[mikestar]

There's been much discussion of support doubles recently. They do have some merit but I prefer not to play them.

The advantage:

• more acccurate LOTT decisions as partner knows how much support I have.

The disadvantages:

• More accurate LOTT decisions for them as they know how much support I have.
  
• Takeout double is not available for truly difficult hands.
  
• Sucessful penalty pass of suppport double is unlikely, successful penalty pass of takeout double is much more frequent as we are more likely to be misfit.

[inquiry]

From my experience, the poll will greatly favor support double. The support double is very popular, and when it comes up (which is fairly often), it seems to "work". Your side gets into the major with the fit, and generally can find the "lawful-level".

What is missing from the equation is the answer to the question of how much worse off (or better off) would you ahve been if you had simply raised with three card support? For me, I raise FREQUENTLY with three card support on auctions like 1♣-(P)-1♥-(P)-2♥, so raising with 3 card support when my RHO takes a low level action is second nature. A whole lot of players would never dream of raising with three card support on the non-competitive auction (why, their partner might have to play in a 4-3 fit, and he could never handle so few trumps correctly... best to let him play 5-5 fits).

There are other reasons not to play support doubles, I have seen players terrible distort their 7-3-2-1 hands to show three card support. A direct raise makes it harder for your LHO to enter the bidding, and if he does, it makes it harder for him to describe his holding..... imagine

1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♣), now what?

• DBL - your lho has rdbl. 3♣ and very importantly 2♥ and even 2♦ is available. So 3♣ weak distributional raise to 3, and the two cue-bid, can be a variety of different raises
  
• [2He] - now what? The two ♥ and the redouble raises is gone. 3♣ raise is much wider ranging. If overcaller bids on his partner maybe light, if he passes, his partner maybe on upper end. The 3♣ is wider range, because to cue-bid 3♦ or 3♥ takes them past what might be last safe contract of 3♣. And if advancer decides his hand is too good for 3♣, then 3♥ or 3♦ may get them overboard.

The simple little raise, makes their life so much harder at virtually no cost to you in bidding accuracy.

SUMMARY: Throw support doubles outs.

[EricK]

I don't like support doubles but I think they may be a necessary evil in a lot of systems (Strong NT, 5cd Majors especially). Well, not quite necessary, but...

If your minimum balanced hands are opened with 1m, then you have placed yourself in a bind. You often do not have quite enough playing strength to support partner's 1M bid with only 3 card support. So you are left with two choices. Pass which suggests you have a balanced minimum, but hides your support from partner. Or compete with 2M which means that partner risks overcompeting or undercompeting later in the auction.

Personally, I prefer a system where minimum balanced hands are opened with 1NT. This means that I will always have the playing strength to support partner (If minimum I will have an outside singleton).

I also think that support doubles are overused even in systems where they are useful. They shouldn't be used to simply show 3 card support, but they should be used to show 3 card support in a hand which has no other reasonable bid.

I haven't voted in the poll because no option exactly matches my POV.

Eric

[whereagles]

I'm not a fan of supp dbls. I think using them leaves some other hands stuck for a bid. They can also really mess up the bidding in some systems, like natural weak NT schemes.

I still play them, with my live pard, but at some stage I'll lobby for direct 3-card support of responder's major, a method I consider superior.

[Fluffy]

your poll is missing my choice

Imprescindible: I won´t play without them.

[han]

I like support doubles, and I don't buy the argument that you can just raise with three card support. I bet that there are many minimal balanced hands that Ben wouldn't raise to 2H over 1C-1H, even though he has 3-card support. Now the opponents interfere, and suddely you have to raise with all 4333 hands? No way, partner would have no way of telling how good a raise you have.

I think that support doubles are excellent, but as with any convention, you are not forced to use it. If another feature of your hand is more important, go ahead and show it. If you have a stiff in their suit, 3 card support, and a nice five card side suit, support directly, and with some hands you should pass (e.g. xxx KJ10x Qxx AQx after 1C-(1H)-1S-(2H), assuming that 1S shows 4+ spades).

[han]

Fluffy, on Dec 17 2004, 03:19 PM, said:

your poll is missing my choice

Imprescindible: I won´t play without them.

This forum is great, every weak I learn some new words! Last time it was "taramount", now it is "imprescindible". The English dictionary doesn't have it, but google gives me more than a million references, mostly Spanish it seems. Next time a new partner asks me how I feel about support doubles, I will say, "imprescindible!", that's Spanish for "I won't play without them"!

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Dec 17 2004, 04:30 PM, said:

I like support doubles, and I don't buy the argument that you can just raise with three card support. I bet that there are many minimal balanced hands that Ben wouldn't raise to 2H over 1C-1H, even though he has 3-card support. Now the opponents interfere, and suddely you have to raise with all 4333 hands? No way, partner would have no way of telling how good a raise you have.

I think that support doubles are excellent, but as with any convention, you are not forced to use it. If another feature of your hand is more important, go ahead and show it. If you have a stiff in their suit, 3 card support, and a nice five card side suit, support directly, and with some hands you should pass (e.g. xxx KJ10x Qxx AQx after 1C-(1H)-1S-(2H), assuming that 1S shows 4+ spades).

You are absolutely correct. There are hands I would not raise 1♥ to 2♥ on after an overcall. The hand being discussed in this thread for instance. I learned how to pass a long time ago, and sitll find it a useful bid from time to time. This is one of those times. It woud also, BTW, avoid embarshment if partner thought dbl of 2♣ (your suit) was penalty, as justin and no doubt countless others would play the double.

There are hands I am not happy about opening. When partner bids a major, I have to keep the auction "alive" in case partner has something useful. After the overcall, I am relieved of that responsbility, and can merrily pass these 4333 blizzards. As a matter of fact, I would pass almost all 11-12 point hand that I opened with 4333 (I open fewer and fewer of those anyway unless playing weak notrump). And with 13 raise only with honor third and some nice ten-nines in my suits with other honors. Wtih 14 I will raise even with 4333.

Likewise after 1C - (P) - 1H - (P); with virtually all 4333 hands and weak, I rebid 1NT, just as I would pass on the above auctions.

[the hog]

"Imprescindible". Wow, I like that word.

I find them a very useful adjunct to the system and like them. I won't say they are "Imprescindible", but they are certainly useful, and even more useful are the inferences when you DON'T make a support double. Remember, there is nothing to stop you from making a double and then bidding again!

Mike, regarding the argument that the opps know the level of your support - this is true, but they still don't know the level of your fit. I can also tell you that I have never missed a penalty double even though I play support doubles.

BTW Hanni, it is "tantamount".

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Dec 17 2004, 05:53 PM, said:

Mike, regarding the argument that the opps know the level of your support - this is true, but they still don't know the level of your fit. I can also tell you that I have never missed a penalty double even though I play support doubles.

Wow.. that is a tremendous claim. I find it interesing to look up the support doubles people make and see how they did on the hands in questions.
So of course, I had to use bridgebrowser to check your BBBO hands going back more than a year. Out of like 1000 hands (actually short of that, by a few hundred), you or your partner didn't make, as far as I can find, a single support double. Can that be right? I have made a lot more of them than you on BBO, and I don't even like them (I play them with many partners because they have not been enlightened).

Finding them is real easy with Bridgebrowser.. search for all hands by, say me, that were opened one minor (or even 1H) and then that opener doubled on the next round.... then look to see if it was support double.

I also find something else. I double WAY MORE often than you support doublers do. The vast majority of my doubles on second round after opening are for takeout. Showing a good hand, no support, stuck for a bid. While you, ron, and your parnter doubled on second round a total of like 7 times in over a year, I doubled litterally over 100 times (the database is broken down in segments, in one segment, where I played 539 hands (less than your year total), I doubled 27 times on the second round. I wonder what you were doing on those hands since they were not support double hands?

ben

[the hog]

I rarely play on bbo with regular partners these days Ben. Playing ftf with my regular Polish C partner, support doubles are part and parcel of the system. Support doubles don't even come into consideration with a pick up partner as generally discussion time is too limited.

[Fluffy]

ok my fault grrr, my dictionary says no literal translation, the closest is indispensable. Also essential is close.

[Flame]

They are easy to use thats thier biggest adv.
When the hand is right for support double and you use it you will get to the right contract (including leaving this double with 4 card and a balance/diffensive hand)
When you play t.o double and you use it, you are still far from the best contract, you dont you might still miss it.

[whereagles]

I read somewhere that supp dbls were invented by Rodwell because when it went

1D p 1H 2C
2H

opener would often have a 3-card suit. So far so good. Thing is he didn't enjoy it when RESPONDER had a 3-card suit as well

[Chamaco]

In my limited experience, I am much more comfortable to use support X when playing limited opening (eg strong club), because then I do not need the X to show extra power so I can concentrate on shape showing bids.

Using "standard" SAYC-ish methods, I think the double should show powerful hands.

Also, not to be neglected is the fact that when the fit is 4-3, weak responder may have an awkward rebid very often.

1D- (pass) -1S- 2H
X-(pass)-?

Now the awkward cases all include when responder has only a 4 bagger.

Responder may be weak with 4S and longer clubs, e.g.
QTxx-Qx-xx- KTxxx

Or he may be invitational in NT without H stop
QTxx-x-Axx- KJTxx


Or many other types of hands which will find awkward to suggest the right contract because responder has wasted 1 round of bidding to describe a single feature (3 card support) but not many other features of his hand which are often more important (strength range, overall shape, etc).

Instead, playing limited openers, at least the strength range of opener is known already, so responder has more info, and bidding sequences are generally less awkward.
Comments ?

[pclayton]

I've played them for a long time, but with a 12-14 NT I'm questioning their effectiveness. Reasons:

1. The overcall is rarely punished.

2. Support doubles (and xx's) allow the overcaller's partner to make a cue bid in Opener's original suit; whereas a raise with the appropriate pattern blocks cues (or transfer advances; or non-jump fit bids for that matter).

I think raising on 3 with the appropriate hand is best. I think I'll talk to my pard about the double showing the 15-17 balanced and scrapping support. It may have 3 trump with a 4333 I think.

Perhaps support doubles are still OK over a sandwich overcall; where a competitive auction can be anticipated.

[Antoine Fourrière]

The question itself is ambiguous.
If the choice is between support doubles and penalty doubles, support doubles clearly win. If the choice is between support doubles and doubles giving another bit of distributional information, the choice is debatable, in particular when you already need the double to show a strong notrump, so that any other bid including pass shows real clubs.
But when you play the in my view superior five-card major/strong NT/unbalanced 1♦/natural 2♣/balanced if minimum 1♣, you have already said a lot, and my answer would be good or excellent (unless you also play five-card major responses). If you play the awful American/French best minor, you are more in need of a double which would say "by the way partner, curious as it may seem, my minor is for real this time", particularly when the overcall deprives you of rebidding your suit at the two-level, and my answer would be poor to fair.

[spwdo]

babylon italian-english
imprescindibile=adj. indispensable, absolutely necessary, cannot be done without, that cannot be omitted

[han]

The_Hog, on Dec 17 2004, 04:53 PM, said:

"Imprescindible". Wow, I like that word.

I find them a very useful adjunct to the system and like them. I won't say they are "Imprescindible", but they are certainly useful, and even more useful are the inferences when you DON'T make a support double. Remember, there is nothing to stop you from making a double and then bidding again!

Mike, regarding the argument that the opps know the level of your support - this is true, but they still don't know the level of your fit. I can also tell you that I have never missed a penalty double even though I play support doubles.

BTW Hanni, it is "tantamount".

Sorry Ron, "tantamount"

BTW, Ron, it is Hannie. This would be a common Dutch pet name for me, but it sounds like "honey" in English.

[whereagles]

"chamaco" said:

In my limited experience, I am much more comfortable to use support X when playing limited opening (eg strong club),

Indeed. Support doubles work better in the context of limited openings.

"pclayton" said:

I've played them for a long time, but with a 12-14 NT I'm questioning their effectiveness.

The reason support doubles don't go well with weak NT systems is they leave opener stuck for a rebid with a balanced 15-17...