[kenrexford]

Possibly an interesting problem, because polled pros apparently had different opinions and felt that their opinion was obvious.

♠xxx ♥QJ10xxx ♦AKxx ♣--

Red on white, you open 1♥. Pass to partner, who bids 1♠. 2♣ overcall. You make a support double (the action at the table, but agree?)

LHO leaps to 5♣, and partner doubles, passed to you.

Your action?

As an aside, what do you take these calls as meaning:

5♦?
5♥?
5♠?

I have my own strong opinion, as well. I don't see this as close, either.

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

Possibly an interesting problem, because polled pros apparently had different opinions and felt that their opinion was obvious.

♠xxx ♥QJ10xxx ♦AKxx ♣--

Red on white, you open 1♥.  Pass to partner, who bids 1♠.  2♣ overcall.  You make a support double (the action at the table, but agree?)

LHO leaps to 5♣, and partner doubles, passed to you.

Your action?

As an aside, what do you take these calls as meaning:

5♦?
5♥?
5♠?

I have my own strong opinion, as well.  I don't see this as close, either.

Pass and hope we beat it. Partner knows a hell of a lot more about my hand than I do about his. That and all the first round controls (Aces not spaces) I hold kind of seem to drive me in this direction. BTW I agree with the SuppX since I don't play them I would have had to bid 2♠ instead. As for the 5 level calls they show a lot more controls than I actually hold.

[Fluffy]

it is takeout for me a tany level, so I'd take out, all the take outs are options.

Assuming support double doen't include very strong hadns without support we can rule out 5♠, from the options left 5♦ describes better our shortness and 5♥ focuses on our most likelly strain so both are reasonable. I'd bid 5♦.

[mikeh]

I wouldn't have employed the support double....this hand is all about hearts, not spades...unless partner can rebid his suit....and this hand is too weak, in my view, for the call. Imagine we double and, to no-one's surprise, LHO bids 3♣. Say it goes P P to us....do we really want to sell to 3♣? Of course not, but bidding 3♥ now would surely describe a much better playing hand....make the heart 10 into the k and we are getting there. So I would have rebid 2♥ over 2♣ in order to show the feature of my hand that made this an opening bid and at the same time encourage partner if he holds any degree of heart fit. (yes, I know that on occasion the support double will allow partner to compete in spades when he won't compete in hearts....no sword is single edged in these situations).

And think about how this hand re-evaluates if we bid 2♥ and partner can rebid his spade suit.

As an aside, I do not think it appropriate to play a method in which the failure to make a support double denies 3 card support...one should not let these conventions overrule basic bridge thinking, such as looking ahead in the auction or describing other, probably more important, features of the hand.

Having perpetrated the support double, I pass and think it to be clear....not clearly leading to the best result, but clearly the correct call. I suspect I will not like the result, but I would attribute that to the misbid I made earlier....and I am never going to try to undo my earlier error at this stage....if only because I have no idea which further error to make. Having, possibly, fixed myself, I stay fixed.

[akhare]

Having made my bed with the support X (strongly prefer 2♥), I don't see much of a choice but to lie in it by passing 5♣-X...

[MFA]

Pass. Not offensive enough to bid 5 over 5. The three little spades are especially bad.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Dec 28 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

As an aside, I do not think it appropriate to play a method in which the failure to make a support double denies 3 card support...one should not let these conventions overrule basic bridge thinking, such as looking ahead in the auction or describing other, probably more important, features of the hand.

But if you do play such methods (and many do), do you really have any choice?

Having said that, it seems clear to me to pass the double of 5♣. I have (what appears to be) two defensive tricks opposite a partner whose hand is almost a total mystery. He doubled, and I don't have anywhere close to enough information to overrule him.

By the way, my void in clubs is a point in favor of passing, as the club break is obviously as bad as possible for the other side (I hope it isn't 1-0).

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

5D - natural, lets see that makes it 5530.
5H - natural, lets see that makes it 6430
This assumes, that you dont make a supp X with a 7 carder
5S - Does not really exists

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nigel_k]

I would have bid 2♥ instead of double. It is too hard if double can be any hand with three spades, for the reasons given by mikeh. Having said that, I am not ashamed of my hand since I have some defence so I would just pass.

Interesting question as to what bids in this situation would mean. 5♠ must be a slam try but I don't know whether that implies you can just bid 5♦ or 5♥ with a distributional minimum, or you need extras for those as well. If I had something like QJx KQJxx QJTxx - I would really want to be able bid 5♦ though. So maybe a better hand with the same shape should bid 5♠ and partner can still bid 5NT if they don't know where to go.

[fred]

I have no idea what I would expect if my partner bid 5S, but I do know he that would not ever want me to Pass if he made that call (ie 5S has to be intended as forcing).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

Possibly an interesting problem, because polled pros apparently had different opinions and felt that their opinion was obvious.
♠xxx ♥QJ10xxx ♦AKxx ♣--
Red on white, you open 1♥.  Pass to partner, who bids 1♠.  2♣ overcall.  You make a support double (the action at the table, but agree?) LHO leaps to 5♣, and partner doubles, passed to you. Your action?
As an aside, what do you take these calls as meaning: 5♦? 5♥?  5♠?

IMO Over 2♣, 2♦ = 10, 2♥ = 9, _X = 5 (Don't want to defend 2♣X with a void).
Now, _P = 10, 5♦ (natural) = 8, 5♥ (natural) = 6. 5♠ (weird but natural) = 1. Partner's double suggests a penalty.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Dec 28 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

I have no idea what I would expect if my partner bid 5S, but I do know he that would not ever want me to Pass if he made that call (ie 5S has to be intended as forcing).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yeah, 5♠ would be weird. But, I suppose possible.

But, are you dodging the original question? No thoughts?

BTW, I also found the support double questionable. Being forced into it, I like it in the end, as for me it seems to make the decision at the five-level a no-brainer.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

But, are you dodging the original question?  No thoughts?

I thought the meanings of 5D and 5H were pretty obvious: both are natural and non-forcing (with 5D presumably suggesting a good hand with 3550 distribution and 5H presumably suggesting a good hand with long and strong, hearts).

If partner's DBL is pure penalty then none of the bids above 5H really make much sense, but see below anyways. If partner's DBL means "it is our hand but I have no clear bid" (ie card-showing), it is no longer completely obscure to think about opener forcing to slam in this auction. If DBL is card-showing then 5D and 5H don't have to be as strong as they would be over a penalty DBL and...

6D and 6H sound like more of the same. 5NT sounds like a very strong 3640 hand to me, but as I said I have no idea what exactly I would expect for 5S (or 6C for that matter). If you think you know then I am all ears

I have to admit that I would not be inclined to throw a bid like 5S or 6C at my partner at the table, even if it seemed obvious to me at the time what such a bid "should" mean. Depending on who my partner was, the same might well go for 5NT. I realize that using 5S instead of 5NT for 3640 is slightly more economical, but IMO it is more than slightly less practical.

The main reason for my previous post was that I thought it was worth mentioning that it made sense (to me at least) that, whatever 5S is all about, it is forcing (because I suspect that for many people 5S would intuitively sound like a non-forcing bid).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

To me it seems (clear?) that 5♠ is forcing and shows very good spades (it feels like that means AQx or better to me, but I could easily imagine disagreement on that detail) and either 3550 or 3640 since those are the shapes that would pull but not know what suit they want to play in. If partner doesn't know which suit to choose he can be the one to bid 5NT.

I agree with Fred about the other bids, but even to the point that they tend to deny very good spades if they are higher than 5♠. I would expect partner to know, for example, if he has Kxxxx of spades he should look for another suit if possible over 5NT.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Dec 28 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

But, are you dodging the original question?  No thoughts?

I thought the meanings of 5D and 5H were pretty obvious: both are natural and non-forcing (with 5D presumably suggesting a good hand with 3550 distribution and 5H presumably suggesting a good hand with long and strong, hearts).

If partner's DBL is pure penalty then none of the bids above 5H really make much sense, but see below anyways. If partner's DBL means "it is our hand but I have no clear bid" (ie card-showing), it is no longer completely obscure to think about opener forcing to slam in this auction. If DBL is card-showing then 5D and 5H don't have to be as strong as they would be over a penalty DBL and...

6D and 6H sound like more of the same. 5NT sounds like a very strong 3640 hand to me, but as I said I have no idea what exactly I would expect for 5S (or 6C for that matter). If you think you know then I am all ears

I have to admit that I would not be inclined to throw a bid like 5S or 6C at my partner at the table, even if it seemed obvious to me at the time what such a bid "should" mean. Depending on who my partner was, the same might well go for 5NT. I realize that using 5S instead of 5NT for 3640 is slightly more economical, but IMO it is more than slightly less practical.

The main reason for my previous post was that I thought it was worth mentioning that it made sense (to me at least) that, whatever 5S is all about, it is forcing (because I suspect that for many people 5S would intuitively sound like a non-forcing bid).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

So many words, and yet...

The problem is not ultimately a question of what you should do if you and partner have discussed this specific sequence and then decided that his double shows such-and-such hand, resulting in various bids having such-and-such meaning.

The problem is what you do in this sequence without any specific discussion for this specific sequence, but playing with someone ostensibly talented (a paid partnership on a hired team, for example).

All that said, I'm not so sure that 5♦ should actually be natural and non-forcing, strictly speaking. Alternatively, it could also be general slammish. This depends on what options Opener had at the point of the support double. But, any of this if probably too esoteric for discussion unless the double is understood first, at least giving context. "If and if" doesn't impress clients much; they want results more than theory.

[jonottawa]

I find the support x question more interesting than the 'main' question as presented.

I strongly favor the support x. Rebidding 2♥ is gross (incredibly unilateral/handhoggish). Give me a suit that plays WELL opposite a small singleton and maybe you can pretend you had a ♠ in with your ♣.

As to the 5/5 decision, I hate these. I don't like defending with a trump void, but I have no reason to believe that we have a big trump fit or that we can take 11 tricks on offense. Maybe opps got carried away because of the colors. I'd pass. It would surprise me if nobody bid on with these cards, though. I see it as clear for me, but not as clear enough to be unanimous in a poll. 'Bid one more for the road,' etc.

[gwnn]

MFA, on Dec 28 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

Not offensive enough to bid 5 over 5.

i think it is pretty offensive to bid 5 over 5 with this hand

[fred]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2009, 11:46 PM, said:

The problem is what you do in this sequence without any specific discussion for this specific sequence, but playing with someone ostensibly talented (a paid partnership on a hired team, for example).

As one who sometimes finds himself in this situation...

The following pertains mostly to this specific sequence (because it is a good example of the principles I am trying to convey), but hopefully will be useful for the purposes of extrapolation to the more general case you are interested in.

I would assume that DBL was "card-showing" (because I am forced to make a decision as how partner intends the DBL and because, as far as I can tell, this is how most of those players who I might partner in such circumstances would play it).

I would assume that my partner would expect me to Pass this particular card-showing DBL most of the time (because this seems to be the expert consensus of how one should deal with such things at the 5-level).

I would assume that pulling such a DBL would suggest a somewhat unusual hand with expectation of a plus score (because this makes sense) and that all bids would mean what it sounds like they should mean (because, in my experience, to ignore this principle is a recipe for disaster). This tends to mean that bids are natural and non-forcing if that is a logical possibility.

I would go out of my way not to make any bid with a meaning that was open to interpretation (because I have learned the hard way that this is how you win).

I would take some comfort if I thought that my partner would also go out of his or her way to be practical in circumstances like these. If not, I would try to avoid playing with that partner in future events in which I might care about the results (unless perhaps if we were willing and able to put in a lot of time and work before playing again).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Just because I find it funny, I still don't see a definitive call yet, Fred. I think you pass?

I mean, I personally think this is a clear pass hand, but some pros apparently thought completely the opposite and bid (5♥ or 5♦), calling it "clear." Others said, "lead the diamond King" or something like that. So, it seems debatable.

The player at the table bid.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Dec 29 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

Just because I find it funny, I still don't see a definitive call yet, Fred.  I think you pass?

I am sure I would Pass, but I would not go as far as to say I think it is "clear" (mostly because I expect Pass to be wrong, at least on a double dummy basis, a significant % of the time). Reasons I would Pass:

- Partner will expect somewhat more in terms of offense if I bid.
- Partner may well be misled if I bid either 5D (he will expect a 5th diamond) or 5H (he will expect longer and/or stronger hearts).
- In my partnerships we play very sound weak 2-bids when vulnerable so, if I pull to 5H, partner has an added reason to expect more from me.
- Although I think it is far from unlikely that we make 5D or 5H, I might still have to guess the "right" suit to bid in order to go plus. Sometimes when I guess right, partner will reasonably raise me (see above 3 points) and we will go down in slam.
- I hate my xxx of spades.
- Nice to have an Ace-King on opening lead.
- While it is entirely possible that 5C is making, my judgment suggests that this is not very likely.
- My club void makes me want to throw up, but if I Pass without giving away my desire to vomit, declarer might not play me for a void thereby misguessing the play on some layouts.
- When in doubt, following "the 5-level belongs to the opponents" has served me well.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com