[1eyedjack]

It is a gap in my knowledge, and it is high time that I fixed it.
I am used to a flexible style, particularly in contested auctions. Where most experts play support (re)doubles, I have tended simply to play them as a more general takeout. Sure, there is a reasonable likelihood of having secondary support, but it was not guaranteed, nor did I ever really miss the certainty. Furthermore, I liked the idea of doubles showing something extra by way of values (when not in the pass-out seat) beyond what has already been promised.

I have so far no great yearning to change, but I have to recognise that I am in a minority among good players, and I am not so arrogant as to think that I know better, particularly given that I really don't understand support doubles in all their glory.

When someone once tried to explain them to me, he said that it could not be simpler. (1) identify the situations when it applies, and then (2) whenever you have exactly 3 card support, no more, no less, you double, regardless of your strength, and every other call (than double) then shows more than or fewer than 3 card support. Simples.

Well, not so simples, in my view. Sure, the rule can be simply expressed. But applying that rule and then ending in the right spot I suspect requires a deeper understanding.

So, when a thread in the GIB subforum started up, I was quite relieved when Georgi posted a link that was supposed to enlighten me:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__768712

Disappointment soon set in, however, when I read the article only to find that apart from providing a single example showing how it might work well in practice, it was just as woefully short on detail as was my previous adviser.

So ... Is there a link out there that REALLY tackles this subject?

[inquiry]

I forget, do you play weak notrump? Support doubles make no sense with weak notrump.

IF you play strong notrump, well there is some good reason for support doubles, but there are some drawbacks of course. You don't know how strong the three card support is being just one problem. There are also some auctions where other suggestions are better. I follow the guidance of Robson/Segal on a couple of auctions...If my RHO doubles my partners response, then I play 1NT as the "support double" and redouble as good hand. If partner bids 1♠ and next hand bids other minor, I use 2♥ as "support double" and double as takeout.

I got those ideas from Robson/Segal's "partnership bidding at bridge". Download it, search for the support double section (don't remember which chapter it is, but they don't cover support double too much so should be easy to find. After you read that, come back and we see what seems reasonable and unreasonable about support doubles.

[1eyedjack]

Thanks.

You are right that when I play with a human partner it is normally with a weak 1N opener.

That said, I partner GIB these days far more often than all human partners combined. That of course is with a strong NT. GIB plays support doubles although I sort of gather perhaps not in an entirely standard fashion.

I have some extensive system notes of a strong NT, GF 2/1, 5CM, TWalsh, system used by a pair that won the UK spring fours 5 times and if I ever get back into serious F2F circles with a reg p then this is what I would probably play. Those notes don't really address this point. I guess this knowledge is assumed. In the meantime there will be a smattering of occasions when familiarity will benefit, if only the better to understand the nuances of opponents' bids.

See, I don't even understand WHY the strength of your 1N opener affects the suitability of incorporating support doubles. That might not be a bad starting point.

Thanks for the literary reference. It is a book I have been meaning to read. May come back later when done so.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on 2014-May-05, 19:20, said:

See, I don't even understand WHY the strength of your 1N opener affects the suitability of incorporating support doubles. That might not be a bad starting point.

The basic concept is if you open 1minor playing weak notrump, and you have four card support, you will be strong enough to jump raise your partner to 3M. So a simple raise to 2M is by default only 3 card support. There is no reason to have both double and raise to 2M show three card support, at least that is the theory. IF you play strong notrump, you will have three and four card support but weak hands a large percentage of time (unlike after weak notrump 1 of a minor), so you need support double to separate between the three and four card support.

Since you grew up with weak notrump, there was no need for you to learn support doubles.

[1eyedjack]

Thanks.

Personally I think that you overstate the confidence with which you assume that a simple raise of responder's major denies a 4th card in support (playing weak 1N style). So much so that this is a new idea to me.

Although I have always been happy to give a simple raise on 3 with an unbalanced hand, so would I raise (just to 2) with a 12 count 5431 with 4 card support. At least in an uncontested auction. Of course if we are considering a support X then by definition the auction is contested, in which case there may be more of a case to raise to 3 on a min with 4 support. Confess I never really thought about that before now (and still not yet).

Even a bal 15-16 with 4 support is taking quite a risk to raise to 3 opposite a responder who these days only requires an Ace and a Jack.

I can imagine that the requirements of a support X in a weak 1N structure (if meritorious) MAY differ from a strong 1N system, and the followups will likely differ, so let's stick with strong 1N for now.

My simplistic take up to now is that ambiguity of 3 v 4 card support is no huge obstacle. If responder has only 4 and lacks strength to look for game then a moysian at the 2 level is seldom disastous, while if he has values to try for game there is room to clarify the issue. I agree that if the auction is further contested then that clarity could be important whilst the oppo have removed from you the opportunity to clarify. But by the same token we should recognise that by playing support X we have given up the use of X for other purposes which could also have been of benefit. Just some random ramblings in admitted ignorance.

[helene_t]

inquiry, on 2014-May-05, 19:28, said:

The basic concept is if you open 1minor playing weak notrump, and you have four card support, you will be strong enough to jump raise your partner to 3M. So a simple raise to 2M is by default only 3 card support.

I am not sure if I agree with this. Not all 5431 11-counts with wasted values in opps' suit are worth a jump raise.

I think it's more about weak notrumpers wanting to use the double to show some balanced 15-16 hands. Personally I never understood this as I am happy to pass with a balanced 16 count with a doubleton in partner's suit. But that's the argument I have heard.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on 2014-May-05, 19:28, said:

The basic concept is if you open 1minor playing weak notrump, and you have four card support, you will be strong enough to jump raise your partner to 3M. So a simple raise to 2M is by default only 3 card support. There is no reason to have both double and raise to 2M show three card support, at least that is the theory. IF you play strong notrump, you will have three and four card support but weak hands a large percentage of time (unlike after weak notrump 1 of a minor), so you need support double to separate between the three and four card support.

Since you grew up with weak notrump, there was no need for you to learn support doubles.

I play weak 1N opening bids and support doubles and have done so for many years.

Now, I play a style in which a single raise of a 1M response to 1m, in a weak notrump seat, promises 4 card support, and therefore either a balanced strong 1N or an unbalanced hand, which (given the 4 card support) is of approximately the same support value as a strong 1N hand.

This has a number of advantages, and only one significant issue. The advantages include allowing for an easy relay method over 2M when responder has slam interest, and being able to use the 3M raise to show a very strong hand....a balanced 18+ with 4 card support. Balanced 18 counts with 4 card support are a problem in standard methods, especially if (as is common these days) responder could be quite light for the response. 4M can be too high and yet is unavoidable unless opener really pulls back and bids only 3M. Equally, when responder is strong, having cue-bidding, including 3N, available over 3M is far better than responder having to make a move over 4M.

The disadvantage is how to handle the awkward 5431 hands where the 4 card suit is lower ranking than partner's major.

I am not trying to convert anyone to the 'Kokish' style weak 1N that I and quite a few others play, but just correcting Ben's view that no weak notrumper needs support doubles.

[mycroft]

I play basically KSU, and I don't agree that support doubles aren't necessary - I'd love to have them, even without interference - but I also believe that the double is much more useful as "strong NT that can't bid NT now" for whatever reason (2NT is icky, don't have a stopper, ...) This leaves pass as the "decent opener, bad shape" - probably 4(13)5 or the like - 4 of their suit, 5 of mine, and it would be really nice to be able to distinguish between 3 of partner's suit/1 of the fourth and the reverse. The 1-theirs/3-pard/5-mine/4 is also an issue; I've been known to raise with that, and pretend it's 4. That might be wrong - certainly partner doesn't like it when she only has 4.

[fromageGB]

I play support doubles with both weak and strong NT, and see no problem with either. Of course you need an understanding/agreement of whether or not it could be minimum opening strength, but I find it useful with both types. The trouble I have with the standard definition "3 cards" is that sometimes it may be more, sometimes fewer. Yes, 3 cards in the simple case 1♦ (p) 1♠ (2♥), because with 4 card support you bid 2♠, but if you also play it over a jump, such as 1♦ (p) 1♠ (3♥), then for me the support double shows 4 card support. You can also use it when LHO has bid, eg 1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) and then this could be 2 card support, because if you had 3, you would be happy to bid 2♠ if responder is showing 5.

On this definition, it is not a specific length, but "one fewer than the length you would be happy to raise with directly". This then brings into play the question that if you would be normally happy to compete to a level one higher than normal when your suit is lower ranking than theirs, does the support double show that length or does it show one fewer?

However you play it, I think you need to discuss it with partner first. Not so easy otherwise.

[Zelandakh]

In addition to the above arguments, there are also some special cases for playing X or XX as some form of support. We recently had some threads for auctions such as 1m - (1M) - X - XX where most posters suggested XX should show some form of support, whether that be Hx, Hxx or xxx. The case where they overcall our 1♥ with 1♠ is also one where playing a double to show support makes sense, since they have not taken away any bidding space. The problem for weak NT systems comes with 2 level overcalls. Most play a "strong NT double" here. Of course that is not something you have to do but you have to account for that hand somehow if you play Support Doubles here. The issue with helene's pass is that this makes the range for that wide, given that we would also pass with a minimum opening and length in their suit. Mike does not go into his solution - would be interesting to hear the complete method.

[jogs]

inquiry, on 2014-May-05, 18:48, said:

I forget, do you play weak notrump? Support doubles make no sense with weak notrump.

IF you play strong notrump, well there is some good reason for support doubles, but there are some drawbacks of course. You don't know how strong the three card support is being just one problem. There are also some auctions where other suggestions are better. I follow the guidance of Robson/Segal on a couple of auctions...If my RHO doubles my partners response, then I play 1NT as the "support double" and redouble as good hand. If partner bids 1♠ and next hand bids other minor, I use 2♥ as "support double" and double as takeout.

I got those ideas from Robson/Segal's "partnership bidding at bridge". Download it, search for the support double section (don't remember which chapter it is, but they don't cover support double too much so should be easy to find. After you read that, come back and we see what seems reasonable and unreasonable about support doubles.

Could only find 3 pages(82-4 in the online version) on support doubles. They really don't explain why one shouldn't play support doubles with weak notrumps. When the unbid suit is hearts then maybe the double can show hearts. For the other three suits what can the double mean, if not support?

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2014-May-08, 07:59, said:

Could only find 3 pages(82-4 in the online version) on support doubles. They really don't explain why one shouldn't play support doubles with weak notrumps. When the unbid suit is hearts then maybe the double can show hearts. For the other three suits what can the double mean, if not support?

That is the correct section and their argument is given under (d) at the top of page 83. As for alternatives, well Robson-Segal give two ideas directly below this, still on page 83 and continuing on to page 84. Essentially the ideas boil down to inversions of double and the fourth suit on the one hand and redouble with 1NT on the other. In addition to these they also suggest the possibility of simply playing double as flexible takeout, suggesting that this will be better at avoiding silly results than a support double. It is all there but, as usual with Robson-Segal, you have to take the ideas away and think about them a little bit before you can get the most out of them.

[Cyberyeti]

jogs, on 2014-May-08, 07:59, said:

Could only find 3 pages(82-4 in the online version) on support doubles. They really don't explain why one shouldn't play support doubles with weak notrumps. When the unbid suit is hearts then maybe the double can show hearts. For the other three suits what can the double mean, if not support?

1♦-P-1♥-1♠-X

We play as 4♣, this means 2♣ shows 5 and hence 5♦ as well as we don't open 1♦ with 4♦-5♣ like some people.

Not that useful you might think, but once LHO bids 3♠ the 2♣ bid becomes really useful, similarly at the 3 level.

This is in a weak NT 4M4m context so opener won't have the weak NT where the support X is really useful.

[whereagles]

I greatly dislike support doubles because they squander the most flexible bid of all, only for the sake of showing a minor detail of the hand.

If one is so keen on showing 3-card support, why not adopting e.g. the raise scheme on chapter 2 of Robson/Segal? At least that one is very well defined (unbalanced hand, min strength).

[inquiry]

Well, 1eye, has this cleared it up yet?

Let me start by I play support doubles. The reason why it works (the "pros") is it helps in competitive auctions when you are fighting for the two and three level. IT is easier to bid to the three level in competition if you know your partners raise is based on four card suit, and it is easier to let the opponents play at the three level if you know your partner's "raise" (support double) is based on only 3 card support. So separating the raise into three versus four card support in competitive auctions is a "Law of Total Trick" device.

IF you don't believe in or care about LOTT, support doubles just keeps you out of moysein fits if you are worried about those. I find 4-3 fits frequently score well and have no general fear of them.

So what are the downsides of support doubles?
As whereagles said, you lose the flexibility of the double as general takeout (which can include obviously 3 card support, but not four card support)
You lose the "range" of the support double. Lets take a simple auction...

1♣ - Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ - DBL,

The double can be on any of these hands.
♠KJx ♥Kxx ♦AJx ♣J9xx

♠xxx ♥K ♦Ax ♣AK9xxxx

♠KQx ♥x ♦ATxx ♣AQJT2

♠9xx [ht]ATxx ♦AJx ♣KJx

And of course a lot of others. It is the lack of clarity of shape and strength that makes the support double somewhat problematic. Its saving grace is the direct raise is well defined (four card support and you can jump with strong hands). After a support double with a strong hand, you have to try to get across overall strength and shape on the next bid (an ideal way is if partner bids two of the supported suit and you are weak, you can pass!!!).

I never feel totally lost in support double auction but I do like the flexibility when ever possible. Things to consider. Do you play walsh diamond?

If so, is support double or takeout double needed most after:
1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ ?

If partner has four hearts he has a good hand, but the bidding maybe very high before he gets a chance to show his hearts. So if you have four hearts, now is a good time to show them. If you have three diamonds, now might be a good time to show them too. This is a matter of taste, but I play double as support for diamonds. The reason being if partner also has hearts, he will have a very good hand so should be able to compete reasonably.

What if you play Reverse Flannery by Responder on this auction....

1♣ - pass 1♠ -2♦ - ?

Here I use double as general takeout, strength showing, 2♥ as three card spade support, 2♠ as four card support. If partner actually has hearts, he has a good hand because he didn't use RFR.

So, 1eyed, the principle of support double is easy to understand and implement. Despite roboson/Segal suggesting they are not needed for weak notrumps, a number of weak notrumps say they NEED them (I don't play it them when playing weak notrump and never thought that I really needed them but maybe I am too old school there). Do you have some specific hands where support double lead you far afield with the robots?

[1eyedjack]

I am still digesting all of this. It is certainly a big help. And with GIB I do have the lazy facility of mousing over alternatives before committing. Back soon when I have finished digesting and then, ahem.

Would like to thank all for contributions.

[wodahs]

If you play support doubles, here is a wrinkle, a reorganization, that transfer fans might enjoy. Transfers start with Double. Say the auction has been 1♦ (P) 1♠ (2♣); now

X = diamond rebid
2♦ = heart reverse
2♥ = good raise (say here, four trumps)
2♠ = bad raise (say here, three trumps)

You could switch up 2♥ and 2♠, but usually the 'better' raise is the transfer into the trump suit.

And if you didn't want or need the ability to show a three-card raise, you could use the raises 2♥ and 2♠ to show two strengths of four-card raises at a nice low level.

The 2♦ transfer heart reverse is very handy, with a very weak responder being able to tell partner "I'd really love to be able to stop here" by accepting the transfer.

You won't always benefit from the transfer effect, depending on the suits bid. Here 1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♥), there are only the two raises:

X = good raise
2♠ = bad raise

[fromageGB]

Yes, in your first sequence the method does give you the ability to make a reverse into hearts and actually play in 2♥, but in the far more common case of having a typical 3 card support double type of hand, you are committing to 2♠. Playing a normal support double, partner with just 4 cards in spades can choose to play in 2♦. This seems to be the winning argument.

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2014-May-11, 02:52

[1eyedjack]

The ability to stop in 2H is not the only benefit of transfer reverses. You make a good point, but it is one of many and I would not say that that alone makes the argument conclusive.