[mikeh]

bhall, on Sep 14 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

As Ken says, there is a problem with giving a too-wide range to 2♦. Another is that on this auction you shouldn't expect to make opposite doubler's minimum. Surely you want him to double with AQxx xx Qxx AJxx, a layout on which you could go two down against good defense.

The bid will get partner off to a good lead, but it is equally likely to get him to compete too high in diamonds. What do you want to bet that opener isn't looking at a near-automatic 2♥ rebid? Where are the hearts?

After (1♥)-X-(1♠)-P-(2♥)-P-(P), there is some reason to suspect that pd is better than minimum, and a 3♦ balance might be tried. Unless partner is one of those who will frequently turn up with a diamond doubleton. My guess is that this is exactly what was going through South's head when he passed the second time.

While nothing is risk-free, I wouldn't expect partner to over-compete in diamonds very often. One of my pet peeves is a partner who shows his (or her) hand by a takeout double and then, in competition, competes ahead of me with no real extras. If LHO bids, as he probably will, a competent partner passes with a normal takeout double with 4 diamonds, expecting me to balance if I have the hand that is worth pushing. Now, there is a narrow range of hands on which he should push and on which, because my hand is minimal, it works out poorly. But that can be said of virtually every sequence in which there is any range of strength/shape in a competitive auction. I'd far rather get into the auction than stay out... but, then, my partners understand this principle of not bidding the same hand twice.