[dboxley]

---

[billw55]

Definite double, this is a pretty good hand. We can land in a minor, or perhaps penalize if partner has a heart stack.

[eagles123]

Double

[aguahombre]

Partner likely has five hearts and at least two spades. Looks like the opponents are right where we want them. Partner will leave the double in, and what makes us think 2H won't make?

[PhantomSac]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-04, 08:18, said:

Partner likely has five hearts and at least two spades. Looks like the opponents are right where we want them. Partner will leave the double in, and what makes us think 2H won't make?

That is a very pessimistic outlook

[aguahombre]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-04, 08:22, said:

That is a very pessimistic outlook

Yes it is; and I fully expect to be in a very small minority with my view..

[neilkaz]

 billw55, on 2015-August-04, 08:02, said:

Definite double, this is a pretty good hand. We can land in a minor, or perhaps penalize if partner has a heart stack.

We agree. I'll also ask the OP to please include form of scoring as it often matters to some respondents.

[mikeh]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-04, 08:18, said:

Partner likely has five hearts and at least two spades. Looks like the opponents are right where we want them. Partner will leave the double in, and what makes us think 2H won't make?

I don't understand this. Why do we want them in 2♥ if we think it will make?

My main worry is that partner will assume we are something like 4=1=4=4, and convert with only 4 trump, but even then they may fail. Kokish used to say (I don't know if he still does) that if they don't make some doubled partscores against you, you aren't doubling enough partscores. I double.

[PhilKing]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-04, 08:55, said:

Yes it is; and I fully expect to be in a very small minority with my view..

I think agua is right.

[nige1]

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-04, 10:44, said:

I think agua is right.

So do I!
Not clear-cut but I rank
1. Pass. Partner didn't double 1♠, so we might not have them out-gunned. If opponents play Gazilli, they could have an 8+ ♥ fit.
2. Double. OK at MPs but brave otherwise. Because partner, looking at 4+ ♥s, will usually pass and your double might help declarer to make his contract. Might be better if we had a ♥ to lead.
3. 2N. Might be OK because you could end up defending 3♥.

---

[dboxley]

 neilkaz, on 2015-August-04, 09:14, said:

We agree. I'll also ask the OP to please include form of scoring as it often matters to some respondents.

Sorry, it's IMPs

[Winstonm]

Question: Should 2S in this sequence be a takeout? I think yes.

[PhantomSac]

I think 2S should be natural. Not that it's going to come up very often lol, but you have X and 2N both for takeout.

[jodepp]

Acting with this hand at IMPs just can't be percentage, can it? I'll try to win the match on some other hand.

[KurtGodel]

Surely we have to double. Partner still can have some hands where game is making. Either they have a fit, in which case we probably do, or they don't, in which case I'm very happy to defend 2Hx. Some times partner will leave it in when it's cold, but with two aces and a king I'll take my chances.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-04, 10:44, said:

I think agua is right.

 nige1, on 2015-August-04, 11:20, said:

So do I!

Not the same. PhilK thinks I am right in my prediction that I will be in the minority; he doesn't think my pass is right.

Mikeh doesn't understand why I want the opponents to play in 2H. It is because I don't want them playing in 2Hx and I don't want to play 3m in the likely 7-card fit if partner is 4432 or 3532. My decision is what it is, and so is my pessimism. Have been wrong before, and would not expect our table result to be matched at IMPs or at MP; I just accept the variance, and my grid of comparative results (prejudiced as it is) shows net IMP gains.

[mikeh]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-05, 09:16, said:

Mikeh doesn't understand why I want the opponents to play in 2H.

Oh, I understand why you would decide to pass, and I empathize with the view, but usually when someone says that we have the opps 'right where we want them' it is because we think the opps are in what is, for them, a bad spot. If they are in a bad spot, we need to double and defend. I suspect it is just that I misunderstood your point. I take it that you think that while they are currently in their best spot, action now is more likely to improve their result than to worsen it, and I can understand that thinking, while not agreeing with it on this hand.

[gszes]

With partner well versed in splinter theory they will not leave the x in with K6543 and out in hearts they will probably leave it in with KT9xx however and that should be enough to set 2h. We expect p to have 7-9 hcp and if they have reasonable length and spots in hearts the opps will most likely have at best a tiny chance of making. Sounds like the perfect time to x since our hand seems to indicate the opps have nowhere else to run. While 2hx will rarely be a disaster it can pay quite good rewards at times so the risk vs reward ratio for x seems to lean quite heavily in favor of x.

[kenrexford]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-04, 19:22, said:

I think 2S should be natural. Not that it's going to come up very often lol, but you have X and 2N both for takeout.

IMO, 2S makes a lot of sense as 4S/5+C. With longer diamonds, you could elc at some point, but with club heavy blacks you never have a great option.

[mikeh]

 kenrexford, on 2015-August-05, 18:00, said:

IMO, 2S makes a lot of sense as 4S/5+C. With longer diamonds, you could elc at some point, but with club heavy blacks you never have a great option.

Offering 2S as a possible contract on a 4 card suit makes very little sense to me after a 1S opening on my left. I am sure that there are layouts on which this would lead to a playable contract, but IMO there will be far more layouts where we have landed in the crap with no place to run, having painted an excellent picture of our hand for the benefit of the opps