I'd bid 3♥ as North; I think he has too much shape and offensive potential to double. He should be trying to get to the right vulnerable game or slam by describing his hand, not catering to hands where it might be better to defend a non-vulnerable 3♦ contract. If he doubles instead South will of course play him for a typical balanced shape and cannot be expected to do the right thing.

[rmnka447]

I'm also a 3 ♥ bidder with the North hand.

With a working 17 HCP, I think North must make some call. 4 ♣ is too high not knowing if partner has ♣s or not. Partner isn't likely to have 4 ♥ as with most 4-4 or 5-4 major hands, I'd expect a double. The 3 ♥ call though starts to paint a picture of the hand for partner. IMHO, it shows 4 ♥s, longer ♣, and some extra values.

I would take a Dbl by North as showing extras and not as a penalty double. But it really doesn't give South any clue as to what North holds other than extra HCP. The reason that the double isn't penalty is that South's 1 ♠ bid is ambiguous. It can be made on anything from 6 to 20 HCP. If near the minimum for the 1 ♠ bid, it's hard to expect South to compete further without some indication as to which side hold the balance of the points.

[Winstonm]

I think I would bid 3H with this hand, as well, mainly because I can stand a 3S rebid. Double, to me, doesn't show such a distributional hand, more like a hand that would have rebid 2N but holds only 2 or 3 diamonds. If there is a more descriptive bid available, then I think one should not over-utilize the meaning of double.