Would you Support DBL here

[jmcw]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhj63dkj7caqt987&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cp1h2s]133|200[/hv]

 

My partner and I disagree on the best action here, so good advice may help us out!

 

MP's white versus red.

 

I expect some (maybe many) might suggest a pass is prudent.

However, if you are going to bid would you support X? and if so why?

[Codo]

You need rules for the support double. I don't know yours.

Some play sup-X till 2 ♥, some just with good hearts, some just with maximum. I do not know your set of rules, but in mine partnership we cannot X 2 ♠for support. But I can bid 3 ♣ without showing anything close to a game force, so this would be easy.

[billw55]

I pass. If I must bid, I guess I choose 3♣, but I would not criticize double in the post mortem.

[ArtK78]

You need rules for the support double. I don't know yours.

Some play sup-X till 2 ♥, some just with good hearts, some just with maximum. I do not know your set of rules, but in mine partnership we cannot X 2 ♠for support. But I can bid 3 ♣ without showing anything close to a game force, so this would be easy.

+1

 

I play support doubles through 2♥, and I have not seen anyone yet who plays them higher.

 

To the best of my knowledge, support doubles only apply when a direct raise of partner's suit would be a simple raise to the 2 level. In the case in the OP, a direct raise of partner's suit would be to the 3 level.

[P_Marlowe]

X is not support, support is only on,, if they intervene below 2 of partners suit,

assuming standard agreement set.

 

It is either X or 3C, no preference, if both bids are possible, the question is,

what would you bid with a stronger hand, no spade shortage and clubs.

 

X it is.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[BunnyGo]

I misvoted for double here. I'd actually bid 3Clubs, because doubles higher than 2 of partners major are not played as support by any of my partnerships (nor by many partnerships I know of).

[aguahombre]

If your choice is to compete in clubs ---and you are passing because you believe 3C should be stronger---you are not far from understanding good/bad 2NT's usefullness.

 

Apparently the poll doesn't include 2NT because OP doesn't use GB. So, we are stuck with a considerable overbid of 3C or with getting outbid via pass.

 

Pass probably is less likely to reap disaster, and we might still get another chance. We can't unring the 3C bell.

[bluecalm]

I think 3C is quite normal. We have shapish hand with shortness in their suit, passing seems like recipe for disaster. I don't consider it to be considerable overbid. If we have 15hcp or more we can comfortably double or bid 2NT with S stopper so that leaves us with 11-14 range and in that range shape is more important than being able to say if we are 11-12 or 13-14.

[aguahombre]

The auction has gone competitive, and we need to distinguish the following hand types right now: (Overburdening the double with the possibility we have a strong hand with extra club length is likely to incur problems) The hand types of concern are:

 

1) Desire to merely compete with long clubs or 4-card heart support (GB).

2) Stronger hands with long clubs or 4-card heart support (3C or 3H).

3) Balanced hand too big to open our strong NT range (double).

4) The 3-1-3-6 17ish hand where we planned to rebid 3NT all along (3NT).

 

If we bid 3C and partner wants to know about a spade stop, she will ask.

[jmcw]

If your choice is to compete in clubs ---and you are passing because you believe 3C should be stronger---you are not far from understanding good/bad 2NT's usefullness.

 

Apparently the poll doesn't include 2NT because OP doesn't use GB. So, we are stuck with a considerable overbid of 3C or with getting outbid via pass.

 

Pass probably is less likely to reap disaster, and we might still get another chance. We can't unring the 3C bell.

 

 

I didn't include 2NT (g/b) because we don't have that agreement. However, your point is well taken.

[Vampyr]

I voted for double, but as I don't play support doubles with any partners, it would be for takeout.

[TimG]

i voted for double under the assumption that we are playing support doubles at this level (something I have never done). I did not think it was meant to be a poll about whether support doubles should be played at this level.

[Quantumcat]

For me double is still a support double (just a stronger hand than if you are only forcing to the 2-level), and 3♣ is an overbid (I would expect at least an independent 15-count), not to mention when they bid 4♠ then partner with five or six hearts and a good hand is not going to know what to do. If he doubles, you won't know whether to take it out or not. He might be expecting that you have short hearts and will be disappointed when his AK do not cash, or he might have four hearts and four good spades in which case you definitely do not want to take it out, or something in between. There is no danger in support doubling at this level, since if he has only four hearts and a bad hand, his default action will be to bid 3♣ (if you have a strong hand there will be more bidding, so he's not worried if he has only two or three clubs), which you can pass. Most likely he'll have some ten or eleven count with five hearts and he will just bid 4♥ on his next bid. I am not as strong in HCP as I promised but the singleton spade and nice side suit should make up the difference. My philosophy is to support with support whenever humanly possible, and not give your partner the chance to make a bad bid if you can avoid it.

[lalldonn]

I would play double shows a better hand so I wouldn't do it. I would compete to 3♣ if playing some sort of good/bad though.

[Zelandakh]

1) Desire to merely compete with long clubs or 4-card heart support (GB).

2) Stronger hands with long clubs or 4-card heart support (3C or 3H).

3) Balanced hand too big to open our strong NT range (double).

4) The 3-1-3-6 17ish hand where we planned to rebid 3NT all along (3NT).

If you do not want to play Good/Bad but do want to include all of these hand types, you can play double as competitive (Hand type 1) and 2NT as natural (Hand type 3). GB is better but this is a reasonable alternative for intermediates. Another option is to play Double as stronger (Hand type 2) and direct bids of 3♣ or 3♥ as competitive (Hand type 1) with 2NT again natural. However you do it, it seems pretty easy to include all of these. Using double specifically for hands with 3 hearts seems incredibly wasteful to me.

[phil_20686]

Support doubles should not be on here. take out doubles are too useful.

 

Here you can play that t/o doubles show significant extras, or that they just show good shape. Either is pretty playable. Bidding 3C directly, in the absence of some lebensohl type agreement, must show a better hand.

 

Your choices are double for t/o or pass. I like to double on these weak but shapely hands, esp at MP, but this seems to be a very unpopular style in america. If my partner expects me to have 15+ for a t/o double here, then I would pass.

 

Of course, I would expect most good players to think this was a lebensohl type situation even without discussion.

[fromageGB]

I play support doubles at this level, and they do not promise extra strength. However, for me they do not show specifically 3 cards, but show one card fewer that would normally be needed for that bid. So in this case, I would be happy to bid hearts with 4 - ie at the 3 level, having a minimum 8 card fit in a suit lower ranking suit than theirs. So with one fewer, as I have, I double.

 

Other considerations : I have a long suit, opponent sounds like he has a long suit, so it is highly likely partner has more than 4 in his suit. Bidding clubs destroys any chance of hearts. Moreover, I am short in opponent's suit and am delighted to be able to ruff in my hand, in the short trump hand.

[aguahombre]

Of course, I would expect most good players to think this was a lebensohl type situation even without discussion.

Yes, Leben and GB are cousins. So I won't quarrel with your use of that word.

[Siegmund]

I do/i] play support through 2S with most my partners, though 2H is also a common choice. I prefer to have it on as a way to take some pressure off of the GB2NT, and rate it as a better option than a "takeout" (for only one suit?) double, though in spirit it's not much different - just shifts which suit has a promise made and which suit is only hinted at.

 

Lacking a support double, I would use the bad half of good/bad here.

[SteveMoe]

One treatment to consider: Support doubles through 2♥ and RHO preempts through 3♥. I play this with an area GLM and has been very useful judging competitive bidding (think raise by LHO).

[rwbarton]

To those who make a "support double": would you also double on a weak NT with three hearts (aside from perhaps a pure 2335 hand)? What about a minimum 3316 shape?

[the hog]

As Aguahombre says, if you play GB, then this is a 2NT bid. If you don't i would certainly pass. 3C is a gross overbid.

[the hog]

Double post.

[han]

I see that several respectable posters pass. That's a joke to me. How can you pass, our hand has become really big and we have shortness in their suit? I don't think that partner is the one that should be reopening with 3-4-3-3 or 3-5-3-2 shapes, unless he has a good hand. We're even NV at matchpoints, I don't want to sell out to 2S with this hand!

 

I would double, whether it is a takeout double (which is what I play) or a support double. I agree that this double is far from mandatory, we should never double on a balanced 12-14 for example. But instead of playing that this double shows strength, I think that we should also double with good shape, and this shape is perfect.

 

There is something to be said for 3C, the hearts are weak and the clubs are decent. But this is matchpoints and we need to take a lot of tricks in clubs to beat 3H making. And we will often get to clubs even if we double. At IMPs I would be worried about being in the wrong game when partner bids 3NT over our 3C.

 

By the way, in response to our (takeout) double I play that 2NT is scrambling, and a direct 3H is stronger than 2NT followed by 3H.

[han]

To those who make a "support double": would you also double on a weak NT with three hearts (aside from perhaps a pure 2335 hand)? What about a minimum 3316 shape?

 

I just answered to the former, and I would also not double with minimum 3-3-1-6 shapes.

 

I don't like support here anyway, I would want to describe it as takeout and I'd also double with xx Ax AQxx KQJxx.