[Fluffy]

Partner deals, all vul, MPs. Partner doesn't open balanced 11s.
♠K94
♥QJ65
♦84
♣KQ105

1♣-(pass)-1♥-(2♦)
double-(pass)-??

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 03:34, said:

Partner deals, all vul, MPs. Partner doesn't open balanced 11s.
♠K94
♥QJ65
♦84
♣KQ105

1♣-(pass)-1♥-(2♦)
double-(pass)-??

I would bid 3♣

Interesting and a good hand to post imo. I am assuming 3♣ shows better hand ? With no game interest perhaps we should just settle to bid 2♥ and play our 4-3 fit instead of 3 level 4-4 5-4 fit ? I dont know... but thats what i would do at the table.

[Phil]

Agree with 3♣. Also agree its an interesting problem. We have a very nice hand - wouldn't we want to bid 3♣ on xx Qxxx x ATxxxx? Can we really bid this way on both??

[rmnka447]

3 ♣ seems right. Opener should take into account that you may need to do so on the kind of hand you actually hold.

A 4-3 ♥ fit might be OK to play if partner came accomodate short hand ruffs in ♦. But there's no guarantee that's the case here. 2 ♠ isn't right with just 3 ♠s. 3 ♦ should show a stronger hand. 2 NT is out because you have no ♦ stopper. So, by default, 3 ♣ looks about the only logical bid to be made.

[gszes]

Ithink the 3c bid should be reserved for weak hands with clubs
IMO this hand should bid

2s

if we are going to be stuck in a 43 fit we are better
served playing spades vs hearts. This should show
extra values since with a minimum we would bid
either 2h or 3c. We also have 2n 3n 3d 3h and 3s
bids available for different hands:))))))))))))))))))))

[fromageGB]

I'm not happy with 3♣, the hand is too strong. Need more info on partnership agreements, Is it a support X? Does it guarantee a better than minimum hand? If the latter, I am tempted by pass, or 3♦, correcting 3♥ to 4♣.

[rhm]

Phil, on 2012-June-01, 12:17, said:

Agree with 3♣. Also agree its an interesting problem. We have a very nice hand - wouldn't we want to bid 3♣ on xx Qxxx x ATxxxx? Can we really bid this way on both??

Where is the problem?
The support double is consistent with a minimum opening.

If opener has a balanced 12-14 he will pass and we will be in the best contract unless opener is precisely 4=3=3=3, too unlikely to worry about and stopping in 2♠ is almost impossible. (Some would not not support double with this distribution, but at least I prefer that any other action denies 3 card heart support when playing support doubles)
If opener is 15-17 balanced he would have opened 1NT
If opener has 18-19 he will not pass 3♣.

In the unlikely event that opener is unbalanced, his shortage is either in spades, which must be unlikely given opponents bidding, or he must be short in diamonds, also improbable given your diamond holding.
In either case 3♣ is by far the best information to pass on. It establishes the club fit and 3NT is not likely to be a reasonable contract under this condition unless opener is short in spades and has susbstantial extra values.

A good example why support double work well with 15-17 or 14-16 notrumps.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

in case someone wonders, partner had ♠AQ9x ♥AK10, ♦J9x ♣9xx. After a missdefence 2♥ was allowed to make +170, but 2♥ was bid partially because my partner wants me to play difficult contracts.

[chasetb]

There have been a few thread about Support Doubles on here in the past, the consensus was they are made on minimum-type hands that have 3 good trump (would have raised if Support X wasn't played), and don't have great defense against the suit opponents interfered with. I didn't see this thread before Fluffy showed partner's hand, but I would have bid 2♥. Queens and Jacks are overvalued in suit contracts, and we don't have great shape. Also, 1♣ hasn't been a real suit since the 1950s, if you believe Edgar Kaplan (which I do, since I play Precision with the nebulous 1♦).

[Statto]

As it's MPs I would be tempted to try 2♥. If partner can then bid 2NT I would be happy to venture 3NT. If not, then 2♥ on a Moysian will probably score better then 3♣, which could also be a Moysian. If IMPs/Teams I would bid 3♣, which I think is a better statement of the hand, and may lead to a thin game.

That it took a while for anyone to answer this thread I think shows what a poser it is

[Phil]

rhm, on 2012-June-02, 12:31, said:

Where is the problem?
The support double is consistent with a minimum opening.

If opener has a balanced 12-14 he will pass and we will be in the best contract unless opener is precisely 4=3=3=3, too unlikely to worry about and stopping in 2♠ is almost impossible. (Some would not not support double with this distribution, but at least I prefer that any other action denies 3 card heart support when playing support doubles)
If opener is 15-17 balanced he would have opened 1NT
If opener has 18-19 he will not pass 3♣.

In the unlikely event that opener is unbalanced, his shortage is either in spades, which must be unlikely given opponents bidding, or he must be short in diamonds, also improbable given your diamond holding.
In either case 3♣ is by far the best information to pass on. It establishes the club fit and 3NT is not likely to be a reasonable contract under this condition unless opener is short in spades and has susbstantial extra values.

A good example why support double work well with 15-17 or 14-16 notrumps.

Rainer Herrmann

What about extra values and unbalanced? 15 or so? This is precisely the hand where you get too high on the six count but you make 3N with the original hand.

[Statto]

Phil, on 2012-June-02, 22:25, said:

What about extra values and unbalanced? 15 or so? This is precisely the hand where you get too high on the six count but you make 3N with the original hand.

Quite possibly, but they can then make another move over 3♣. I would have thought 2♥ to be the usual choice for responder with no extra values...

[lycier]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 03:34, said:

Partner deals, all vul, MPs. Partner doesn't open balanced 11s.
♠K94
♥QJ65
♦84
♣KQ105

1♣-(pass)-1♥-(2♦)
double-(pass)-??

responder have not a better bid to show his good value with invitational hand,so I am willing to bid 3♦.and then if opener will bid 3nt with ♦ stopper and extra values,I can pass. probably 3nt is a best final contract. if opener have not a good hand without extra value, then opener maybe rebid 3♥ ,so I will pass,regard 3♥ as a final contract.

[rhm]

Phil, on 2012-June-02, 22:25, said:

What about extra values and unbalanced? 15 or so? This is precisely the hand where you get too high on the six count but you make 3N with the original hand.

Why?
Opener must have a 5 card club suit if he is unbalanced.
Opposite your suggested six count xx Qxxx x ATxxxx, 5♣ will have excellent play most of the time if opener has an unbalanced 15.
But is is very improbable, given that opponents have about half the deck and a good fit of their own.

Rainer herrmann

[Zelandakh]

chasetb, on 2012-June-02, 16:29, said:

There have been a few thread about Support Doubles on here in the past, the consensus was they are made on minimum-type hands that have 3 good trump (would have raised if Support X wasn't played), and don't have great defense against the suit opponents interfered with.

Surely not a consensus unless you are only including Americans! In France it is standard for Support Doubles to show extras. This is a popular approach in Germany too. In fact I have seen Support Doubles on a minimum called "American/English style" here.

Onto the original question, I am wondering if this is not a situation where we can usefully employ an artificial 2NT in good/bad style.

[han]

Let's assume for the moment that we want to invite, and that 3C is not invitational. If it is, then it is the perfect bid and Fluffy would not have posted this.

Rhm's theoretical story seems to assume that we won't want partner to bid game with a balanced 14. If that is true then our hand is not invitational.

Another option with this hand is bidding 2S. In my opinion 2S should be forcing and show at least invitational values. Partner will assume that we have spades.

If partner bids 2NT then we are happy, as we can bid 3C and we have accomplished our goal (although partner will expect a 4-4-1-4 instead of a 3-4-2-4). If partner jumps to 3NT we are also happy. If partner bids 3C we can pass, he has a minimum and no diamond stopper.

The only potentially bad case occurs when partner bids 3S. Would he ever do that with 3 spades? I don't think so, he would bid 3H. If partner is 4-3-1-5 then we probably better play in hearts, but if partner is 4-3-3-3 then we better play in spades. The former is very unlikely because diamonds were not raised. It's matchpoints, I'd pass and I suspect that 3S will often play better than 2H.

[rhm]

han, on 2012-June-04, 06:01, said:

Let's assume for the moment that we want to invite, and that 3C is not invitational. If it is, then it is the perfect bid and Fluffy would not have posted this.

Rhm's theoretical story seems to assume that we won't want partner to bid game with a balanced 14. If that is true then our hand is not invitational.

Another option with this hand is bidding 2S. In my opinion 2S should be forcing and show at least invitational values. Partner will assume that we have spades.

If partner bids 2NT then we are happy, as we can bid 3C and we have accomplished our goal (although partner will expect a 4-4-1-4 instead of a 3-4-2-4). If partner jumps to 3NT we are also happy. If partner bids 3C we can pass, he has a minimum and no diamond stopper.

The only potentially bad case occurs when partner bids 3S. Would he ever do that with 3 spades? I don't think so, he would bid 3H. If partner is 4-3-1-5 then we probably better play in hearts, but if partner is 4-3-3-3 then we better play in spades. The former is very unlikely because diamonds were not raised. It's matchpoints, I'd pass and I suspect that 3S will often play better than 2H.

Again this is more a matter of hand evaluation and judgment than anything else.
It's MP and staying out of a game, which does not make will gain you as much as bidding one, which happens to make.
A combined 25 HCP in two balanced hands without any other information delivers on average about a 50% chance for game.
However, here we do have additional information. LHO bid a suit at the two level vulnerable in the sandwich position, where we have a small doubleton.
I doubt very much that if partner has a balanced 14 count without at least 2 stoppers in diamonds that 3NT has much of a chance.
Even then when partner has honors in diamonds, your ace-less hand is not that likely to fetch 9 tricks before diamonds are established.
The odds are heavily against 3NT making opposite a balanced 14 count. Everyone round the table by now knows what suit needs to be led against 3NT.
In such a scenario you need substantially more to make 3NT.
In fact it would not surprise me if we were to go down in 3NT even opposite a balanced 18-19, our side having a single diamond stop and LHO a side ace.
In that sense I am in deed not keen to invite opposite 14 and if you issue a stronger invitation than a direct 3♣, opener will not restrict his endeavor to reach 3NT to a precise 14 count anyway.
3♣ clearly shows ♣ support, while everything else only confuses this issue.
For example whether opener will assume that you have 4 card club support after bidding 2♠ and then 3♣ over 2NT is more than dubious.
Even if opener does, he will assume that you are shorter in diamonds and it is unclear whether this sequence is not forcing given that you are an unpassed hand.
3♣ is by far the most likely making part-score given the bidding so far. An immediate 3♣ bid is also the best foundation if 3NT, game or slam in ♣s is available.
For all game or higher contracts it is more than likely that opener will need substantial more than a minimum opening bid opposite this hand.

Rainer Herrmann