[kenrexford]

♠x ♥A10xxxx ♦Q10x ♣Axx

P-P-2♥-2♠
P-P-?

Assuming 2♥ is OK, act?

[hanp]

I wouldn't at any conditions yet I do think that they are relevant.

[rogerclee]

I would double if NV at matchpoints, probably not a popular opinion though.

[gnasher]

If your weak twos have a fairly wide range, I think it reasonable to act with a complete maximum and a singleton in their suit. If you'd going to bid, then double, obviously. I wouldn't do it if I was vulnerable.

[mtvesuvius]

This is a 1♥ opener for me. NV at MPs I guess I'll double, it's so nice not to have to worry about this when I open 1♥.

[whereagles]

- If pard had hearts, he would have bid.
- If pard has spades, our defense is great. Especially if pard leads a singleton heart
- Finally, if pard doesn't have spades, opps could have a game.

I really don't see why I should act.

[paulg]

Presumably we opened 2♥, rather than a light third hand 1♥, in an attempt to prevent competition in spades.

Well, we have prevented constructive competition in spades and we may have been successful in pushing them into a contract that is poor for them, as partner is never doubling.

It is also likely that we have done little harm, compared to other tables, plus we have shown that we have a six-card heart suit rather than just five, so it feels wrong to me to gamble a second time.

So it's an easy pass for me.

[shevek]

Double. If not now, never. Don't like never.

[Phil]

rogerclee, on May 21 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

I would double if NV at matchpoints, probably not a popular opinion though.

So would I. I also would r/r against weak opponents.

[kfay]

rogerclee, on May 21 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

I would double if NV at matchpoints, probably not a popular opinion though.

This is even a little too conservative for me. I'd probably always double.

[jdonn]

I would double at absolutely all conditions. Not only maximum with perfect shape, but just the ace in hearts. All partner needs is a 5 card minor to go with his proven values. I would go so far as to say that, given the 2♥ opening which is easily debatable, passing at this point is awful.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 22 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

I would double at absolutely all conditions. Not only maximum with perfect shape, but just the ace in hearts. All partner needs is a 5 card minor to go with his proven values. I would go so far as to say that, given the 2♥ opening which is easily debatable, passing at this point is awful.

I agree... with the caveat that I have never done this, nor ever seen it done at the table... if ever there were a hand for the action, this has to be it.

[cherdanno]

I don't think this hand is perfect, because it is not what partner expects. Specifically, partner won't expect so much defense. He will pull often when we would have gotten a plus score against 2♠ undoubled.

[mikeh]

cherdanno, on May 22 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

I don't think this hand is perfect, because it is not what partner expects. Specifically, partner won't expect so much defense. He will pull often when we would have gotten a plus score against 2♠ undoubled.

I disagree... surely this is the type of double that we make as a two-way shot, rather than merely trying to find a fit at the 3-level? If I were asked, as responder, to describe a hand for partner after a reopening double, the actual hand would be very close to the protypical examples I would give. This should be a double that partner can and should leave in. K108x x Kxx Kxxx... I surely don't want him thinking he has to run to 3♣ here. I think we HAVE to promise defence for this very unusual call. if we do it with defence and without, partner cannot make an informed decision.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, unlike Mike, this was about the third instance of this problem coming up after I had my manhood challenged by a friend of mine for passing. On all three, we gained by reopening.

On this one, partner cannot lose. 2♠ went down two tricks, apparently, so converting with a pass seems to win. Partner leads a heart, gets a ruff with a return signal, returns the clubs, gets another ruff (or a trump promo -- cannot remember heart split) and can cash two more tricks, minimum. Partner had something like 109-fifth in spades, club King, stiff heart, diamond Ace.

My partner opted to declare diamonds (Ace-something fifth), which seemed safer, and scored up +110. She might have dropped a high-tech trick Declaring, but the tricks she took seemed legitimate. Roughly an elopement. Ruffed a few spades on dummy, a few hearts in hand, took two clubs. Let's see -- heart Ace, Club Ace-King, two spade ruffs in dummy, two heart ruffs in hand, diamond Ace, and then some other diamond in the wash.

I used to be the "who bids again" type until called out. I'm firmly comvinced now that doubling is the long winner by a heavy margin.

[cherdanno]

mikeh, on May 22 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 22 2009, 12:35 PM, said:

I don't think this hand is perfect, because it is not what partner expects. Specifically, partner won't expect so much defense. He will pull often when we would have gotten a plus score against 2♠ undoubled.

I disagree... surely this is the type of double that we make as a two-way shot, rather than merely trying to find a fit at the 3-level? If I were asked, as responder, to describe a hand for partner after a reopening double, the actual hand would be very close to the protypical examples I would give. This should be a double that partner can and should leave in. K108x x Kxx Kxxx... I surely don't want him thinking he has to run to 3♣ here. I think we HAVE to promise defence for this very unusual call. if we do it with defence and without, partner cannot make an informed decision.

What about KTxx xx Kxx Kxxx? Would you want him to pass with that? (Personally I can never predict what partners will do with 4134 shape.)
I agree the double should promise some defense, but it should also hold some more promise for offense than two empty aces.

[kenrexford]

cherdanno, on May 22 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

...I agree the double should promise some defense, but it should also hold some more promise for offense than two empty aces.

You cannot have that much more and yet still have a weak two.