[Winstonm]

With no established partnership, playing vanilla 2/1, you face this auction:

Support doubles at two-level only.

---

What is your choice?

Spoiler

---

Who was on the wrong page or was it the wrong book?

[paulg]

3♥ for me although a tough problem which major to bid. Partner is not likely to expect four hearts so three hearts looks the most flexible action.

Spoiler

Passing a takeout double with two small is a little strange

[apollo1201]

3H

Idk if it is standard, and idk what my partner thinks, as I just « found » this thinking abt this hand, but with 44 M and enough for game, partner can bid 3S, *denying* 5H.

Indeed, with 5H+4S, she can X, and if I have 3 or 4H, our fit is found, while if I have 2 or less H, I’d bid 3S with 4, again finding our fit, or 3NT if I can, or sth else.

On those actions anyway, it is always hard to know if we « try » a major, when we have a stopper, or if we bid 3NT as soon as we can, given partner won’t be able to bid this and will bypass tthe contract if we bid 3M and it is still not a fit.

Here it is easier though.

[LBengtsson]

passing with south hand is not 'strange' (as paulg says) but crazy. east bids 3♣ red/white with a passed partner on what? hand with opening values, not light preemptive bid.

[Winstonm]

apollo1201, on 2021-September-12, 11:45, said:

3H

Idk if it is standard, and idk what my partner thinks, as I just « found » this thinking abt this hand, but with 44 M and enough for game, partner can bid 3S, *denying* 5H.

Indeed, with 5H+4S, she can X, and if I have 3 or 4H, our fit is found, while if I have 2 or less H, I'd bid 3S with 4, again finding our fit, or 3NT if I can, or sth else.

On those actions anyway, it is always hard to know if we « try » a major, when we have a stopper, or if we bid 3NT as soon as we can, given partner won't be able to bid this and will bypass tthe contract if we bid 3M and it is still not a fit.

Here it is easier though.

What about 4C with a game forcing hand? Can't partner have doubled with less than game force, say, Jxx, KJxx, Axxx, Kx?

[DavidKok]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-12, 13:14, said:

What about 4C with a game forcing hand? Can't partner have doubled with less than game force, say, Jxx, KJxx, Axxx, Kx?

That hand is a game force when partner opens, even at this vulnerability.

4♣ by opener is confusing. It would show a hand that is too weak to act over 3♣, but a GF opposite a minimal double. I'm not sure if that is worth the bidding space. More importantly, which suit does it confirm as trumps?

Presumably the pass of 3♣ shows a balanced minimum, or unbalanced hand with heart shortness. With the second hand we are eager to convert to penalties or introduce our spade suit, so any other bid shows a balanced minimum. I think it would be sensible to play 3♦ as artificial (denying/promising heart support) and forcing - we similarly give up playing 2♦ over a 2♣ overcall. Without prior discussion just bid 3♥ with at least 3.

As an aside, in my preferred system responder would have distinguished between holding 4=4 in the majors or some other major holding on the first round, so there is no risk of landing in a 4-3 heart fit with a 4-4 spade fit present (making 3♥ best).

[gszes]

MP and IMPS I would bid 3s since it will give partner the most accurate information possible (no 4 card heart support 4 spades and no desire to pass the x) BUT at MP
I can see trying for the + 200 since there is no guarantee 3S by me is going to hit gold. Too much risk at IMPS to consider passing for a penalty.

[Gilithin]

I disagree with Paul completely - 3♥ looks obvious and passing the double is more than a little strange. One can only assume that South is an older player still using 1930s bidding rules (ie X is always penalty at the 3 level).

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-15, 08:03, said:

I disagree with Paul completely - 3♥ looks obvious and passing the double is more than a little strange. One can only assume that South is an older player still using 1930s bidding rules (ie X is always penalty at the 3 level).

I think 3♥ looks obvious, but I'm not sure why N created the problem in the first place: 4♦ rather than double would say it all for me.

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2021-September-15, 12:55, said:

I think 3♥ looks obvious, but I'm not sure why N created the problem in the first place: 4♦ rather than double would say it all for me.

I have more sympathy there. Switch the black suits and then the majors, making Opener ♠xxx ♥xx ♦KJxx ♣AKQx. Does X not look better here? Maybe you think East would not bid 3♣ in that case but there are certainly some players who would be willing to get involved with ♣JT98xxxx. And giving South something like ♣AQTx instead hardly changes very much when it comes to X versus 4♦.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2021-September-12, 16:32, said:

That hand is a game force when partner opens, even at this vulnerability.

4♣ by opener is confusing. It would show a hand that is too weak to act over 3♣, but a GF opposite a minimal double. I'm not sure if that is worth the bidding space. More importantly, which suit does it confirm as trumps?

Presumably the pass of 3♣ shows a balanced minimum, or unbalanced hand with heart shortness. With the second hand we are eager to convert to penalties or introduce our spade suit, so any other bid shows a balanced minimum. I think it would be sensible to play 3♦ as artificial (denying/promising heart support) and forcing - we similarly give up playing 2♦ over a 2♣ overcall. Without prior discussion just bid 3♥ with at least 3.

As an aside, in my preferred system responder would have distinguished between holding 4=4 in the majors or some other major holding on the first round, so there is no risk of landing in a 4-3 heart fit with a 4-4 spade fit present (making 3♥ best).

Maybe I’m too old-fashioned but when I hold a mediocre 12 count and Kx in clubs, on this auction, I downgrade the hand. I’d downgrade even if the opps were nv, when a vul v nv opponent steps into a live auction with 3C, I think the chances that the club King has any offensive value are slim to none.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2021-September-15, 12:55, said:

I think 3♥ looks obvious, but I'm not sure why N created the problem in the first place: 4♦ rather than double would say it all for me.

Assuming we play 4D by responder as forcing (in my partnerships we have a rule that a jump to 4m, when partner has opened or made a to double, is forcing…we prefer that to efforts to stop on a dime at the 4 level in a minor), in which universe does it show AQJxx in hearts….or, indeed, any fifth heart?

I agree with the double. It’s close, since partner may pass it and we miss a good diamond contract. But mostly I want to get to hearts if possible, and hold open the door for a penalty. My double is primarily takeout, so partner won’t often leave it when when they can make.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2021-September-15, 15:06, said:

Assuming we play 4D by responder as forcing (in my partnerships we have a rule that a jump to 4m, when partner has opened or made a to double, is forcing…we prefer that to efforts to stop on a dime at the 4 level in a minor), in which universe does it show AQJxx in hearts….or, indeed, any fifth heart?

I agree with the double. It’s close, since partner may pass it and we miss a good diamond contract. But mostly I want to get to hearts if possible, and hold open the door for a penalty. My double is primarily takeout, so partner won’t often leave it when when they can make.

Maybe the difference of universe is that I assumed a 1◇ opening to guarantee 4+ cards? If vanilla is 3+ I'm with double all the way.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2021-September-15, 16:10, said:

Maybe the difference of universe is that I assumed a 1◇ opening to guarantee 4+ cards? If vanilla is 3+ I'm with double all the way.

It’s not about diamonds…it’s about hearts. I don’t think opener should bid 4H over 4D with xxx. If you disagree, fine…now a forcing 4D makes sense.

[Winstonm]

DavidKok, on 2021-September-12, 16:32, said:

That hand is a game force when partner opens, even at this vulnerability.

4♣ by opener is confusing. It would show a hand that is too weak to act over 3♣, but a GF opposite a minimal double. I'm not sure if that is worth the bidding space. More importantly, which suit does it confirm as trumps?

Presumably the pass of 3♣ shows a balanced minimum, or unbalanced hand with heart shortness. With the second hand we are eager to convert to penalties or introduce our spade suit, so any other bid shows a balanced minimum. I think it would be sensible to play 3♦ as artificial (denying/promising heart support) and forcing - we similarly give up playing 2♦ over a 2♣ overcall. Without prior discussion just bid 3♥ with at least 3.

As an aside, in my preferred system responder would have distinguished between holding 4=4 in the majors or some other major holding on the first round, so there is no risk of landing in a 4-3 heart fit with a 4-4 spade fit present (making 3♥ best).

I’m surprised you say this is worth a game force, especially with the club bid on your left.

[DavidKok]

I'm not sure if you open balanced 11-counts, but if not the worst hand partner can have is a balanced 12-count and I'd rather try for game than stop in a partscore on 24 combined points. The clubs on my left are a bit annoying but we are more than likely to become declarer in 4♥ or 3NT (and if partner bids 3NT over the double they promise something good in clubs so our Kx is fine).

When in doubt, bid game. This hand is strong enough that I'm not comfortable trying to stay out of game, so I'll bid it as a game force to have a cleaner auction. Over 3♣ you have no choice - push to game.

[mcphee]

I have no reason not to bid S, if partner has just 3 I expect them to bid something and then I can bid 4H. I expect to be in some major suit game and just dont follow the 3H bidders.

[Winstonm]

mcphee, on 2021-September-16, 10:40, said:

I have no reason not to bid S, if partner has just 3 I expect them to bid something and then I can bid 4H. I expect to be in some major suit game and just dont follow the 3H bidders.

I think this is the best choice. I think it's important to keep in mind that support doubles are not being played at this level Partner has expressed that he has too much to pass but no clear-cut way to go. 3S could even find a useful Moysian on occasion or responder could hold 44 in the majors. If opener bids 3H is responder supposed to bid 3S when 44?

Perhaps the best solution is to treat this sequence like negative doubles - either both majors or one major and support for opener's minor, that way over 3S responder could bid 4D to show diamond support with hearts.

[Tokyo007]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-16, 11:10, said:

I think this is the best choice. I think it's important to keep in mind that support doubles are not being played at this level Partner has expressed that he has too much to pass but no clear-cut way to go. 3S could even find a useful Moysian on occasion or responder could hold 44 in the majors. If opener bids 3H is responder supposed to bid 3S when 44?

Perhaps the best solution is to treat this sequence like negative doubles - either both majors or one major and support for opener's minor, that way over 3S responder could bid 4D to show diamond support with hearts.

Hard to see a downside to 3S.