Some thoughts about support doubles

[helene_t]

Yesterday I held an 11-count with six clubs and three hearts. It went:

1♣-(pass)-1♥-(1♠)

2♣-a.p.

 

We play Walsh style. Partner passed, somewhat conservatively but not crazy, my 2♣ bid with a nice 10-count with five hearts. 4♥ was cold. Playing support double I think we could have reached 4♥.

But still I would like to be able to show my long clubs in addition to just showing 3-card heart support. So I thought, what about sacrificing the natural 1NT bid? With 12-14 points I can also just pass, even if I have a spade stopper, notrumps might play better from partner's hand, or defending could be better. Pass in this position pretty much shows the 12-14 bal. So:

 

pass: ok with defending 1♠, i.e. typically a balanced 12-14 with doubleton hearts, but 4=3=3=3 is also possible, and 3=1=4=5 if the clubs are not great.

 

dbl: support double with (ostensibly) a balanced(ish) hand.

1NT: (5)6 clubs, 3 hearts.

 

Now this will wrongside a lot of notrump contracts, so we can invert 1NT and 2♥:

1NT: 4 hearts!

2♥: six clubs (possibly also 1345), three hearts.

 

Any thoughts?

[Zelandakh]

I think I prefer just doubling with the long clubs; you can still bid clubs on the next round after all and it is not unlikely that partner's advance will be 1NT giving: 1♣ - 1♥ - (1♠); X - 1NT; 2♣. An alternative artificial use for 1NT here might be to show 4+ diamonds and insufficient strength to reverse. I particularly dislike your inversion idea since if the fit is in clubs we are forced to play either 2♥ in the Moysian or 3♣. It must surely be better to keep 2♣ in the picture here.

[lalldonn]

I don't like giving up 1NT even though it's not unheard of. Some good players even play 1NT there is 18-19 for that reason. But I also don't like forcing that high with 3-6. It could have gone 1♣ p 1♥ 1♠, X p 1NT p, 2♣...

[gnasher]

I play 1NT as 3-card support in some partnerships, though it's mainly so that we can play a double as for takeout.

 

I'm not worried about losing a natural 1NT bid, because with that hand-type I'd prefer to have the overcaller on lead. Responder will sometimes have a spade honour which needs protecting, for example when he has Jx and opener has AQx. Whilst there are other layouts where we need to protect opener's spade holding, there is usually an equivalent layout where we need to protect responder's. For example

     xxx

Qx          K109xx

     AJx

where we want to play from opener's side, is balanced by

     Qxx

xx          K109xx

     AJx

where we want to play from responder's side.

 

Another reason to put the overcaller on lead is that his partner is more likely to know which suit they should be leading.

[rhm]

If playing support doubles and they apply I like that any other bid simply denies 3 cards in partner's major.

So I think you should double irrespective of your club length and I personally prefer double to pass even when holding a non-descriptive minimum 4333.

Support double may be not the perfect description of your hand, but it is very often valuable for your partner to know that you have at most two hearts if you choose any other bid.

For example in your case "Partner passed, somewhat conservatively but not crazy, my 2♣ bid with a nice 10-count with five heart" might be much easier when you have at most 2 hearts and he might be able to double opponents if they continue in the knowledge that you do not have a major suit fit.

This use of support doubles may still be a minority view, but it seems to be gaining in acceptance.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[steve2005]

Yes, SUP X work best here.

Partner can bid 1N with 4♥ then bid 2♣ if no more interference

[fromageGB]

Almost 100% agreement. I use support X here, and without 3 hearts would bid 2♣ rather than pass (5 or fewer clubs), and 1NT is 17/18.

[gnasher]

I like the idea of separating balanced support doubles from unbalanced ones. Playing the style where you support-double on any hand with 3-card support regardless of shape, you often end up undercompeting because responder assumes he's opposite a balanced hand when he's not.

 

However, I don't like giving them all that space when opener has 4-card support. Instead, how about:

Pass = a weak notrump without support, or some awkward hand

Double = balanced with three-card support

1NT = 3-card support, unbalanced, F1

From a right-siding point of view that's worse than Helene's scheme, but I prefer it for competitive reasons.

 

On other thought: in my scheme or Helene's scheme you could swap pass and double, which has the theoretical advantage that we can defend 1♠x on the more misfitting hands.

[trevahound]

Very tangentially related at best:

 

I've had this idea that the supp X vs non-supp pass concept is perfect for str NT systems, but is exactly backwards for those playing a baby NT (10-13 or similar) range. Playing that range, when you open 1m and are next in a support double position, your most common hand type is a str NT (14+ for me, 15+ if playing 11-14, etc...). On these hands, I think double is better used for non-support (2 or fewer), and pass for 3 card support. This takes a tempo away from the opponents, as LHO no longer gets the same free pass he gets over a supp X, as now there are plenty of chances this double gets converted, while passing for support doesn't cost our side any tempos or useful space. REsponder assumes you have 14+ if balanced, and no other sensible shape bid to make, and thus you're prepared to defend if that suits partner's hand (partner still rebids normally).

 

The argument against this is, "what if you have no fit and no other sensible bid and don't want to double, risking it might be left in?" Over the past six months or so (with three partners brave/foolish enough to play this with me), the only "disaster" this caused was a hand were we were defending 2hx on a non-supp X auction, and declarer chose to go set for no good reason. Every other time the inversion has mattered (and to be fair, it doesn't matter often), it's been a win for the method, I think. This is not a large trial base yet, so I'm looking forward to what I learn about it going forward.

[trevahound]

I like the idea of separating balanced support doubles from unbalanced ones. Playing the style where you support-double on any hand with 3-card support regardless of shape, you often end up undercompeting because responder assumes he's opposite a balanced hand when he's not.

 

However, I don't like giving them all that space when opener has 4-card support. Instead, how about:

Pass = a weak notrump without support, or some awkward hand

Double = balanced with three-card support

1NT = 3-card support, unbalanced, F1

From a right-siding point of view that's worse than Helene's scheme, but I prefer it for competitive reasons.

 

On other thought: in my scheme or Helene's scheme you could swap pass and double, which has the theoretical advantage that we can defend 1♠x on the more misfitting hands.

 

 

Hah. I was typing my post while this one crossed it in the ether. :)

[PhilKing]

On other thought: in my scheme or Helene's scheme you could swap pass and double, which has the theoretical advantage that we can defend 1♠x on the more misfitting hands.

 

I presume I have misread this - you seem to be advocating playing double as a hand that has no reason to bid whatsoever.

 

If you want something that differentiates your 3-card raises after 1C, try this:

 

1NT - 3-card support in a weak no trump that wants to bid

2D - 3-card support, unbalanced

Double - general takeout (obviously now including diamond reverses)

Pass - a hand that does not want to bid

 

Having a bid for the unbalanced raise allows partner to compete opposite known club length freely.

[gnasher]

I presume I have misread this - you seem to be advocating playing double as a hand that has no reason to bid whatsoever.

"Advocating" is too strong a word, but yes I was suggesting playing double as 12-14 balanced without a fit. I wouldn't expect to come to much harm doing that. When we have an opening bid and a response, it's not often right to defend 1♠ undoubled, and not very likely that they'll take us for a penalty.

 

1NT - 3-card support in a weak no trump

The trouble with this is that it will often wrongside notrumps on a deal where we want to play in notrumps.

[PhilKing]

"Advocating" is too strong a word, but yes I was suggesting playing double as 12-14 balanced without a fit. I wouldn't expect to come to much harm doing that. When we have an opening bid and a response, it's not often right to defend 1♠ undoubled, and not very likely that they'll take us for a penalty.

 

 

The trouble with this is that it will often wrongside notrumps on a deal where we want to play in notrumps.

 

You have to lump in 4135 11 counts and 3145 15 counts along with your weak no trumps, and you lose your take-out double.

[gnasher]

But you have to lump in 4135 11 counts and 3145 15 counts along with your weak no trumps, besides losing your take-out double.

I haven't lost a takeout double, because I'm approaching this from the point of view of Helene, who didn't have a takeout double to start with.

 

And you are also using the same call for 4135 11 counts, 3145 15 counts, and weak notrumps without a fit, aren't you?

[PhilKing]

I haven't lost a takeout double, because I'm approaching this from the point of view of Helene, who didn't have a takeout double to start with.

 

And you are also using the same call for 4135 11 counts, 3145 15 counts, and weak notrumps without a fit, aren't you?

 

You could make the same argument if you played 7NT as showing a pass.

[gnasher]

You could make the same argument if you played 7NT as showing a pass.

Sorry, you've lost me.

 

You've also lost my interest. Why are we spending so many valuable bytes discussing a throwaway idea that wasn't part of my main scheme anyway?

[cherdano]

But I also don't like forcing that high with 3-6. It could have gone 1♣ p 1♥ 1♠, X p 1NT p, 2♣...

That was also my reaction, but it seems status-quo bias to me. Imagine you had always been playing 2H = 3-6. Wouldn't it sound crazy to give up on showing your 6th club at the 2-level when they are likely to bid 2♠ on your left? That seems like a bigger loss than not being able to play in your 8-card club fit at the 2-level, with a known 7+-card heart fit, and a spade overcall on your right.

[wodahs]

suggestion withdrawn :-)

[helene_t]

I haven't lost a takeout double, because I'm approaching this from the point of view of Helene, who didn't have a takeout double to start with.

 

And you are also using the same call for 4135 11 counts, 3145 15 counts, and weak notrumps without a fit, aren't you?

Well we actually play the double as showing diamonds here. Since with 4-4 we would open 1♦, it would be 4-5 minors, I suppose it could be 1345 or 3145 but I am not sure, I certainly wouldn't double with 4045 unless I had extras.

 

But that is not really the point, I was more thinking of my crazy idea as an alternative to support doubles.

[jdeegan]

:P Support doubles in that auction are imo. a good idea. They give up very little and can be very useful. Since you have not given an actual bridge hand, I can't comment on whether it would have helped here - with 6 very good clubs and three small ♥ and 2-2 in the minors, you might want to bid 2♣ anyway.

 

PhilKing makes a proper argument that a takeout double with only one unbid suit is ridiculous unless it initiates a prearranged system of coded responses. This, imo. is making the game much harder than it should be. I know that playing Walsh can make you paranoid that pard may have an undisclosed ♦ six-bagger. Solution: quit worrying or, my choice, quit playing Walsh.

 

As far as your being crazy, I have had similar thoughts about myself. My wife is adamant. If you think you might be crazy, you are.