[jdonn]

I was arguing the degree of difference but I also stated it wrong. So I'm just correcting that part but still arguing the degree of difference.

[hanp]

I assume Ben just made two typos, 3CS is obviously a little better than 3CN and not the other way around. I agree with Josh that the difference shouldn't be this large.

[Cyberyeti]

TimG, on Sep 30 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

I'm curious why 3♣ won't also be doubled.  If I were West and had decided to pass partner's 2♠, I'd be doubling 3♣ (and leading a trump if I was on lead -- even though that doesn't seem to be best double dummy, it still leads to 300).

Even if you don't consider a double of 3♣, some EW will score +150 defending 3♣ while they would only score +110 or +140 playing in spades.

It seems to me that defending 2♠ (undoubled) should score better.

Completely agree, if E has a top heart, you'll always take 150 out of 3♣, if W has AQJ or AQ10 of diamonds plus AK of hearts presumably 0553 he should be doubling, so the script suggests he doesn't have that. I think 2♠ undoubled is better than 3♣ and only loses when W has ♥AK and E has ♦Q.

[tgoodwinsr]

And what about -500 vs. -470?

[jdonn]

tgoodwinsr, on Sep 30 2010, 04:00 PM, said:

And what about -500 vs. -470?

That doesn't matter, it's in the script west doubles 2NT therefore if it's not in the script that west doubles 3♣ then he doesn't.