pooltuna, on Oct 7 2009, 01:36 AM, said:
jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 04:15 PM, said:
OleBerg, on Oct 6 2009, 03:56 PM, said:
2♦, assuming it is not forcing to game.
I will not distort my hand with a double, only for the sake of being able to stop in 2♣ instead of 3♣.
I will not distort my hand with a double, only for the sake of being able to stop in 2♣ instead of 3♣.
Distort?
And the reason isn't to stop lower in clubs although that is nice too, it's to not miss hearts when LHO bids 2♠ or 3♠.
Amen to this! In fact not doubling may be masterminding the hand.
Well, still under the assumption that 2♦ is not forcing to game, but only 10+:
If I double and bid 2♦, all my partners would expect me to hold less than 10 points, but very often 6 diamonds. But of course standards may vary from place to place. So if X followed by ♦ shows this hand, it will of course have more merit.
Furthermore, I will have no qualms about doubling a 2♠-raise. (And if I start with a double, and it is followed by a 2♠ raise passed to me, both pass and 3♦ will be quite uncomfortable.)
If LHO bids 3♠ and partner cannot double it is quite seldom that we miss 4♥. It might happen, but by not showing our potential for 3NT, we will miss that much more often. And we can throw in the diamond-partials and (the few) diamond games, that we will also miss. In fact, even if partner is strong, the diamond suit might be unmentioned, when 6♦ is laydown.

Help
