[PhilKing]

 mikeh, on 2013-August-24, 07:42, said:

This double was not pure penalty. Give partner xxxx xx xx Kxxxx, and he bids 3♣, and aren't we going to be delighted with that?

If the double were always going to be passed, I'd agree with andy and phil but they seem to ignore the other, real, upside to the call.

I don't see how you make 3♣ opposite that unless pard has the spade nine (West rates to be 5251), in which case Two Spades is certainly going down. I think any plus score will score well, and the chances of both contracts making is negligible.

[gnasher]

 mikeh, on 2013-August-24, 07:42, said:

This double was not pure penalty. Give partner xxxx xx xx Kxxxx, and he bids 3♣, and aren't we going to be delighted with that?

If the double were always going to be passed, I'd agree with andy and phil but they seem to ignore the other, real, upside to the call.

With ♣Kxxxx, he would have bid 3♣ already. Double does get us to 3♣ with a hand like xxxx xx xx 10xxxx, which is probably desirable.

I'm not strongly opposed to the double, but I am coming around to the view that a heart lead is preferable to a trump. With such bad diamond spots, we're not really worried about diamond ruffs in dummy, unless he has a singleton.

[jdeegan]

 mikeh, on 2013-August-24, 07:42, said:

I love it. Partner has a clear, tho undoubtedly painful pass of the 3rd double. Partner has zero hcp! Zero! We beat 2♠ handily. Imagine him holding dummy's diamond J in addition to that admittedly important spade 10.

Of course the 3rd double is 'dangerous'. Are we really arguing that we should never make calls because there is danger associated with the call we are contemplating?

I probably average more undoubled undertricks per session, on defence, than any of the passers on this hand, and maybe I wouldn't have doubled in real life, because I am so conservative, but I thought and still think that the double here is a reasonable shot.

This double was not pure penalty. Give partner xxxx xx xx Kxxxx, and he bids 3♣, and aren't we going to be delighted with that?

If the double were always going to be passed, I'd agree with andy and phil but they seem to ignore the other, real, upside to the call.

A double is NOT in the least bit crazy, imo. Heaven knows, I have kibitzed many hands of the 'modern' game among experts on BBO. The dreaded penalty double seems underrepresented, imo. On this hand, I was 'at the table' so to speak, and I would have bid 2NT in a flash. 2NT probably makes, at least with me at the wheel against defenders of moderate ability.

[cherdano]

I also think a heart lead will work more often.
I think I also agree with Mike that double is a winner even at IMPs, but I do have worries.

Of course, against the actual opponent, I am confident that double is a winner. However, given that opener is lacking ♠QJ in his trump suit, ♦AQ in his side suit, and has just one sure trick on the side, shouldn't he be 6-5 some of the time? I don't think he is even close to a 2♦ bid on his actual hand, even if he had a heart other than the ace mixed in with his diamonds. I know 6-5 is not very likely given responder's preference, but it is possible.

I also think the forcing defense may run into problems whenever the guarded ♣K is in dummy.
♠AKT9x ♥Ax ♦KJT8x ♣x opposite ♠xx ♥Txxx ♦xx ♣Kxxxx looks like 2♠X making to me. Yes, that's a very carefully added ♥T, but also note that I wouldn't need it against the trump lead.

So I think at IMPs it's closer than Mike suggests. Still, it seems to me that _any_ useful card in partner's hand (spade pip, ♥T, ♦J, ♣K) will usually lead to down one, and often to down two. I like those IMPs adding up.