Rebid, almost with support

[Siegmund]

♠AK

♥7

♦KJT97

♣T6542

 

All vul, MPs, you open 1D, and it goes 1H-1S-2H back to you.

 

1) With no relevant toys, how do you rate pass, 2s, 3c (and anything else you might consider)?

(I assume many of you who play 2NT Good/Bad would use it here. But this partner doesn't.)

 

2) What is your preferred meaning for X in this spot?

 

Edited to add: yes, 1S promised five.

[Cyberyeti]

X is clubs for us and not necessarily extras so that's what I do.

[mike777]

1) I will try pass to limit my hand.

 

pard is permitted to balance or bid again.

 

2) Prefer to play x as support showing 3s.

[wank]

easy pass. 3c would be a big overbid

[rmnka447]

Double would be responsive in this position for me.

 

The question here is how aggressive is your partner in overcalling with red pockets at IMPs. The best ♠ holding pard can have is a suit headed by QJ. So I'd be pretty sure any partner I play with is likely to have something like QJ sixth. So my plan is to make a responsive double then over 3 ♥ to bid 3 ♠ showing 2 card support.

 

If I pass, it might be difficult for pard to take another call because of suit quality. If pard strongly supports one of the minors, then game comes into the picture.

[Codo]

3 ♣, a overbid, but I do like to show my 10+ minor cards.

[SteveMoe]

Pass, showing 0-2 ♠s.

Double = Support Double.

3♣ shows an A more than I have.

[bigbenvic]

♠AK

♥7

♦KJT97

♣T6542

 

All vul, MPs, you open 1D, and it goes 1H-1S-2H back to you.

 

1) With no relevant toys, how do you rate pass, 2s, 3c (and anything else you might consider)?

(I assume many of you who play 2NT Good/Bad would use it here. But this partner doesn't.)

 

2) What is your preferred meaning for X in this spot?

 

Edited to add: yes, 1S promised five.

 

With no agreements X is a stronger hand, 2♠ shows 3, 3♣ should show shape and a better than minimum opening hand, 2NT is balanced Minimum (if 1NT is weak then 15-16) denying 3♠ so pass is the bid. 2♠ is the next best bid IMO and then 3♣, but I think pass is clear cut.

[bigbenvic]

The double here I like as either hand with 3♠ and GF or better!! (3♥ is GF looking for 3NT) or a near GF hand, that can't bid 2NT, eg a 2263, 1363 15+HCP. It's not penalty but if partner has a misfitting hand that wants to punish 2♥ opposite a 15+ hand then yum.

 

With a ♥ void or a stiff Ace I may bid 3♥ and then 4♠ if I was GF.

 

I would also X with some 55 and 64 ♦/♣ hands, but I'd want a hand that had A's & K's and lacking in QJ10 & 9's.

[RSClyde]

3♣

I don't play that this shows anything special, just 10 cards in the minors. I'm not that enthusiastic about my spade support. It's easier to push them if I bid now rather than wait for partner. Our rule is to compete first at matchpoints. Of course our 1♠ could be only 4 so there is that as well.

Pass may work out better as partner's best spot over 2H could well be 2S. But I don't in principle play that 3♣, if I do bid it, shows extra values.

[RSClyde]

btw my partner advises against support doubles here (if 1♠ promises 5 for you) preferring instead for 2♠ to be 3 or 4. Otherwise when you bid 2♠ it would promise 4 so the opponents will know that you have a 9 card fit: this makes it rather easy for them to compete. However as opener, since you know how many spades you have, you decide how high to compete and leave the opponents in the dark.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would go with X, neg. X, but 2S is certainly reasonable, ... and may even be better,

since X is unlimited.

 

Without Good / Bad, I would never consider 3C, having Good Bad available, ... I think X

is better than 3C, and since it is AK vs. Txxxx, and since we have a 5:2 fit, I do think

2S is also better than 3C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Siegmund]

With some of my partners we've agreed to extend support doubles to situations where partner promises 5, but having X = Hx in partner's suit and a desire to compete, raise=3+. With others the double is 3 and the raise is 4 still, and with still others support X is off entirely. It did not help that this particular partner had not discussed this situation with me.

 

The player holding this hand at the table opted for 2S, which was not a success when responder got excited with Jxxxx. It prompted a conversation about the wisdom of "AK = 3 cards, AKx = 4 cards" as a general rule re supporting partner, which apparently is being preached by some of the teachers these days (I suspect the teachers were somewhat misquoted.)

[rmnka447]

If you are playing support doubles, a double here would show 3 spades. In that case, the choice is between 3 ♣ and a pass. Since this hand is a very light, but solid opener I think pass is right. The hand isn't strong enough to bid 3 ♣ freely and the ♣ suit is terrible. If partner finds a reopening double, you can compete further.

 

If you are not playing support doubles, then a double here would normally show extra values and a willingness to compete without a clear cut bid. It can't be a penalty double because responder's 1 ♠ is ambiguous and could be anything from 5 to 20 points. So again because you are so light, I think pass is correct. If you double this light, partner might decide to make a disastrous pass for penalties with modest values and a heart stack.

[Zelandakh]

If you are playing support doubles, a double here would show 3 spades.

Not everyone plays support doubles the same way. Some play a support double as showing a 7 card fit, which here would show precisely 2 spades. In fact, everyone I have seen play this style also restricts it to precisely ♠Hx or ♠HH in this spot. I understand that 3 is the normal way but your comment seemed to suggest that it is the only way. It is not.

 

In other words, playing Support Doubles this hand may or may not qualify. If not playing them in this way then I think it is a good idea to rearrange the hands so that you can call either X or 2♠ on this hand type. Otherwise you are going to be overloading the more expensive calls or losing part score battles unnecessarily (and thereby putting too much pressure on partner to protect).