[dokoko]

In a precision context - where it was invented - the support double is an otherwise idle bid.

In a context of fairly unlimited openings there is a second hand type which would like to double: a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT. Some authors recommend to double with both handtypes (I like the idea!) but don't give any advice on the follow-up structure. I am curious whether there is some material available covering this matter.

I.e. how to bid after 1m-1M(2om)dbl or 1m-1♠(2♥)dbl when opener will double with either handtype?

Any advice appreciated!

[PhilG007]

dokoko, on 2018-October-22, 10:36, said:

In a precision context - where it was invented - the support double is an otherwise idle bid.

In a context of fairly unlimited openings there is a second hand type which would like to double: a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT. Some authors recommend to double with both handtypes (I like the idea!) but don't give any advice on the follow-up structure. I am curious whether there is some material available covering this matter.

I.e. how to bid after 1m-1M(2om)dbl or 1m-1♠(2♥)dbl when opener will double with either handtype?

Any advice appreciated!

If the support double is Precision orientated,then maybe you should consult books on that system. the answer to your question could lie there Just a suggestion

[Tramticket]

I have an article where Eric Rodwell advocates a double holding with 18-19, doubleton support and no stop in the opponent's suit. He quotes: ♠KJ ♥876 ♦AQ3 ♣AKQ98 in the sequence 1♣, (Pass), 1♠, (2♥); Dbl.

This type of hand is pretty difficult to bid if you don't start with a double. He suggests that you should double, then bid 3♥ over 2♠ as the "least of evils". So I guess that if Rodwell is including this hand-type in the Support Double it must be ok.

I came across this article when researching material to support my contention that Support Doubles do not work in a weak No Trump context. I have previously argued this case on these forums and you can see that if you extend Rodwell's logic to a Weak No Trump system a double would have to include "three-card support" or "15-19 balanced without a stop". This is too large a category of hands for us to handle.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the question is: do you really need explicit follow up?
The double promises at least 2+ in responders suit, and if he has exactly 2 instead of exactly 3,
than he has compensatory values (close to game forcing values) and 4 card in his minor.
In other words: If responder has a 4 card suit for opener and only 4 card in his suit, you have a
44 fit in openers minor, and if opener asks for a stopper, which he will basically always do with
the strong bal., you can either rebid your 5 carder or check out in 4m.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gordontd]

PhilG007, on 2018-October-23, 00:58, said:

If the support double is Precision orientated,then maybe you should consult books on that system. the answer to your question could lie there Just a suggestion

I think you have misunderstood the question. Fortunately Tramticket has not.

[PhilG007]

gordontd, on 2018-October-23, 05:00, said:

I think you have misunderstood the question. Fortunately Tramticket has not.

The OP said "In a Precision context-where it was invented- a support double is an otherwise idle bid" How have I misunderstood the question ?!

[GrahamJson]

It strikes me that Rodwell’s suggestion is just an example of how sometimes you have to improvise when there is no bid available that accurately describes your hand. This happens all the time and it isn’t usually necessary to devise a new set of continuations in order to take these exceptions into account, although I guess if you have time you can. It seems to me a bit like when you raise an overcall with two card support, say KJ doubleton, because you have reasonable values but no other bid is suitable (e.g no stop, no good side suit). It sometimes happens, but not often, and it’s unlikely that you are going to develop a set of continuations to deal with it.

[gordontd]

PhilG007, on 2018-October-23, 08:18, said:

The OP said "In a Precision context-where it was invented- a support double is an otherwise idle bid" How have I misunderstood the question ?!

Because that was background to his question, which followed immediately:

Quote

In a context of fairly unlimited openings there is a second hand type which would like to double: a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT. Some authors recommend to double with both handtypes (I like the idea!) but don't give any advice on the follow-up structure. I am curious whether there is some material available covering this matter.

So his question was not about Precision, but was precisely about when the Precision context (in which support doubles first appeared) was not applicable.

[apollo1201]

I play (strong NT, 5CM) that opener’s X is indeed either 3-cd support *in a non-minimal hand* (eg. 5431 distribution, no 12-14 bal, just pass with that, partner could have a dreadful 6-count, and will have another round of bidding anyway), or strong hand with no clear call (eg. 18-19 w/o stopper, hand that would have bid 1m-1M-3m unopposed, etc.).

Responder is supposed to bid as if facing a minimum opener: repeat 2M with 4 strong or 5 cards (or retreat to 3m with 3-4 card if less than 9-10), try 2NT w/ stopper and maybe some 9+-11, bid 3M with 5 cards and invitational values, etc. Or cue if holding opening values I guess (never had the case though). Opener will bid again if game chances exist (repeat minor or cue over the weakest calls, accept invites, etc.).

Not sure detailed material exist but a pretty natural follow-up has been working so far for us.