[TWO4BRIDGE]

Just thinking out loud here.
Perhaps Opener with 4s/3h should always open 1D .... although not guaranteeing that Major shape.
1D - ( p ) - 1H - ( 2C )
DBL = 3h may have 4s

Now, Responder, at the expense of a natural 2D, could bid :
2H = 4+h but NO 4s, minimum ; OR
2D! = 4h AND 4s where Opener can either bid 2H or 2S ( says nothing about Diam ) .

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on 2014-April-10, 06:07, said:

For most, though not here, opener either has four or more diamonds or is 4-4 in the majors if he starts with 1♦.. So with four, or more, diamonds and not 4-4 in the majors, i guess it comes to whether X should show four spades or three hearts. Suppose it shows four spades. Responder, with five hearts, then does what? I assume 2♥ is non-forcing. He has to have a bid with five hearts and 6 points, and a bid with five hearts nad 14 points, and in between as well. And of course he will sometimes have six heart.. If 3♥ shows six and strength, then with five and strength he bids 3♣ I suppose.

It seems as if we are going to have to have a lot of follow-up agreements here.

I am not really so much arguing against using the double to show spades. I can see the merit. I just think there is no free lunch. Give a little here, take a little there. When opener and responder both have minimal hands, it is tough to show shape and the 2♣ overcall makes it a good deal tougher. Using X as support will work fine when responder has five hearts, and will at least sometime work out oom when he has four. Especially if he has four diamonds. So I think I stick with using X to show three card support.

TO me, the killer issue if from Opener's perspective. If the double were not allowed, as you had no red card in your bod, you would be OK bidding 2♥ with a 3-piece but would have trouble with four spades. Hence, when you add back in the red card, you probably want to use it for the hand that is most troubling. Once you start with that assumption (if you do), nuances work out from there.

[kenberg]

Reasonable enough. I have long thought that a weakness of the support double is that "it shows three" without worrying much about which three. If X shows spades, then with three hearts I might or might not bid 2♥ over the 2♣ bid depending on how awful I think it might be if I catch partner with only four. I am not sure if you are including this option, but it would appeal to me.

Maybe I will buy this.But I still need to think along the "what happens next" line.

[whereagles]

kenrexford, on 2014-April-09, 11:50, said:

I have long felt that support doubles are not always a good idea.

You're right. They are actually a horrible idea.

Why? Because squandering the most flexible bid of all to show nothing but 3 cards in a particular suit is a completely inefficient use of the bid.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on 2014-April-13, 03:44, said:

You're right. They are actually a horrible idea.

Why? Because squandering the most flexible bid of all to show nothing but 3 cards in a particular suit is a completely inefficient use of the bid.

This discussion is amusing to me. Montreal Relay bidding in part solves an issue that support doubles seek to solve. Many scoff at MR but play support doubles instead. The problem hands with support doubles are similar to the problem hands with MR. The solution to abandon support doubles in some sequences for something resembling a re negative double is the same solution in MR. MR needs the solution more often, but support doubles are needed less often.

it's funny to me that the parallels exist.

[straube]

I've wondered whether a support double should promise shortness (2 or less) in the overcalled suit otherwise partner will be taking the tap. So playing it this way, if you double with shortness, you will often have four spades on the side (opener will be 4-3 or 3-3 in the majors) and then it is playable to have responder choose a nf 2S rebid. Sometimes we will land in a 4/4 and sometimes a 4/3. Basically, opener is just making a takeout double here.

The next issue is whether opener should be allowed to make a support double holding a 6-cd minor. I'd think not unless opener's hand is so strong that he thinks he can handle further bidding.

Say I'm opener and hold xx Axx KQxxx Axx. If I pass, responder can double back in and I can still show heart support. If he can't double back in, maybe playing 2C is alright. After all, support doubles suggest that we take the contract and unless responder can pass (which will happen seldom when we have 3+), we will be taking it whether it's right or wrong.

[kenberg]

As it happens, I was watching a hand the other day where S had a similar problem.

---

There have been various suggestions: X shows spades, says nothing about hearts, X shows three hearts, says nothing about spades, support doubles off, a support double implies shortness in the overcalled suit, etc.

The opponents are done here, they will not be further contesting the auction. How do you envision the auction continuing with the methods of your choice?

It's matchpoints,but it just as well could have been imps.

[aguahombre]

Mama South would raise to 2H and Papa North would downgrade ending the auction.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-13, 13:02, said:

Mama South would raise to 2H and Papa North would downgrade ending the auction.

This would be good. Here you are assuming that S can bid 2♥ w/o showing four, right? Presumably if not, then X is support and N is equally pessimistic.

I think it is not a hard hand, as long as N/S are on the same page. At the table, they weren't.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2014-April-13, 14:32, said:

This would be good. Here you are assuming that S can bid 2♥ w/o showing four, right? Presumably if not, then X is support and N is equally pessimistic.

I think it is not a hard hand, as long as N/S are on the same page. At the table, they weren't.

Hard to imagine what page they were on. Your 1st paragraph describes what should happen with or without support doubles.

North being content at 2H is practical evaluation having seen the auction, optimistic that his skills are working.

[kenberg]

South bid 2♥, North thought it showed four, he decided to go for it. He brought in 9 tricks but I think that's the best he can do.

In this case, South accepted (a share of) the blame since support doubles were on here so indeed 2♥ showed four. WSith most all of the missing values lying with East, North has some options. But East is 3=4=1=5 and North just could not cope with the 4-1 heart split on top of everything else (such as modest values clubs where you expect them to be on the auction.). Had they had a 9 card fit, as N believed that they had, it would have played a lot better.

Actually as the defense went I think North can make 4.

---

East woould rather not be on lead but understandably tried a diamond. I imagine this was to get off lead rather than to get a ruff. North won in hand and led a small spade. East hopped up and continued small, hoping I suppose to look like a man with Ax. Declarer bought this fake, and went up. Had he put in the J, I think he makes ten tricks.

He would then play the ♠K, throwing a club, establishing his Jack, and stripping North of good exit cards.Heart to the King, lead the Jack. If East overs, take it, back to the heart T and lead a fourth heart. East must then give declarer a club, so three spades, four hearts two diamonds and one club make ten. If East does not cover the jack. let it ride, play a heart to the board. East now has one heart, the Q, and clubs. Cash the spade, throwing a club. If E ruffs he is endplayed. If he does ot ruff, cash the diamond. Again if E rffes he is endplayed. If he still refuses to ruff, now play a diamond off the board and ruff it. E overruffs and is endplayed, or he doesn't and then North plays his last heart.

So 4♥ is close. I think if E ducks the first spade the transportation problems are unsolvable, but he didn't duck.

Should North get it right? Maybe. The ♦T seems, with the 9 on the board, like a stiff and playing E for only two spades seems wrong.

Back to the question of agreements. Suppose that X shows four spades rather than three hearts. Here opener has both. If he cannot double to show three hearts,what is the sequence? Double to show the spades? If he bids 2♥ immediately this would no longer show 4, since X was not available to show 3, but it does not deny four either.