your bid now?

[jim420]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s86hakqdj5ckjt764]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W N E S

- 1♣ P 1♥

1♠ ?[/hv]

 

Your bid here plz... 2♣? 2♠? X? or any others?

[mr1303]

If I play support doubles, I make one. If not, I bid 2H.

 

This is the idea of a support double, to differentiate between 3 and 4 card support.

[han]

Agree, with such excellent support you have to show it, either by doubling (if you have agreed to play support doubles) or by bidding 2H.

 

BTW, 2C is the only remotely reasonable alternative, 2S would show a much stronger hand.

[cjames]

I agree with the above. Not playing supp doubles myself, I would bid 2♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Assuming, that the partnership does not

play suppX: 2C, the alternative being 2H.

 

Personnally I tend to avoid 3 card raises of

responder mayors, they make sense, but

if I have an alternative, I choose the alternaive.

 

In the given situation you have an alternative

and it is not a plus point, that you have to ruff

with AKQ of trump.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

Without supp Xs I would bid 2C. This is not a good hand to raise with 3.

[kgr]

How bad is DBL if you don't play support DBL's , but negative DBL's?

It should ideally show something like 1=3=4=5, but doesn't it show a hand like this if you correct partner's 2D bid to 2H? Even better if you don't play Walsh?

[jdonn]

Seems like obvious 2♥ if not playing support doubles. I know a few people (weirdos! :P) who would bid 2♥ on this hand even if they were playing support doubles.

[jdonn]

How bad is DBL if you don't play support DBL's , but negative DBL's?

It should ideally show something like 1=3=4=5, but doesn't it show a hand like this if you correct partner's 2D bid to 2H? Even better if you don't play Walsh?

So you are saying double is takeout, but doesn't promise diamonds. That seems to be another way of describing a support double!

[kgr]

How bad is DBL if you don't play support DBL's , but negative DBL's?

It should ideally show something like 1=3=4=5, but doesn't it show a hand like this if you correct partner's 2D bid to 2H? Even better if you don't play Walsh?

So you are saying double is takeout, but doesn't promise diamonds. That seems to be another way of describing a support double!

No, I'm saying it normally also shows ♦ (ideally support for all suits lik 1=3=4=5), but I wonder if it shows a hand like this if you convert ♦ to ♥.

1♣-(p)-1♥-(1♠)

DBL-(p)-2♦-(p)

2♥..

If DBL is info DBL, what kind of hand do you expect now for the 2♥ bid?

[Guest Jlall]

Seems like obvious 2♥ if not playing support doubles.

What is so obvious about this? If it is a partscore deal I would much rather play 2C than 2H most of the time (any time partner just has 4 hearts, or even if partner has 5 hearts and 2 clubs). This is a terrible hand to play in a 4-3 heart fit. If it is a game deal we will still get to hearts. Yes I am aware there are some hands partner will pass 2C and bid over 2H, in which case I would rather have bid 2H, but I would rather not play a stupid partscore on a partscore hand.

 

I think people are failing to realize why this hand is different from Ax KQx Jx KJTxxx which is much better for playing hearts.