[phil_20686]

Scoring: IMP

---

p p 1h p
p x 2h ?

What is your choice, in case it isnt clear you are green they are red. Partner known to be quite aggressive in the pass out seat.

EDIT:Does it matter if you are 35 up with 8 to play?

[rogerclee]

I'm not going to try for game, and I'd rather defend than declare, so I'm just going to pass.

Edit: In retrospect I don't really agree with this and would try 2S. Double would be standard at matchpoints and is probably good against someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

[dcohio]

2♠

[jjbrr]

not an easy lead problem defending 2♥.

[ArtK78]

2♠ seems obvious. I will take a piece of 3♥ if they want to bid one more.

[kayin801]

I'll be bold, red card and lead ♦10 (after a tank of course). I don't really want a ruff but there is no other good lead. I have a hard time imagining where they're getting 8 tricks from.

[ArtK78]

kayin801, on Mar 11 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

I'll be bold, red card and lead ♦10 (after a tank of course). I don't really want a ruff but there is no other good lead. I have a hard time imagining where they're getting 8 tricks from.

How about 8 red tricks? Or 7 red tricks and one black trick?

This reminds me of an account of a US Team Trials reported by Edgar Kaplan in The Bridge World many years ago. Commenting on an unsuccessful double of a 5♠ contract, Kaplan wrote something to the effect that:

"Sontag's double seems to be based upon the fact that on any given hand it is unlikely that the opponents can take 11 tricks with spades as trump. Unluckily, this was one of those hands."

You may very well go plus against 2♥, but I am not comfortable taking that chance.

[akhare]

Color me chicken -- declarer might very well have AK..7th of ♥, AKQ of ♦s and out and so this might very roll home.

Pard might have made a very reasonable TOX with:

KQXX
X
JTXX
KJXX

Since we are up by 35, I don't see any reason to bring back -630 (or whatever) to complement our team mates -110.

BTW, any thoughts on overcalling 1♠ over 1♥?

[gnasher]

I think you should stop playing this double as for penalties. As well as providing the constructive benefits of responsive doubles, it will also remove the temptation to double on hands like this.

[Codo]

I would never double given the circumstances. (Team/ + 38)

Actually I would never pass or double given this hand.

2 Spade would be too weak. Give partner a nice maximum KQxx,x,Axx,Jxxxx and you talk about slam not just game. Of course slam is never to be reached and surely not odds on, but game is likely.

So I try 3♠.

[CSGibson]

I want to bid anywere from 2 spades to 3 hearts to 3 spades to 3N to 4 spades, and maybe double too, but double is the least attractive to me at teams.

Shooting 4 spades seems attractive, might make opposite as little as KTxx x Axxxx xxx if LHO leads a heart, as seems likely.

[the hog]

I would have overcalled 1S originally, of course. 3S now.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on Mar 11 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

I think you should stop playing this double as for penalties. As well as providing the constructive benefits of responsive doubles, it will also remove the temptation to double on hands like this.

Do you play 2nt as natural on this auction? there must be a pretty small class of hands that are

1) balanced
2) invitational opposite a passed hand reopening dble
3) have two heart stops
4) do not want to defend 2h.

i normally play that 2n here => pick your minor. If partner was unpassed i agree that this should be a responsive double.

[aguahombre]

rogerclee, on Mar 11 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

.....would try 2S. Double would be standard at matchpoints and is probably good against someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

Really like this. Furthermore, with a different hand, a double of 2H IS penalty. when the same opponent bids the same suit twice without encouragement in that suit from his partner, a double behind that opponent is penalty. Responsive doubles are used when the opponents have shown a fit.

Perhaps Roger's second reason he might about double with this hand applies to the instant case, if we are up 35

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on Mar 12 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

i normally play that 2n here => pick your minor.

Yes, good idea, IMO. Undiscussed, I would assume 2NT to be "pick".

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on Mar 12 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

Do you play 2nt as natural on this auction? there must be a pretty small class of hands that are

1) balanced
2) invitational opposite a passed hand reopening dble
3) have two heart stops
4) do not want to defend 2h.

i normally play that 2n here => pick your minor. If partner was unpassed i agree that this should be a responsive double.

No, I'd expect 2NT to show the minors too, so I agree that there isn't really any reason to play the double as responsive, except that I don't like having to remember exceptions.

[whereagles]

Pass + pass the balancing double (if it happens lol).

Context doesn't move me much.

[Pict]

I like doubling this for penalties. If you can't, you can't.