[SoTired]

Dbl

The trouble with 3D is that partner is likely to pass with most non-descript 6 counts and we will miss game. Plus the odds are 50-50 that we will be in the wrong minor contract. Plus there is the possibility that partner has 5♥ and we will miss a good heart contract. Plus there is the possibility that partner has 4♥ and the moysian 4H contract is our best spot.

Name ONE expert that would dbl 2S guaranteeing 4♥?

[brianshark]

Nobody said your not allowed to double without 4♥s. But what we are saying is that it's a factor that discourages a double, and has to be weighed in with all the other factors.

[mikeh]

I join the majority vote for double.

BTW, I doubt the wisdom of debating what call to make without contemplating what may happen next, and I don't just mean what partner will bid.

I am sure we have all noticed that the opps are at favourable vulnerability and we have a noticeable lack of ♠s. The odds are good that LHO is about to raise the ante, and (in several ways) we may welcome that. Consider: if LHO doesn't raise ♠s, what does that tell us about partner's hand?


As it is, I am comfortable with doubling in most scenarios.

If LHO bounces, and partner doubles (card-showing), I bid 4♠ over 3♠ and 4N over 4♠.

If partner bids some number of ♥s: over 5♥ I will raise to slam, over 4♥ I will pass... he sure isn't bidding 5♥ on a 4 card suit, and maybe I owe him a 5♠ bid...

And so on. If he passes some number of ♠s: I double again.

[Apollo81]

Autodouble.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.
I don't remember the actual distribution, but let me try to construct one that resembles it:

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding at our table was:
(2S)-4S-4NT
5C-6H
4S was the ideal bid. It shows a Spade void and 5-5 in the minors (so 3 hearts) and 3 or 4 loosers ... that is what I thought.
Most important lesson for me is probably not to fantasise too much about a bid. Partner should have the same fantasies then. He thought I showed 5-5 ♥ and ♣ as I could have shown the minors with 4NT.
BTW: I didn't take 4NT as ace asking, but as spade values.
(6H was -2, probably partner's hand was a bit better then shown)

[the hog]

zasanya, on Feb 6 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 5 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

X. Sorry but I must be thick; what is the problem? Isn't X obvious?

1.Some experts do not like to double with a void in opponents suit.
2.Some partnerships guarantee 4 card ♥ after a double of 2♠

I will X with any partner.

Quote Brianshark: Nobody said your not allowed to double without 4♥s. But what we are saying is that it's a factor that discourages a double, and has to be weighed in with all the other factors.

Brian, someone did say this. When one asks who these "experts" are, not even one is mentioned by name.

Fine, make appeals to authority, but at least tell us who the authority is, so that we can see whether that person is a credible source or not.

[zasanya]

The_Hog, on Feb 6 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

zasanya, on Feb 6 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 5 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

X. Sorry but I must be thick; what is the problem? Isn't X obvious?

1.Some experts do not like to double with a void in opponents suit.
2.Some partnerships guarantee 4 card ♥ after a double of 2♠

I will X with any partner.

Quote Brianshark: Nobody said your not allowed to double without 4♥s. But what we are saying is that it's a factor that discourages a double, and has to be weighed in with all the other factors.

Brian, someone did say this. When one asks who these "experts" are, not even one is mentioned by name.

Fine, make appeals to authority, but at least tell us who the authority is, so that we can see whether that person is a credible source or not.

"Some experts do not like to double with a void in opponents suit" does not mean "they will not allow you to double."
The expert definition of bbo is a player who has done well in the nationals of that country.I can give you the names of some of them who have done well in Indian nationals .A few of them play on bbo.However I fear it may start a fresh 'discussion' as to whether they are real experts or not; whether they are 'credible sources' or not
I try to avoid needless controversy.

[mike777]

Larry Cohen really tries to go out of his way to not double with a void.
I do not know what he would bid with this hand but I bid 3d on the assumption he would also, I may be very wrong.

[mike777]

"Voids...simple put do not defend with voids. That may be a bit too simple, but it's a good partnership guideline. Try very hard to avoid high-level takeout doubles with voids. Instead, prefer to make a suit overcall or a notrump takeout bid. Also, be exceedingly cautious about leaving in a double with a void......" Larry Cohen

[FrancesHinden]

I appreciate the point about not doubling with a void, but anything else on this hand is too much of a mis-description. We have 3 suits and double expresses that.

The type of hand I woud be frightened of doubling with a void is a "double-and-bid" type hand. You have, say, - AKQJxxx Axx AKx. RHO opens
i) 1S - now you have an easy double
ii) 2S - probably still double, but you could cue then remove 3NT to 4H to show a strong hand.
iii) 3S+ - now I would be frightened of a double becase defending 3Sx is unlikely to be our best spot, and partner will pass more often than the previous two auctions. I would bid 5H over 4S, and 4.5 hearts over 3S.

I see that double would probably result in a final contract of 2Sx. Now it will really, really matter what declarer's pips are