[pescetom]

LHO opens 1NT ("15-17"), partner interferes 2NT ("both minors 5-5") and RHO doubles ("interest in punishing one or both suits").
What are your agreements about pass / 3X / redouble as advancer?
Would they differ if opponents had some other agreement about double ("cards", or "no agreement")?

[apollo1201]

In auctions « like that », I tend to play pass = I want to play this and XX = show your (best) suit.

But here, « that » is not a suit I could be long in, but NT, and I can’t really be wanting to play 2NTX.

Maybe XX = equal minors but values, pass = equal minors weak, 3m = I wanna play here.

I don’t think that X being penalty, cards or undiscussed (but probably w/ values) changes anything. We need to find the best spot ASAP.

[DavidKok]

On that auction I would play 3m = this is where we live (to play), pass = 'you got us in you get us out, pick a suit and play it yourself', redouble is not a bid I would make but would hypothetically show strength and be to play (maybe one or both opponents are psyching, that is the only plausible explanation for this bid). apollo's point above is quite important: if they are about to hang you, get to a suit immediately and stay there. Every extra round of bidding gives the opponents more opportunity to coordinate tying the noose. I expect to bid 3m almost always, probably even with 3-3 in the minors.

[nige1]

Pescetom 'What are your agreements about pass / 3X / redouble as advancer? Would they differ if opponents had some other agreement about double ("cards", or "no agreement")?'
____________________________
DavidKok 'Every extra round of bidding gives the opponents more opportunity to coordinate tying the noose.
__________________________
In principle, DavidKok seems right but perhaps there is a case for trying to put the strong hand on-lead.
Hence a schema that adds that option as a possibility...
- Pass = ASK overcaller to redouble with better clubs, but bid 3♣ with better ♦s, so that advancer declares.
- XX = You choose.
- 3♣/3♦ = Preference.
In real-life except for long-term expert partnerships, this situation is likely to be undiscussed

---

[mikeh]

Partner can be 6=5/5=6 so pass says no preference. xx will never happen.

[AL78]

I have no agreements with my partners, but I would assume 3m is to play, and pass is no preference, you choose. I have no idea what redouble should mean.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who replied. It seems we are all on much the same page. I was curious because I have not seen this auction discussed, even by Roth himself. Which implies that the calls are obvious, but I did wonder if it might be more useful for pass to suggest tolerance for playing 2NTx if partner's minors are good enough, or redouble to have some collaborative meaning.

Anyway the consensus seems to be that after double, 3m/4m should retain their customary meaning, pass mean "you choose", redouble for punishment. And as an optional refinement, after pass meaning "you choose" partner could bid in transfer as nige1 suggests.

[nige1]

Another schema that adds a right-siding option.
- Pass = ASK overcaller to redouble with better clubs, but bid 3♣ with better ♦s, so that advancer declares.
- - BUT If advancer prefers ♣, he can pass the 3♣ transfer.
- 3♣/3♦ = Preference BUT shows 6+ ♠.
- XX = You choose BUT shows 6+ ♥

---