mikeh, on Aug 29 2007, 06:36 PM, said:
2♣ doesn't deny hearts, and partner is not barred, either from bidding 2♥ or 2♦ (over which I have a routine 2♥) should LHO pass. Nor is partner barred from making a responsive double if, as is likely, LHO raises spades.
So the argument for double seems, to me, to be based on the narrow set of hands on which:
1) partner has 4+ hearts and can't show them after we bid 2
♣, and
2) we have the values (strength or shape) to outbid the opps, or
3) we belong in diamonds and partner won't get us there without the double
Finding our heart fit is of no use if the opps can outbid us.
OTOH, the argument for 2
♣ is based on the broader (I think) set of hands on which:
1) we belong in clubs, or
2) when we belong in hearts, partner can show them, or
3) we definitely don't belong in diamonds, and partner will force us there if we double (promising some diamond length when played in the real universe), or
4) (and this is a very minor factor) the opps will be bidding hearts if we don't show them via double.
The old Italians used to survive playing offshape takeout doubles, but my recollection from reading old Bridge Worlds is that they did so despite this approach, not because of it.
Finally, it is all well and good to say that we pass 3♦ if partner bids it over 2♠, but consider the following scenarios:
1) LHO bids 4♠.. and partner with 1=3=6=3 innocently bids 5♦
2) LHO passes, and partner cue bids and then bids 3♦...ok, you say, you bid 3♣ then 3♥... does that tell partner, who thinks he has a gf hand opposite the 1=4=3=5 you've suggested, that you hold a 2=4=1=6 working 11 count?
3) LHO passes and partner bids a constructive 3♦ on, say, xxx x AJxxx KJxx. I'd rather be in 5♣ than 3♦... it's as likely to make (for these purposes) and pays a heck of a lot more.
4) While we can get to a heart slam after double, we are not so likely to get to a club slam after double, since partner will never play us for a 6 card suit, nor will he realize that we have nothing wasted opposite a diamond suit such as Jxxx(x).
Nope, for me, double is a sign of wild-eyed major-fascination
OTOH, it might work
Well, with a little analysis I can show you why the second group is far broader.
This will probably be wordy, but what the heck I can't resist after you busted out the wild-eyed again.
Let's ignore 3) from the first group and 4) from the second, since they both seem to be relatively insignificant factors, of which there are IMO more in favor of double than 2
♣ (we belong in 1
♠X, we belong in 1NT, partner leads Q of clubs from Qx after overcall.) I will also combine 1) and 2) from the first group since you were putting them together anyway. So that leaves us with, according to you -
Double wins when:
1) We belong in hearts, wouldn't get there after 2
♣, and can outbid the opponents
2
♣ wins when:
1) We belong in clubs
2) We belong in hearts and get there after 2
♣
3) Double finds a bad diamond contract
On a fair look, the first thing I see is that 2) is not a gain at all for 2
♣, merely a break even since obviously you would also get to hearts after a double. So we get rid of that. The next thing I notice is I compare the 1)s. Pretty much it's the chance we belong in hearts vs. clubs. But in the list for the bid you oppose, you seem to have added these nagging restrictions of we wouldn't get there after the other bid, and we would buy the contract. Those seem to have been conveniently forgotten in the list for the bid you favor! So now I have us here.
Double:
1) We belong in hearts, wouldn't get there after 2
♣, and can outbid the opponents
2
♣:
1) We belong in clubs, wouldn't get there after double, and can outbid the opponents
2) Double reaches a bad diamond contract
Ok now I'll dig a little deeper. If we compare the 1)s, the one in favor of double seems more important since we are talking about a major instead of a minor. Then when we reach 2), this seems countered by a major concern going the other way that would make a nice 2) for double. When clubs aren't breaking and 2
♣X gets killed. And why shouldn't it, with such a terrible suit. So here is where I have it end.
Double
1) We belong in hearts
2) 2
♣ leads to a bad strain
2
♣
1) We belong in clubs
2) Double leads to a bad strain
What it seems to me is the points in favor of 2
♣ are more likely, but the points in favor of double are more important/severe. At least I hope you would agree this is a much more fair comparison.
As briefly as possible to address the rest of your post:
I actually agree with you per the Italians of old, but their 'offshape' is not equatable to this one. This is talking about a takeout double with four cards in the unbid major and short by one card in a minor. The doubles they made as I recall were as extreme as doubling a 1
♠ opening bid with 4144 shape and things like that. Not exactly the same ball of wax.
And for your list of scenarios:
1) Well firstly, he isn't down yet. But more importantly, he could as easily be 3631. It works both ways as always. If anything it seems to me in the general sense that if I am about to be preempted, I would rather show the unbid major and make a general statement about my hand than show one not-good minor suit.
2) This does not seem like much of a point against double at all (I know you meant 1426.) I even got to show my clubs!
3) Not the greatest contract, but in the real world they probably raised spades with half the deck and 9 spades and partner made a responsive double. Anyway, again it swings both ways, the 3154 could be a 3451 where after the overcall you play in 2
♣ against these opponents who never raise spades
4) Well they opened the bidding and I have an 11 count. I am not exactly picturing that slam yet.
You still write far better than I do!
Help
