[cherdano]

luke warm, on Mar 24 2005, 12:37 AM, said:

flytoox, on Mar 23 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

~snip~I would say dbl is far worse than 2S. ~snip~

hongjun, you would still say that even with the example hands ben showed?

For the record, I didn't think 2♠ feared as bad in the hands found by bridgebrowser as Ben put it. For one thing, my partner should know I am prebalancing, so IMHO Ben overrated the danger of getting raised by CHO a little. Then, I have been rarely doubled in a 5-2 fit in 2♠ at IMPs for one down (and the only hand where this was really costly, the opponents were just in a 4-3 fit in hearts -- if that were possible, I guess many of us would be passing). And there were about 3 of the 6 IMPs swings Justin was talking about.

About 2♠ versus X: in the example hands, there are a couple of hands where double would get you to a minor instead of 2♠ although they take the same number of tricks, and only a few where the minor would score 2 tricks better. I still prefer 2♠.

[luke warm]

i just don't understand why people prefer 2S when double either gets you to spades or (sometimes) to a better 3m contract... it seems that some prefer 2S in spite of the hands posted

[MickyB]

Because we believe that it will get you to a worse 3m contract more often than it will get you to a better 3m contract, and that it could be important to have 2♠ played from our side.

[han]

This is a great thread, I really enjoyed reading all the comments.

I'm not convinced by the passers. Are they really saying that partner should balance on almost anything, even when vulnerable holding a balanced 6-count and 3 hearts? If so, isn't that strategy almost (if not more) dangerous than bidding here?

I do not beleive in true OBAR bidding at IMPs, but I do overcall more aggressively when the opponents bid and raise, and my regular partners know that. They also know that I try to bid when I'm short in the opponents' suit and have something, so that they don't have to balance with length and little strength.

The doublers seem to think that a double will land you more often in a fit than 2S will. As they are better players than I am, they are doubtlessly right, but this is counter-intuitive for me. Partner won't bid 2S holding a 3244 shape, (or will he?), and certainly not holding 2344. True, with that last hand you have no fit, but I'd rather be in a 5-2 fit at the 2-level than in a 4-3 fit at the 3-level. And when you have fits in spades as well as in a minor, I'd want to play in 2S too!

[luke warm]

MickyB, on Mar 24 2005, 06:53 AM, said:

Because we believe that it will get you to a worse 3m contract more often than it will get you to a better 3m contract, and that it could be important to have 2♠ played from our side.

first of all, i didn't say that 2S is a bad bid... i only thought double was more flexible, given a bid in the first place... now then, looking at the hands ben posted i'm not sure you get in worse 3m contracts any more often (and i think less often) than you would in 2S contracts

that's just my view