[louisg]

Jxx
AQx
Axx
Kxxx

1C (P) 1S (2H)

Not playing support doubles, do you bid 2S or pass? If you pass and partner reopens with 2S, do you raise to 3?

Edit: r/r IMPs

[gwnn]

No raise on this minimum balanced hand thanks with 42% in their suit and 7% in ours. Next session luckily we will be playing support doubles though..

[Jlall]

pass

[pooltuna]

louisg, on Apr 12 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Jxx
AQx
Axx
Kxxx

1C (P) 1S (2H)

Not playing support doubles, do you bid 2S or pass? If you pass and partner reopens with 2S, do you raise to 3?

Edit: r/r IMPs

yes bid 2♠ if they interfere otherwise call 1NT

[awm]

I'd pass, planning to bid 2♠ if partner balances with a double or raise to 3♠ if partner balances 2♠. Opposite partner's 2♠ balance this hand has gone up in value quite a bit (nine card spade fit, well-placed heart honors, etc).

I am glad not to be playing support doubles here, since I don't particularly want to play in a 4-3 spade fit given my weak trumps and lack of ruffing values, especially if partner has some minimum one-level response. If partner has five spades and/or a little shape and/or decent values he will not pass 2♥ out anyway.

[peachy]

I usually play support doubles and a style where failure to double denioes 3-card support. However, this flattie might be an exception and I might Pass even if playing support doubles. When not playing support doubles, Pass.

[MFA]

2♠. Nothing to be ashamed of here.

[jdonn]

I pass, it's been a while since I wasn't playing support doubles but in such a case I would only raise with 3 if I would have considered raising directly in an auction where RHO had passed.

peachy, on Apr 12 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

I usually play support doubles and a style where failure to double denioes 3-card support.  However, this flattie might be an exception and I might Pass even if playing support doubles.  When not playing support doubles, Pass.

What is so exceptional about this hand that you would break your agreements? You might as well just say failure to double denies 3 card support unless you have a defensive hand.

[655321]

I think I would pass then pass.

On general principles, if I had to choose I would prefer to bid 2♠ the first time rather than pass then raise. Forcing partner to choose between defending 2♥ and playing 3♠ feels like a doublecross. But with this hand I don't really feel strongly about it, because on a good day our hand has 4 tricks, and partner might have KQxxxx and an Ace, or AKxxxx, etc, for his 2♠ bid, so game is possible, and this sequence (pass then 3♠) is reasonable. Interesting, but after raising or making a support double, we might not get to game, whereas after passing then raising to 3♠ we have a chance.

An initial raise is OK, but seems to misdescribe the hand.

My real preference is to play support doubles - I would be happy to double with this hand - but I know that not everyone likes them.

[gwnn]

Even in a partnership where we decided to eliminate support doubles altogether (instead we played "fourth suit support" and "1NT support") we realized that they need to be "on" over
1m-p-1H-2D
and
1m-p-1S-2H
I really can't think of any meaning that comes close.

(sorry I know you didn't ask for this)

[bluecalm]

Quote

No raise on this minimum balanced hand

How is this minimum ? We have 14hcp and AQ behind their suit. I would say we have significant extras.

2♠ for me.

Quote

I really can't think of any meaning that comes close.

From what I understand Italians don't play support doubles at all so I guess it's playable ?

[gwnn]

I am fully prepared to accept the fact that some people can think of better treatments than support doubles even over 2M-1. But I can't think of any treatment that comes close to its utility. That's all I was saying..

By minimum balanced hand I meant that we have a weak no trump, sorry about the confusion. I disagree though that AQx got better than it was initially, I would prefer to have Axx or something and have some more points elsewhere which can help partner's points, not points that defend against RHO..

[bluecalm]

Quote

I am fully prepared to accept the fact that some people can think of better treatments than support doubles even over 2M-1. But I can't think of any treatment that comes close to its utility. That's all I was saying..

Yeah I like them too. I guess if you play wide range openings (11-22) they can be used for some other strong hands ? (6-4 ?, 5-4 with OM ?).
I play they always anyway at 2level. At 3level I guess they are not that good in anything but precision.

[Siegmund]

If you refuse to pass... looks closer to a (penalty) double than a raise to me. (Yes, that's kind of an extreme position to take, and only with a partner who will pull freely when he doesn't have much defense.)

There are times it's reasonable to play 4-3 fits. Most of those times involve the 3-card hand having a ruffing value and a strong desire to compete.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Apr 13 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

Even in a partnership where we decided to eliminate support doubles altogether (instead we played "fourth suit support" and "1NT support") we realized that they need to be "on" over
1m-p-1H-2D

That's also the sequence where it's most useful to have a takeout double available.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 I would raise to 2S, but Pass is ok, but not my cup of coffee.
#2 If I did pass and p reopens, I will pass, ... for me 2S by p in
this seq. does not promise a 6 carder, although it is quite likely.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[dake50]

Pass. Unexceptional min bal opener - partner heard that.
If a raise is this ambiguous, what does an ensuing auction mean?
When do I get minimum across?
When do I get bal defensive across?

I want a raise(suggest raise) to say offensive hand at least!!