Support Doubles

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa542hkqd64cakq108]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Playing support doubles, the auction starts:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

?

 

Now what?

 

[/hv]

 

 

The next auction begins:

 

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa542hkqd64cakq108]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Playing support doubles, the auction starts:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

?

 

Now what?

 

[/hv]

[P_Marlowe]

1) 2NT

2) 2H

Openers pass is forcing in the sense, that responder

is required to reopen with shortage in the overcalled

suit, 2H is risky, if you play suppX, since you will have

a 5-2 fit at best, pass is probably better, ... but I would

bid 2H anyway

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[vang]

1. 2S. presumably ask stopper for NT. if part bids 3C (without stopper), i'll still try 3NT. if partner bids 3H, i'll try 4H. i cannot be stopped ;-)

 

2. pas. i have done enough with 0 controls.

[mikeh]

1st one is very tough, but this hand is not worth anythiing like its hcp and the (initially) encouraging shape. The 1♠ bid has really devalued it.

 

I would pass... which is not in the least bit forcing.

 

I am not overly worried: if partner cannot reopen, this could well be one of those 26-27 hcp 'games' that have no play. While I can see 9 tricks opposite as little as xx Axxx xxxx Jxx (they lead a ♠ or ♦ don't run), that is sort of magic: many other more powerful hands give us little play: Qx Jxxxx KQxx xx: even 1N may fail from my side.

 

Give me the ♠10, and my hand goes up enormously, and I'd rebid 2N over 1♠.

 

If partner reopens, I intend to bid 2♠ if available, to create a force.... which may get us to a minus score, but there are limits to how conservatively I will bid ;)

 

BTW, the support double question seems to me to be misleading: surely no-one would make a 'penalty' double of 1♠ on this hand?

 

 

As for the companion hand, I would pass without a second thought. Now, I know that these were not actually companion hands... both hands contain the ♥Q :)

 

Opposite some of my opening hands, the 2nd hand is just glad the opps have not bid game :P

[foo]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa542hkqd64cakq108]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Playing support doubles, the auction starts:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

?

 

Now what?

 

[/hv]

 

 

The next auction begins:

 

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa542hkqd64cakq108]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Playing support doubles, the auction starts:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

?

 

Now what?

 

[/hv]

1. 3N is 100% Red at IMPs, We have at least 24 HCP between us, you have a nice C suit source of tricks, and slam is unlikely after the sandwich 1S overcall.

Under other conditions, if 2N shows 18-19 that is the bid. Else some other noise that makes my hand sound like it is at the top of the possible range of my previous bidding.

If I can't find such a call, I'm bidding 3N.

 

2. Clear pass. WTP?

[mike777]

1) Pass, btw it looks like we are not RED, last night I had almost same hand but with AQxx of spades and made a support x with 3 hearts, my lho bid 2s now!.

2) Pass

[jdonn]

1) 2NT is probably the normal bid on this sort of hand, but Axxx of spades is not a good holding for that. I would support double anyway, are you more ashamed of KQ than you would be of xxx? If partner has AJxxx which do you think he prefers? I disagree with my compadre MikeH about the value of this hand and think it's worth even more than its point count, although his point remains true that we would rather partner declare the notrump, which is why I'm not bidding 2NT.

 

2) Hmmm I wonder if this could maybe, just maybe, be from the same deal ;)

[mikeh]

In one partnership, we actually had the agreement that double here showed either 3 card support or a big balanced hand unsuited to bidding notrump... would be perfect here.... we only played the method during the last year or so of our partnership and the big balanced hand variant rarely came up, so I am not sure whether, in practice, it is a viable treatment.

 

In hindsight, I change my bid (even without this agreement) to the support double... for the reasons suggested by jdonn.

 

However, I wonder what jdonn (or others) would do with A532 xx KQ AKQ108?

[foo]

1) 2NT is probably the normal bid on this sort of hand, but Axxx of spades is not a good holding for that. I would support double anyway, are you more ashamed of KQ than you would be of xxx? If partner has AJxxx which do you think he prefers? I disagree with my compadre MikeH about the value of this hand and think it's worth even more than its point count, although his point remains true that we would rather partner declare the notrump, which is why I'm not bidding 2NT.

 

2) Hmmm I wonder if this could maybe, just maybe, be from the same deal  :P

1) IIRC, Eric Rodwell invented Support S's so he could avoid playing in his 33 "fit" (sometimes called "The Rodwell" in his, errm, honor?) as often. I wonder how he feels about 42's?

The only person I know of who has made a study (unlike Eric, he studied them rather than experimenting with them ATT...) of when a 42 fit is best is Tom Andrews, so perhaps the 42 should be called "The Andrews".

GOP is not going to be happy if they decide that their hand is suitable for a Moysian based H contract and your "support" is KQ tight.

If one gets the impression I'm not thrilled with a Support X holding 2 card support, even AK tight, you'd be right. Call me old fashioned.

 

If one can't stand 2N with only Axxx as a stop, rebidding 3C with 18+ HCP and AKQT8 can't be that bad.

 

If one is willing to consider lying anyway (which is what a Support X on 2 cards is), then Reversing into 2D is also possible and less likely to cause long term problems...

 

 

2) HQ in each example. If they are from the same deal, can I at least have extra A's instead of extra Q's? B)

[jdonn]

1) IIRC, Eric Rodwell invented Support S's so he could avoid playing in his 33 "fit" (sometimes called "The Rodwell" in his, errm, honor?) as often.  I wonder how he feels about 42's? 

The only person I know of who has made a study (unlike Eric, he studied them rather than experimenting with them ATT...) of when a 42 fit is best is Tom Andrews, so perhaps the 42 should be called "The Andrews".

GOP is not going to be happy if they decide that their hand is suitable for a Moysian based H contract and your "support" is KQ tight.

If one gets the impression I'm not thrilled with a Support X holding 2 card support, even AK tight, you'd be right.  Call me old fashioned.

Who knows. Give partner xxx AJTx xx Jxxx. What is the only game that makes :P

 

Seriously though, partner is unlikely to choose the (from his perspective) 4-3. He has 1NT, 2♣, and 2♦ all as options. Besides I'm not passing his potential 2♥ bid (though I'm undecided between 2♠ 2NT and 3♣) so really we won't ever end in the 4-2.

[barmar]

Yes, we would rather partner declare NT, but how do we get him to bid it? We just need him to hold ♠Qx (or even singleton Q if we can depend on RHO not to lead K from KJTxx), but how would he know that this is enough? You need a bidding sequence that asks him to bid NT with a half stopper.

[whereagles]

1. I'd bid 2NT here. If that would be artificial, 2♠ then.

 

2. Dead min hand, so pass.

 

I must say I really dread support doubles. Just support with 3 cards if the hand is suitable. I can understand Rodwell wants to avoid the 3-3 fit, but why would he end up in such a fit? The 1m-1M call is hardly ever made on 3 cards...

 

Unless 1m-1M is the system bid on 3 cards in the major, I really don't see what support doubles are good for.

[awm]

What is 2♠ on the first hand? It seems like you have a multitude of ways to raise hearts (bid 2♥, 3♥, 4♥, various splinters) so it's probably overkill to have 2♠ be a heart raise. My interpretation would be "please bid notrump with a spade stopper" and in fact it might even suggest some help in spades too. This seems like a better call than immediately committing to the 5-2 fit.

 

I agree that the second hand is a pass.

[han]

What is 2♠ on the first hand? It seems like you have a multitude of ways to raise hearts (bid 2♥, 3♥, 4♥, various splinters) so it's probably overkill to have 2♠ be a heart raise. My interpretation would be "please bid notrump with a spade stopper" and in fact it might even suggest some help in spades too. This seems like a better call than immediately committing to the 5-2 fit.

 

I agree that the second hand is a pass.

I think that indeed the 2S bid almost denies 4-card heart support (and perhaps when you play support doubles even 3-card heart support) but I think it shows a better hand then this. Something like xx Ax AJx AKQJxx perhaps.

[cherdano]

What is 2♠ on the first hand? It seems like you have a multitude of ways to raise hearts (bid 2♥, 3♥, 4♥, various splinters) so it's probably overkill to have 2♠ be a heart raise. My interpretation would be "please bid notrump with a spade stopper" and in fact it might even suggest some help in spades too. This seems like a better call than immediately committing to the 5-2 fit.

 

I agree that the second hand is a pass.

I think that indeed the 2S bid almost denies 4-card heart support (and perhaps when you play support doubles even 3-card heart support) but I think it shows a better hand then this. Something like xx Ax AJx AKQJxx perhaps.

Isn't 2S the default bid with 18-19 balanced but no spade stopper?

[foo]

Isn't 2S the default bid with 18-19 balanced but no spade stopper?

Yep. Which is why you shouldn't bid 2S here. Regardless of the fear of NT running through this thread, Axxx is a very legitimate S stop.

 

As often happens, no bid is perfect for some situations.

OTOH, 2N or 3C are so close to the "book bid" description of this hand it is surprising that everyone is considering all these other contortions.

 

I agree that it may very well be better for GOP to Declare, although that is not 100% (it's usually not good to have the vast majority of Our assets in Dummy).

 

3C will likely allow GOP to Declare.

 

If you are playing a sophisticated relay or semi-relay structure over Reverses, a Reverse into 2D may work just as well or better.

 

 

Lying to CHO about Major suit length or about NT stops is very hard on partnership harmony.

[jdonn]

Even if 2♠ does normally show 18-19 with no spade stopper, you can do it anyway just in case partner bids notrump with Qxx or KJ, or is inspired to bid it with Qx, and then you can always bid 3NT yourself next round in any case. In what way is this damaging to partnership harmony? Tell partner he is a brilliant declarer so you wanted to give him one more chance to play the hand.

 

Major suit vs minor suit notwithstanding, showing three of a suit with KQ is so far superior to showing four of a suit with xx that the second option doesn't even warrant discussion. 3♣ is not that misdescriptive, but the hand is too good, and it is a good way to never get to hearts when partner has five decent ones. Or even with Jxxxxx he might give up on hearts after your lack of a support double.

 

It really is fine not wanting to support double, though personally I still really like that choice. I just think basing your bidding decisions on cliches like it's usually not good to have the good hand in dummy, lying about major suit length or stoppers is bad for harmony, etc etc is a good way to ruin your bridge game. We all have brains (yours more intelligent than most, it seems quite evident), and I prefer to use mine. And if partner feels de-harmonized because of that, then I'd rather not play with that partner anyway.

[cherdano]

My point was just that this hand is not too weak for 2S. It's quite comparable to 18-19 balanced in terms of playing strength IMO. (And certainly 2S doesn't promise 18-19 balanced, Han's hand or many hands with running clubs would bid 2S.)

 

I admit I would not have thought of support X, but I like it.

 

Arend

[foo]

Even if 2♠ does normally show 18-19 with no spade stopper, you can do it anyway just in case partner bids notrump with Qxx or KJ, or is inspired to bid it with Qx, and then you can always bid 3NT yourself next round in any case. In what way is this damaging to partnership harmony? Tell partner he is a brilliant declarer so you wanted to give him one more chance to play the hand.

 

Major suit vs minor suit notwithstanding, showing three of a suit with KQ is so far superior to showing four of a suit with xx that the second option doesn't even warrant discussion. 3♣ is not that misdescriptive, but the hand is too good, and it is a good way to never get to hearts when partner has five decent ones. Or even with Jxxxxx he might give up on hearts after your lack of a support double.

 

It really is fine not wanting to support double, though personally I still really like that choice. I just think basing your bidding decisions on cliches like it's usually not good to have the good hand in dummy, lying about major suit length or stoppers is bad for harmony, etc etc is a good way to ruin your bridge game. We all have brains (yours more intelligent than most, it seems quite evident), and I prefer to use mine. And if partner feels de-harmonized because of that, then I'd rather not play with that partner anyway.

♠A542♥KQ♦64♣AKQ108

 

...and what does GOP do with the more likely hand that does not have S length or S stops? After all, you have Axxx and one of the opps has bid S's. There are only 13 of them to go around after all...

Denying a stop when you have one can put GOP in an impossible situation.

 

As to the dangers of the 2card 2D Reverse; let's note up front that I said it was lying and did =not= say I was in favor of it. Just like making a Support X on KQ tight when GOP is more likely to have 4 rather than 5+, it smacks of masterminding.

 

But then again, to some extent thinking we shouldn't bid 2N= 18-19 when holding Axxx of the opponent's suit is also to some degree masterminding.

 

As I've said, the "book bids" that come closest to describing this hand in this auction are 2N and 3C. Any other bid is to some extent or another an operation on our part.

 

So just how bad is 1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-?? Let's see, assuming 2nd seat passes:

2h= Wonderful! Now we know We have a H fit or that GOP has something like hhhxx in H's or some other reason to be willing to play the 52. Since we have more than a minimum Reverse, we are now driving to Game.

 

2s= GF HCP, no extra H's and looking for S's to be stopped.

 

2n= moderate values and at least half a S stop. Since we have more than a minimum Reverse, we will drive to 3N.

 

3c= Wonderful! Suddenly even 6C is not out of the question.

 

3d= What we do not want to hear. OTOH, this shows GF HCP and we have more than a minimum Reverse. Shrug your shoulders and bid 3N or 4H depending on the inferences of the partnership's bidding agreements (do you bid "up the line"? Then you know GOP has 5 H's.)

 

Fancier Reverse Structures may change things a bit, but the gist should remain about the same.

In sum, we can handle the auction no matter what after the Captaincy seizing bid of a Reverse to 2D. Might not be as bad as you think.

 

OTOH, if GOP leaps to 4H when 3N or 5C is where we should be playing, or worse we miss 6C, that Support X on KQ tight is going to renamed the "Pepto X" or the "Malox X"

 

Cliches often get to be that because they have a great deal of truth to them. However, cliches are not what is choosing my POV. Playing the odds and the desire to keep partners happy is.

[jdonn]

I see Han and Arend are coming around. My brainwashing is working, muahaha :D

 

As to the dangers of the 2card 2D Reverse; let's note up front that I said it was lying and did =not= say I was in favor of it.  Just like making a Support X on KQ tight when GOP is more likely to have 4 rather than 5+, it smacks of masterminding.

Why in the world is partner more likely to have four hearts than 5+? Fair enough that 2♦ is not your choice, though you obviously don't mind it. But it's funny the spin people put on their own choices. Doubling when short one card is 'masterminding', but bidding 3♣ when short one card is a 'book bid'. Right.

 

So just how bad is  1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-??  Let's see, assuming 2nd seat passes:

...

In sum, we can handle the auction no matter what after the Captaincy seizing bid of a Reverse to 2D.  Might not be as bad as you think.

How about if he raises to 4♦ on a good hand (and why shouldn't he if he has good trumps and slam interest, or so he thinks)? Or how about if he misjudges the later auction based on his diamond holding? And isn't seizing captaincy a lousy idea when you, as you sort of admit, don't know what to do after one of his likely bids, 3♦?

 

OTOH, if GOP leaps to 4H when 3N or 5C is where we should be playing, or worse we miss 6C, that Support X on KQ tight is going to renamed the "Pepto X" or the "Malox X"

I see that yet again making points through catchy slogans instead of logic is in vogue. If he jumps to 4♥ then do you think I'm passing with this moose? And why shouldn't we belong in hearts anyway if he has five (of course he could have six or more) and I have these great ones? Kx AJxxx Axxx xx, what slam do you want to play?

 

Cliches are silly, they stick because they are catchy and for no other reason. They often contradict each other too. The more the merrier, too many cooks spoil the broth. Second hand low, cover an honor with an honor. But fine, that's not why you are choosing your bid so no big deal. I share your goals of playing the odds and keeping partner happy, we just disagree about how to do those things. I try to do it by not yelling at him, complimenting him for good plays, taking him off squeezes and endplays, taking control when I know what to do but he is guessing, etc, not by making (in my mind) inferior bids to follow the rules of some imaginary book.

[foo]

As to the dangers of the 2card 2D Reverse; let's note up front that I said it was lying and did =not= say I was in favor of it.  Just like making a Support X on KQ tight when GOP is more likely to have 4 rather than 5+, it smacks of masterminding.

Why in the world is partner more likely to have four hearts than 5+? Fair enough that 2♦ is not your choice, though you obviously don't mind it. But it's funny the spin people put on their own choices. Doubling when short one card is 'masterminding', but bidding 3♣ when short one card is a 'book bid'. Right.

There is no spin on my part here.

Do the math. CHO is more likely to hold 4 H's rather than 5, and certainly more so than 6, given your hand and this auction.

 

OTOH,

a) the odds are far better that CHO has 3+C rather than 6+H, and ♠A542♥KQ♦64♣AKQT8 has such good C's that you have multiple reasons for wanting to emphasize them:

:D They are more than 1/2 of the expected tricks in your hand.

c) They are good enough that they may be the better playing 52 even if there is a 52 fit in both H's and C's.

d) ATM, the most likely Games and slams are in NT and C's. And GOP doesn't know it. Might be nice to get their help/cooperation in picking the right strain and level don't you think?

 

I =never= said any bid was the book bid. I said 2N and 3C were the closest to the book bid given the hand. (If you want to pick a fight in public, at least quote people accurately!)

 

..and of course, the prosaic 2N rebid is still reasonable (given the percentage of my hand that is in C's, the 3C rebid still stands out; although I hate the space taken up by it.)

 

So just how bad is  1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-??  Let's see, assuming 2nd seat passes:

...

In sum, we can handle the auction no matter what after the Captaincy seizing bid of a Reverse to 2D.  Might not be as bad as you think.

How about if he raises to 4♦ on a good hand (and why shouldn't he if he has good trumps and slam interest, or so he thinks)? Or how about if he misjudges the later auction based on his diamond holding? And isn't seizing captaincy a lousy idea when you, as you sort of admit, don't know what to do after one of his likely bids, 3♦?

You have misquoted and/or distorted my words again.

 

I never said "I don't know what to do over a 3D response.". I said it was "the response I don't want to hear". I also said I knew =EXACTLY= what to do if GOP bid 3D... ...bid 3N. Again, if you want to pick a fight in public, please get your facts correct.

 

The Jump Raise to 4D should be nigh unto non-existent in this auction if everyone has had their bids so far, but if it does occur We have the values for 6N or possibly 7N.

 

Again, I am not advocating this "artificial reverse", although The Blue Team and Kaplan+Sheinwald are historically known for having used it effectively with reasonable regularity. What I am saying is that the 2D Reverse is just as much a non-partnership bid as a Support X is here, and it is significantly less dangerous than a Support X is here.

 

A Support X lies about a feature in your hand that you do not have, it does not tell GOP what strength your hand is, and it completely ignores the feature of your hand that makes up more than 1/2 your expected tricks.

 

As for trusting or not trusting books, cliches, etc. "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."- Sir Isaac Newton

 

Some very bright people have given us the benefit of their experience, knowledge, and wisdom. I find it prudent and profitable to assume they are worth listening to as a starting point and then look upon going counter to that gestalt only after very careful study and experiment.

 

YMMV.

[jdonn]

I certainly don't mean to pick a fight, I actually find the discussion of the hand quite interesting.

 

Also I absolutely don't mean to misquote you, you are right you did not say 3♣ is the book bid, you said 3♣ and 2NT are "so close to the "book bid" description of this hand it is surprising that everyone is considering all these other contortions." That seems close enough in spirit as far as I'm concerned, but I should have made the distinction so I'm sorry.

 

It does still seem to me like you 'sort of admitted' (those were my words, I was hardly making a strong statement) that if the auction continued 2♦ p 3♦ p you didn't know what to do. You said the 3♦ bid is "not what you want to hear", so you will "shrug your shoulders" and choose either of two bids, all of which sounds pretty noncommital to me. You now say you knew all along you would bid 3NT in that situation (given 2♦, which I know is not your first choice), fine of course I believe you but look at what you originally wrote, you didn't say then what you would bid. So I apologize if you feel misrepresented, but I tried to be fair and simply save some words.

 

I suppose we may just have to agree to disagree about the likelihood of partner bidding 4♦, but it's not at all unlikely in my best partnerships. Many a good slam is reached by strongly setting trumps early and by a player showing good trumps in an encouraging fashion, in my opinion. We had a similar thread a few weeks ago on the auction 1♣ p 1♥ p 2♠ p 3/4♣, where it became clear before long that jumping to 4♣ on the hand in question made a slam auction a LOT easier. It's true that there are a number of players who would just never bid 4♦, but it's a perfectly valid bid and I think the best choice on many hands, and thus worth worrying about.

 

I still for the life of me don't see how four hearts is more likely than five+ hearts. You seem to have tried to shift that to saying four is the most likely number of hearts, which is a different statement altogether. Yes, four hearts is more likely than five, and four hearts is more likely than six, etc. But four hearts is not more likely than the combined likelyhood of five or six or seven... (that is what 5+ means, no? which is what you originally said.) I don't feel inclined to do the math, but trust that this isn't really a controversial claim. It hardly matters in any case, I don't see how we will end up in hearts if partner has four. I am not passing if he bids 2♥, I have essentially similar choices between 2♠ 2NT and 3♣ that I had a round before, but having given what I consider appropriate enthusiasm toward hearts on the way.

 

I have no huge problem with bidding 3♣ to emphasize the great suit, it's a very reasonable choice! I objected originally because I thought (and still think) the hand is too good (for example, 3NT opposite 2443 with the heart ace and heart or club jack), but that's a different issue and debatable in any case as there are certainly unsuitable hands opposite that don't make game. Clubs may well be a more likely suit than hearts for slam, but I think hearts are a more likely suit for game. Also worth noting is that your clubs will be useful in a heart contract, but the hearts may not be if in a club contract. That is just my take on some of the bridge issues for whatever they are worth, if I have failed to change your mind then so be it. It would hardly be the first time someone thought I was nuts about something!

 

I would not pick a fight with Mr. Newton, he is a hero of mine ;) Of course the phrase "out of context" comes to mind. I'll stick with using my brain for better or worse, thank you. I'm not so sure either of us has seen that much farther than others in any case :D Oh well, let the journey continue.

 

Help me out with my own shortcoming before we go. GOP = ? (I know you mean partner, obviously). YMMV = ?

[foo]

Fair enough. It was beginning to look like things were evidently getting a bit more heated then they actually were. Thankfully :D

 

"GOP" is short for "Good Old Partner" in a Bridge context.

"CHO" is sometimes the other term for partner...

 

"YMMV" is an old internet chat / news abbreviation: "Your Milage May Vary".

It expresses the fact that our experiences color our perception of Truth, and that truth (small t) is very often context dependent and personal.

 

My apologies if I was not clear enough as to my reaction to 1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-pa-3D.

My intent was to point out that if you were playing "up the line" you would know that GOP had 5+H and 4+D and therefore could still choose to play 4H rather than 3N if you felt strongly about being Dummy and/or We having better chances in 4M rather than 3N. Regardless, GOP's D raise opposite a Reverse promises GF HCP and therefore We should have reasonable play for Game.

(Given that you have ♠A542♥KQ♦64♣AKQ108 , GOP must have 8+ HCP from the set {K,Q,J; A,J; A,K,Q,J; J} Give GOP 4+H and 4+D and 8+ HCP from that set and I think you will see that the vast majority of the time 3N has decent play.)

 

As for the math, grinding out the calculations to show that the the most likely number of H's for GOP is 4, then 5, then 6 is tedious but not particularly challenging.

the point was that the odds are very much against Us having a H fit as opposed to a m suit fit. Especially a C fit.

 

The safest games on the deal with the information we have in descending order of probabilty are 3N, 5C, 5D, 4H. By far the most likely slams if there is a slam present are 6C and 6N.

 

Choosing Support X over other calls risks inappropriately emphasizing H's and missing the more likely opportunities of the deal.

 

Note that I can see myself at some point in the future being ironically forced to make a Support X holding HH tight because it is the best of the miserable choices I have at that point. Bidding is =not= an exact science for all that theorists try to make it so.

 

I just do not think that this is the deal where Opener is backed into such a corner.

 

YMMV. Peace.

[Winstonm]

As was pointed out, both hands hold the heart Q so these were not facing hands nor the actual hands that started the discussion. It was odd that after playing all this time together a situation came up of which we had never discussed - what to do with a big hand and is pass semi-forcing a la negative doubles. The actual hands were even stranger, and due to the good spots and partner holding the right pair of jacks slam was cold.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sa542hkjda4cakj93&s=sk7ha10974dkq82c102]133|200|Scoring: IMP

The actual and ugly auction was:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

P-P-2S-P

3S-P-3N-P

4C-P-4D-P

4N-P-P-P.[/hv]

[foo]

As was pointed out, both hands hold the heart Q so these were not facing hands nor the actual hands that started the discussion.  It was odd that after playing all this time together a situation came up of which we had never discussed - what to do with a big hand and is pass semi-forcing a la negative doubles.  The actual hands were even stranger, and due to the good spots and partner holding the right pair of jacks slam was cold.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sa542hkjda4cakj93&s=sk7hat974dkq82ct2]133|200|Scoring: IMP

The actual and ugly auction was:

 

1C-P-1H-1S

P-P-2S-P

3S-P-3N-P

4C-P-4D-P

4N-P-P-P.[/hv]

20 HCP hands, especially semi-balanced ones, can be difficult to bid.

 

It might be useful to consider opening 2N= 20-21 more often with these sorts of hands.

 

Now at least a 12 HCP Responder knows to think about slam immediately:

(...and They tend not to dive into Our 2N auctions...)

 

2N-3D+;3H-4D= ?55? or ?54? with slam interest.

 

..and now you can have an thoughtful auction or blast if you feel like it.