[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2011-October-10, 10:14, said:

I realise that in this case the chances of a disaster are higher than, say, when we double a 2H opener with a 4144 14 count

Absolutely. Perhaps partner is better placed to figure out what we might have from the given auction than we are to try and guess what partner might hold.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-10, 10:24, said:

Absolutely. Perhaps partner is better placed to figure out what we might have from the given auction than we are to try and guess what partner might hold.

Well I don't understand what your post has got to do with my post, and why you said "absolutely".

I am a doubler and I am not doubling to try and guess what partner might hold. I am a doubler because I think my hand is worth a double, in fact my post above said why I thought my hand is worth a double. nigel_k gave some more interesting and eloquent reasons for doubling. Other people gave yet other interesting and eloquent reasons for passing. I agree that there are clear downsides to my preferred action (double), but on the whole, having considered everything (well, not everything, just several things, enough things for my taste), I am doubling. I am not doubling to cater to my partner having forgotten to bid, or to mastermind, or because I have a personal problem with the little green guys in my bidding box. Are we clear on my motives?

Now, I really don't understand why you have to equate, every now and then, the opposing view, to some simple-minded simpleton philosophy. Or if you really want to do, please read first what the proponents of said view have to say for themselves. If all they are really saying is "aha! we're clever! we want to double! our partners are morons, we will think for them!" (perhaps not word for word, but you get the idea), then by all means, mock us and persecute us. But please don't persecute your imaginary straw men.

[aguahombre]

Or, maybe I was just aknowledging your excellent risk assessment and disagreeing with your conclusion. When someone has a view, but admits to its risk, it is worthy of acknowledgement. When someone decides to make a different call from yours, it is not a form of ridicule; nor should it be the subject of personalization or generalization by either one of us.

[quiddity]

Phil, on 2011-October-10, 09:54, said:

Pass. Partner can bid 2♠ or 2N as TO, compete with 3♣ or even smack 2♥ (penalty) when it comes around. He can pass too. I am happy with whatever he chooses.

Unfortunately in my methods, if I have the heart stack, we are playing for 100's, unless I can double.

This seems strange. Who is going to double for penalty on this auction? Opener - a 15-17 NT opposite a partner who has shown nothing? Responder, who couldn't act over 2♦ and yet has a penalty double of 2♥ sitting in front of the bidder?

[Phil]

quiddity, on 2011-October-10, 12:58, said:

This seems strange. Who is going to double for penalty on this auction? Opener - a 15-17 NT opposite a partner who has shown nothing?

I acknowledge this is a loss when responder doesn't have anything and opener decides to double, or when responder has a balance and opener decides not to double.

Quote

Responder, who couldn't act over 2♦ and yet has a penalty double of 2♥ sitting in front of the bidder?

Why is this such an unusual circumstance?

[quiddity]

Phil, on 2011-October-10, 14:42, said:

Why is this such an unusual circumstance?

It just requires a very specific hand type. Responder needs to have exactly 4 hearts (he would bid over 2♦ with more and pass 2♥ with fewer), they have to be good hearts since he's sitting in front of the bidder, he probably needs fewer than 3 spades or he might have doubled 2♦ for takeout, enough values to double for penalty but not enough to bid 3NT.

Doesn't it seem better to let responder double with diamond length and short hearts (a relatively common type when he passes 2♦ and the opps run to 2♥) and let opener pass with hearts behind the bidder?

[Phil]

quiddity, on 2011-October-10, 15:58, said:

It just requires a very specific hand type. Responder needs to have exactly 4 hearts (he would bid over 2♦ with more and pass 2♥ with fewer), they have to be good hearts since he's sitting in front of the bidder, he probably needs fewer than 3 spades or he might have doubled 2♦ for takeout, enough values to double for penalty but not enough to bid 3NT.

Doesn't it seem better to let responder double with diamond length and short hearts (a relatively common type when he passes 2♦ and the opps run to 2♥) and let opener pass with hearts behind the bidder?

With 1=4 or 2=4 in the majors, responder isn't taking a call over 2♦ as you say, so this hand isn't really possible I agree. Doesn't that make double as penalty (vs TO) more attractive instead of less, since we didn't double the 1st time?

When responder has enough points for 3N, frequently responder is just bidding it. But when we don't have GF values and the opponents have stepped out with a misfit, then this is one of the best times to double, since we don't have to evaluate a game versus penalty.

Disagree that responder needs great hearts here; they are probably on a 6-1 fit, so the lead can only come through once.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-10, 11:55, said:

Or, maybe I was just aknowledging your excellent risk assessment and disagreeing with your conclusion. When someone has a view, but admits to its risk, it is worthy of acknowledgement. When someone decides to make a different call from yours, it is not a form of ridicule; nor should it be the subject of personalization or generalization by either one of us.

In that case either your phrasing, or my understanding, or both, have been inadequate. When you said "than we are to try and guess what partner might hold", weren't you trying to explain what doublers' reasons are? It really sounded like that to me and it still does. I am not doubling to try to guess what partner might hold. Nobody in this thread is.