[gnasher]

If we're really talking about "all players", the majority never have the opportunity to do it, because they never face people who play artificial suit responses over an opponent's double.

Anyway, this was the Midland Counties Bowl, which appears to be an inter-county team event. Therefore we can reasonably assume that the contestants are experienced tournament players. A pair of experienced tournament players that hasn't discussed this sequence will probably have two relevant agreements:
- (1x) dbl (bid) dbl shows the suit, so as to cater for the posibility that responder doesn't have the suit he has bid.
- Doubles of artificial bids are lead-directing.

Why would they conclude that the second agreement takes priority over the first?

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2011-June-08, 09:18, said:

My understandings with players of s similar playing level to myself matches Bluejak's view, not Lamford's.

Too small a sample

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-June-08, 11:09, said:

If we're really talking about "all players", the majority never have the opportunity to do it, because they never face people who play artificial suit responses over an opponent's double.

Sorry, I don't agree with this. The majority play a double of an artificial bid as lead directing in all situations in my view. Therefore the actual situation is irrelevant.

[Vampyr]

I'm with Bluejak here, not Lamford, but who knows? It is possible to post polls on this forum...

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-08, 20:46, said:

I'm with Bluejak here, not Lamford, but who knows? It is possible to post polls on this forum...

I'm not sure how much it would help. A poll would tell us the opinions of a collection of mainly non-English players, of a wide range of abilities. What we're actually interested in is the opinions of English players based in the Midlands who are considered good enough to represent their counties.

[Trinidad]

I am no expert on bidding principles in the UK, but it hardly matters what a double of 2♦ means for lamford or bluejak. The only thing that matters is what it means for EW.

EW say (OK imply) that it shows a suit, since they say they will double with the given East hand. The suit showing meaning is obviously common enough. Do we have any reason not to believe EW?
________________

Just my 2 cents on the discussion:

Since 2♦ is a raise of opener's hearts, the double shows neither a diamond suit nor a desire for a diamond lead. It shows the same as a responsive double after (1♥)-X-(2♥), i.e. something in the neighborhood of a decent 3-2-4-4.

But this is just as relevant for the case at hand as lamford's or bluejak's way of playing the double.

Rik

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-June-09, 01:35, said:

But this is just as relevant for the case at hand as lamford's or bluejak's way of playing the double.

Excuse me!

It is not my way of playing the double!

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 18:57, said:

Sorry, I don't agree with this. The majority play a double of an artificial bid as lead directing in all situations in my view. Therefore the actual situation is irrelevant.

I surveyed half a dozen people at my club, and they varied in their view from "diamonds" (2) "responsive" (2), "values" (1), "takeout"(!) (1). Nobody thought of lead-directing, and your view is a long way from reality. This East stated his methods were "diamonds".

[Rossoneri]

We seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent here. I don't see how in either case you are adjusting the table result?