What Does Pard Have?

[ArcLight]

IMPS, favorable RHO deals and passes, you bid 1♣ holding:

 

♠K x x

♥K Q x

♦Q J x

♣K x x x

 

Bidding goes

p 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ <you play negative doubles

2♥ X* p 3

 

1: shouldn't the 1♠ bid show 5 spades

2. pard knows your support double shows 3 spades, so what does 3♣ show?

 

How strong is pard?

Whats his shape?

Is he at least 5-5 in the blacks?

Game forcing?

[Guest Jlall]

Yes, 1S shows 5. After the support X 3C is a regular old game try. Just pretend the auction went 1C 1H 1S 2H 2S p 3C. Whatever game try agreements you have are in use, so Help suit or natural or whatever.

[kgr]

Is it normal that support DBL shows 3 card here. I would think you rasie to 2S with 3 card?

[ArtK78]

Is it normal that support DBL shows 3 card here. I would think you rasie to 2S with 3 card?

My thoughts exactly. If 1♠ shows 5, then either:

 

1) The double is not a support double; or

2) The double shows 2 card support.

 

In my opinion, this is not a support double situation.

[han]

I like support doubles here (showing 3) but I also like not support doubles here.

[Guest Jlall]

Is it normal that support DBL shows 3 card here. I would think you rasie to 2S with 3 card?

You can distinguish between a 3 card raise and a 4 card raise this way. That is certainly useful.

[jdonn]

Is it normal that support DBL shows 3 card here. I would think you rasie to 2S with 3 card?

It's still common to play this as a support double since 3 or 4 is still a useful distinction. If you weren't going to play it then you might as well make double penalty since double to show 2 card support is pointless.

[the hog]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

[CSGibson]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting?

[EricK]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting?

I imagine he uses X to show hands which he now can't bid because of the intervention. So not strong hands with ♦ and/or 4 card ♣ support and no ♥ stopper.

[the hog]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting?

I imagine he uses X to show hands which he now can't bid because of the intervention. So not strong hands with ♦ and/or 4 card ♣ support and no ♥ stopper.

EricK is close, and there is certainly no "dry humour". 1C (1H) X shows hands with both minors and the unbiddable hands as EricK suggests, no H stop. We, as do many, open 1C with possibly 2 cards in that suit as 1D guarantees 4.

 

Personally I think it is YOU who is giving up flexibility CS, by making the, in my view, dubious and unnecessary distinction between 4 and 5 cards in S. (What would you call after (1H) with Qxx xx AQxx xxxx say? 1NT? Wonderful bid with no stopper. Pass? 2C? That is pretty horrible). However we have been down this road before in discussions on this board and I realise many/most US players prefer to be able to show 4 or 5 cards in S). It shouldn't surprise you though that many others don't feel the need to make this distinction.

[P_Marlowe]

IMPS, favorable    RHO deals and passes, you bid 1♣ holding:

 

♠K x x

♥K Q x

♦Q J x

♣K x x x

 

Bidding goes

p 1♣ (1♥) 1♠  <you play negative doubles

2♥ X* p 3

 

1: shouldn't the 1♠ bid show 5 spades

2. pard knows your support double shows 3 spades, so what does 3♣ show?

 

How strong is pard?

Whats his shape?

Is he at least 5-5 in the blacks?

Game forcing?

#1 depends on your agreement, just because you

play neg. X, does not mean that X shows a 4 card

spade suit and 1S shows a 5 carder,

but this is certainly a mainstream treatment

#2 If you play that 1S shows a 5 carder, the X by

opener is not a support double anymore, it just shows

add. values, suggesting a penalty, and should deny

3 card support for partner, again a matter of partnership

agreement, but I believe that this time, that suppX is not

the main meanstream meaning =>

So for me 3C does not show 5-5, it just shows a unwillingness

to play 2Hx, and 4 clubs, 3C is to play

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

I too prefer support double in this position, regardless of partner promising 4+ or 5+ spades. It's important for partner to know the degree of fit we can provide.

 

Btw, I my partnerships the double of 1♥ show 4-5 spades and 1♠ denies 4 spades; both minors or the problem hands without a stopper.

[CSGibson]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting?

I imagine he uses X to show hands which he now can't bid because of the intervention. So not strong hands with ♦ and/or 4 card ♣ support and no ♥ stopper.

EricK is close, and there is certainly no "dry humour". 1C (1H) X shows hands with both minors and the unbiddable hands as EricK suggests, no H stop. We, as do many, open 1C with possibly 2 cards in that suit as 1D guarantees 4.

 

Personally I think it is YOU who is giving up flexibility CS, by making the, in my view, dubious and unnecessary distinction between 4 and 5 cards in S. (What would you call after (1H) with Qxx xx AQxx xxxx say? 1NT? Wonderful bid with no stopper. Pass? 2C? That is pretty horrible). However we have been down this road before in discussions on this board and I realise many/most US players prefer to be able to show 4 or 5 cards in S). It shouldn't surprise you though that many others don't feel the need to make this distinction.

ok, that is a reasonable treatment. Sorry I was over the top, thank you for explaining further.

[the hog]

Well my partners would show 4+S with the initial 1S bid. We don't believe in changing our system just because an opponent made a simpel overcall and we still have all our bids available. The 3C bid would confirm 5S and be a gt with a C suit.

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting?

I imagine he uses X to show hands which he now can't bid because of the intervention. So not strong hands with ♦ and/or 4 card ♣ support and no ♥ stopper.

EricK is close, and there is certainly no "dry humour". 1C (1H) X shows hands with both minors and the unbiddable hands as EricK suggests, no H stop. We, as do many, open 1C with possibly 2 cards in that suit as 1D guarantees 4.

 

Personally I think it is YOU who is giving up flexibility CS, by making the, in my view, dubious and unnecessary distinction between 4 and 5 cards in S. (What would you call after (1H) with Qxx xx AQxx xxxx say? 1NT? Wonderful bid with no stopper. Pass? 2C? That is pretty horrible). However we have been down this road before in discussions on this board and I realise many/most US players prefer to be able to show 4 or 5 cards in S). It shouldn't surprise you though that many others don't feel the need to make this distinction.

ok, that is a reasonable treatment. Sorry I was over the top, thank you for explaining further.

NP. I do it myself often.

:)