I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1
![Hearts !H](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_hearts.gif)
positive was on
![Spades !S](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_spades.gif)
xx
![Hearts !H](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_hearts.gif)
KQJxx
![Diamonds !D](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_diamonds.gif)
xx
![Clubs !C](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_clubs.gif)
KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3
![Clubs !C](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_clubs.gif)
over the double or pass it out, and
why.
[/quote]
IMO, you would definitely bid 3
![Clubs !C](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_clubs.gif)
removing the double. There is already a tentative game force (not absolute). The hand is almost minimum and not a good defensive hand. You do not have 6
![Hearts !H](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_hearts.gif)
's. In addition, partner has shown balanced distribution with 16-19/20 HCP's. It's beginning to look like 3NT is the best contract.
[/quote]
I have to disagree again. After 1
![Clubs !C](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_clubs.gif)
-1
![Hearts !H](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_hearts.gif)
there is an
absolute game force, unless the opponents offer us a more lucrative alternative. I'm just trying to understand how your responder is supposed to tell the difference between an opener who has doubled to show the flat balanced hand and the opener who has the full-blooded penalty double. Let me turn the question around. On what sort of 1
![Hearts !H](http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/smf/Smileys/default/icon_hearts.gif)
positive do you expect responder to assume that opener's double is for penalties, rather than being a balanced 16-19/20?