[mike777]

Hannie, on Jul 5 2007, 05:04 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

ulven, on Jul 5 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked.

More may play it but written, I am sceptical.

Ok cite 500
Ok cite 100

Mike, quit drugs.

calm down guys I had not one but two smiles after this, geez have a sense of humor. In any case I still think this is a clear penalty double unless you have discussed it as other.

[helene_t]

Hmmm ... a penalty double may be useful to expose a semi-psyche 1N bid, but since such a semi-psyche is usually based on support for opener's minor it will work as a responsive double in practice.

A penalty double may be more usefull after a 3rd seat opening that could be very light. Then again, you need a sound overcall style for a passed hand to be able to double 1N for penalties based on partner's 1-level overcall.

OTOH, what pattern are included in the responsive double? 4-4 unbid suits is offers too little promise of a fit. 5-4 is fine if opener's suit is clubs so that overcaller can give advancer the choise by bidding 2♣.

Otherwise I'd prefer to play it as a 5-card in the unbid major, plus doubleton support for overcallers suit, like Snapdragon. This is especially useful in
pass-(1♦)-1♥-(1N)
dbl*
which allows advancer to show spades without bypassing 2♥. With ♣ + some ♥ tollerance, advancer can bid 2♣.