[gnasher]

helene_t, on Jun 7 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Why is ♦Q likely useless? Diamonds will then be on a finesse over opener (assuming p has an entry) for zero losers.

So now you want partner to provide both ♦Q and a helicopter?

Quote

In defense, if p has no entry, declarer might be able to pitch diamonds on hearts and only lose one diamond regardless.

True, but it needs fairly specific shapes for them to be able to take enough discards and us not to be able to get a heart ruff.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Yes I do confess to being the 5♣ bidder, and perhaps I can be convinced it's wrong but not by a bunch of "dbl obv" type of answers. I mean if partner has one honor, is it more likely to be in spades or a red suit?

I don't see the reason for this concern. IMO the double is informative - it tells partner about the quality of the hand - that you are too good to pass or bid 5m. If partner has a red-suit honor, his length and distribution and minor fits should help him decide what to do over double.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 7 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

It's not solely a question, IMO, of whether partner would double 4♠ with certain hands.  It's a question of whether partner would be able to double this specific contract, meaning whether partner can have that good of a hand and yet the opponents still keep bidding to this level.

I believe that the fact of any bid of 4♠, followed by a double from partner, suggests strongly that partner has a lot of defense.  That's unexpected unless the opponents have a lot of shape.  So, whereas a hand might be constructed, I don't think it occurs often enough.

Are you saying that the fact that the opponents have the shape to make up for their limited high cards makes it more likely that partner has ten winners than that he has nine?

Yes.