[phoenixmj]

If opener opens a minor and an unpassed responder says 1H - this does not deny 4+ spades. Without an intervening bid, if opener has 4 spades opener's rebid bid would be 1 spade under our system

With an intervening bid -
Example 1C, p, 1H, 2D, ?????
opener can do a support double with 3 hearts, bid 2 hearts with 4 hearts, but what is the correct bid to do with 4 spades assuming not strong enough to reverse? I am thinking that a 2 spade bid would promise 5, not 4. And also, I think it shows as a reverse.

I know that this is pretty basic, but for whatever reason I cannot put together how this should be bid.

Thanks in advance.

[barmar]

2♠ would only promise 4 spades, but you're right that it's a reverse and requires a strong hand.

If opener isn't strong enough to reverse, they can pass or rebid 3♣ if they have long clubs and a decent opener. If opener passes and responder has a good hand they'll reopen, and then opener can show the spades.

[KingCovert]

Pass. Your don't have a bid that promises spades in this sequence, but you might be able to imply some spades.

[mikeh]

I have heard of some pairs using double to show the 4 card spade suit: obviously this means that one cannot play support doubles in this sequence. I much prefer support doubles, because (a) I like partner to know if I have 3 or 4 hearts (double or 2H respectively) or am implying 0-2 (by pass...but note that my view is that one should pass even with 3 hearts, but not with 4, if one has a horrible opening hand).

Btw, let me suggest that you consider playing that the sequence 1C 1H 1S promise an unbalanced hand, and that 1N instead does not deny 4 spades. Even some very conservative experts will agree that 1N is the right bid with 4=3=3=3 minimums, and I'd like to sell you on the notion that 1S promises at least 5 clubs and 4 spades. 1D 1H 1S same thing, except that it could be based on 4=1=4=4. Not that this has anything to do with the problem you posted, where I largely agree with Barmar.

Where I disagree is the idea that one could be 4=6 in the blacks and bid 3C. 3C should show some extras, but not as much as would be promised by 1C 1H 3C. However, I don't understand the bridge logic behind being strong enough to bid a non-forcing 3C and being not strong enough to bid a forcing one round 2S. I think that one passes 2D with all bad hands, and that both 2S and 3C promise extra values, but not necessarily as strong as the bid would have been had 4th seat passed. IOW, 2S is still a reverse, but may be made on a weaker hand than 'normal', if 4=6 in the blacks.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2019-December-20, 13:09, said:

I have heard of some pairs using double to show the 4 card spade suit: obviously this means that one cannot play support doubles in this sequence. I much prefer support doubles, because (a) I like partner to know if I have 3 or 4 hearts (double or 2H respectively) or am implying 0-2 (by pass...but note that my view is that one should pass even with 3 hearts, but not with 4, if one has a horrible opening hand).

We don't play support doubles and we play that double here would show 4-card spades, which is pretty normal in Europe I think. We can usually differentiate length of fit by using a simple raise (or cue) for 3-card and 2NT for 4-card. But I appreciate that support doubles have had success for a reason and will look at them more closely when a stable partnership permits.

[phoenixmj]

mikeh, on 2019-December-20, 13:09, said:

I have heard of some pairs using double to show the 4 card spade suit: obviously this means that one cannot play support doubles in this sequence. I much prefer support doubles, because (a) I like partner to know if I have 3 or 4 hearts (double or 2H respectively) or am implying 0-2 (by pass...but note that my view is that one should pass even with 3 hearts, but not with 4, if one has a horrible opening hand).

Btw, let me suggest that you consider playing that the sequence 1C 1H 1S promise an unbalanced hand, and that 1N instead does not deny 4 spades. Even some very conservative experts will agree that 1N is the right bid with 4=3=3=3 minimums, and I'd like to sell you on the notion that 1S promises at least 5 clubs and 4 spades. 1D 1H 1S same thing, except that it could be based on 4=1=4=4. Not that this has anything to do with the problem you posted, where I largely agree with Barmar.

Where I disagree is the idea that one could be 4=6 in the blacks and bid 3C. 3C should show some extras, but not as much as would be promised by 1C 1H 3C. However, I don't understand the bridge logic behind being strong enough to bid a non-forcing 3C and being not strong enough to bid a forcing one round 2S. I think that one passes 2D with all bad hands, and that both 2S and 3C promise extra values, but not necessarily as strong as the bid would have been had 4th seat passed. IOW, 2S is still a reverse, but may be made on a weaker hand than 'normal', if 4=6 in the blacks.

hi - after reading your post I looked at Robert Todd's description of extended Walsh. I think that is what you are indicating when saying bidding 1 spade shows unbalanced.

Now in this case, without interference - it seems that a 1N bid is appropriate. My partner was opener and did a support double because there was interference. I am now including the entire hand. Any additional suggestions on this hand? East is the dealer and both vulnerable. They can make 3 diamonds so passing their 2 diamond bid is distasteful - and if that gets passed around to me (west) I am not strong enough for a rebid. We are down at 2 hearts but can make 2 spades.

---

[mikeh]

I don’t think that many good players would find that 2D bid on that suit but it worked. Of course, if bad bridge did not work sometimes, nobody would play the game

I have no issue with a support double by opener. He has a fine 13 and a ruffing value. Now you were stuck, assuming rho did not raise to 3D. Whether he should is a different question, but I’d expect my partners would, since I will usually have 6 diamonds for my overcall, but pass isn’t unreasonable with such a flat, soft hand. Now you really have no call other than the doomed 2H.

Hey, if reasonable bidding didn’t sometimes lead to bad results, we’d have much less to complain about

I don’t care how strong a partnership is: everybody has bad results occasionally, without doing anything wrong. Don’t let these occasional results get to you. Of course, it’s a fine line between just being unlucky on the one hand, and playing bad methids or using poor judgement on the other. Let me know if you ever work out how to tell the difference infallibly😃

[awm]

This sort of hand works very well for the sort of double I play with many partners. We call it a "takeout double" (innovative I know) where after:

1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - 2♦

Double shows all of the following:

1. 0-2 cards in the suit bid by the opponents (here diamonds)
2. 3-4 cards in the unbid suit (here spades)
3. Almost always three cards in partner's suit (rarely honor-doubleton is possible)

Since this perfectly describes opener's hand, responder will know that 2♠ is at least a 4-3 fit and often a 4-4 fit, and will correct to 2♠.

When this double happens it's generally more descriptive than a support double. The follow-up methods are also perhaps simpler (after a support double there is some mystery about whether bidding the fourth suit shows extras). This method has the "disadvantage" that we don't make a "support double" on hands with length in the opponents suit. One can certainly construct cases where this hurts us (generally when responder has shortage in the opponents suit and the other opponent raises, but responder is not strong enough to stick in a double at the three-level) but there are also a lot of cases where it helps (for example when we are 3-3 or even 4-3 in the opponents' suit and get to defend instead of playing a moysian in our major with no ruffing values).

[dsLawsd]

AWM has it right. With some partners I might NOT make a support double as partner should field my hand as holding spades.
Matchpoints is the very definition of bad bridge- but so very stimulating.
With a good hand with hearts, partner would often try 2 hearts.

[HotHeart]

Hello
I don't think 1♣ Pass 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ would be reverse, it shows 4♠ and 5♣ a good hand (13/15) but not reverse.
However, 1♦ Pass 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ would be reverse!
My understanding is that when the responder could fit the opener first color at the same level as the opener could have done by repeating it, there is no reverse.
First exemple 1♣ PASS 1♥ 2♦ repeating the ♣ would be at level 3, so 2♠ being less expensive than 3♣, it is not a reverse.
Segond exemple 1♦ PASS 1♥ 2♣ repeating the ♦ would be at level 2, so 2♠ being less economical than 2♦ it is a reverse.
Hope this is understandable, my english is quite limited.

[phoenixmj]

HotHeart, on 2019-December-22, 07:35, said:

Hello
I don't think 1♣ Pass 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ would be reverse, it shows 4♠ and 5♣ a good hand (13/15) but not reverse.
However, 1♦ Pass 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ would be reverse!
My understanding is that when the responder could fit the opener first color at the same level as the opener could have done by repeating it, there is no reverse.
First exemple 1♣ PASS 1♥ 2♦ repeating the ♣ would be at level 3, so 2♠ being less expensive than 3♣, it is not a reverse.
Segond exemple 1♦ PASS 1♥ 2♣ repeating the ♦ would be at level 2, so 2♠ being less economical than 2♦ it is a reverse.
Hope this is understandable, my english is quite limited.

Yours is different from my understanding. We would play it as a reverse. As almost everything, I suppose a lot is partnership agreement. I am an intermediate player - so I am curious to hear other opinions on this. We would take it as a reverse.

[Stephen Tu]

A reverse is a non-jump new suit by opener that forces responder, if wants to preference to opener's first suit, to go to the 3 level. Generally you want extra values for this, because you want to avoid a situation where you have min opener (12-15ish) opposite min range responder (6-8), less than half the deck in high cards or just barely above half the deck, and not a particularly big fit or no fit of more than 7 cards at all. It is a recipe for going down multiple tricks, sometimes vul, occasionally doubled, when the opps may not make all that much themselves.
Also, if you include weaker hands in these bids, even choosing not to worry about going down badly at 3 level on the min misfits, you make it difficult to differentiate the mins from when opener has a stronger hand.

Just because 4th hand stuck in a bid doesn't mean your side wants to make all same bids you would in an uncontested auction a level higher; this may drive you too high. Opener can pass min hands and bid again if responder has non-terrible mins and can rebid or reopen with a double.