Is this X still support ?

[sathyab]

I asked this question in another topic, but didn't get too may responses, so I thought I'd try again in its own thread.

 

A lot of people play 1m-(1♥)-X as showing only four spades and 1m-(1♥)-1♠ as promising a five-bagger. The question is when advancer bids 2♥ over either X or 1♠, is opener's X still support ?

 

One thought was why play support X when you partner has exactly four spades ? If your partner has nothing more to say, this argument may be valid, but if he needs to act at all, it's critical that he knows whether your side has an eight-card spade fit or not.

 

Another point is that when the bidding goes 1♣-(1♦)-1M-(2♦), now X has to be responsive as partner's major suit length is unknown. So if you play the X of 2♥ as non-support X, you will be treating two similar sounding auctions differently. If you want to do that you better make that part of your "20 minute discussion of CC".

[Stephen Tu]

Don't you mean double in the diamond auction has to be support? That's the normal way to play it I think. When partner's spade length is known you don't need supp x, I don't see these auctions as similar.

[gnasher]

One thought was why play support X when you partner has exactly four spades ? If your partner has nothing more to say, this argument may be valid, but if he needs to act at all, it's critical that he knows whether your side has an eight-card spade fit or not.

It's certainly important for responder to know whether there is an eight-card spade fit, but it's not often important for him to know about a 7-card spade fit. Opener bids 2♠ when he has four spades, and passes (or bids something else) when he doesn't.

 

That doesn't preclude our side's competing to 2♠ if appropriate - responder can balance with double or 2♠ when 2♥ comes around to him.

[Gerben42]

A lot of people play 1m-(1♥)-X as showing only four spades and 1m-(1♥)-1♠ as promising a five-bagger. The question is when advancer bids 2♥ over either X or 1♠, is opener's X still support ?

 

No, in this case Dbl should show a strong hand without a clear bid. You can still bid ♠ later to investigate the 4-3 fit, if needed. In this case, the support Double may help opponents to evaluate their hands better.

 

Another point is that when the bidding goes 1♣-(1♦)-1M-(2♦), now X has to be responsive as partner's major suit length is unknown. So if you play the X of 2♥ as non-support X, you will be treating two similar sounding auctions differently. If you want to do that you better make that part of your "20 minute discussion of CC".

 

Don't worry about such details if you only play once with a partner. It won't come up. And if you play more often with a partner, make written system notes.

[SlickRicky]

Hi,

 

Playing double as support after 1D 1H X 2H is silly, it is just a takeout double and promises extra values (possibly in the form of distribution). I do like playing support doubles after 1D 1H 1S 2H to distinguish between a 3 and 4 card raise immediately; it can help partner determine whether to game try or not as well as help with competitive decisions. No idea if it is standard to play them in that situation or not though.

 

Ricky

[P_Marlowe]

I asked this question in another topic, but didn't get too may responses, so I thought I'd try again in its own thread.

 

A lot of people play 1m-(1♥)-X as showing only four spades and 1m-(1♥)-1♠ as promising a five-bagger. The question is when advancer bids 2♥ over either X or 1♠, is opener's X still support ?

No, supp X is Law based, if you have 3 show them,

with 4 you know what to do over 3H.

The supp X was designed to get partner in the boat,

if you to decide to bid or not bid 3M.

X should be some kind of t/o, 2 spades, 2 hearts, 5-4

in the minors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Another point is that when the bidding goes 1♣-(1♦)-1M-(2♦), now X has to be responsive as partner's major suit length is unknown. So if you play the X of 2♥ as non-support X, you will be treating two similar sounding auctions differently. If you want to do that you better make that part of your "20 minute discussion of CC".

X is t/o, why is this different than in the case before,

if I play X as non supp?

 

It is t/o in both cases, if you have to, call it responsive.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Echognome]

No, supp X is Law based, if you have 3 show them,

with 4 you know what to do over 3H.

The supp X was designed to get partner in the boat,

if you to decide to bid or not bid 3M.

X should be some kind of t/o, 2 spades, 2 hearts, 5-4

in the minors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

The support double was invented by Eric Rodwell. I don't know whether or not he based it on the Law, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to think he did.

[mike777]

btw I still play support x on in this type of auction:

 

1c=(1h)=1s(5)=(2h)

x=3s

2s=4spades.

 

or

 

 

1c=(1d)=1major(4+)=(2d)

x=3

raise major=4

[Lobowolf]

No, supp X is  Law based, if you have 3 show them,

with 4 you know what to do over 3H.

The supp X was designed to get partner in the boat,

if you to decide to bid or not bid 3M.

X should be some kind of t/o, 2 spades, 2 hearts, 5-4

in the minors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

The support double was invented by Eric Rodwell. I don't know whether or not he based it on the Law, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to think he did.

Support doubles fit nicely with LTT-conscious bidding, but (according to Larry Cohen, anyway), they were designed to keep Rodwell out of 3-3 fits after his partner(s) couldn't take a joke...the joke being the young Rodwell's penchant for bidding 1M over 1d on a 3-card suit.

[MFA]

No support doubles when we can't have a fit.

X reverts to being take-out.

[han]

Agree no support doubles ovre 1m - 1H - Dbl showing exactly 4, but I do play support doubles over 1S showing 5+ spades.

[gnasher]

Another point is that when the bidding goes 1♣-(1♦)-1M-(2♦), now X has to be responsive as partner's major suit length is unknown. So if you play the X of 2♥ as non-support X, you will be treating two similar sounding auctions differently. If you want to do that you better make that part of your "20 minute discussion of CC".

X is t/o, why is this different than in the case before,

if I play X as non supp?

 

It is t/o in both cases, if you have to, call it responsive.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Are you saying that you play support doubles in this sequence:

  1♣   pass 1M   2♦

but not in this:

  1♣   1♦   1M   2♦

If so, why? The arguments for and against support doubles seem equally strong in both sequences.

[P_Marlowe]

Another point is that when the bidding goes 1♣-(1♦)-1M-(2♦), now X has to be responsive as partner's major suit length is unknown. So if you play the X of 2♥ as non-support X, you will be treating two similar sounding auctions differently. If you want to do that you better make that part of your "20 minute discussion of CC".

X is t/o, why is this different than in the case before,

if I play X as non supp?

 

It is t/o in both cases, if you have to, call it responsive.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Are you saying that you play support doubles in this sequence:

  1♣   pass 1M   2♦

but not in this:

  1♣   1♦   1M   2♦

If so, why? The arguments for and against support doubles seem equally strong in both sequences.

...

 

Yes, but I will ask my partner,

 

I agree, that playing supp X in both seq. makes sense,

because now we may need to prepare for the decision 3H

over 3D, and the knowledge that we have a 4-4 instead of

a 4-3 fit, will help.

... but we rarely raise responders 4 card suit with 3 cards,

unless opener has a 5431 shape, so the 4-3 fit wont be a

real issue with us, and partner will only bid 3H with 5, so ...

 

I did medidate a while and still do about the answer I am

going to post, and may after reconsideration edit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe