[easy]

Scoring: MP

1D- P - 1S - 2H
X* - P - ?

* SUPPORT DOUBLE

---

Your partnership plays, 14-16 nt, 2/1 gf. Your call. After selecting your call please indicate what you plan to do over pards various possible responses.

[gwnn]

let's just try 2♠ and hope we make.

pd could

pass: sigh of relief
2NT: raise to 3
3♣: raise to 5 (?!)
3♦: pass
3♥: 4♣, which should be natural.
3♠: should 4♣ still be natural? interesting
3NT: pass

[jdonn]

I think 3♣ should be to play, just like 3♦ would be. In competitive auctions I always play 3 level bids as weak when I have to choose between that and invitational, for example something like 1♣ p 1♥ 1♠, P 2♠ 3♣. The weak hands are much more frequent in my experience, and the invitational hands just split themselves up into minimums that pretend they are weak and maximums that force to game.

Csaba I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief if partner passes your 2♠ bid. That looks like a very difficult contract that could easily lose control and go down multiple tricks.

[bhall]

When we have identified a playable contract (here, 2♠), I play that a new suit is a natural F1. Consequently, 3♣ would be an overbid, while 2♠ could be going down, as Josh said.

So I'm stuck, and must take my medicine at 2♠. The rebids that gwnn posted above look fine to me, in the event that partner doesn't leave me to suffer. I wonder if 2N Lebensohl could be applied in such situations.

[mike777]

easy, on Dec 2 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1D- P - 1S - 2H
X* - P  - ?

* SUPPORT DOUBLE

---

Your partnership plays, 14-16 nt, 2/1 gf. Your call. After selecting your call please indicate what you plan to do over pards various possible responses.

I bid 3clubs...invite and hope partner passes.
If he rebids 3nt we either pass or rebid 4clubs

We do the best we can and move on to the next deal.

[jdonn]

By the way, I love this question. Support doubles are one example of a convention (another being the often-noted keycard blackwood) that people frequently agree to play 'on the fly', but that need quite a lot of discussion of followup auctions to play properly and avoid misunderstandings.

[Winstonm]

This could possibly be a good place to use Lebensohl-like 2N relays to get out at the 3-level and leave direct bids as invitational.

BTW, I also voted myself the top bidding theorist on that other thread.

[neilkaz]

2♠ for me and if I get X'd I run to 3♣. If I bid a direct 3♣ I fear PD may think me stronger than I am. If 2♠ and 3♣ both make on the dot, they score the same (MP) anyhow.

[han]

I play 3C forcing with Arend, so I bid 2S.

Edit: Hmm, may have to check this, I'm getting confused.

[gwnn]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2007, 02:44 AM, said:

I think 3♣ should be to play, just like 3♦ would be. In competitive auctions I always play 3 level bids as weak when I have to choose between that and invitational, for example something like 1♣ p 1♥ 1♠, P 2♠ 3♣. The weak hands are much more frequent in my experience, and the invitational hands just split themselves up into minimums that pretend they are weak and maximums that force to game.

Csaba I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief if partner passes your 2♠ bid. That looks like a very difficult contract that could easily lose control and go down multiple tricks.

That makes lots of sense Josh! Thanks:)

And my sigh of relief was meant as "at least we go down -5 and not -6", but I can see how clubs have higher trick expectancy than spades.

[P_Marlowe]

2S.

If he invites game, I will accept.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I really see no problem with 2 ♠.

If you -like josh- have the agreement, that 3♣ here shows a good 6 card suit in a weak hand, hey great. But this is not common practice, so I stick to 2 ♠.

But I would decline an invitation to 4 Spade. The shortness is in the wrong hand and I am really not sure about the value of my club honours.
But if pd does not posesses all controls, any 4-2 spade break may make our game a bad bet.

[mike777]

bit at a loss..........here guys
no way 3clubs can be forcing. Good invite ok....but no way forcing. It just makes bridge too hard.

[benlessard]

3C

for me this is clear cut.

if partner pass we are in a good spot. 3C is probably making 1 or 2 trick more then 2S.
if partner rebid 3D its at least ok. (partner know its MP)

If partner bid a game its going to be the best game

Im not a "automatic support X" clan. So with AQx my im expecting partner to bid 2S not X.


Also over a further 3H partner will be in a better position.

[Gerben42]

3♣. Nonforcing as forcing hands would have responded 2♣ the round before.

[ArtK78]

I would bid 2♠ here. There is no way to know that 3♣ is even a playable spot - part did open 1♦ and make a support double. He could be 3451 or 3361 on this auction - even 3460.

Besides, 2♠ could easily be the best spot to play the hand. Majors do score more than minors, and this is matchpoints.

I realize that you know for a fact that partner has only 3 spades on this auction, but what would you have done if there were no intervening 2♥ bid and partner raised to 2♠? I am going to assume that, even in the remote chance that you could bid 3♣ to play (and I don't know why anyone would play that), you would pass 2♠. Some might even invite a game, but I leave that to the fringe.

[keylime]

I don't play support doubles anymore for many reasons. Josh has hit the nail on the head here in terms of failing to understand the follow-ups. 2♠ here on repeated heart leads looks to be down 2.

In the past, I played 3♣ here as inviting, because I could bid 2♣ originally to force; additionally I had a 2NT Leb relay to get out in clubs (or diamonds for that matter) just to cater to these constructive 6-4 hands.

[whereagles]

3♣, and I don't care what this shows or should show. If things go wrong, I'll blame it on pard for making me play silly conventions like SUPPORT DBLS.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Dec 3 2007, 05:40 PM, said:

3♣, and I don't care what this shows or should show. If things go wrong, I'll blame it on pard for making me play silly conventions like SUPPORT DBLS.

You make a bid, admittedly not knowing what it shows or what it should show, and then blame partner when it goes wrong. Shocking!

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

I think 3♣ should be to play, just like 3♦ would be. In competitive auctions I always play 3 level bids as weak when I have to choose between that and invitational, for example something like 1♣ p 1♥ 1♠, P 2♠ 3♣. The weak hands are much more frequent in my experience, and the invitational hands just split themselves up into minimums that pretend they are weak and maximums that force to game.

Csaba I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief if partner passes your 2♠ bid. That looks like a very difficult contract that could easily lose control and go down multiple tricks.

Agree. 3♣ is NF.