[TimG]

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

no
2♣ or 1♠ now

Why the difference?

[dburn]

Double. 1♠ is truly horrible: imagine that the auction proceeds 2♥-pass-pass. Am I supposed to bid 3♦ now, and watch partner return me to 3♠ with three spades and three diamonds? Am I supposed to pass now and concede a double part-score swing? It's not as if double will prevent us from playing in spades if that's what we should be doing, but 1♠ will often have us playing in spades when that is certainly not what we should be doing.

Of course, I play equal-level conversion, but I would not overcall 1♠ even if I did not. Nor would I overcall 2♦, although I regard that as preferable to 1♠ (but I regard a sinus wash as preferable to 1♠).

[pclayton]

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

Yes.

[benlessard]

I think 1S,2D and X can work well if you are on the same wavelenght. Ive got good result overcalling 1S in imps with those hand but im not convinced at all 1S is best. 1S vs X is mostly a matter of style i think, it depend on the type of hand partner will compete at 3C or at 3S. Off shape X and 4 card overcall both are playable just that you have to be coordinated on both side.

[benlessard]

Quote

Double. 1♠ is truly horrible: imagine that the auction proceeds 2♥-pass-pass. Am I supposed to bid 3♦ now, and watch partner return me to 3♠ with three spades and three diamonds?

no, partner will never return to 3S with 3-3. In standard 3D showed better D then S because with any 5431 and some 5422 you will find a X. + you should really play 2Nt as artificial for these kind of problems.

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Feb 27 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

Yes.

Yes

[Cascade]

TimG, on Feb 28 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

I do.

Whoops who did i just marry

[jillybean]

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

no
2♣ or 1♠ now

Why the difference?

I dont want to hear 2♦

[jillybean]

Cascade, on Feb 27 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 28 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

I do.

Whoops who did i just marry

Tim I think

[TimG]

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

no
2♣ or 1♠ now

Why the difference?

I dont want to hear 2♦

You didn't want to hear 2♣ when you were 4252. Are you saying that you will make the overbid of 2♦ when you hear partner advance 2♣ (and you are 4252), but aren't brave enough to bid 3♣ when partner advances 2♦ (and you are 4225)?

I think that the non-ELC doublers are willing to pass if partner bids their doubleton, and thus it should not matter whether you are 4252 or 4225.

[jillybean]

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 27 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Do the doublers also double with:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

no
2♣ or 1♠ now

Why the difference?

I dont want to hear 2♦

You didn't want to hear 2♣ when you were 4252. Are you saying that you will make the overbid of 2♦ when you hear partner advance 2♣ (and you are 4252), but aren't brave enough to bid 3♣ when partner advances 2♦ (and you are 4225)?

I think that the non-ELC doublers are willing to pass if partner bids their doubleton, and thus it should not matter whether you are 4252 or 4225.

Hand1 Playing 'elc' 2♦ is not an over bid.
Hand2 After (1♥) X (P) 2♦ Im reluctant to bid at the 3 level and I can bet my partner won't be very understanding if I pass and turn up with ♦xx.

[TimG]

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

Hand1 Playing 'elc' 2♦ is not an over bid.

Sorry, I thought, without apparent reason, that we were talking about what to do without the benefit of ELC. With ELC, it would seem to be a non-problem.

[jillybean]

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx


(1♥) X (P) 2♦
(P) ?

for those who still double do you pass now?

and if opener X's 2♦, what then?

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Feb 27 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx


(1♥) X (P) 2♦
(P)  ?

for those who still double do you pass now?

and if opener X's 2♦, what then?

I pass, and also pass if opener doubles (which is takeout for most, btw).

[Cascade]

jillybean2, on Feb 28 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx


(1♥) X (P) 2♦
(P) ?

for those who still double do you pass now?

and if opener X's 2♦, what then?

Yes I decided to pass 2♦ when I chose to double.

Yes I still pass if opener doubles. I would expect against most pairs this will be a takeout double.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

I am sure I will get flamed for this but I will say probably 9 out of 10 experts would X with this shape routinely.

Not worth a flame of course, but 9 out of 10 seems like a real exageration to me (I know you would have a better idea than I would.) Also a hand with xx in the doubleton and AQJ in the long suit is not 'routine' for the shape. For example I would double easily if the diamond queen was in clubs instead.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2008, 11:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

Jlall, on Feb 27 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

I am sure I will get flamed for this but I will say probably 9 out of 10 experts would X with this shape routinely.

Not worth a flame of course, but 9 out of 10 seems like a real exageration to me (I know you would have a better idea than I would.) Also a hand with xx in the doubleton and AQJ in the long suit is not 'routine' for the shape. For example I would double easily if the diamond queen was in clubs instead.

yeah 9 out of 10 was a definite overbid, I retract that to 6.8 out of 10.

BTW I didn't notice you bid 2D! Sorry for the unintentional insult, though I am surprised.

Lol. sorry for the insult, or sorry it was unintentional?

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

It is just so much better to X, the worst case scenario doesn't always happen and when it does you're usually in a 5-2 fit anyways which isn't even so bad.

The reason that it's usually a 5-2 fit is that your partner knows that you'll sometimes have a doubleton. If your double guaranteed either three clubs or substantial extra strength, partner would be more inclined to bid a four-card club suit.

For example, with xxx xxx xxx KQxx after 1H dbl 1NT, it's correct to bid 2C opposite Josh and to pass opposite Justin (unless playing ELC, obviously).