[MickyB]

What is the standard meaning for these sequences, playing support doubles? What is your preferred meaning?

a) 1D-P-1S-2H; X-P-3C

b) 1H-P-1S-2C; X-P-2D

c) 1C-P-1H-2D; X-P-2S

d) 1C-P-1S-2D; X-P-2H

Thanks

[jmcw]

MickyB, on 2011-September-18, 17:54, said:

What is the standard meaning for these sequences, playing support doubles? What is your preferred meaning?

a) 1D-P-1S-2H; X-P-3C

b) 1H-P-1S-2C; X-P-2D

c) 1C-P-1H-2D; X-P-2S

d) 1C-P-1S-2D; X-P-2H

Thanks

All sequences have a common theme, opener has made a support X and responder is introducing a new suit at his second turn.

Standard is a grey area, but without specific agreement I play natural and F1. No fit has been agreed, responder's 2nd bid is forward going, usually probing for the best strain.

[mich-b]

a: Invite (9-11) with only 4♠ and longer ♣.
b: weakish (5-9) , NF , only 4M , often longer ♦.
c: Inv + , 4-4 majors.
d: Inv +, 5-4 majors.

The principle is that if you bid a new suit , you don't have a 5 card suit in your Major, unless thats obviously impossible (d).

[han]

My agreement is that all are forcing. None of these is GF.

[MickyB]

MickyB, on 2011-September-18, 17:54, said:

What is the standard meaning for these sequences, playing support doubles? What is your preferred meaning?

a) 1D-P-1S-2H; X-P-3C

b) 1H-P-1S-2C; X-P-2D

c) 1C-P-1H-2D; X-P-2S

d) 1C-P-1S-2D; X-P-2H

Thanks

"In sequence "d", and arguably in sequence "b", this is your only game-try below 2S; therefore it should be an ART game-try, not a natural bid. This is similar to P:1H, 2C:2D playing Drury and 1H-(P)-2H-(3C); 3D when playing double as penalties."

Agree or disagree?

Thanks for the replies so far.

[mich-b]

MickyB, on 2011-September-19, 07:28, said:

"In sequence "d", and arguably in sequence "b", this is your only game-try below 2S; therefore it should be an ART game-try, not a natural bid. This is similar to P:1H, 2C:2D playing Drury and 1H-(P)-2H-(3C); 3D when playing double as penalties."

Agree or disagree?

Thanks for the replies so far.

Those sequences are not exactly similar. The important difference is that in drury (and the other) sequences your side has already found a fit, and can use other suits as game tries. This is not true for a support double situation - there the responder to the double often has only a 4 card suit , so has to use other bids to suggest other strains.

[MickyB]

mich-b, on 2011-September-19, 07:53, said:

Those sequences are not exactly similar. The important difference is that in drury (and the other) sequences your side has already found a fit, and can use other suits as game tries. This is not true for a support double situation - there the responder to the double often has only a 4 card suit , so has to use other bids to suggest other strains.

Given that your meaning for Sequence B was "natural and non-forcing", I ask you to consider my last post as applying to Sequence D only. You are basically suggesting 2H as a natural game-try agreeing spades; As it is your only game-try below 2S, should it be an ART try? Opener can still bid 3H if accepting.

[mich-b]

Yes, this is surely acceptable for sequence D. IMO the important part is to agree that sequence D , unlike the others , confirms 5♠ , and is inv+. Using 2♥ as "general" invitation here has the advantage of being able to stop in 2♠ , and the disadvantage of making the invitation less specific. Both are reasonable imho.