Daily Bridge Club Bidding progress?

Progress in bidding is evident. The rise of play-for-pay has let full-time pros devote themselves to devising better methods. What constitutes progress, however, is open to debate.

In a team match, both Wests upgraded their hand and opened one diamond, and East bid one heart. At one table, South risked two clubs (on a broken five-card suit between two bidding opponents!). West doubled, and the rout was on.

West led the ace and ten of hearts, and East won and shifted to his singleton diamond: jack, queen. West cashed the ace — East threw a spade — and gave East a diamond ruff, and East led another heart. South ruffed with the ten, and West overruffed with the jack and gave East a diamond ruff.

East next took his ace of spades and led a fourth heart. South should have pitched his king of spades, but he ruffed with the queen, and West overruffed and gave East a spade ruff. Then a fifth heart from East promoted a trump trick for West’s nine. Down six.

In the replay, believe it not, South tried two clubs again. But here, East-West were using “support doubles,” and West couldn’t hammer two clubs: A double would have shown three-card heart support. (A two-heart bid would have shown four-card support.) West had to do something, so he bid 3NT. He played there, making five for plus 660, but his teammates had been minus 1700.

“Support doubles” let you judge the degree of fit in your trump suit, a valid concern. Whether they are worth letting the opponents overcall with relative impunity is something every partnership must decide.

West dealer

Both sides vulnerable