Support Double After Two Level Intervention

[gurgistan]

Let us take the following scenario:

 

Me: 1♣ LHO: Pass Partner: 1♠ RHO: 2♥.

 

I want to make a support double with my 3-card spade support. What should be my minimum point count?

 

I have read a number of online articles and no one mentions one.

 

Over a one-level intervention, Partner can rebid his suit at the two-level or retreat to 1N. This is competitive with our known minimum 18/19 hcp.

 

However, in this scenario, he only has 2♠ or 2N.

 

If he does not have that fifth spade then we are in trouble. After all, he has only "promised" 4 cards in spades and no more than 6-9 hcp.

 

I am of course aware that partner's opening bid is unlimited. I am looking at the worst case scenario here.

[Siegmund]

It is no sin to play a 4-3 fit, especially at the partscore level, especially if the hand with 3-card support has distribution. (You want to ruff with the 3-card trump holding, and save all 4 in the long hand to keep control and/or pull trumps.) It will be quite rare for partner to choose 2NT when he is minimum even if he has only 4 spades.

 

The flip side of that is that if you have 3-card support and a desire to compete you can make a support double even if you are minimum. Almost any 3145 hand or 3415 with baby hearts is going to be worth an X here. But there is no law (in most partnerships) that you must double just because you have 3 spades. If you are 3-3-3-4 and minimum feel free to go quietly.

[bluecalm]

Almost any 3145 hand or 3415 with baby hearts is going to be worth an X here.

 

Almost ? Could you give example of 5-4-3-1 hand with support which doesn't double ?

 

I like to play that support double is obligatory. If we don't want to double then we don't open (and I am a fan of opening EVERY 11hcp).

I could see merit of passing pathetically weak 4-3-3-3 but passing any 4-4-3-2 seems counterproductive to me.

[mtvesuvius]

Partner simply rebids 2M with 4, 4-3 fits often play well, and are certainly not the end of the world.

 

I usually would play support doubles as mandatory as long as partner can safely rebid two of his major. Otherwise support doubles are optional, and show an unbalanced non-Minimum or better (2♠ overcalls and higher).

[ArtK78]

A Support Double has no point count range assigned to it. It is a forcing* call showing 3 card support for partner's suit. Partner assumes that you have a minimum opening bid for your Support Double and chooses his rebid accordingly.

 

If you have a minimum opening bid, you pass if partner's call is nonforcing and decline any game invitations made by partner.

 

If you have more than a minimum opening bid, you should consider bidding again if partner signed off, accept game invitations and cooperate in slam going actions.

 

If you have a huge hand, you can bid a game or make some other forcing call opposite a sign off and do something intelligent if partner shows more than a sign off. You don't know if you have an 8 card major suit fit, so you can't just leap to game in the major. But partner knows whether you have an 8 card major suit fit. So give partner a choice of games.

 

*A support double is not, strictly speaking, a forcing call. But I have never seen one passed.

[Phil]

I hate a style that I have to make a support double with very minimum balanced hand. Why are we competing when partner may have a sub-minimum response?

 

I also do not like an obligatory style where I always have to show 3 card support, instead of making a more descriptive call, like showing a very long minor, however, in a lot of cases, I can get away with a support double and then do something else to show a good hand.

[bluecalm]

Pluses of obligatory support double are that partner knows you don't have support so he could safely pass many hands with 4 or 5 spades which normally he would feel he needs to compete with. It's get along with philosophy of making descriptive call in the bidding asap and then shutting up.

I think this is winning style in this game.

[Phil]

Pluses of obligatory support double are that partner knows you don't have support so he could safely pass many hands with 4 or 5 spades which normally he would feel he needs to compete with. It's get along with philosophy of making descriptive call in the bidding asap and then shutting up.

I think this is winning style in this game.

 

If I have 3 card support and an 8 card suit of my own, how is making a support double 'descriptive'?

[barmar]

If I have 3 card support and an 8 card suit of my own, how is making a support double 'descriptive'?

There are no absolutes in bridge. But 95% of the time, the support will be very useful information.

[mtvesuvius]

You're allowed to ignore 3 card support with some significantly better reason, but for the most part, X is almost* mandatory.

[Phil]

There are no absolutes in bridge. But 95% of the time, the support will be very useful information.

 

Definition

[mtvesuvius]

Definition

Definition

[BunnyGo]

*A support double is not, strictly speaking, a forcing call. But I have never seen one passed.

 

My partner (who was a passed hand) did correctly pass a support double and won a tasty 200 at matchpoints.

[Finch]

Almost ? Could you give example of 5-4-3-1 hand with support which doesn't double ?

 

I like to play that support double is obligatory. If we don't want to double then we don't open (and I am a fan of opening EVERY 11hcp).

I could see merit of passing pathetically weak 4-3-3-3 but passing any 4-4-3-2 seems counterproductive to me.

 

One that wants to defend their contract, and passes hoping to pass a reopening double.

 

e.g. after 1C P 1S 2H

 

Jxx

KQ109

x

AKQxx

[karlson]

I've always played this more like a takeout double -- either some extra values or shortness in the opponents' suit. I like this style -- 3 card support won't always be enough knowledge for partner to compete.

[gwnn]

I like obligatory doubles. Simple and not far from optimum. Of course if you have a very good suit of your own you can rebid it though, especially long hearts. Also Frances' hand is an exception. So it is not obligatory, only in the sense that you double with minimum balanced hands.

[whereagles]

I hate support dbls because you use up the best competitive bid you have just to show 1 piece of information. That's plain low efficiency in my book.

[dustinst22]

I play it as almost always mandatory, and just recently learned lebensohl works well in this position as well (1m (p) 1M (2M) x (p) __ )

[the_dude]

I play support Xs like most of the above - 90% mandatory. You are allowed to pass or bid another suit but it's very rare. Partner will be assuming you have < 3 card support.

 

Thinking back over the years, I'm struggling to remember a hand where this philosophy cost me a board. But the hands where it wins seems to come up almost every session.

[whereagles]

That's funny. I'm struggling to remember of a board were playing support dbls instead of standard take-out dbls would have won me a top B-)

 

Also, remember that a take out dbl will often contain 3 card support. Responder, if in lack of a better bid, may try rebidding his 5 card major.

[Finch]

Both these posts read like hyperbole. I struggle to think of many hands where it really matters that much.

I find the biggest advantage of support doubles is in the defence (although of course this also helps declarer) because you immediately have information about partner's shape.

 

 

Edit: that was supposed to be a multi-quote of the previous two posts. Sorry.

Edited February 25, 2011 by FrancesHinden

[MrAce]

I play support doubles and i apply them regardless of my strength. As Adam said if i have a weirdo hand i may skip to do so once every year or so.

 

However, i am not fan of SUPPORT RDBLS. The position between supp DBL and RDBL are totally different imo. I can explain these differences with a long post, but that will be hijacking this topic.