[gwnn]

AQ
ATxxxx
KJT
Jx

1♥-2♣-p-p

favorable imps. pard can bid a NFB from there, or double+suit for a forcing 1 suiter

[Sambolino]

i'd x regardless of nfb

[nige1]

gwnn, on Jun 24 2008, 03:30 AM, said:

♠ AQ ♥ ATxxxx ♦ KJT ♣ Jx
1♥-2♣-p-p
favorable imps. pard can bid a NFB from there, or double+suit for a forcing 1 suiter

Bidding decisions are hardly ever obvious to me.
IMO _X = 10, 2♥ = 9, _P = 8
You'd like another ♠ for a double but beggars can't be choosers; and a possible favourable outcome is that partner passes 2♣X

[Halo]

Double

Doesn't promise anything in particular for me, except a sound opener.

[han]

You don't have the perfect hand for a double but I don't see a reasonably alternative so yeah, I think double is obvious.

[gnasher]

Double, but I think pass is reasonable: the jack of clubs makes it less likely that partner has a penalty double, I don't really want partner to bid 2♠, and 2♦ or 2♥ may not be a great spot either.

[helene_t]

Double, it's true that we don't want p to bid 2♠ but wth we are not vulnerable.

Wouldn't blame p for passing. 2♥ would be my 3rd choice.

[jtfanclub]

2♥ by agreement- shows six, any other call denies 6.

I guess I don't like X. I don't wanty to play in a 5-3 diamond fit over a 6-2 heart fit. Maybe I should. I assume that if partner had 6 diamonds he'd find a call.

[fromageGB]

2♥. No agreement, just want to show I have 6 of them. Don't like the X as it implies spade support I don't have, and partner could have bid 2♦ with 6 of them.

[the hog]

2H and yes its obvious. You can't double with this shape.

[han]

Really dislike 2H btw, would rather pass than bid 2H. Interesting to see the many different approaches to a seemingly simple hand, bridge is wonderful.

[gnasher]

The trouble with 2♥ is that it only caters well for one of partner's possible hand types.

You'll be OK if he has a few values and a doubleton heart. If, however, he passed because he had a penalty double you miss a large penalty. If he passed because he had a bad hand without support, or some values but short hearts, you end up in a poor contract when you'd probably have been better off defending.

[TimG]

Sambolino, on Jun 24 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

i'd x regardless of nfb

Won't partner bid 2S with some 42(43) hands?

I prefer not to play negative doubles after 1H-(2C) so that may influence my thinking. But, I would bid 2H.

[gnasher]

Isn't this the moment for someone to tell us that Flannery would make the problem much easier?

[Sambolino]

TimG, on Jun 24 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

Sambolino, on Jun 24 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

i'd x regardless of nfb

Won't partner bid 2S with some 42(43) hands?

I prefer not to play negative doubles after 1H-(2C) so that may influence my thinking. But, I would bid 2H.

i think priority is 2 hearts rather than 4 spades. i would double on literally every hand except on 65-ers (and some dull 55-ers) and very long&very strong hearts. i'd pass only with 4+clubs

of course this approach will bring me to rough spots from time to time, although frankly i can't remember when the last problem occurred. also, people around here are used to overcall on 2nd level with bad suits, like somebody taught them the only requirement is 10+hcp

[Apollo81]

I'd double because "penalty pass" is actually pretty likely here.

[sathyab]

The_Hog, on Jun 24 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

2H and yes its obvious. You can't double with this shape.

I don't understand why you can't double with this shape. Regardless of the kind of free-bids you play, partner has to pass with a penalty double, right ? The only time you would consider not reopening with a double is when you're looking at length is the overcalled suit, as it makes it unlikely that partner passed with a penalty double.

[pclayton]

I think double is a lot better than 2♥. Pard will frequently give us a preference on a doubleton, but why not look for a 5-3 or even a 6-3 diamond fit?

Spades aren't that much of a problem. Partner probably has a smattering of points, yet didn't make a negative double.

What possible pattern would pard be bidding 2♠ holding 4 over our double? Not 4=2=(??), 4=1=4=4 (maybe). 4=1=3=5 and we are getting into penalty passes.

[ASkolnick]

2♥. I think too many people get carried away with flexibility and underestimate the value of knowing how many cards. I get into this debate with one of my partner's all the time. He doubles on 5-5-0-3 or 4-6-1-2 type hands. Then when it comes to high level decisions, I double because I think my tricks are cashing, but they don't. It is always easier to bid the suit now and reopen with a double when called for.