[phil_20686]

AQxxx
QJxx
KQx
x

1c 1s 1n p
2c

Dble now? Pass? bid 2h?

At the table i thought this was a routine double, some others later disaggreed with me sayign i had a natural 2h bid. Was wondering what you guys thought.

I dont remeber the colours, but i think it was green all, possibly favourable.

[Free]

Dbl seems obvious to me, why wouldn't you show you have ♦ too?

[gnasher]

Definitely double. Taking the simplistic view that our only objective is to find an eight-card fit: double works all of the time that he's 3-5 in the reds and half of the time that he's 4-4 (because he chooses hearts anyway); 2♥ gains all of the time that he's 4-4 but none of the time that he's 3-5.

[aguahombre]

2H=5 card suit and a hand in between dual Michaels ranges, IMHO. Thus, double.

[phil_20686]

i think the point was that when partner is 2(43)4 or similar, he might give you false preference to spades rather than risk a 4-3 fit. I personally thought that that was misguided, particularly as you might want to compete over 3c if you have a 4-4 fit.

on teh hand partner game me false preference when he had 4 small hearts, and Jx of spades.

[jdonn]

Obv double. If partner has Jx xxxx in the majors it's not even clear 2♠ is worse than 2♥. But if partner is 1264 it's clear which major is worse. Both of them.

[MFA]

Yes clear double.

[peachy]

When I saw this post, I thought there could be no other choice than Dbl now. Maybe there is, I just don't see it.

[rhm]

Free, on Oct 6 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

Dbl seems obvious to me, why wouldn't you show you have ♦ too?

Well, maybe because ♥ are much more important than ♦.
Few would double with 5=5=3=0, why wouldn't you show you have ♦ too with a DBL?

If partner has 4 (or more) ♥ and an invitational hand it may be quite important for him to know whether you have 4 cards in ♥ and he can invite with 3♥ or not.

Double would indicate something like 5♠=3♥=4♦=1♣ or 6♠=3♥=3♦=1♣

This is anything but silly

Rainer Herrmann

[Jlall]

rhm, on Oct 7 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

Well, maybe because ♥ are much more important than ♦.

Why?

[rhm]

Jlall, on Oct 7 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

rhm, on Oct 7 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

Well, maybe because ♥ are much more important than ♦.

Why?

Do you really need an answer to this?

Read the rest of my previous entry you did not quote.

This is supposed to be "Advanced and Expert Class Bridge" not "Beginner Discussion"

To avoid a misunderstanding I do not claim that 2♥ is clearcut and DBL wrong.

Only I can see an argument for both philosophies and I slightly prefer to rebid 2♥ with 5-4 in the majors.

What is more important as usual is that you have an agreement what you would do with 4 cards in ♥.

One advantage of DBL is that partner may want to pass. This is far better argument for DBL than that you "show" ♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Hearts are more important than diamonds if we might have a game on. On this sequence, with this hand, that seems quite unlikely, so finding our best partscore seems more important.

Hearts may also be more important than diamonds if we're playing matchpoints. On this sequence, with this hand, it seems more important to find a fit, so as to maximise the chance of a plus score. An eight-card diamond fit is likely to make two tricks more than a seven-card heart fit. Also, partner knows that it's matchpoints, so if we double and partner is 4-4 in the reds, he will strain to bid hearts rather than diamonds.

[andy_h]

X, for flexibility.

[Vilgan]

X seems trivial here.

Of course there are situations where bidding 2♥ ends up working out better, but as you are not psychic, I think its better to just bid your hand.

[Phil]

rhm, on Oct 7 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 7 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

rhm, on Oct 7 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

Well, maybe because ♥ are much more important than ♦.

Why?

Do you really need an answer to this?

Read the rest of my previous entry you did not quote.

This is supposed to be "Advanced and Expert Class Bridge" not "Beginner Discussion"

To avoid a misunderstanding I do not claim that 2♥ is clearcut and DBL wrong.

Only I can see an argument for both philosophies and I slightly prefer to rebid 2♥ with 5-4 in the majors.

What is more important as usual is that you have an agreement what you would do with 4 cards in ♥.

One advantage of DBL is that partner may want to pass. This is far better argument for DBL than that you "show" ♦.

Rainer Herrmann

(fingers over ears)

Frankly I hate 2♥. You are completely discounting the importance of a better fit in diamonds, which can easily be our best spot on this hand. I don't think its likely, but pard may also have a penalty pass. Double keeps all suits in play.

2♥ is a call that a rubber bridge player would make after their partners made one too many passes of 2♣ x'd and then had to endure the post-mortem of how a casual player thought double was penalty.

[jdonn]

rhm, on Oct 7 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

One advantage of DBL is that partner may want to pass. This is far better argument for DBL than that you "show" ♦.

wrong

[jjbrr]

Easy dble.

[655321]

Yes obvious double, hate 2♥.