[skjaeran]

jdonn, on May 9 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

Walddk, on May 9 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

You seem to have missed my point, Mike. I said that I respond as if there had been no double, so 2♣ would therefore be a one-round force. As I also said, I thought that was standard among experts nowadays.

Roland

I really don't believe so, I'm sure 1♦ - 2♣ is nf over the double in 'expert standard'. Maybe this can be chalked up to one of those things that are standard differently in different countries, who knows.

Agree.
At least where I play it's standard to play a 1-lever response as forcing after an opponents double, 2-level responses as NF.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on May 10 2008, 07:00 AM, said:

Roland is perfectly correct.
Would you not bid 1H after the X on

xxx
KJxx
xx
Kxxx

or similar?

If the answer is "No" I would suggest you are definitely playing something non-standard.

That is correct, I would pass that.

I'm not advocating it, mind you. Just what I was taught. I'm sure six months from now I'll write some post either insisting that it's better or condemning it as worse, but I really haven't thought out all the ramafications of it yet.

At any rate, mikeh is right. If partner has denied this sort of hand, then double is the wrong bid.

[Apollo81]

2♦. I think this is way closer than others are indicating, on account of the ♦98.