[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 14 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

If partner drives to game opposite a negative double, he has a very strong hand. We also have quite a good hand. We will probably make 4S on power in that situation.

I think that understates the risks of playing in 4♠. If partner has a good hand with four spades and some heart length, 4♠ may go down on a ruff with 3NT solid. For example, AQJx Qxx x AKJxx or QJxx Axx Axx AKJ.

Another potential problem with double is that if partner bids some lower number of spades it may still be hard to get to the best game. It's not clear how to get to another game if he bids 3♠ - I'd expect 3NT and 4[SL] to be slam tries with spades agreed. Even after 2♠, you'd need to be on the same wavelength about the meaning of 3♥.

Of course, some of these objections are predicated on double's promising four spades. If this hand-type is allowed, it may be sensible to play different methods subsequently, at some cost of some accuracy when we do have a 4-4 fit.

[nige1]

dkharty, on Jun 13 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

At matchpoints, nobody vul., you hold: ♠ K9x ♥ J9x ♦ KQxx ♣ QTx
1♣ (♥) ??
If it matters, the 1♣ bid is standard, promising at least 3.  With 4-4 minors your partner would tend to open 1♦.

IMO 2♦ = 10, _1N = 9, _P = 8, _X = 6, 2♣ = 4
Presumably, _X promises 4+♠, otherwise it would be fine. After a _X, Justin is unconcerned about partner forcing the bidding to 4♠. He has a point. But if you double, then perhaps you should also worry about partner raising to

• 3♠ with say ♠ QJTx ♥ xx ♦ AJ ♣ AJxxx
  
• 2♠ with say ♠ AQx ♥ Txx ♦ AJ ♣ Jxxxx

so that you play in a Moysian or Burnsian fit (4-3 or 3-3)