[Phil]

w/w IMPs

T7xx xx J9xx AKQ

p - (2♥) - dbl - (4♥);
?

[BunnyGo]

Double.

[mike777]

i open 1d

[Hanoi5]

4♠

[chasetb]

Does partner really have AQJx or KQJx or better in Spades? I don't think so, so I will take the sure thing and Double if it's penalty / Pass otherwise.

[655321]

Can't imagine anything here except double (um, not penalties, either!), thought it would be unanimous.

[Hanoi5]

My first thoughts were of doubling and I even thought we might get rich in case we had a much better contract but then I realized they might have 8 tricks in trumps only. Then I thought 300 was too little. So I changed my answer to 4♠. Double might be better if partner were to take it out more often with 4 good spades.

[nigel_k]

This is enough to double, especially at IMPs where both contracts down one is no big deal. I can imagine passing at matchpoints but wouldn't do it. Nothing else appeals at all.

[the hog]

Well my x here is for takeout, which is exactly what I would do. 4S is a close second.

[jillybean]

4♠

[P_Marlowe]

4S.

[rduran1216]

4S, wouldnt even think of doubling. Should partner pull with AQJx xx AQxx 10xx?

[the_clown]

Very tough. Bad trumps and possible bad ♠ break make bidding 4♠ unattractive. I expect partner to always pass with a doubleton ♥, which should give us a good score.

Of course we might end up in a wrong game when p bids 5m with 4144 or 4153. At the table I would probably X against aggressive preempters and bid 4♠ against a solid pair.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2012-August-08, 19:40, said:

w/w IMPs

T7xx xx J9xx AKQ

p - (2♥) - dbl - (4♥);
?

If Responder only raised to 3♥, then a DBL ( Responsive ) by Advancer would show the MINORS and deny a ♠ fit:

p - (2♥) - DBL - (3♥)
DBL

Why would it be any different here?

[quiddity]

I would pass. Double seems likely to result in declaring 5m which isn't great. A 10-count with bad spades.. meh.

Edit: oops, didn't notice that I'm a passed hand. That makes double more attractive.

[han]

This should be an automatic double for anybody who has ever read a post by Frances Hinden. Probably also for those who haven't.

[Phil]

rduran1216, on 2012-August-09, 02:28, said:

4S, wouldnt even think of doubling. Should partner pull with AQJx xx AQxx 10xx?

No, but how do you like your chances in 4♠??

[Phil]

I doubled. Partner pulled to 5♦ with QJxx x AQxxx Jxx. He said, "I thought double denied 4♠" (?!).

The good news is that 4♥ makes (LHO has 1615) however, 5♦ was 500, so only lose 2. 4♠ is very cheap.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Phil, on 2012-August-09, 09:02, said:

I doubled. Partner pulled to 5♦ with QJxx x AQxxx Jxx. He said, "I thought double denied 4[sp]" (?!).

The good news is that 4♥ makes (LHO has 1615) however, 5♦ was 500, so only lose 2. 4♠ is very cheap.

Am I the only one who agrees with your partner ? ( my post # 14 )

[Phil]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-August-09, 09:47, said:

Am I the only one who agrees with your partner ? ( my post # 14 )

Judging from the replies I would say no.

However, for the 4♠ bidders, I will ask this question:

- Forget about 'rules' like "double denies four spades" for a second.

1. Do you always want to be playing a 4-4 spade fit here? I think with many 4=2=(34) hands with bad spades and good cards in the minors you would rather defend.

2. When opener pulls the double to 4♠ does this really show a good hand with five spades? If the responsive double denies four spades, we cannot be fishing for a Moysian here, so what else can 4♠ be than a hand with four spades that does not want to defend 4♥. Accordingly, I would suggest that the responsive double does not deny four spades, although it should deny five.