[jdonn]

aguahombre, on May 19 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 18 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

The better your opponents the less you should do this. I would do it usually at mps, usually not at imps, but always vs opponents who will never play 2♣XX.

Pard has had practice playing 4-2 fits from the short side and does very well. She hasn't given me the opportunity as often, knowing my shortcomings. Should we pre-alert?

You could start by prealerting nonsensical pointless posts and then we can go from there.

[aguahombre]

I forgot how seriously you take yourself

[lmilne]

jdonn, on May 19 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

You could start by prealerting nonsensical pointless posts and then we can go from there.

whoa there!

and no, i don't double. this is from experience, the best teacher of all...

[mcphee]

I would stick my neck out at pairs and double, not imps where you might end up creating a mess.

[barryallen]

Phil, on May 18 2010, 01:02 AM, said:

See title

xxx Jx xxxx KQTx

1N - pass - 2♣ - ?

If the vulnerability matters, say so.

I am really struggling with the logic of doubling a 2♣ stayman bid with ♣KQ10x, always in front of the NT opening hand. I perfectly understand the gain it can have with partners lead, but that has to be greatly outweighed by the advantage it gives to the NT opener.

Unless you can stand defending in 2♣xx, you have just given the opponents another option for a good score, more space to evaluate the best contract over the known threat and reasonably confident that ♣AJx will provide a double stopper for declarer in NT. It may avoid the opponents walking a 3NT contract without the ♣ lead, but the other side of that is a winning major contract in a 4-3 fit and a losing 3NT contract.

If you were told that you were going to be opening a 1NT hand and your RHO would be doubling your partners 2♣ stayman bid, who would want to hear that double with that hand?

[OleBerg]

Always.

Bad opponents tend to have no agreements.
Good opponents tend to use some of the RD-sequences artificial.