[mohitz]

♠x ♥Q98x ♦KQJTx ♣ KJx

(1♦) - p - (1♠) - p
(2♠) - ?

On a scale of 0 to ten, how do you rate a X here?

0 = Xing = LOL
10 = Not Xing would be LOL

EDIT: nobody vul, IMPs

[Bbradley62]

Vulnerability and form of scoring probably matter.

[pooltuna]

mohitz, on May 18 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

♠x ♥Q98x ♦KQJTx ♣ KJx

(1♦) - p - (1♠) - p
(2♠) - ?

On a scale of 0 to ten, how do you rate a X here?

0 = Xing = LOL
10 = Not Xing would be LOL

EDIT: nobody vul, IMPs

4.25

[peachy]

10. Dbl is TOX of spades. I don't think vul or scoring matter.

[Ant590]

8.5

I have sympathy for not doubling, but I think it's losing bridge.

[hanp]

At these colors I think not doubling is pretty bad.

[Jlall]

5.5, I would double but I think it's fine not to. I wouldn't double in most conditions.

One problem is it will often be difficult to get to the right suit (diamonds).

[aguahombre]

Jlall, on May 19 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

One problem is it will often be difficult to get to the right suit (diamonds).

Partner knows we chose not to double or bid 2NT the first time, so there must be a difference between X and 2NT this time. Should one action or the other bring diamonds more into the picture?

[Rodney26]

Jlall, on May 19 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

5.5, I would double but I think it's fine not to. I wouldn't double in most conditions.

One problem is it will often be difficult to get to the right suit (diamonds).

2NT the first time would have been hearts and clubs, so maybe 2NT here should be diamonds and another. Even if 2NT is just two suited takeout to cater to 5-4's in the rounded suits (or hands flawed to act the first time), partner's 3♣ followed by your correction to 3♦ should give an excellent indication of how good the diamonds are on this one.

Doubling and passing 3♣ seems OK as well. At MP I'd certainly get in the fray; here -100 isn't a coup against -110 but this hand still looks good enough to me. I think acting in some manner is a 7.

[Jlall]

Rodney26, on May 19 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 19 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

5.5, I would double but I think it's fine not to. I wouldn't double in most conditions.

One problem is it will often be difficult to get to the right suit (diamonds).

2NT the first time would have been hearts and clubs, so maybe 2NT here should be diamonds and another. Even if 2NT is just two suited takeout to cater to 5-4's in the rounded suits (or hands flawed to act the first time), partner's 3♣ followed by your correction to 3♦ should give an excellent indication of how good the diamonds are on this one.

Doubling and passing 3♣ seems OK as well. At MP I'd certainly get in the fray; here -100 isn't a coup against -110 but this hand still looks good enough to me. I think acting in some manner is a 7.

You can't have it both ways. You either get to double and pass 3C, or you cannot play clubs. Either is flawed. I agree if I could always pull 3C when it's right and always pass 3C when it's right then X is a 10.

Quote

Partner knows we chose not to double or bid 2NT the first time, so there must be a difference between X and 2NT this time. Should one action or the other bring diamonds more into the picture?

If we bid 2N now we lose the ability to play clubs (since we have to pull 3C since partner is assuming we have 5-5 minors for now), and we also lose the ability to defend 2S X. Both are bad.

Again we can't do it all.

[Rodney26]

Jlall, on May 19 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Rodney26, on May 19 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 19 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

5.5, I would double but I think it's fine not to. I wouldn't double in most conditions.

One problem is it will often be difficult to get to the right suit (diamonds).

2NT the first time would have been hearts and clubs, so maybe 2NT here should be diamonds and another. Even if 2NT is just two suited takeout to cater to 5-4's in the rounded suits (or hands flawed to act the first time), partner's 3♣ followed by your correction to 3♦ should give an excellent indication of how good the diamonds are on this one.

Doubling and passing 3♣ seems OK as well. At MP I'd certainly get in the fray; here -100 isn't a coup against -110 but this hand still looks good enough to me. I think acting in some manner is a 7.

You can't have it both ways. You either get to double and pass 3C, or you cannot play clubs. Either is flawed. I agree if I could always pull 3C when it's right and always pass 3C when it's right then X is a 10.

Quote

Partner knows we chose not to double or bid 2NT the first time, so there must be a difference between X and 2NT this time. Should one action or the other bring diamonds more into the picture?

If we bid 2N now we lose the ability to play clubs (since we have to pull 3C since partner is assuming we have 5-5 minors for now), and we also lose the ability to defend 2S X. Both are bad.

Again we can't do it all.

There is also a direct 3C to consider as a hand type, as that has to be at least 5 clubs and at least 4 of a red suit. Otherwise, bidding is pretty insane.

I don't think you'll play 2S doubled too much with the spades in the slot and so little upside, but double also might elicit 2NT from partner when partner is 4-4 in two of the outside suits. I see that as a plus for the double.

[Phil]

This hand is a little soft for a double but I think its OK. I will give it a 5.

[jdonn]

Wow I give it an 8, I think not doubling is bad.

[whereagles]

9 here. 10 if I had 4 clubs.