[aguahombre]

Hard to have a good debate on what the double of 4H meant, and the follow-ups, when we have different agreements on what 2S meant.

For some of us, the question of whether we have game values was already resolved by the 2S bid. For others that question has to be considered in the mix.

If 2S was not game committed, then double of 4H seriously expressed an opinion to defend, and 4NT being Blackwood seems inconsistent.

If 2S was GF, double still suggested lack of spade support and willingness to defend; but 4NT RKC after the pull showing extra spades and extra offense is possible.

[Phil]

gwnn, on May 20 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

on the second you think 4N will be a better contract than 4S? Why?

Sorry, I meant 4N as RKC.

I'm not really that hard-headed.

[mikeh]

bluecalm, on May 20 2010, 08:57 AM, said:

Ok, fine. So what do you bid with above mentioned hands ?

on No. 1...frankly I am unsure....I might have chosen to open 1N, not in anticipation of this auction, but because this hand type is often tough to bid after 1♦ - 1M. We can get by this round via 2♣, but the hand is 'in-between' values for a clear decision over a 2♦ preference or a 2M rebid. Having got myself to this point, I suspect I'd double, but I wouldn't be comfortable.

On No. 2, I bid 4♠. Seems clear to me, altho I would never claim it will end well....5♣ could easily work out better, but 4♠ will rarely be a disaster.

On No. 3 I call the director....actually, I tend to count my cards before the auction gets to the 4 level.

[bluecalm]

Quote

If 2S was not game committed, then double of 4H seriously expressed an opinion to defend, and 4NT being Blackwood seems inconsistent.

If 2S was GF, double still suggested lack of spade support and willingness to defend; but 4NT RKC after the pull showing extra spades and extra offense is possible.

I don't follow this logic at all. If anything I would play it other way around.
We really have to double if we have like 15+hcp and no spade support if 2♠ doesn't commit us to game because there is a big real danger it will be passed out if we won't.

On the other hand if pass was somehow forcing it makes a lot of sense to play in 4NT if we double because then we promise ♥ values (could have make FP if we didn't).

Quote

xx Axx KJxx AQxx

Kx Axx KQJxx Axx

Kx AJx KQxx AQxx

I admit I keep forgetting we play this system in most posts (18-20 balanced in both 1♣ and 1♦ for additional confusion).

Those examples are clear doubles too of course. I am expecting (and be happy with it !) partner will pull every time he is dealt 6♠ so I hope nobody is calling those hands "willing to defend" ?

Quote

on No. 1...frankly I am unsure....I might have chosen to open 1N, not in anticipation of this auction, but because this hand type is often tough to bid after 1♦ - 1M. We can get by this round via 2♣, but the hand is 'in-between' values for a clear decision over a 2♦ preference or a 2M rebid. Having got myself to this point, I suspect I'd double, but I wouldn't be comfortable.

On No. 2, I bid 4♠. Seems clear to me, altho I would never claim it will end well....5♣ could easily work out better, but 4♠ will rarely be a disaster.

Ok, I get it. I hate this treatment because it's possible we will be in 5-2 game at 4 level instead collecting heavily but I can see it has merits.
I guess you also double on every hand from Phil's post ?
Do you think partner should pull with all (almost all?) hands with 6♠ ?

[mikeh]

Quote

Ok, I get it. I hate this treatment because it's possible we will be in 5-2 game at 4 level instead collecting heavily but I can see it has merits.
I guess you also double on every hand from Phil's post ?
Do you think partner should pull with all (almost all?) hands with 6♠ ?

No...and you'd know that if you read my earlier posts. I suggested that my view of the double was that partner wouldn't pull it to 4♠ unless he had a suit (and a hand, obviously) that was playable opposite a stiff. Few 6 card suits would offer that assurance, especially since we are quite likely to be tapped fairly soon.

As an aside, and an extra factor, my view (which may be idiosyncratic) is that the minimum strength shown by 2♠ is linked to the length and quality of the spade suit. Thus I would bid 2♠ on weaker hands when holding a 6 card suit of good texture than when holding only a 5 card suit. Double suggests defending most of the time opposite a minimum range 2♠ bid, and minimum range 2♠ bids will often hold 6 spades. This is of course one of the reasons why I would (uncomfortably) bid 4♠ with Ax x in the majors and extra values. Either partner has enough spades to make the suit playable opposite Ax or he has sufficient compensating values to allow us to get by even in a 5-2...especially when the '2' contains a ruffing control of a suit in which partner himself rates to be shortish.

[bluecalm]

Ok, I get it.
I think you are crippling yourself by adopting this treatment. I fully understand that I may be wrong on this one as you are much better player than me Thanks for explaining this way of playing to me.
I will be more careful in assuming what is "expert standard" next time.

EDIT:

I may well add why I think playing t/o double here is superior.
First I much prefer not having 18-20 balanced in my 1♦ opening because then responder can remove the double to 5♦ every time he is 5♠-4♦ even playing "standard" though t/o double still gains in the following ways:

-we always get to play 4♠ if we have 8+♠ and majority of high cards which I believe is a good thing
-we never get to play 4♠ on trumps 5-2 and almost never on trumps 6-1

The downside is that hands like : x AKx AJxxx AJxx have to pass and if partner doesn't re-open they play undoubled. I believe it's not that bad thing though because:
-those hands are rare; we are much more likely to have 2♠ on this auction than 3+ decent ♥
-partner is very likely to reopen (imo) as most of his range consists of GF hands
-we probably couldn't make anything anyway if partner doesn't reopen

As I said above if 18-20 balanced is removed from 1♦ opening situation is even better as the way is open for 5♦ contract which is basically lost playing "standard". I think this is why Italians play that way and also many polish pairs open 1♣ with 5♦-3-3-2 and 18-20 (so if 1♦ opener doubles in subsequent bidding it promises extra distribution).