[jschafer]

See above.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't realise how these poll options worked, fixed now.

[RMB1]

I can't vote.
I do not agree with either option in the second and third poll, and the system will not accept my vote without selecting one (each?) of those.

[gwnn]

Please disregard my votes for questions 2 and 3 (imps and weak field) - since I voted for the first option for question 1. It would have been nice to have three options for the second and third questions

I don't really care if they can run somewhere to be honest, though. The problem is that they almost always make 2N. So I don't think doubling them into game is a good idea.

[655321]

tl;dr

[ArtK78]

I concur with prior posts. My vote was for definitely do not double. I cast votes in the second and third questions only because the system would not take my vote for the first question unless I voted in all 3 questions.

[OleBerg]

It's not only a question of whether it goes down often enough.

I like to keep the double is a lead director, meaning something like:

I have a suit that (probably) doesn't need any help. See if you can find it, and : Do not lead away from tenaces, it's unlikely I can help you

It's not that I have any statistics to lean on, but I do believe it to be the best use for the double. (You double the contracts that are in trouble, and you defeat more contracts.)

[nige1]

I voted for "could work" although ...

• I wouldn't double on the given auction (where declarer has at least 23 HCP) but, in the protective seat, I would consider doubling a 2N opener showing 19-21 HCP, say.
• I'm not brave enough to double, purely on the auction, no matter what my hand is. Anyway I prefer lead-directing doubles, on Lightner principles: not to increase the penalty but to defeat a contract that might otherwise make eg Please lead your short suit or Please lead a diamond "A double diamond works wonders".

[mikeh]

Let's see:

at mps, it is a top or bottom strategy. Let's assume that we and partner defend at least as well as the field...if we don't, we're not going to win very often no matter what we do on this hand-type, and I'd recommend learning to improve our defence.

So assuming average opps we rate to score slightly above average if we pass (assuming the field plays the same 2N range...even big club players will probably get to 2N).

So we need to expect that we will beat the contract more often than not....this seems to be against the odds.

I would suggest that we consider using the double to ask for a specific lead...we can come up with any agreement we like but the logic of the auction suggests it ask for a major. That way, while we won't use it often, when we do, it is on hands on which we expect not only to increase the benefit of going plus, but also, crucially, the chances of going plus.

At imps, the odds are very high: we really shouldn't be doing this. We are doubling them into game, with all that that entails, in order to do what? Gain an extra 2 or 3 imps when they go down?

I couldn't find a poll option that expressed my feelings here...I'd vote for doing it at mps very, very rarely...absent a specific lead agreement, I could see doing this if I knew I needed a top, and I wasn't going to be happy finishing second in an event. I'm usually so delighted to make the overalls that I doubt that I'd ever have occasion to do this, but I can see that for some, it would be a 'rare but possible, at mps' sort of thing.

[TimG]

Shouldn't the question really be something like: would you want to adopt this strategy if your opponents knew you were adopting this strategy? It seems to me that "balancing on most hands" would be exploitable, so even if it were profitable against unsuspecting opponents, it would not be profitable against informed opponents.

[gnasher]

I'd never do this against 2♣-2♦-2NT. I used to do it occasionally after 2NT-pass-pass. I think it works best when you're semibalanced, with your honours and spot cards in your long suits. Something like QJ109 xx xx AJ109x would do, because you expect that the suits aren't breaking for them, and if partner makes a passive lead that will probably be fine. Obviously it's best as a matchpoint ploy.

It is somewhat exploitable. I can vaguely remember someone at the Young Chelsea gaining a lot of IMPs by passing his partner's a 2NT opening with a 6-count, getting doubled on his left and then sending it back.

[JLOGIC]

1) 2C-2D-2N they have too much. Even if their points aren't distributed, we're way outgunned.

2) After 2N p p they can often run to a minor. Giving them this opportunity is a disaster. On top of that, they will usually pass with like 3 points and maybe even 4 (esp at MP), so we rate to be outgunned. It just doesn't seem like a good gamble, and obviously at imps it's suicidal.

3) I often hear stories like gnashers about people passing 2N with a strong hand, knowing they'll get ripped, and then redoubling. As far as I'm concerned, 2N p p X p p XX is SOS, am I wrong? Last time I did this was against hanp and I did not redouble for that reason. Is there often table talk/friendly banter going on when it gets sent back, or am I just wrong and XX is penalty?

BTW, you don't have to be exploitable if you double. Just double when gnasher says, strong spots and ~half of your points. That way they cannot pass expecting you to double, and you get to double sometimes. But then we are going towards a normal lead directing X anyways, and just making it more aggressively.