[jillybean]

In this auction do you play X as support or 4♥'s or something else. If you have a strong preference, what is the reason?

1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) X

[ArtK78]

My regular partner likes to play this as support. I don't really agree with this, but I go along with it.

I think it should be negative.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2011-August-18, 20:47, said:

In this auction do you play X as support or 4♥'s or something else. If you have a strong preference, what is the reason?

1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) X

support...KIss....

pard will not have 4h unless gf hand with 5d

[wyman]

There's probably an argument that this should be support if you bypass 4+ card diamond suits in favor of a 4 card major without a GF hand, especially at IMPs.

That said, I play this as negative, and we do bypass long diamond suits for a 4cM with less than a GF. It's just a choice I think.

[rogerclee]

Just an idea, does anyone play that both x and 2D are diamond raises that could be 3 cards, but one is more defensive than the other? Seems good to me.

[aguahombre]

Up-the-line responders might need the double to show 4 hearts, but IMO, the rest of us definitely should find a better use for the double.

We choose "other". Not a support double, not purely penalty --informative. Shows diamond shortness, extra strength above minimum, and a good 4-bagger in spades behind the overcaller. Due to not opening notrump, we therefore have club length (usually 6, but maybe 4-3-1-5).

[gwnn]

jillybean, it depends on what 1♦ means. For example, if you routinely reply 1♦ on something like
xx
KJxx
Kxxx
xxx,

then certainly x should show hearts. If you only ever bid 1♦ with a 4-card major if you have a game forcing hand, then support is better.

[ggwhiz]

In my regular partnership the double just shows extras, 18 or so.

If balanced, unsuitable spades for a 2nt bid and if we have game we might be able to right side 3nt ie. my Kx opposite pards QTx.

If unbalanced it might look like support or takeout but my pard almost certainly does not have 4♥. The strength message invites pard to compete to the 3 level on many shapely junk hands and keeps us out of trouble when pard bid on a real worm because of short clubs which we tend to do.

I can bid things like 2 of a minor at my next turn having shown my range.

[Phil]

Since 1♦ can be 'short' (and it sometimes is in Walsh), then I would prefer support doubles. I do not like the idea of raising to 2♦ on x AQxx xxx AKxxx.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-August-19, 09:43, said:

Since 1♦ can be 'short' (and it sometimes is in Walsh), then I would prefer support doubles. I do not like the idea of raising to 2♦ on x AQxx xxx AKxxx.

Yep. Since 1♦ could be some 3-3-3-4 hand too weak to respond 1NT 8-10, raising to 2D must contain some unbalanced 4-6 or maybe even be a reverse (whatever is agreed). Pass is a possibility for those who don't use support doubles.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-19, 10:00, said:

Yep. Since 1♦ could be some 3-3-3-4 hand too weak to respond 1NT 8-10, raising to 2D must contain some unbalanced 4-6 or maybe even be a reverse (whatever is agreed). Pass is a possibility for those who don't use support doubles.

If I have a club/diamond reverse, I can jump raise or ever splinter here. But I agree that a support double needs to be a hand genuinely interested in playing a 5-3 or 4-3 with a ruffing value and not some random weak NT.

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2011-August-19, 09:43, said:

Since 1♦ can be 'short' (and it sometimes is in Walsh), then I would prefer support doubles. I do not like the idea of raising to 2♦ on x AQxx xxx AKxxx.

This hand seems to be a bad example of the point you are making since it qualifies very nicely for the alternative meaning for double of 4 hearts.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-19, 10:00, said:

Yep. Since 1♦ could be some 3-3-3-4 hand too weak to respond 1NT 8-10, raising to 2D must contain some unbalanced 4-6 or maybe even be a reverse (whatever is agreed). Pass is a possibility for those who don't use support doubles.

You are proposing responding 1♦ to 1♣ with only 3 diamonds? Could you please do this somewhere other than the B/I forum?

[Phil]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-19, 10:51, said:

This hand seems to be a bad example of the point you are making since it qualifies very nicely for the alternative meaning for double of 4 hearts.

If you know that partner will not have four hearts unless partner has a GF hand, then the heart suit is irrelevant.

[Phil]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-19, 10:53, said:

You are proposing responding 1♦ to 1♣ with only 3 diamonds? Could you please do this somewhere other than the B/I forum?

I disagree. Support or "renegative" doubles need to be considered in the context of the general approach and Western Scientific is one of the dominant 2/1 systems.

[ggwhiz]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-19, 10:53, said:

You are proposing responding 1♦ to 1♣ with only 3 diamonds? Could you please do this somewhere other than the B/I forum?

The dreaded Montreal relay, right up there with splinters for this forum.

Stick to their smoked meat and steak spice.

[aguahombre]

There is a line, beyond which discussion of certain bids and plays would be inappropriate for a B/I forum. However, patronizing B/I's by assuming they are incapable of understanding prepared bids in context of their system is not the way to go.

There was a time about 50 years ago when responding 1NT to 1C commonly showed 8-10 points. For some of us, it still does. The second-phase lesson plan for beginners who had gone through the first level --- and for intermediates who wanted to improve --- presented by some of the most successful teachers included the handling of balanced weak responses without a 4-card major within the Western 2/1 style.

The 1D response to 1C was prepared. Opener rebid 1NT with any balanced minimum and rebid 1M with unbalanced hands. After a 1NT rebid, Responder could then pass, bid a major at the two-level with G.F values, rebid 2D to play, or rebid 2C with a weak 5-4 in the minors. He could also raise to 2NT if the prepared response contained 11-12 HCP, since an original 2NT/1C was forcing.

This approach was a whole lot better than trying an inverted 3C with that hand pattern or bidding a slow 1NT to indicate less than the values for the bid.

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2011-August-19, 03:17, said:

jillybean, it depends on what 1♦ means. For example, if you routinely reply 1♦ on something like
xx
KJxx
Kxxx
xxx,

then certainly x should show hearts. If you only ever bid 1♦ with a 4-card major if you have a game forcing hand, then support is better.

Now this is a perfect example of how we should reply in B/I forums. Clear, on the subject, educative and satisfactory.


I agree % 100 with Mgoetze

I find it ridicilious to mention 3 card suit responses, why we need to respond 3 card suit and that they are part of a 2/1 system, not only part of 2/1 system but part of the MOST dominant 2/1 system, and the name is Western Scientific...Jesus..OP did not even mention any system.

Check out Gwnn's post, he basically covered walsh, without using the word WALSH, and he did it in a way that satisfies from beginner to an adv+ level player.

[jillybean]

MrAce, on 2011-August-19, 13:59, said:

Now this is a perfect example of how we should reply in B/I forums. Clear, on the subject, educative and satisfactory.


I agree % 100 with Mgoetze

I find it ridicilious to mention 3 card suit responses, why we need to respond 3 card suit and that they are part of a 2/1 system, not only part of 2/1 system but part of the MOST dominant 2/1 system, and the name is Western Scientific...Jesus..OP did not even mention any system.

Check out Gwnn's post, he basically covered walsh, without using the word WALSH, and he did it in a way that satisfies from beginner to an adv+ level player.

While Gwnn's post is clear and educational it does not help me advance from where I am. As ridicilious as it may sound, a number of my partners play that 1♦/1♣ could be on a 3334 hand with less than 8hcp. I had no idea what it was called but it does seem fairly common around here.

Would it be better for anyone wanting an advanced response to post their question in the A/E forum to avoid responses that are dumbed down or protected from "advanced concepts"?

[mgoetze]

I don't object to discussing this bidding method when it comes up. But throwing it into the mix without qualification, as if everyone played it, is what I object to. If you (as someone who is "answering", not "asking" in this forum) want to add it to the discussion then you should state clearly "there is a bidding style called Western Scientific, where 1♦ can even be bid on a 3-3-3-4 hand, and in this style ... [something about double]"

If you just make an offhand remark which makes it sound as if this is standard, you will confuse people. Don't do that.