[mtvesuvius]

V vs NV at IMPs you hold:

KJxxxx
xxx
x
AKx

Partner deals:

1♦ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (3♣)
P - (P) - ?

3♣ was weak, support doubles apply here.

Is 3♠ forcing here? What's your bid?

[kenrexford]

Yes, for me. That's why I like intermediate jump shifts, though. If I have crap, I bid 1♠ and pass here. If I have stuff, I bid 1♠ and bid 3♠ here. If I have tweener, I bid 2♠ the first time and get it off my chest.

[mich-b]

We would not consider 3♠ to be forcing. Can be a hand that planned an invitational jump rebid , or slightly less (around 8+/9-11).

A stronger hand should start with a double and rebid ♠ later.

[Phil]

I don't know if 3♠ is forcing, but if pard passes we have not missed anything.

This hand has really dove in value.

Support doubles over 3♣? Wow.

[hanp]

Agree that 3S is NF and that we can double initially if we want to force. I would not want to force with this hand.

[P_Marlowe]

4S.

Just because p did not double, does not mean,
he cant have 3 spades.
I am doubt, that you require opener to double
with every hand, which happens to hold 3 spades.

For me 3S is nonforcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[655321]

Agree with all of: NF, 3♠ now, and wow at support doubles over 3♣.

[whereagles]

3♠ is NF, but I'll double here, not caring much for what pard makes of it.

[helene_t]

Agree with everything 655321 said.

[se12sam]

My humble inputs -- though I could be totally wrong here.

1. The 3♣ bidder may not have made this bid if he had 3-card support for his partner's heart. Therefore, he has 1-2 heart cards (0 heart cards is less likely)
2. I have clubs double stopped and partner could have hearts double stopped.
3. Even if partner puts down a good spade doubleton (Ax or Qx), we cannot be sure of 4♠ contract from our side due to risk of ruffs after a heart lead.

I bid 3♥ asking partner if 3NT is feasible. If he bids 3♠, I will raise to game because of the scoring and vul. status

[skjaeran]

3♠, NF for me (constructive-light invite).

[neilkaz]

skaeran, on Jun 3 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

3♠, NF for me (constructive-light invite).

Same for me.

Also I wouldn't play supX at this level and if for those that play 1♠ shows 5, do you really need supX at all?

[Jlall]

I'd pass

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Jun 3 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

I'd pass

I didn't think of that but yes, we do have a singleton in partner's suit after all.

Would be tempting to double (just in case) and then pull 3♦ to 3♠ but I suppose that would be forcing.

[mikeh]

I echo those who express surprise at the idea of support doubles in use here.

If we really are playing support doubles, I'd still like to know if we are silly enough that partner's pass DENIES 3 spades... I mean.. support doubles are virtually unplayable here anyway, but surely they are completely unplayable if we HAVE to double 3♣ with, say, xxx KQx AQJxx xx?

Given the (weird) conditions of the OP, I agree with pass.

Playing a more normal method, pass might well still be the frequency winner, and so a good choice at mps, but red v white at imps, I couldn't bring myself to do it... despite the huge negatives... 7/11 of my hcp in LHO's suit, stiff in partner's, no spade 10 and, worst of all, the death holding in hearts.... heck, I've almost talked myself into pass even in normal methods

[jdonn]

The opponents are NV so could have anything they want for a suit, and haven't supported each other so they don't need to have a fit at all. I'm going to double, I just won't give up on partner passing which I think is more likely than it first appears. Then if partner bids 3♦ I'll bid 3♠ because at that point what choice is there?

[peachy]

I consider it unusual agreement to have support doubles on the 3-level. How is it working for you?

[jdonn]

I don't know why it's so unusual, I have agreed support doubles on the three level many times. They simply show extras, of course they wouldn't be required. It's very common to play such doubles as some sort of takeout bid, though on this precise auction maybe penalty would be better.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jun 4 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

The opponents are NV so could have anything they want for a suit, and haven't supported each other so they don't need to have a fit at all. I'm going to double, I just won't give up on partner passing which I think is more likely than it first appears. Then if partner bids 3♦ I'll bid 3♠ because at that point what choice is there?

Good way to show a forcing hand with spades!

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 4 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

The opponents are NV so could have anything they want for a suit, and haven't supported each other so they don't need to have a fit at all. I'm going to double, I just won't give up on partner passing which I think is more likely than it first appears. Then if partner bids 3♦ I'll bid 3♠ because at that point what choice is there?

Good way to show a forcing hand with spades!

I agree!