[jmcw]

---

-200 got us 1MP. It's not the first we've been handed a poor result by just following our agreement to show 3 ♥

Making the support X is virtually mandatory for us unless our minor suit is quite strong (AQJxxx) and the Major 3 small.

Is it time to change our agreement?

[aguahombre]

jmcw, on 2011-December-31, 12:29, said:

---

-200 got us 1MP. It's not the first we've been handed a poor result by just following our agreement to show 3 ♥

Maybe support doubles should or should not be compulsory at the 2-level, but those who use them will probably point out that the poor results are less frequent by a lot than the good results from having the tool.

It would seem, though, that a crap hand like that one should be able to let it go and pass when vulnerable at matchpoints.

[straube]

I think that support doubles should advertise shortness in the opponent's suit. The pattern given would qualify for one I would double with, but with Qx in their suit, it looks more like a 10-ct. I think if one has their suit, that partner is likely to be short and can double back in himself. So if I'm opening 1C with Axx Axx xxx Axxx and partner doubles back in, I can now support hearts. I haven't lost anything but have discouraged partner at least a little.

[ArtK78]

The real question is whether you intend to take a second call with your hand. If the answer is no, then don't make the support double. If the answer is yes, then you should make the support double as opposed to some other action (unless you have some really compelling reason for taking the other action).

For example, change the ♦Q to the ♦A. Now you would never pass partner's 1♥ response. When RHO intervenes, you should bid again, and the support double is the way to go.

But, on the actual hand, you would certainly consider passing partner's 1♥ response if RHO had not intervened. So you should not make the support double.

[rogerclee]

I have always thought that the people who are too smart to make support doubles on routine hands are losing lots of hands for no reason. There is a big difference between not thinking support doubles are mandatory (I agree) and not doing it with a doubleton diamond, Hxx of hearts, and a good offensive side suit.

At matchpoints I see the concern of -200 but I would double with the north hand without thinking twice about it. Unlucky, with this set of hands I see no reason we couldn't have either pushed them to 3D or possibly gone -100 into their 110. Shockingly, making vul support doubles with min balanced hands when your partner has a 4333 min is losing bridge.

[rogerclee]

oh double post

[mike777]

agree I mean at mp the opp hve found an 8 card fit and are playing at the two level. At mp dont you want to compete and hopefully push them at the risk sometimes this will happen?

This time you have an awful opener 8.5 loser hand, pard is a passed hand and you only have a 4-3 and pard is 4333 and you are at unfav vul.

It seems this is the risk you take for competing at MP...I call it the rub of the green. Sometimes pard just has the worst hand possible.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2011-December-31, 15:28, said:

agree I mean at mp the opp hve found an 8 card fit and are playing at the two level. At mp dont you want to compete and hopefully push them at the risk sometimes this will happen?

At the time of decision whether to do a support double, how is it that you know they have an 8 card fit?

[MrAce]

Bridgematters said:

In regard to Support Doubles—or “Rodwell Doubles”—do you like the idea of optional Support Doubles, where opener can pass with three-card support for responder’s suit, or do you believe Support Doubles should always be made when holding three-card support?

Erick Rodwell said:

I am coming to the conclusion that they should not be absolutely mandatory. I had a hand in a regional . . . a 3-4-3-3 12 count with Jxxx of hearts. My partner passed, I opened 1C in third seat, and it went Pass, 1S, 2H [P-P-1C-P-1S-2H-?]. I don’t see why I need to compel our side to declare this hand. I feel that if you wouldn’t even consider a three-card raise . . . then you should not be obligated to make a Support Double.

[bluecalm]

It might well be useful to be able to pass with junk like mentioned 4-3-3-3 but this hand is easy double.
Passing is huge mistake imo. Partner often won't act with 5 hearts and weak hand, especially with us having 2 diamonds (so partner often has 3-4). Missing 2♥ in that scenario would be a disaster.
So you bid 2♥, they could compete, they didn't, it could be -100, it wasn't. Tough luck, you played well.

[the_dude]

You can always use your judgement, but I would say "almost compulsory", because the inferences your partner can make when you don't make a support double are really, really useful.

Sure, you found that hand that went -200, that will happen .. but even on this hand how good of a board were you getting defending 2D?