[skjaeran]

For me the double denies a 4c ♠.
I'd expect us to make 5 of a minor - partner will normally have 3 cover cards here. So my bid is 4NT - pick a minor.

[Fluffy]

My problem here is between 3 and 4 spades, problem of 4 spades is we have no aces to play 5 of a minor, so 3♠ must do it this time.

[whereagles]

gonzalo, your prolem thre is you're typing while eating

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Mar 12 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

gonzalo, your prolem thre is you're typing while eating

lol, actually I am having an eye on my boss so he doesn't see me losing my time on the net!

[Apollo81]

So the responses so far indicate an overwhelming vote for 3♠. We do not play "the double denies four spades" as I suspect is true for most partnerships. Pard actually held AJx xx A10xxx 10xx. I bid 3♠, and pard chose to gamble out 4♠ rather than pull to 4♦ which looks more normal to me.

[skjaeran]

Apollo81, on Mar 12 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

So the responses so far indicate an overwhelming vote for 3♠. We do not play "the double denies four spades" as I suspect is true for most partnerships. Pard actually held AJx xx A10xxx 10xx. I bid 3♠, and pard chose to gamble out 4♠ rather than pull to 4♦ which looks more normal to me.

So partner had something like what I'd expect. I'd love to be in 5♦ on these hands.

[awm]

My impression was that a responsive double was supposed to suggest "two places to play" and offer partner the choice of strains. I'm not really sure how that applies to the actual hand here, with 3-2-5-3 shape. It seems like with a two-card disparity between diamonds and any other suit and a partner who promises "three+ in the unbids" it might be better to just bid 4♦ over 3♥. It's not as though partner is likely to have long hearts (so no particular reason to think a 4-3 fit with advancer having three will play better than a 5-3 fit with doubler having 3).

I suppose if you make a lot of takeout doubles with a 5-card spade suit, or if advancer really wants to select the 4-3 spade fit over a possible 5-4 diamond fit, then responsive double makes some sense.

Anyways I prefer not to play responsive doubles in this auction and haven't seen a lot of hands that convince me otherwise. If you're willing to go to the game level there is always 4♥ to offer choice of strains, and if not you usually don't want to compete with 4-4 in the minors anyway (eight card fit over nine card fit at the four level usually not the best tactics) and playing the occasional 5-3 fit instead of 4-4 or 5-4 fit seems like a small loss (especially since the ruffs are often in the three-card hand that made the original takeout double).

Of course, a lot of people apparently play weasel in this auction, which I suppose is the most effective of all possible methods.

[jtfanclub]

Apollo81, on Mar 12 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

So the responses so far indicate an overwhelming vote for 3♠. We do not play "the double denies four spades" as I suspect is true for most partnerships. Pard actually held AJx xx A10xxx 10xx. I bid 3♠, and pard chose to gamble out 4♠ rather than pull to 4♦ which looks more normal to me.

Huh. So, was it a good gamble?

5♦ looks to be a hair under 50%. 4♠ is less than that (I don't know how much less), but it's a top if it works.

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Mar 12 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

So the responses so far indicate an overwhelming vote for 3♠. We do not play "the double denies four spades" as I suspect is true for most partnerships. Pard actually held AJx xx A10xxx 10xx. I bid 3♠, and pard chose to gamble out 4♠ rather than pull to 4♦ which looks more normal to me.

I don't like a responsive double with this; as 'flexible' as this hand is. Whats wrong with a straightforward 4♦?

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Mar 12 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

I don't like a responsive double with this; as 'flexible' as this hand is. Whats wrong with a straightforward 4♦?

Me either. 4♦ is so straightforward.