[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

louisg, on Jun 1 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)?

I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no?

Ax or Kx?

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on Jun 1 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

louisg, on Jun 1 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Does 2NT really show two small spades (the suit they are most likely to lead once it becomes apparent that we have a diamond stack)?

I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no?

Ax or Kx?

That too, my point is if he has two small he has to do something, and since double seems ruled out what else is there? I don't think 3♦ is right, and 3♥ rules out 2NT as a contract although it's a possible choice.

[hanp]

I'm not so convinced as some others that double shows more than xx of spades. Do people have agreements about that or are most of you just making that up because 2SX made? I am asking in honestly, I have never discussed this with anybody.

I don't think holding Hxx is more frequent than a doubleton after you have made a penalty pass of 2D. And doubling with xx could easily lead to a juicy penalty when partner is sitting behind the 2S bidder with 4 good spades and we have diamonds locked up.

[cherdanno]

hanp, on Jun 1 2009, 08:50 PM, said:

I'm not so convinced as some others that double shows more than xx of spades. Do people have agreements about that or are most of you just making that up because 2SX made? I am asking in honestly, I have never discussed this with anybody.

I don't think holding Hxx is more frequent than a doubleton after you have made a penalty pass of 2D. And doubling with xx could easily lead to a juicy penalty when partner is sitting behind the 2S bidder with 4 good spades and we have diamonds locked up.

I was also thinking that double doesn't show more than xx of trumps - with opponent's misfit, even xx opposite KJx might lead to a good penalty.

However, the hand in question has more warning signs than that - superlong diamonds, no diamond spots, and only half a defensive trick outside of diamonds. Would we really be surprised to take no defensive trick with this hand? Would we really be surprised if we can't prevent diamonds from being set up?

[hanp]

Arend, I talked with coach. Apparently double does show Hxx.

[Codo]

So the "obvious" concept is:

Bid 2 NT with no stopper and short spades and double with stoppers in diamond and spades?

On which hands does this gain? How likely is a juice penalty double when you have Qxx or Kxx and partner has 3 spades too? Isn't it much more likely to have a heavy gain by doubling when at least one of the partnerships owns four trumps and the other two?

And for 2 NT on xx. Is wrongsiding the contract with xx opposite Hxx no problem for you?

I would play to my normal rules: Double is take out, NT shows stoppers in their suit.

With the given hand I had bid 3 Heart instead of the double, second choice would be double followed by 3 Heart.

[gnasher]

The double has to cover a range of spade holdings. I think two small is OK if the hand is otherwise good for defence. Here, however, responder has the worst possible holdings in both spades and hearts, and too many diamonds to hope for a trick there. I might be being influenced by seeing opener's hand, but I think responder should bid 3♥.