[cherdano]

2nd seat, white vs red, XIMP, you hold AKxx Ax 98x T9xx. RHO opens 2♥, weak two.

If you care, assume RHO isn't a supersound inquiry-red-vs-white preemptor, just down-the-middle aggression with an eye towards vulnerability.

How much more would you need over 2♠, with the majors switched? How much does vulnerability matter to you here?

[pclayton]

Hand 2 for me. Not a lot of difference between 109xx and JTxx since I expect the hooks to work in clubs. Sort of splitting hairs here.

[Gerben42]

I voted hand #3. What to say, it's what I think is my minimum...

[inquiry]

I would double with hand two...

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 11 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

Hand 2 for me. Not a lot of difference between 109xx and JTxx since I expect the hooks to work in clubs. Sort of splitting hairs here.

You have to split them somewhere, else I could logically get you doubling with xxxx xx xxx xxxx: simply by reducing one card one spot at a time: it would take me a while, but I'd get a hand down from AKQJ AK AKQ AKQJ to 5432 32 432 5432... and only a hair splitter would claim that any of the changes made a material difference

I have previously several times mentioned that changing a 9 to a 10 would change my call on some hands. The point of polls like this is to define where, for each of us, the hair is to be split. Half of us so far find it between hands 2 and 3, and I agree. To me, the decision is close but clear.

[awm]

Hand 3 for me. I like a two-level double to be a hand I would've opened, especially if I have doubleton in the opposing suit. Of course I guess for some people that means hand 2, but I wouldn't have opened that in standard methods. Hand 4 if the majors are reversed and I'm forcing partner to the three-level.

[pclayton]

awm, on Jan 11 2007, 07:36 PM, said:

Hand 3 for me. I like a two-level double to be a hand I would've opened, especially if I have doubleton in the opposing suit. Of course I guess for some people that means hand 2, but I wouldn't have opened that in standard methods. Hand 4 if the majors are reversed and I'm forcing partner to the three-level.

Adam, you really wouldn't open a hand with 3 QTs and a 10-9 combo?

[neilkaz]

I would open hand 2 with 11 fine HCP 3 quick tricks and good spots so it is good enough for my takeout double over 2♥ since it is so important to get ♠ into the picture over ♥ from my experience.

If you reverse the majors, PD is forced to respond at the 3 level and I need to be as good as hand 4 minus one of the 9's.

Just my style of bidding .. neilkaz ..

[awm]

No.. I am a fairly conservative opener on balanced hands. Also I don't really count points for tens and nines when there are no higher honors in the suit, big diff between:

AKxx Ax xxx T9xx
AKT9 Ax xxx xxxx

[HeartA]

Hand #3 or #4, depending on vulnerability.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

hand #4, but it may be a mood point, between
hand #3 and #4.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[dake50]

Choose your poison:
partner arranging his responses in case hand1/2, vs. free to expect better.
OR My Self Opponent(MSO) leaving hand1/2 to hoping partner/I can reopen or that spades shut out wins This rare time.

Either double has ambiguous or reopening does.
either easy to double + care responding
OR narrow double + easy responding Add reopening???

[whereagles]

There's a tendency to treat take-out doubles of 2 & 3 preempts in the same way as take-outs of 1-level bids. So, if you agree that

AKxx
Ax
xxx
xxxx

is enough to double 1♥, you should also double 2 and 3♥ openers on that.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Jan 13 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

There's a tendency to treat take-out doubles of 2 & 3 preempts in the same way as take-outs of 1-level bids. So, if you agree that

AKxx
Ax
xxx
xxxx

is enough to double 1♥, you should also double 2 and 3♥ openers on that.

This is a very amusing comment. I would X 1H; I would not dream of doubling 2H and as for 3H....you have got to be kidding!

[whereagles]

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, yes. But if you move the ♥A into a minor suit, I wouldn't have the slightest problem in doubling 1, 2 or 3♥.

[gwnn]

hand 3 starts to look something like a t/o dbl

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Jan 11 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 11 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

Hand 2 for me. Not a lot of difference between 109xx and JTxx since I expect the hooks to work in clubs. Sort of splitting hairs here.

You have to split them somewhere, else I could logically get you doubling with xxxx xx xxx xxxx: simply by reducing one card one spot at a time: it would take me a while, but I'd get a hand down from AKQJ AK AKQ AKQJ to 5432 32 432 5432... and only a hair splitter would claim that any of the changes made a material difference

I have previously several times mentioned that changing a 9 to a 10 would change my call on some hands. The point of polls like this is to define where, for each of us, the hair is to be split. Half of us so far find it between hands 2 and 3, and I agree. To me, the decision is close but clear.

Anybody else notice how Mike gracefully avoided stating which hand he would actually double with? (Although, I think he is implying hand #3)

Hand #3 for me.

As far as what if major suits were reversed, hand #4 is closer, but I would much prefer it to be:

xx AKxx Axx Q109x

instead of Ax of spades and 98x of diamonds. Can't have the perfect hand all the time, though.

[pclayton]

Speaking of splitting hairs, I wonder how many of the Hand 3 doublers move their choice to #2 if the ♥A were the ♦A?