[alibodin]

Reading the discussion Competitive Auction 1C 1D 1H 1S and seeing mention of support doubles I have been reading about these and they seem useful in a strong NT 5 card major system.

1 1♦ (P) 1♥ (2♣) ; X is a support double
2 1♦ (P) 1♠ (2♣) ; X is a support double
3 1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♣) ; X is a support double

That bit I get, from what I have read:-

What about these two cases are they support doubles or does it depend whether 1♠ promises 5 or the X shows 4+ ?

4 1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (2♣) ; ? I read this is not a support double as 1♠ guarantees 5+
5 1♦ (1♥) X (2♣) ; ? is a support double as 1♠ is 4

To my mind both the first case could be a support double or

6 1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (2♣) ; 2S here show 3+ spades?

What about when 4th hand overcalls 1NT do support doubles apply, one book I read said yes, the other yes or no discuss with partner?

7 1♥ (P) 1♠ (1NT) ; X is a support double

As this would be a new addition for my partners and my thinking is keep it simple and have 1-5 all be support doubles, case 6 the 2S rebid would show 4 spades. Case 7 also have the X as a support double.

What do most people think and play?

[mike777]

Some of exactly what your auctions are is a bit unclear.

If you are asking do I play support doubles on when partner responds a minor, the answer is, YES.

If you are asking when responder promises a 5 card suit, do I still play support doubles on to differentiate 3 or 4'card support, YES.

Question 7, the double is penalty.


Hope this helps

[Huibertus]

alibodin, on 2025-November-15, 13:11, said:

4), 5) playing 1♠ to promise a 5 card and X to promise a 4 card spades is a common agreement, if you have this agreement, the suggested approach to doubles over 2♣ make sense. However is certainly is NOT the only possible agreement, I tend to use 1♠ for 4+♠ and X to deny 4♠ for example. So agree on 1♠ first, don't assume it promises 5.

[pescetom]

Your proposed solution is sensible but I prefer that when Responder promises 5 spades X=2 2S=3 3S=4 etc. in line with LoTT.

[pescetom]

Another interesting question is whether Support Double is always on with a strong hand. There is an interesting but inconclusive discussion on BW right now.

My tentative opinion is that it makes sense that a reverse does not deny 3 card support. Interested to know what others think about this (not knee jerk reactions: I realise Support Double is commonly taught as unlimited and obligatory).

[DavidKok]

Personally I prefer not to play support doubles. I do play them currently, but primarily because they are so widespread and it's easy to agree to play them (though the continuations are unusally complex!). When playing them I treat them as 100% mandatory - again, not because I think it's best, but because I think it's simple.

If you start making them optional, which I think is better, I would consider instead playing takout doubles. A takeout double is quite similar to a support double already, but is more widespread and allows for more flexibility in using it. That being said I would pair this with allowing 3-card raises even in competition, though that'd be rare.

[mikeh]

I prefer that opener is not required to make a support double on a hand that was minimum to start with and has become worse on the auction. The other day I held a 3=3=3=4 11 count, red v white, with KQx in hearts. 1C (1H) x (1N), where x showed 4 or 5 spades. I wanted to pass…my heart holding had diminished in value. But partner prefers mandatory support doubles.

On balance I don’t think there’s much in it either way.

Btw, having played various methods for the x of 1H (precisely 4 spades, 4+ spades with 1S denying spades) my current preference is for x to show 4 or 5 spades and all hands with 6+ spades bid 2H…a method that originated with an Italian pair. Since our 1C is all balanced hands out of range for 1N…can be 3=3=5=2, we find that using 1S as a ‘negative double for the minors’ is quite effective. Although with two other expert partners I’ve been playing it as 8=12, denying 4+ spades and requesting that opener bid 1N (if available) unless distributional. It’s part of a complex structure that I won’t detail here.

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2025-November-16, 09:10, said:

Btw, having played various methods for the x of 1H (precisely 4 spades, 4+ spades with 1S denying spades) my current preference is for x to show 4 or 5 spades and all hands with 6+ spades bid 2H…a method that originated with an Italian pair. Since our 1C is all balanced hands out of range for 1N…can be 3=3=5=2, we find that using 1S as a ‘negative double for the minors’ is quite effective.

I like this, but reluctantly put it on file because my potential partners are all used to X=4 1S=5.
Do you extend this to play after 1S interference in some way?

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-16, 08:47, said:

Personally I prefer not to play support doubles. I do play them currently, but primarily because they are so widespread and it's easy to agree to play them (though the continuations are unusally complex!). When playing them I treat them as 100% mandatory - again, not because I think it's best, but because I think it's simple.

If you start making them optional, which I think is better, I would consider instead playing takout doubles. A takeout double is quite similar to a support double already, but is more widespread and allows for more flexibility in using it. That being said I would pair this with allowing 3-card raises even in competition, though that'd be rare.

Thanks. Your suggestion of playing takeout doubles is ironic, because one of the reasons I was attracted to support doubles was my conviction that takeout is not a good alternative use for this double - a conviction formed playing with one previous partner who took sadistic joy in doubling with fit (and indeed hiding it any other way legitimated by system, such as responding 1S to 1H with hearts fit and slam interest), the double seemed a bit too flexible for my tastes But I concede it could be played rationally.

Support Doubles are still on my experimental list, but I think they are pulling some weight and will escape the end of year cut, at least for another year. I agree that the continuations are unusually complex and it is dangerous to have them undiscussed.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2025-November-17, 10:10, said:

I like this, but reluctantly put it on file because my potential partners are all used to X=4 1S=5.
Do you extend this to play that after 1S interference in some way?

We’re experimenting with.

1C (1S) x is a normal negative double except idpt denies 6 hearts or 5 with invite+ values
1N normal
2C any hand with diamonds, can be weak with 6+ diamonds
2D. Any hand with 6+ hearts or 5 with invite+
2H. 5-5 or better in hearts and diamonds, 9+ hcp
2S: club raise


1C (1H). X. 4-5 spades
1S takeout for the minors (opener often has longer diamonds)
1N normal
2C. Diamonds, can be weak with 6+
2D. 5-5 or better in spades and diamonds, 9+
2H. 6 spades any strength or 5S with invite+
2S. Clubs
2N normal


Similar ideas over 1C (1D) or 1D (1M) or 1D (2C).

Small sample size as yet. Definitely not committed to it but two expert friends play versions of this so we thought we’d try it

[DavidKok]

I've played a detailed version of transfer responses in competition for over half a year. It came up a lot and won a lot. In a dedicated partnership I'd seriously recommend it. Just keep in mind it takes a lot of mental effort, especially at first.

We played a particularly complicated custom set, which ticked almost all the boxes I care about on competitive auctions. I'd be happy to share the notes if you're interested. However, as a word of caution, you could argue it was more like five systems rather than one.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-17, 11:41, said:

I've played a detailed version of transfer responses in competition for over half a year. It came up a lot and won a lot. In a dedicated partnership I'd seriously recommend it. Just keep in mind it takes a lot of mental effort, especially at first.

We played a particularly complicated custom set, which ticked almost all the boxes I care about on competitive auctions. I'd be happy to share the notes if you're interested. However, as a word of caution, you could argue it was more like five systems rather than one.

Please do share, if you have time. I don't have a partnership to handle five systems right now, but there is still likely to be some good idea I can put to good use.