[Hanoi5]

---

As partner denies Majors with 1NT you decide to double in case he has diamonds. Would you double 3♦ as well? Do you play the 2♦ double as take-out or penalty?

[ahydra]

X of 2D is takeout, now I pass having already shown my hand.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

What shapes/ranges bid 1N rather than 1♦ over 1♣ holding diamonds ? In some parts of the world 1N guarantees 4+ clubs so we'd have been bidding a lot more clubs.

X is T/O

[helene_t]

I wouldn't have doubled before. I play this double as somewhat penalty oriented. Partner is supposed to pass with a 4-card diamonds.

Anyway, I pass now. I try to adhere to the principle of not overbidding more than once per board

[Zelandakh]

Hanoi5, on 2015-October-10, 21:18, said:

As partner denies Majors with 1NT

As CY already mentioned, the meaning of a 1NT response to 1♣ varies from place to place, not only in terms of shape (does it deny 4 diamonds? does it promise 4 clubs?) but also in terms of strength (8-10 is traditional in many places but not universal). My guess is that you play 1NT as 6-9(19) and no promises about minor suit lengths. That always strikes me as a really bad idea for what is actually quite a wasteful response in terms of space used.

[rmnka447]

Pass at this point. You've showed your hand. It's up to partner to compete further now if we are to compete.

[NickRW]

As I have usually played 1NT, responder has 4+ clubs and doesn't have 4 diamonds (or majors of course), so I wouldn't be doubling "in case partner has diamonds".

As I have sometimes played 1NT, responder has denied 5 diamonds and has 3+ clubs and I would still be mainly thinking "club fit" rather than "what if partner has 4 diamonds?"

[mikeh]

I wouldn't go so far as some do in arguing that 1N showed 4+ clubs. I think it perfectly ok to respond 1N with, for example, Qxx Kxx Jxxx Kxx.

I would not have doubled 2♦. We know we don't want to play a major suit and we sure as heck don't want to defend 2♦! I can't imagine why we'd want to suggest that as even a possibility. If partner's diamonds are good enough to allow us to defeat a 2-level contract when they have 2 8+ card red suit fits then he should have bid 1♦.

We wanted to compete to 3♣ and since we knew that, we ought to have done that.

Bridge is a complex game but there is no need to make it any more complex than it needs to be. When we have an obvious 3♣ bid, we make it.

Btw, the comment above about having shown our hand is incorrect....we definitely have not shown this hand.....we denied this hand when we failed to make the 3♣ call. But the idea is the same....we made a bid that showed values and we have no reason to bid at the 4-level without showing even more. We misbid rather than showed our hand, but never try to catch up once you have done so.