So Mike Passell made the right decision here to double (Isn't it great when you can compare your decisions to those of a known high-level player?). Out of a field of 20, only 3 doubled and the rest split evenly between competing with 5♥ (down 1) and passing. I was in the (losing) "compete" camp, and I'm looking for the reasoning that Mike used here, and that I evidently failed to use. Or was this just a lucky guess on his part? (I'm of course reminded of a famous golfer who said something along the lines of "It's funny - the more I practice the luckier I get.")
My reasoning was that my AK♥ is quite possibly worthless in defense, making it hard to imagine taking two tricks over and above the A♣.
I assume that if I had 3 small diamonds instead of 2, I'd be readier to compete because that would increase the chances of a void or singleton in partner's hand. Do people agree with that reasoning?
I also assume that if this was IMPS then competing would be the correct decision?
From a recent GIB MP tournament: So Mike Passell made the right decision here to double (Isn't it great when you can compare your decisions to those of a known high-level player?). Out of a field of 20, only 3 doubled and the rest split evenly between competing with 5♥ (down 1) and passing. I was in the (losing) "compete" camp, and I'm looking for the reasoning that Mike used here, and that I evidently failed to use. Or was this just a lucky guess on his part? (I'm of course reminded of a famous golfer who said something along the lines of "It's funny - the more I practice the luckier I get.")My reasoning was that my AK♥ is quite possibly worthless in defense, making it hard to imagine taking two tricks over and above the A♣.I assume that if I had 3 small diamonds instead of 2, I'd be readier to compete because that would increase the chances of a void or singleton in partner's hand. Do people agree with that reasoning? I also assume that if this was IMPS then competing would be the correct decision?