[cherdano]

fred, on Feb 3 2005, 12:38 AM, said:

cherdano, on Feb 2 2005, 11:55 PM, said:

I am a little suprised the vote is sooo much in favor of not giving a chance to give a penalty double. I think the question is if you would also pass with a normal opening hand and a singleton in their suit. In that case, I think there is nothing to be ashamed of your defense potential.

So would you routinely pull the double with a singleton? Which would make the double rather an optional double in my view.

I think one of the reasons that people are bidding 2S is that partner might not be in a position to double 2H. Say he bids 3D instead (a forcing bid). Now you will have to bid 3S and partner will assume you have a stronger hand.

In "standard" an immediate 2S over 2H suggests a light opener with long spades. Furthermore it is a non-forcing bid. If you have a hand with long spades that is too strong to make a non-forcing 2S bid (and if you hand is not appropriate for 3S, 4S, or 3H cuebid) you are supposed to pass and then bid spades later (unless of course you choose to sit for partner's penalty double should he make one).

Thanks a lot for your explanations, Fred. While I understood that 2♠ is more helpful for constructive bidding (and would be automatic for me at every other vulnerability), I hadn't thought it through to this point.

However, something keeps irritating me. Your description of the standard structure after a redouble by responder means that we cannot penalize them exactly when we do not want to play in game. On the other hand, playing in 2♥X is most attractive exactly when we do not have game on.

Probably it is just a trade-off that has to be made.

Arend