[Phil]

Matchpoints. No one vul

Weak field. RHO is known to be aggressive but one of the better players in the room.

A9xxx xx KQ9x xx

1♥ - (2♦) - ?

[Jlall]

Double, not gonna trap pass with this hand.

[karlson]

I pass, but I'm not sitting if partner doubles.

[kenrexford]

karlson, on Nov 5 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

I pass, but I'm not sitting if partner doubles.

Worst of both worlds?

Weird.

I'll double. I think it's closer to a 2♠ call than a pass.

[mikeh]

Given conditions of contest, I pass and await the double. This is not clear...partner may not be able to reopen, with, say 2=5=2=4 shape, but I like my chances for 500 against our game or 300 against our partscore. Even if he passes, who's to say that a small plus won't be ok anyway.

It's not as if I know what to do if I double and partner takes any of the most probable calls.

[suokko]

I pass and I'm happy if my partner doesn't balance but if he does I probably would like declare. If we defend 2♦ undouble we probably don't have good contract either so plus is plus.

Non-forcing 2♠ might be nice bid to have for this hand.

[helene_t]

Double is ok. I voted pass though. If I pass I certainly have to sit for the double, I think.

Wouldn't be excited about an NFB with this ratty suit, btw, even playing NFB I would rather double. But I suppose we play forcing freebids.

[jdonn]

Double, and yes obv the only reason to pass is to sit for a double (or to hope it gets passed out and that is good).

[bd71]

This intermediate chooses 2S.

For those who doubled, isn't a double suggesting:
1. More tolerance for clubs than you actually have?
2. Likely shorter diamonds?
3. Likely only 4 spades? (Else why not bid 2S?)

I guess I'm struggling to see why 2S isn't (1) almost the perfect bid, but (2) superior in every way to double. I say "almost the perfect bid" because it likely precludes the possibility of them playing in a doubled diamonds contract if that's the best place for us, but the negative double would seem to have that same flaw.

[mikeh]

bd71, on Nov 5 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

This intermediate chooses 2S.

For those who doubled, isn't a double suggesting:
1. More tolerance for clubs than you actually have?
2. Likely shorter diamonds?
3. Likely only 4 spades?  (Else why not bid 2S?)

I guess I'm struggling to see why 2S isn't (1) almost the perfect bid, but (2) superior in every way to double.  I say "almost the perfect bid" because it likely precludes the possibility of them playing in a doubled diamonds contract if that's the best place for us, but the negative double would seem to have that same flaw.

2♠ is a huge overbid even if you play that it does not promise a rebid.

I could go on at length, but I might misstate the arguments since I generally play 2♠ here as quite strong.... this is NOT at all the same as 1♠ [2♦] 2♥, since 2♠ essentially forces to the 3-level. I am confident that the majority of experts, most of whom play 2♠ as having a lower limit than I do, would still agree that it is an overbid on this hand.

A negative double is not an overbid, since it might even deliver less strength than this hand, while being unlimited on the upper side.

[Lobowolf]

bd71, on Nov 5 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

This intermediate chooses 2S.

For those who doubled, isn't a double suggesting:
1. More tolerance for clubs than you actually have?
2. Likely shorter diamonds?
3. Likely only 4 spades? (Else why not bid 2S?)

I guess I'm struggling to see why 2S isn't (1) almost the perfect bid, but (2) superior in every way to double. I say "almost the perfect bid" because it likely precludes the possibility of them playing in a doubled diamonds contract if that's the best place for us, but the negative double would seem to have that same flaw.

1. (and 2., similarly) A negative double shows the unbid major. It doesn't imply anything about clubs. You might have spades and clubs; you might have spades and a diamond fit. You might have spades and hearts.

3. A 2♠ bid promises both length (5+) and strength. So the negative double denies either the 5th spade or the strength for a 2♠ bid.

[akhare]

X -- at this vul, even even +100 won't compensate for 2M= or even +1...

[bd71]

So how much strength should a 2S bid in this situation suggest?

[andy_h]

Double. But I pass if I were 5143

[gnasher]

bd71, on Nov 6 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

So how much strength should a 2S bid in this situation suggest?

About a working 10-count. This is a mediocre 9-count, so it's some way from being suitable

[miguelm]

There ain't many ways to prevent me to score 4 tricks with my hand, so I Pass and count me to Pass again when/if partner's Double.

[Codo]

bd71, on Nov 6 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

This intermediate chooses 2S.

For those who doubled, isn't a double suggesting:
1. More tolerance for clubs than you actually have?
2. Likely shorter diamonds?
3. Likely only 4 spades? (Else why not bid 2S?)

I guess I'm struggling to see why 2S isn't (1) almost the perfect bid, but (2) superior in every way to double. I say "almost the perfect bid" because it likely precludes the possibility of them playing in a doubled diamonds contract if that's the best place for us, but the negative double would seem to have that same flaw.

99 % of BBF and 95 (105 % in America) % of the experts play that the double is just showing the other major.
So double shows a hand with 4 spades or a hand where you hand is too weak to bid 2 Spade but you will bid your spades nonforcing later. (In case you do not play NFBs). Your spades are not strong and long enough for this approach, but if you want to enter the bidding you must decide now: Do I pass and hope it works, or do I bid? If you decide to bid, there is no perfect choice, so the doublers choose the bid despite the 5 card length in spade and hope to survive the bidding because for them every other bid would be an even bigger dissortion.

[Phil]

Pass was the winner at the table.

Pard has a mediocre 3=5=3=2. The opponents have a nice club fit but they won't find it.

I got to play 3♠ which was annoying. The spade finesse lost after a club lead and they took 6 tricks.