[paulg]

Watching Scotland's Women's Trials at the weekend, a very simple auction arose that I realised that I'd never discussed with any of my partners.

1♣ (Pass) 1♠ (Dbl)
2♥=?

Have you?

And what if opener's rebid is 2♦, is that any different?

Paul

[gwnn]

with one partner we decided to drop support doubles and redoubles in almost all auctions*. 2♥ would be 3 card support, any strength, xx strong hand without 3 spades, 2NT good hand with 4 cards, 3♠ bad hand with 4 cards but distribution. 2♦ was 4-6, no desire to defend, nonforcing. Hmm now that I think about it maybe 2♦ was the 3 card support and 2♥ was natural? Otherwise 2♥ is just natural and strong I think.

*except when they bid 2♦ over 1♥ or 2♥ over 1♠

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Yes, we have discussed this - 2H is nat and so is 2D, both are
reverses (corrected).
Basically it followes our Meta rule, if they make a 2-suited overcall,
and a shown suit could be xxxx, bidding the suit is natural.
The X just showes 4-4, so bidding their suit is natural.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Without discussion both are reverses.

I can see a case for playing it differently, say rdbl shows three spades in a balanced hand while 2♦ shows three spades and 5 clubs and 2♥ showing three spades and six clubs, or both showing 5+ clubs but one stronger than the other. Or saying something about red suit stoppers.

[mich-b]

We play both 2♦ and 2♥ rebids by opener as natural , reverse , denying 3♠s.

We don't think that RHO's double should mean that we can't play in ♥s or ♦s.
He may have a "big double" with only one of those suits OR
he may have decided to double with 4-3 in the red suits OR
we may have a 4-4 (or 5-4..) fir even if RHO does have 4 cards OR
the natural 2♦/2♥ reverse may be the best descriptive bid to decide between 3NT/5♣ or even 6♣.

I think the question would be more interesting if RHO bid something like an unusual 1NT showing 5-5 in the red suits. What would 2♦/2♥ by opener mean then?

[hanp]

Reverse?

[paulg]

If they hold just 4-4, and you have a reverse with 4 cards in one of their suits, would you not wish to try and penalise them occasionally?

Or do support redoubles just make this impossible.

Paul

[hotShot]

Are they playing 5cM or 4CM?

[phil_20686]

i would not play natural reverses here, i would play xx= any strong hand that might want to penalise. Generally 2h or 2d would just show distuributional hands 6-5. I woudl adopt the same approach after

1d p 1s x
2c

This now should deny 3s and extra values. as I could have xx.

While i appreciate the value of support redoubles on these auctrions, i think the ability to penalise aggressive opps far outweighs their advantages at imps. People are douibling more and more aggressively these days and I want to be able to tell them when they have made a mistake

In answer to the other question, i think that if you start with a support xx other doubles will be penalty orientated.

so 1c p 1s x
xx p p 2h
x

would be penalty orientated. This works ok as generally you arent as interested in penalising when you have an 8 card fit. On the other hand, its now hard to find the penalty doubles based on values rather than a trump stack.

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Jan 18 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

If they hold just 4-4, and you have a reverse with 4 cards in one of their suits, would you not wish to try and penalise them occasionally?

Or do support redoubles just make this impossible.

I suppose pass followed by dbl would be penalties, if you play support rdbl.

But of course p can rarely double them without extra values because your pass doesn't show extra values.

[Fluffy]

I use the same meaning as if RHO had bid 1NT (typically 5-5 reds) and thats a cuebid supporting spades.

[hanp]

cardsharp, on Jan 18 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

If they hold just 4-4, and you have a reverse with 4 cards in one of their suits, would you not wish to try and penalise them occasionally?

On some hands I would love to, but there are also hands where I would prefer to show my hand, for example when I am 5-6 and on some pure 4-6's as well. So I would want to have a reverse available

And then there is also:

Quote

Or do support redoubles just make this impossible.

Paul

Not impossible but hard. We would have to start with a pass, and later doubles will be takeout, unless playing with Helene.

[helene_t]

hanp, on Jan 18 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

We would have to start with a pass, and later doubles will be takeout, unless playing with Helene.

lol thanks, I suppose I stand corrected. Pass and then pass partner's next double, it is.

But what hands would qualify for pass followed by dbl, then? We have max two spades and max five clubs. With 2425 or 2245 and extras we might have opened 1NT.

[paulg]

hotShot, on Jan 18 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

Are they playing 5cM or 4CM?

The pair in question were playing 4-card majors, although they open a 4-card minor before a 4-card major so there is not a huge difference from 5-card majors.

[hanp]

helene_t, on Jan 18 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

hanp, on Jan 18 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

We would have to start with a pass, and later doubles will be takeout, unless playing with Helene.

lol thanks, I suppose I stand corrected. Pass and then pass partner's next double, it is.

But what hands would qualify for pass followed by dbl, then? We have max two spades and max five clubs. With 2425 or 2245 and extras we might have opened 1NT.

With a minimal 2425 or 2245 I would often pass and then double (if they stop in my doubleton). I don't need extras to avoid selling out at the 2-level.

[gnasher]

I don;t think I'd need an extreme shape to bid 2♥. With a 3415 17-count I'd just want to bid my hand naturally. I don't want to redouble and hear 3♦-pass-pass.

Regarding support redoubles, one way to avoid the complications of playing them is to play 1NT as 3-card support, with redouble resuming its traditional meaning.