3-level decision

[Chamaco]

Team match,

all vulnerable

 

Pard deals and opens a short club (= clubs or weak NT), and opp overcall hearts.

You hold ATxxx-x-AJx-T9xx

 

1C-(1H)-1S-(3H)

p-(p)-?

 

When the bidding comes back at the 3 level after opps preemptive raise, what do you bid ?

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

[P_Marlowe]

3S

 

Your most likely game is still 4S,

if you double you may endplay partner

into passing.

 

Marlowe

[whereagles]

4♣. Assuming pard would double with 3 spades and open a 44 minor in 1♦, his worst shape is 2434. We should have a play for 4♣, modulo bad breaks.

[joker_gib]

Pass

 

Everything can be wrong and I'm not strong enough. Let's try to beat 3♥ !

 

Alain

[Finch]

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

Frightening. You are committed to playing 3Hx or 3S with

 

Kxx

Kx

Kxx

Kxxxx

 

opposite

 

QJxx

xx

Axxx

xxx

 

?

 

rather you than me....

[Chamaco]

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

Frightening. You are committed to playing 3Hx or 3S with

 

--- CUT ---

 

 

rather you than me....

Thanks for the constructive reply to this post.

 

I usually try to avoid replying to psts if I am not saying anything constructive.

Not that I always succeed, but I try.

 

I still ignore what's your bid and why given the original hand and the given agreement.

[joker_gib]

Dear Mauro,

 

I think this is constructive. She just tells you that support doubles at those levels are dangerous (and generally not played) and I agree

 

Alain

[Chamaco]

Dear Mauro,

 

I think this is constructive. She just tells you that support doubles at those levels are dangerous (and generally not played) and I agree

 

Alain

 

In my view, if it was constructive, it would have been something like:

 

"support X here is a bad idea beause XXX.

Anyways, given such agreement, I'd bid YYY"

 

Without the second part, the message does not contribute to solving the question I asked.

 

The point is, we have already many threads explaining the issues with support doubles at a high level.

However, *with this specific partner*, I had it agreed, despite the fact I don't like it anymore.

*I* don't like it, Frances does not like it, but for this hand, the agreement was just that and I had to live with it.

 

Responding like Frances did is like if I posted a thread on a hand to be bid using Precision, and sonmeone sticks in saying: "Ugh ! Precision is not good, what if they preempt you ? Better you than me..."

 

See ? In my opinion this is the kind of "wannabe witty" comments, that I gladly accept when they are accompanied with a REAL reply to the REAL question of the thread.

 

But, when these comments are just posted alone without contributing with a real answer to the thread, I think it's just a way to showoff.

[luke warm]

i'd pass... 3h might make but i have nothing to bid...

[david_c]

Pass from me.

 

If partner had actually opened a weak 1NT there would be no way I'd be competing above 3♥ on this hand. We're in a slightly different situation here, but we still have to assume he has a weak NT hand. Certainly, we can deduce that partner has at least four clubs, probably five, so it may be right to try for 4♣, but game seems highly unlikely and this is not the right vulnerability for competing for a part-score.

[leboulepat]

Team match,

all vulnerable

 

Pard deals and opens a short club (= clubs or weak NT), and opp overcall hearts.

You hold ATxxx-x-AJx-T9xx

 

1C-(1H)-1S-(3H)

p-(p)-?

 

When the bidding comes back at the 3 level after opps preemptive raise, what do you bid ?

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

i double. i support 4♣ and 3♠, perhaps we play the game. And if partner pass i have 2 tricks promissed. :)

[pbleighton]

"Pass

 

Everything can be wrong and I'm not strong enough. Let's try to beat 3♥ !"

 

Agree.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

you have a slight BOP but they have 9 trumps. The break will annoy them, but they have your S under control and the C are likely breaking 3-1 etc. So many negatives. Since the field will not be playing support dbls at this level (there is some advantage to this agreement of yours) Pass and hope to go plus....

[joker_gib]

Team match,

all vulnerable

 

Pard deals and opens a short club (= clubs or weak NT), and opp overcall hearts.

You hold  ATxxx-x-AJx-T9xx

 

1C-(1H)-1S-(3H)

p-(p)-?

 

When the bidding comes back at the 3 level after opps preemptive raise, what do you bid ?

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

i double. i support 4♣ and 3♠, perhaps we play the game. And if partner pass i have 2 tricks promissed. :)

Welcome to the forum, my friend !!!! :D :D

[Finch]

Dear Mauro,

 

I think this is constructive. She just tells you that support doubles at those levels are dangerous (and generally not played) and I agree

 

Alain

 

In my view, if it was constructive, it would have been something like:

 

"support X here is a bad idea beause XXX.

Anyways, given such agreement, I'd bid YYY"

 

Without the second part, the message does not contribute to solving the question I asked.

 

The point is, we have already many threads explaining the issues with support doubles at a high level.

However, *with this specific partner*, I had it agreed, despite the fact I don't like it anymore.

*I* don't like it, Frances does not like it, but for this hand, the agreement was just that and I had to live with it.

 

Responding like Frances did is like if I posted a thread on a hand to be bid using Precision, and sonmeone sticks in saying: "Ugh ! Precision is not good, what if they preempt you ? Better you than me..."

 

See ? In my opinion this is the kind of "wannabe witty" comments, that I gladly accept when they are accompanied with a REAL reply to the REAL question of the thread.

 

But, when these comments are just posted alone without contributing with a real answer to the thread, I think it's just a way to showoff.

Well, I'm sorry I rubbed you up the wrong way.

 

I don't recall many threads discussing support doubles on this auction. I've never actually heard of anyone playing support doubles at the 3-level like this, for exactly the reason I gave. I think the "because XXX" was pretty clear from my example hand. If a support double is mandatory at the 3-level on a weak NT, then you should pre-alert it because I'm going to be raising to the 3-level a lot against you.

 

The Precision analogy is not entirely valid. At some point you get to a method where the response is "this agreement is so insane that it's not possible to ask a serious question while playing it".

 

Anyway, I can't answer the question because "clubs or weak NT" doesn't tell me what you open on a 2344 or a 2353 or a 2443 weak NT, which affects the answer.

 

If partner opens 1C on all weak NT hands I pass.

If partner opens 1C with clubs or a weak NT without four diamonds, I bid 4C as he now is either 2434 (unlikely on the auction) or has 5 clubs.

[Fluffy]

In my view, if it was constructive, it would have been something like:

 

"support X here is a bad idea beause XXX.

Anyways, given such agreement, I'd bid YYY"

Support double is more than ok on this auction, but the difference is: it shows extra.

 

Wich means partner willpass with any minimum balanced, so he can still have 3♠

[joker_gib]

If partner opens 1C on all weak NT hands I pass.

Mauro said 1♣ = either ♣ or weak NT so I assumed I did not know whether partner had ♣ when I gave my answer.

 

Alain

[Chamaco]

Anyway, I can't answer the question because "clubs or weak NT" doesn't tell me what you open on a 2344 or a 2353 or a 2443 weak NT, which affects the answer.

 

Alain got it right: clubs or weak NT means that all weak NT are opened 1C, even with 4+ diamonds, and 1D is unbalanced.

 

Even a normal 5332 with 5 diamonds is opened 1C, unless diamonds are soo good and values concentrated so that opener decides to treat it as unbalanced.

 

=========

 

I mentioned support doubles (which I have come to dislike at the 3 level, convinced by previous threads), because , in this specific case, I think give an EXTRA information, so I expected it could help making the right decision, not to make it harder (after all, knowing pard does not have 3+ support is an info otherwise not available, despite the fact this loses other options).

[joker_gib]

Let me also add that I play 1m-(1♥)-1♠ = 5 cards (dbl with 4) so that it is easier for partner to bid 3♠ on these kind of auctions when he doesn't have much extras.

 

Alain

[SchTsch]

Hm... interesting problem. Pass looks almost automatic but...

 

If pard is unbalanced with clubs we could even have a game in clubs. It is not impossible just very unlikely. Alternative to pass is double.

 

It depends whether you are optimistic or pesimistic. If you double do it in tempo just like there is no other bid you could bid with your hand. This won't influence your partner, but it can leave impression to your opps that you know what you are doing.

 

;)

[Winstonm]

Opposite a suspected weak NT we have no compelling reason to believe it is our hand by much - and the opps have found a 9 card fit. Pass and try to go plus.

 

Winston

[SchTsch]

Opposite a suspected weak NT we have no compelling reason to believe it is our hand by much - and the opps have found a 9 card fit.  Pass and try to go plus.

Hm....

 

couldn't partner have, let's say:

x

xxx

KQxx

AKxxx

 

He will bid the same, and we will make 6♣ on 2-2 clubs.

[Al_U_Card]

couldn't partner have, let's say:

x

xxx

KQxx

AKxxx

 

He will bid the same, and we will make 6♣ on 2-2 clubs.

apparently not, as in their system he would open 1D....

[mikeh]

I pass

 

In light of what has been posted earlier, let me add my two cents worth on the support double. I agree with Frances that playing mandatory support doubles here is poor ('poor' is a dramatic underbid, in my view... I think it is very, very bad)

 

The reasons should not need a great deal of elucidation. Just think of the hand types that the double has to cover if it is mandatory!

 

I believe that the majority of those who play support doubles (at any level) do not consider them mandatory in any sequence. Thus, in a current thread, a player having opened (extremely) light with 3=7 in ♠ and ♦ had to decide whether to make a support redouble after his partner's 1♠ was doubled by RHO. The majority (including me) felt that rebidding AQJxxxx was more important than redoubling on xxx.

 

The support doubler should, in my view, have a constructive reason for making the call. He must have regard to the playability of any contract into which he is forcing partner. Clearly, to force partner into a 5-3 3-level contract, when partner may have a horrible hand, requires significant values or a suicidal bent.

 

Making things worse is the difficulty that mandatory doublers have in distinguishing ranges. When the double is mandatory, how does opener distinguish between a minimum, a constructive, and an invitational hand?

 

On the given hand, with the given conditions, including the ambiguity surrounding partner's ♣ length, as noted by Frances and others, I pass.

 

Ironically, the silly mandatory double treatment has helped me on this hand: were it possible for partner to hold a weakish hand with 3♠, I would be tempted to double. Indeed, in my partnerships, I would not expect 3♠ on a piece of rubbish such as Jxxx KJx Kxx KQx. 3♠ would show an opener that has not been drastically affected by the auction.

 

BTW, I am aware that I may have missed a vulnerable game. But a double might be left in, with disastrous consequences, while 4♣ aims at too narrow a target: I'm not interested in playing exactly 4♣ rather than defending 3♥, and I have no assurance that 5♣ can be bid and/or made if I bid 4♣.

[han]

Pass, with double second choice. I wouldn't consider any other action. I also think that mandatory support doubles at the 3-level are unplayable.

 

 

I think that Frances should continue to post reactions like these. Mauro, if you are not interested in hearing what she has to say about mandatory support doubles, consider that there might be other people who do find it interesting.

 

We have been here over and over again. If you post a question "what would you do given these agreements" then people will comment on the methods too, and this is how it should be in my opinion.