Support X/XX - quick question

[ewj]

For those of you who play these, does not X/XXing deny 3 card support?

 

I mean, say you have a 0355 17 count and the bidding starts 1D-(P)-1H-(1S), would you still double first?

[Elianna]

In my partnerships, failure to support X/XX does not deny three card support, it denies a hand that would have raised with three card support.

 

In this category lie hands that:

 

(1) Do not have 3-card support (DUH!)

 

(2) Have a much better (more descriptive) rebid (like your sample hand)

 

(3) Hands that lack shortness. So I will not make a support X/XX on a 4333 hand, and not on some 4432 hands. These hands will either pass or bid NT depending on strength and stoppers.

[han]

In my partnership not making a support double does not deny 3-card support but it strongly suggest it. In your example we would most likely make a support double rather than bid clubs, figuring that we would likely be able to bid clubs later (for example over 2S) to show this pattern.

 

Examples where we might not make a support double are strong balanced hand or very defensive hands (for example AQ10x xxx KQx Jxx after 1C - (p) - 1H - (1S), we would likely pass).

 

It is quite rare that we do not make a support double with 3-card support.

[rogerclee]

strong balanced hand or very defensive hands (for example AQ10x xxx KQx Jxx after 1C - (p) - 1H - (1S), we would likely pass).

I play it the same way.

[jdonn]

I might also make a different bid on a very lopsided hand, like with xxx of a major and AKQxxxx of a minor I would probably rebid the minor.

 

I think a strong 0355 hand would just about always want to double, since it can be a perfect description to bid clubs on your third turn. If you rebid clubs at your second turn it's much harder to show the whole hand.

 

Also, by the same token where you might pass on a very minimum defensive hand with three card support, I don't mind doubling on such a hand with four! card support, especially if 4333.

[han]

Josh, why can't you just say that you agree with me, is that so hard to do? :P

[ArtK78]

In my partnerships, the failure to make the support double or redouble denies three card support. But on a hand like the one presented, I would probably treat the hand as not having 3-card support.

 

This is pretty much the same way that the others are treating it, although we are approaching the problem somewhat differently.

[ewj]

Ok, thanks

[kenrexford]

I almost agree with Han, but I mostly agree with the brilliant caveats and clarifications pointed out by Josh.