[EWeber]

Your Hand is:

♠ 5
♥ AQ2
♦ AQ543
♣ 7654

Starting with your RHO the undisturbed bidding goes

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 3NT (1)
4♣ (2) 5♣ (3)
6♣(4) 6♠

(1) slam interest, asking shortage
(2) ♣shortage
(3) cue
(4) no specific agreement, might show void

6♠ is passed round to you and now the question is if one should double?

Thanks for your answers!

Elke

[WellSpyder]

Deleted.

[steve2005]

Imps/Mp?

[billw55]

Usually, setting a freely bid slam is a good result whether doubled or not. Whereas doubling may tell the opponent how to play the hand. So in general, no double in this situation.

Although vulnerability, form of scoring, and other circumstances (need a swing? ops are lunatics?) might make a difference. These should be provided.

[jdonn]

The problem with double is it gets me a heart lead, which it looks like there is a very good chance LHO will ruff. The 5♣ bid can easily be explained by declarer not wanting to make a control bid with a void in his partner's heart suit. If I just pass partner is likely to lead a diamond, a suit where I feel much more confident in taking the first two tricks than hearts.

[EWeber]

Sorry, I messed this up. It was a TD case and I gave you the informations the player's partner had.

So the real question is: Would you double if the explanations were:

(1) serious NT
(2) ♣ Cue
(3) ♣ Cue
(4) no alert

The reason why I post this here is that the player who is protesting is too good to easily find Players with similar playing skills...

[gszes]

Doubles are nice but should generally be saved for situations where the gain is tangible. A (lightner) double here would be great if we had a heart void since a heart ruff (jdonn) might easily be our only chance of setting 6s (hoping the opps cannot run to 6n). The opps have cramped themselves in the bidding but that does not mean slam is going set and getting a heart lead might be superb or scary bad if opener is void. No good reason to take this risk since a dia seems like the most obvious shot for the defense given this bidding. The key is realizing that the lightner double exists and even though you feel pretty darn good about setting this contract the lightner meaning of x may turn a very good chance to set into the opps making. this is a LOT of risk for probably not much reward.

[PhilG007]

 EWeber, on 2015-May-12, 10:13, said:

Your Hand is:

♠ 5
♥ AQ2
♦ AQ543
♣ 7654

Starting with your RHO the undisturbed bidding goes

1♥ 1♠
2♠ 3NT (1)
4♣ (2) 5♣ (3)
6♣(4) 6♠

(1) slam interest, asking shortage
(2) ♣shortage
(3) cue
(4) no specific agreement, might show void

6♠ is passed round to you and now the question is if one should double?

Thanks for your answers!

Elke

Most definitely do NOT double. Firstly,the opponents have bid confidently to their slam unopposed
Secondly,don't allow yourself to be seduced by your two Aces. No pair in their senses will
bid a slam unless it's there or just about there. I have had many bitter experiences and red faces about
doubling slams with two Aces only to find declarer/dummy with a void in one of the Ace suits.
To add insult to injury the opponents sometimes redoubled. Grit your teeth and pass. Let sleeping dogs lie(!)

[gnasher]

 EWeber, on 2015-May-12, 15:09, said:

Sorry, I messed this up. It was a TD case and I gave you the informations the player's partner had.

So the real question is: Would you double if the explanations were:

(1) serious NT
(2) ♣ Cue
(3) ♣ Cue
(4) no alert

The reason why I post this here is that the player who is protesting is too good to easily find Players with similar playing skills...

From the sound of it, there are two real questions:

(1) Would you double given the explanations the player actually received?
(2) Would you double given the explanations he should have received?

You use the answers to (1) to identify the peers of the player. Then you use the answers to (2) to find out what he was likely to do.