[daveharty]

---

Matchpoints, both vulnerable. RHO opens 1D. I personally thought this was a settled question; apparently I was wrong.

[gwnn]

One of the clearer (cleaner) doubles out there for me.

[billw55]

Not for me, I prefer a little more with such crappy shape.

[P_Marlowe]

The modern trend is Yay, if I interpret BBF right, but I am old fashioned.

[gwnn]

I would do it without the ♣Q also for what it's worth.

[Phil]

I would, recognizing the pitfalls.

[dboxley]

gwnn, on 2013-January-15, 09:04, said:

I would do it without the ♣Q also for what it's worth.

I am used to jump responding to a t/o dbl with a 4 card major and about 8 pts. I see all kinds of disasters opposite this kind of dbl, especially if the auction becomes competitive.

[ggwhiz]

pass and balance with double (if able) shows this in my partnership, an initial double with warts.

My pard is too aggressive to survive an immediate double especially red. She may well double here 1/2 the time or so but I can't.

[Bbradley62]

Would be answers be different if the question had been phrased as "what do experts do" or as "what should I expect from my intermediate/advanced peers"?

[kenberg]

7-7 tie with my vote of no. This sounds about right. There are some that do and some that don't. I don't.

[mcphee]

Yes and No does not seem to cover all options to balance. NT is also possible and surely far better than dble.

[Bbradley62]

mcphee, on 2013-January-15, 12:00, said:

Yes and No does not seem to cover all options to balance. NT is also possible and surely far better than dble.

The question is about being in the direct seat, not the balancing seat.

[gordontd]

mcphee, on 2013-January-15, 12:00, said:

Yes and No does not seem to cover all options to balance. NT is also possible and surely far better than dble.

It's not a balancing position.

[lalldonn]

I don't mean this to disparage anyone who passes, but I honestly think a hand like this can be used to determine a player's level. Virtually no top player would pass IMO. I would double still if the clubs were AKJx. I would pass if they were AKxx but would not be shocked to find out a double was a winning action.

[Trinidad]

Tempted, but nay. I am veeerrrrryyy conservative with bad shape and pretty aggressive with good shape.

If I double, the problem that partner will have is not in judging what level contract we can make, but in judging what level contract they can make.

Rik

[relknes]

This is a minimum double for me. With 4333 shape, I want a full 13 points (though I would consider it with 12 if the 4 card suit were a major).

[kenberg]

lalldonn, on 2013-January-15, 12:10, said:

I don't mean this to disparage anyone who passes, but I honestly think a hand like this can be used to determine a player's level. Virtually no top player would pass IMO. I would double still if the clubs were AKJx. I would pass if they were AKxx but would not be shocked to find out a double was a winning action.

I have been wondering how I might raise my status in the bridge world. Thanks for the tip

Don't worry, I do not feel the least bid disparaged. Wrong maybe, but never disparaged.

[JLOGIC]

lalldonn, on 2013-January-15, 12:10, said:

I don't mean this to disparage anyone who passes, but I honestly think a hand like this can be used to determine a player's level. Virtually no top player would pass IMO. I would double still if the clubs were AKJx. I would pass if they were AKxx but would not be shocked to find out a double was a winning action.

Way too over the top. Doubling r/r at MP is the nut low time to do it. With only 3-3 in the majors, it is very likely partner competes to 2M or maybe 3M incorrectly and goes down when we would have gone plus, or goes down 200. I would guess a lot of expert players would pass given these conditions.

[JLOGIC]

I think people either go too far on some ideas or consider vulnerability at MP way less than me. For instance if this was w/w at MP I would totally agree with the comments and would even double without the CQ. But to me, w/w at MP compared to r/r at MP is a totally different game. You just have to be so much more careful when you're vulnerable at MP, and them being vulnerable makes it even worse when it's somewhat likely to be a 90 vs 100 hand (instead of 90 vs 50). Doubling without the CQ all vul at MP is insane and bad to me and I highly doubt very many experts would do that.

Personally I would probably double with this hand and pass with less but I find it very close and would never fault a pass and would probably pass in some moods myself.

Even at imps, doubling seems much better since you might get to a vul game that you would otherwise miss and I would always X with ths hand vul at imps.

[lalldonn]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-15, 16:28, said:

Way too over the top. Doubling r/r at MP is the nut low time to do it. With only 3-3 in the majors, it is very likely partner competes to 2M or maybe 3M incorrectly and goes down when we would have gone plus, or goes down 200. I would guess a lot of expert players would pass given these conditions.

I stand by it. Poll your crew.

Regardless of what other people do, my personal experience on these hands at any scoring and vul is over time I've done it more and more, and still find myself doing it even more, and not usually regretted it. It's tended to work well enough that I believe people who consistently pass on these probably haven't really tried doubling, and would be happy with their results if they did.