[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

(Pass) Pass (2♠) Dbl
(3♠) ?

---

A simple question really. What does the responsive double show or are you forced to bid 4♥?

[rogerclee]

x = responsive. I'd double if only to get partner to declare.

[gnasher]

I'd double and convert 4♣/♦ to 4♥, suggesting a four-card suit with somewhere else to play.

I don't think this is going to help with rightsiding 4♥ - partner will rarely bid 4♥ himself.

[MFA]

X + 4♥ shows a 4card suit, or perhaps something like 2344 on a very sunny day.
Whether or not to take this route depends on if I can stand a 4-3. Here I will try a direct 4♥, since I have a reasonable suit and the minor alternatives don't look too promising.

[skjaeran]

I'd bid 4♥ directly.

[Fluffy]

Double, 4♥ would normally be 5+ cards

[Cascade]

We play that responsive doubles of spades normally denies four hearts.

We make exceptions with weak suits and with very strong (in context) hands.

[han]

Double.

[jdonn]

4♥, but I don't feel that strongly. I think a 4-3 would be ok here assuming partner has at most two spades.

[pclayton]

Double.

[paulg]

Partner had a minimum shapely double, so all routes led to 4♥.

I'm a doubler (and then 4♥) as there are many hand when partner doubles without 4 hearts. It also gives partner a chance to defend and my hand is suitable for this.

p

[kenrexford]

I also am of the understanding that a double here denies four hearts. If that is a correct understanding, then X...4♥ would not show four hearts, unless I fail to understand the word deny. Of course, as a criminal defense atorney, a denial does not mean that it is not so.

Of course, then one must logically ask what X...4♥ means. It seems that the entire idea of X denying four hearts is based on an assumption tat one would bid 4♥ with four hearts. Few want to live up to this assumption, it seems. That's weird -- to have an assumption built into the meaning of a call and then to shy away from that assumption.

I'm really confused now.

[han]

We don't have that assumption Ken. I'm surprised that you don't come to this conclusion.

[kenrexford]

han, on Mar 23 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

We don't have that assumption Ken. I'm surprised that you don't come to this conclusion.

Well, that's just typical. For years, I have played that a double here asks partner to do something intelligent (LOL), but then I had beat into me that this was stupid and that double "obviously" denies four hearts. WTF? I am now completely convinced that the issue of Advancer bidding theory is wildly unresolved.

[han]

For years now people on this forum (most notably Frances) have advocated that a responsive double of 3M does not deny a 4-card suit in the other major. Where have you been?

[Cascade]

I think you agree with your partner and stick with whatever your agreement is.

It is far from clear what is best. And there are obvious advantages and disadvantages both having this deny four hearts and show four hearts and probably for any other option in between the two.