[Winstonm]

Opposite a suspected weak NT we have no compelling reason to believe it is our hand by much - and the opps have found a 9 card fit. Pass and try to go plus.

Winston

[SchTsch]

Winstonm, on Nov 22 2005, 10:46 AM, said:

Opposite a suspected weak NT we have no compelling reason to believe it is our hand by much - and the opps have found a 9 card fit.  Pass and try to go plus.

Hm....

couldn't partner have, let's say:
x
xxx
KQxx
AKxxx

He will bid the same, and we will make 6♣ on 2-2 clubs.

[Al_U_Card]

SchTsch, on Nov 22 2005, 10:49 AM, said:

couldn't partner have, let's say:
x
xxx
KQxx
AKxxx

He will bid the same, and we will make 6♣ on 2-2 clubs.

apparently not, as in their system he would open 1D....

[mikeh]

I pass

In light of what has been posted earlier, let me add my two cents worth on the support double. I agree with Frances that playing mandatory support doubles here is poor ('poor' is a dramatic underbid, in my view... I think it is very, very bad)

The reasons should not need a great deal of elucidation. Just think of the hand types that the double has to cover if it is mandatory!

I believe that the majority of those who play support doubles (at any level) do not consider them mandatory in any sequence. Thus, in a current thread, a player having opened (extremely) light with 3=7 in ♠ and ♦ had to decide whether to make a support redouble after his partner's 1♠ was doubled by RHO. The majority (including me) felt that rebidding AQJxxxx was more important than redoubling on xxx.

The support doubler should, in my view, have a constructive reason for making the call. He must have regard to the playability of any contract into which he is forcing partner. Clearly, to force partner into a 5-3 3-level contract, when partner may have a horrible hand, requires significant values or a suicidal bent.

Making things worse is the difficulty that mandatory doublers have in distinguishing ranges. When the double is mandatory, how does opener distinguish between a minimum, a constructive, and an invitational hand?

On the given hand, with the given conditions, including the ambiguity surrounding partner's ♣ length, as noted by Frances and others, I pass.

Ironically, the silly mandatory double treatment has helped me on this hand: were it possible for partner to hold a weakish hand with 3♠, I would be tempted to double. Indeed, in my partnerships, I would not expect 3♠ on a piece of rubbish such as Jxxx KJx Kxx KQx. 3♠ would show an opener that has not been drastically affected by the auction.

BTW, I am aware that I may have missed a vulnerable game. But a double might be left in, with disastrous consequences, while 4♣ aims at too narrow a target: I'm not interested in playing exactly 4♣ rather than defending 3♥, and I have no assurance that 5♣ can be bid and/or made if I bid 4♣.

[han]

Pass, with double second choice. I wouldn't consider any other action. I also think that mandatory support doubles at the 3-level are unplayable.


I think that Frances should continue to post reactions like these. Mauro, if you are not interested in hearing what she has to say about mandatory support doubles, consider that there might be other people who do find it interesting.

We have been here over and over again. If you post a question "what would you do given these agreements" then people will comment on the methods too, and this is how it should be in my opinion.

[Al_U_Card]

Hannie, on Nov 22 2005, 03:21 PM, said:

I think that Frances should continue to post reactions like these. Mauro, if you are not interested in hearing what she has to say about mandatory support doubles, consider that there might be other people who do find it interesting.

We have been here over and over again. If you post a question "what would you do given these agreements" then people will comment on the methods too, and this is how it should be in my opinion.

Han, is that a gun in your (iconic) hand or are you just trying to force your opinions on us again?...lol

[luke warm]

he said, "i think..." which is, i think, allowed

[cherdano]

Chamaco, on Nov 22 2005, 12:53 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 22 2005, 10:44 AM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 22 2005, 03:26 AM, said:

We play support double at this level so pard's pass denied 3 card support in spades.

Frightening. You are committed to playing 3Hx or 3S with

--- CUT ---


rather you than me....

Thanks for the constructive reply to this post.

I usually try to avoid replying to psts if I am not saying anything constructive.
Not that I always succeed, but I try.

I still ignore what's your bid and why given the original hand and the given agreement.

Mauro, I think you are expecting discipline beyond human nature here
When I read your post, my immediate reaction was very much the same as Frances': "Do Mauro and his p really play mandatory support doubles at the 3-level?" It is very natural to express this reaction, and I would have been pretty irritated if nobody else had mentioned some reservations about the agreements.

Btw, you can try to preempt such reactions -- "leave complaints about the system for after the session" has worked well for me, I have also seen "playing xxx here (yeah, I know...)"

Finally, to say something constructive: since partner can have many hands with 3 clubs, I am pretty sure I have to pass here. If he has 5 clubs -- shrug and next hand. You made this system choice about your 1C opening knowing it would give problems in competitive situations, and you will get rewarded in other constructive auctions (or competitive auctions starting 1D).

Arend

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Meckwell plays support doubles up to and including 4Hs is the rumor that I have heard.

I play support doubles up to and including 3Hs, however, they show decent 'values' plus some shape to play at that level. We use a 11-15HCP base, so we make our support doubles with shaped hands and max. hands with good controls. Kxx x AKJxx Axxx

Partner can make a lot of tricks most of the time. He can also 'pass' the double with a flat hand. We are agressive bidders and the results seem to confirm our style.

At the two level, we make many more support doubles. Hands that have xxx of trumps and a flat shape plus minimum values often 'pass' in our optional 'support' double style.

If you have opened a minimum hand and the other pair bids your Qx suit, your opening bid might now be worth only 9-10HCP. Making a support double with these kinds of hands is self destructive IMO.

I find support doubles to be a valuable tool when used properly. My methods may not be the best, however, they seem to work for me.

The big advantage that I have found playing support doubles(and XXs) is that raises 'promise' four card support. Bidding decisions are often much easier 'if' you 'know' that partner will put down 4 trumps in dummy.

Funny how I learned years ago that you did not double for a one trick set at IMPs. That example hand 'looks' like you are trying for a one trick set. Is doubling them into game now back in fashion?

I would pass in tempo. If partner does not have 3 card support, you pass and hope to defeat the 3H contract.

I agree with MikeH 'knowing' that partner will not hold 3 card spade support makes this an easy pass. If partner could hold 3 card support, the decision to bid might be much closer.

The magic hands that make 6 clubs on a 2-2 split are nice. What happens when partner does not have those magic hands and someone produces a Red card?

The other pair is defending a 4(5/6?) level contract when you bid 4 clubs 'guessing' that partner might hold long clubs. If you are wrong, there is not going back.

Even if you can make 4 clubs, partner will often bid higher because he does hold a fifth club and he thinks that you will have more values.

What happens when the other pair holds a magic defensive hand and you bid 4C(5-6?) in hopes of finding the 'lucky' opening bid with a 2-2 fit?

If partner has 4 clubs, a 4-1 break might not be unlikely since the other pair did bid to 3Hs. Playing 4Cs doubled with a 4-1 break might not be all that much fun.

Regards,
Robert

[Gerben42]

Quote

Meckwell plays support doubles up to and including 4Hs is the rumor that I have heard.

But I'll bet not mandatory support doubles!

[joker_gib]

Gerben42, on Nov 23 2005, 10:24 AM, said:

Quote

Meckwell plays support doubles up to and including 4Hs is the rumor that I have heard.

But I'll bet not mandatory support doubles!

I also heard a rumor that Rodwell invented them but don't play them anymore !

[Robert]

Hello Gerbe42

The Boys like to bid. If nothing else, they are entertaining to watch. They are not often boring.

I doubt that they play mandatory support doubles at the 4H level, however, I would not be very surprised 'if' they did.

Their style is to push the other pair around. They often open in 3rd seat with 7-8 hcp. The system forces(allows) them to bid to 3NT on 22+(21?)HCP.

I was half expecting(putting on my Flak jacket and helmet while I waited) for someone to object to my 'super maximum' example hand of a 3H level 'support double' using my 11-15 base opening 1D bid.

Kxx x AKJxx Axxx

If the Boys held that hand they might(would?) upgrade it into a 1C=16+ opener.

I do follow their example and 'upgrade' seven card suits headed by AQJ or AK into 1C opening bids with somewhat less than 16HCP. In earlier years this would have never happened. There may be hope for me yet.

I believe that Meckwell opens 10-15HCP following system methods and their freguent 'upgrading ' style enables them to often(sometimes?) open 9(8?)HCP hands at the one level. In 3rd seat their 7-8HCP 'openings' are standard Meckwell opening bids.

Do not get me wrong. I am a big fan of the Meckwell players. I also tend to use some of their methods. I just am not ready to blindly follow their 'style.'

My bidding has loosened up considerably over several decades. I still like to have some values, however, sometimes my system methods allow me to bid with little or nothing. Partner is 'in' on the joke so we rarely get 'carried out.'

Regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

Robert, on Nov 23 2005, 04:49 AM, said:

Hello Gerbe42

The Boys like to bid. If nothing else, they are entertaining to watch. They are not often boring.

I doubt that they play mandatory support doubles at the 4H level, however, I would not be very surprised 'if' they did.

Their style is to push the other pair around. They often open in 3rd seat with 7-8 hcp. The system forces(allows) them to bid to 3NT on 22+(21?)HCP.

I was half expecting(putting on my Flak jacket and helmet while I waited) for someone to object to my 'super maximum' example hand of a 3H level 'support double' using my 11-15 base opening 1D bid.

Kxx x AKJxx Axxx

If the Boys held that hand they might(would?) upgrade it into a 1C=16+ opener.

I do follow their example and 'upgrade' seven card suits headed by AQJ or AK into 1C opening bids with somewhat less than 16HCP. In earlier years this would have never happened. There may be hope for me yet.

I believe that Meckwell opens 10-15HCP following system methods and their freguent 'upgrading ' style enables them to often(sometimes?) open 9(8?)HCP hands at the one level. In 3rd seat their 7-8HCP 'openings' are standard Meckwell opening bids.

Do not get me wrong. I am a big fan of the Meckwell players. I also tend to use some of their methods. I just am not ready to blindly follow their 'style.'

My bidding has loosened up considerably over several decades. I still like to have some values, however, sometimes my system methods allow me to bid with little or nothing. Partner is 'in' on the joke so we rarely get 'carried out.'

Regards,
Robert

I would upgrade the Kxx x AKJxx Axxx hand to 16 HCP, and open 1♣. The nice shape and the control richness make it almost automatic .

Going back to the original question, the real choice is between pass and double.
I have voted for pass, but IMO it is not the landslide consensus that is being recorded here. It is just the most conservative auction, and the one which avoids possible disasters. You may often end up with both 3♥ and 4♣ making.

A support double at 3 level is not so rare. I play the convention up to 3♠ level, and I do not remember any astounding problem.
Bidding style is a matter of choice and personality (IMHO, the bidding system you choose and in particular the convention/treatments you add should give a good indication on your personality).
However, aggressive bidding style has always paid; it is a legend that an aggressive style is just a modern trend. Obviously, aggressive does not mean reckless; and your aggressive bidding style must be backed by sound declarer's play skills. Otherwise you will reach a lot of marginal contract, and will go down in most of them

[beatrix45]

Pass

No place to play, and good defensive values. Try to go plus.