[Codo]

jdonn, on Oct 30 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

The fact remains that the explanation of opener's hand only tells you how the strength of the opponents is split, but it does not tell you how much strength they have combined. In other words the weaker opener is the stronger responder is, unless you are calling them incompetent. It does not make a double any better.

No, this is not true, because the weaker declarers hand is , the strong the two unseen hands are. So you would expect a little more defence from partner then he actually hold...

BTW: Really nice picture...

[Phil]

I don't think there's sufficient information. If this was a Muiderberg, I would expect a 6-4 non-opening hand on my left, not some 5 loser hand, although the bidding is very odd here. Why isn't LHO passing 4♦? Hasn't 3♥ told the story 4♥ is claiming to?

I'm assuming 3♦ was natural, evidenced by 4♦ and the non-alert.

Partner has the same table knowledge, yet pard didn't double. You could probably double shot here and x, but it feels sleazy to me.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Oct 30 2009, 04:51 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 30 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

The fact remains that the explanation of opener's hand only tells you how the strength of the opponents is split, but it does not tell you how much strength they have combined. In other words the weaker opener is the stronger responder is, unless you are calling them incompetent. It does not make a double any better.

No, this is not true, because the weaker declarers hand is , the strong the two unseen hands are.

That is true a priori. It is not true after the opponents bid to game, telling you that either they have the strength for game or they don't know what they are doing!