Jump to content

Not Playing Support Doubles


louisg

Recommended Posts

I'd pass, planning to bid 2 if partner balances with a double or raise to 3 if partner balances 2. Opposite partner's 2 balance this hand has gone up in value quite a bit (nine card spade fit, well-placed heart honors, etc).

 

I am glad not to be playing support doubles here, since I don't particularly want to play in a 4-3 spade fit given my weak trumps and lack of ruffing values, especially if partner has some minimum one-level response. If partner has five spades and/or a little shape and/or decent values he will not pass 2 out anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pass, it's been a while since I wasn't playing support doubles but in such a case I would only raise with 3 if I would have considered raising directly in an auction where RHO had passed.

 

I usually play support doubles and a style where failure to double denioes 3-card support.  However, this flattie might be an exception and I might Pass even if playing support doubles.  When not playing support doubles, Pass.

What is so exceptional about this hand that you would break your agreements? You might as well just say failure to double denies 3 card support unless you have a defensive hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would pass then pass.

 

On general principles, if I had to choose I would prefer to bid 2 the first time rather than pass then raise. Forcing partner to choose between defending 2 and playing 3 feels like a doublecross. But with this hand I don't really feel strongly about it, because on a good day our hand has 4 tricks, and partner might have KQxxxx and an Ace, or AKxxxx, etc, for his 2 bid, so game is possible, and this sequence (pass then 3) is reasonable. Interesting, but after raising or making a support double, we might not get to game, whereas after passing then raising to 3 we have a chance.

 

An initial raise is OK, but seems to misdescribe the hand.

 

My real preference is to play support doubles - I would be happy to double with this hand - but I know that not everyone likes them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in a partnership where we decided to eliminate support doubles altogether (instead we played "fourth suit support" and "1NT support") we realized that they need to be "on" over

1m-p-1H-2D

and

1m-p-1S-2H

I really can't think of any meaning that comes close.

 

(sorry I know you didn't ask for this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No raise on this minimum balanced hand

 

How is this minimum ? We have 14hcp and AQ behind their suit. I would say we have significant extras.

 

2 for me.

 

I really can't think of any meaning that comes close.

 

From what I understand Italians don't play support doubles at all so I guess it's playable ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fully prepared to accept the fact that some people can think of better treatments than support doubles even over 2M-1. But I can't think of any treatment that comes close to its utility. That's all I was saying..

 

By minimum balanced hand I meant that we have a weak no trump, sorry about the confusion. I disagree though that AQx got better than it was initially, I would prefer to have Axx or something and have some more points elsewhere which can help partner's points, not points that defend against RHO..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fully prepared to accept the fact that some people can think of better treatments than support doubles even over 2M-1. But I can't think of any treatment that comes close to its utility. That's all I was saying..

 

Yeah I like them too. I guess if you play wide range openings (11-22) they can be used for some other strong hands ? (6-4 ?, 5-4 with OM ?).

I play they always anyway at 2level. At 3level I guess they are not that good in anything but precision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you refuse to pass... looks closer to a (penalty) double than a raise to me. (Yes, that's kind of an extreme position to take, and only with a partner who will pull freely when he doesn't have much defense.)

 

There are times it's reasonable to play 4-3 fits. Most of those times involve the 3-card hand having a ruffing value and a strong desire to compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in a partnership where we decided to eliminate support doubles altogether (instead we played "fourth suit support" and "1NT support") we realized that they need to be "on" over

1m-p-1H-2D

That's also the sequence where it's most useful to have a takeout double available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...