1N issues part 3

[quiddity]

Why is this such an unusual circumstance?

 

It just requires a very specific hand type. Responder needs to have exactly 4 hearts (he would bid over 2♦ with more and pass 2♥ with fewer), they have to be good hearts since he's sitting in front of the bidder, he probably needs fewer than 3 spades or he might have doubled 2♦ for takeout, enough values to double for penalty but not enough to bid 3NT.

 

Doesn't it seem better to let responder double with diamond length and short hearts (a relatively common type when he passes 2♦ and the opps run to 2♥) and let opener pass with hearts behind the bidder?

[Phil]

It just requires a very specific hand type. Responder needs to have exactly 4 hearts (he would bid over 2♦ with more and pass 2♥ with fewer), they have to be good hearts since he's sitting in front of the bidder, he probably needs fewer than 3 spades or he might have doubled 2♦ for takeout, enough values to double for penalty but not enough to bid 3NT.

 

Doesn't it seem better to let responder double with diamond length and short hearts (a relatively common type when he passes 2♦ and the opps run to 2♥) and let opener pass with hearts behind the bidder?

 

With 1=4 or 2=4 in the majors, responder isn't taking a call over 2♦ as you say, so this hand isn't really possible I agree. Doesn't that make double as penalty (vs TO) more attractive instead of less, since we didn't double the 1st time?

 

When responder has enough points for 3N, frequently responder is just bidding it. But when we don't have GF values and the opponents have stepped out with a misfit, then this is one of the best times to double, since we don't have to evaluate a game versus penalty.

 

Disagree that responder needs great hearts here; they are probably on a 6-1 fit, so the lead can only come through once.

[gwnn]

Or, maybe I was just aknowledging your excellent risk assessment and disagreeing with your conclusion. When someone has a view, but admits to its risk, it is worthy of acknowledgement. When someone decides to make a different call from yours, it is not a form of ridicule; nor should it be the subject of personalization or generalization by either one of us.

In that case either your phrasing, or my understanding, or both, have been inadequate. When you said "than we are to try and guess what partner might hold", weren't you trying to explain what doublers' reasons are? It really sounded like that to me and it still does. I am not doubling to try to guess what partner might hold. Nobody in this thread is.