[scarletv]

---

Partners support double shows 3 spades without promising extras. With a very weak opening p might have passed.

[mike777]

Other.

3h

[lycier]

3♥,save a space and then let opener further describe.

[neilkaz]

3♥ as I'd like to force a round and get/give more info.

[gszes]

3h

This hand might play anywhere from 3n to 7c though leaving this hand is 3n appears to be wrong far too often.
Openers hand will probably fall somewhere btn these 2 extremes:

Qxx KJxx Axx Axx (3n)

Qxx xxx Ax AKxxx (7c)

Starting with 3h at least will make sure we avoid spending too much time looking for 7c if opener can bid 3n so it is an important first step.

[ggwhiz]

3♥ for a number of reasons. 3nt from partner would provide pump protection towards playing 4♠ (a decent risk especially at matchpoints) and I can suggest clubs along the way. Over anything else I'll insist on clubs.

[zillahandp]

3h no choice we are looking at or for a slam, so possibly 4hts but it takes up a lot of sace

[dave_beer]

3♥ since it is the only forcing bid available below 3NT which might be our best spot.

I would have responded 1♦, not 1♠, intending to bid out my shape. In partnerships that allow an inverted raise with 5+ card support and side 4-card suits I would prefer 2♣.

[hevnandhel]

dave_beer, on 2015-October-18, 09:39, said:

3♥ since it is the only forcing bid available below 3NT which might be our best spot.

I think 3♦ would also be forcing.

[scarletv]

After 3♥ partner might bid 3NT. Will you bid on?

[ggwhiz]

scarletv, on 2015-October-18, 10:52, said:

After 3♥ partner might bid 3NT. Will you bid on?

Yup. 4♣ probably followed by 4♠

[jodepp]

This is an interesting problem. I like support doubles but if you haven't discussed follow-ups they can hurt you as much as they help you.

If you treat the double as the equivalent of raising spades, then your whole system - help-suit, short-suit, whatever they may be - can be played as 'on'. Thus, 3♣/♦/♥ would all be forcing. I would pick 3♣ followed by 4♣, to make sure partner knows I only have four spades in a strong hand.

I wouldn't call 3♦ or 3♥ wrong either. As with most problems of this type, 'eye of the beholder' applies.

[dave_beer]

hevnandhel, on 2015-October-18, 09:51, said:

I think 3♦ would also be forcing.

I wouldn't want to take that chance without discussion. I might have to bid that with a bad hand that bypassed ♦ to bid 1♠ and now I want to sign off there.

[hevnandhel]

dave_beer, on 2015-October-18, 16:06, said:

I wouldn't want to take that chance without discussion. I might have to bid that with a bad hand that bypassed ♦ to bid 1♠ and now I want to sign off there.

I'd assume new suit = forcing without discussion to the contrary, and if I was going to sign off in a partscore on this auction then 2♠ would be my choice - or maybe 3♣ in a case where I have support like this.

[nige1]

scarletv says"partners support double shows 3 spades without promising extras. With a very weak opening p might have passed."

I rank ...
1. 3♣ = NAT.
2. 3♦ = NAT.
3. 4♣ = NAT
4. 3♥ = CUE.
5. 5♣ = NAT

---

[camarks]

3♦ seems absolutely obvious to me. New suits by an unpassed responder are forcing. If pard bids 3nt, then it is probably right. 3♥asks partner to bid 3nt on many hands where we belong in clubs.

[dave_beer]

jodepp, on 2015-October-18, 13:53, said:

This is an interesting problem. I like support doubles but if you haven't discussed follow-ups they can hurt you as much as they help you.

If you treat the double as the equivalent of raising spades, then your whole system - help-suit, short-suit, whatever they may be - can be played as 'on'. Thus, 3♣/♦/♥ would all be forcing. I would pick 3♣ followed by 4♣, to make sure partner knows I only have four spades in a strong hand.

I wouldn't call 3♦ or 3♥ wrong either. As with most problems of this type, 'eye of the beholder' applies.

On different auctions where I could have rebid 2 of either minor that would be rejecting the presumed 7-card fit and signing off in a safer partscore. Since the support double is unlimited partner could bid again but probably shouldn't return to the major.

I wouldn't want to bid either 3♣ or 3♦ on this auction without having discussed it first.

[1eyedjack]

dave_beer, on 2015-October-18, 22:09, said:

I wouldn't want to bid either 3♣ or 3♦ on this auction without having discussed it first.

I feel that in polls like this you are assumed to have discussed your system.

[johnu]

1eyedjack, on 2015-October-18, 23:26, said:

I feel that in polls like this you are assumed to have discussed your system.

LOL, if you had discussed your system that well, you wouldn't need a general poll. And if you had specific followup agreements, why didn't OP mention them?
Maybe you might have a specific question, e.g. should I force to game, should I invite, should I make a slam try, etc.

[1eyedjack]

johnu, on 2015-October-19, 07:58, said:

LOL, if you had discussed your system that well, you wouldn't need a general poll. And if you had specific followup agreements, why didn't OP mention them?
Maybe you might have a specific question, e.g. should I force to game, should I invite, should I make a slam try, etc.

I am not suggesting that the OP had discussed the system here. That may indeed be the reason why he has issued the poll. But he may expect responders who feel able to express an opinion to have done so, and may well be interested in guidance on what followups to agree with his partner for the future, based on those responses.

Or, it is just possible, although perhaps not so helpful, that the question is geared to what assumptions should be made in a pickup.