firmit

Have experienced a few new meanings to the negative double, but I am not getting a real good answer for why it is becoming so popular. Bidding goes: 1♣-(1♥)-X this shows exactly 4 spades. Correct? 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 5+ spades Recently, I have seen a new meaning for the negative double: 1♣-(1♥)-X <4 spades, 4+ other minor, no 4 card support 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 4+ spades What is the advantage? What is this increasing popularity? Is this something to consider? 1♣-(1♠)-X however, has the original meaning, showing 4+hearts

I do not agree with 3♣ as 5-9hp in this situation. Even with agreed negative free bid, I would have a solid suit 8-11 hp at the 3rd level. If opps did not bid 2♦, would 3♣ be invitational? I'd like just a little more to bid 4♣; if I get 4♦ cue-bid, 4NT is obviously the choice, and if partner shows all missing keycards, one is obligated to bid 7♣. This situation is for me a little different than the other thread. I would not bid 3♦ in this situation as I see slam as a long shot, and 3NT is not a diserable contract. One may reason to find logic in all bidding-sequences - and whereagles makes a good point with 3♦, but reacing 6♣ is a bit of a stretch. My choice is therefor 5♣ with 3♣ meaning 5-9hp. With 3♣ showin 8-11hp and at least AKxxxx and Q in one of the suit except diamonds, I'd consider 4♣; giving partner a choice of cue-bidding - or simply bid 5♣, expecting to make.

3♦ is obviously game-forcing ( though the meaning of 3♦ is not yet clearified to partner ) - so how is 4♣ a give-up? I like slow approaches, so in the given auction 3♦ should be considered a cue-bid by partner if I make a slam-try-bid with 4♣ later on in the auction. But as I make the 3♦-bid, all he has to worry about, is making the right respons. Therefor, In my opinion 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥-3♣-3♦-3♥-4♣ would be slam-try with 3♦ as cue-bid, expecting partner to start with agreed-upon cue-bidding sequence. This mainly because I am entitled to pass any bid opener makes after 3♦. However - I won't debate the 4♣-bid directly after 3♣, as nothing but a slam-try.

It should be game somewhere - so why not 3♦? After my 3♦, the only negative bid "allowed", and probably the only one I would not make a slamtry with, would be 5♣.... All other bids, show some kind of fit - 3card hearts,2cards spade, diamond stopper or alike. Hence, my next bid would be 4♣. Then it is up to him to bid 5♣, cue-bid or rckb.

I would have to agree with you, that a reopening of 2NT is not a good option - that's why I said "MAY agree" - and I do NOT normally use it in my system. I would not dream of making this bid in vulnerable seat - actually, I think I never would bid 2NT it that position, ever... So, I think you may disregard that option in the post. ;) If opponents stops at the 2nd level, we may have some fit our way. A dbl is reasonable with a 4-4 or even 4-3, and good points, for a reopening. Still, I do not normally get involved with 15-17 flat points as my first option.

You have a lot of bids to show slightly different hands. Some of which you can show with natural bids. But you don't have a bid to show a strong NT hand. If you have 16-17 balanced and the bidding goes 1D p 1H p 2D p p, you will never convince partner of your strength. You will miss many potential games. With light openers and light responders common, partner could have a balanced 9 opposite your balanced 17. So I play this after 1D p 1H ?: 1N = 15-18 - same as in direct seat (easier to remember anyway) If (1♦)-p-(1♥)-1NT is 15-18hp - also VUL - what now if one of them make a penalty dbl? In my system { disregard this sequence (1♦)-p-(1♥)- pass (2♦)-p-(p)-2NT may be agreed to show a strong balanced with solid stopper in each of opponents suit - also, no 5 card. end } (1♦)-p-(1♥)-DBL is leading the way to show a either a 5+,4 hand or a strong balanced hand. If I rebid NT at the cheapest level I am showing a strong balanced hand, with 5 card in partners preferred suit, I make a cue-bid. If opps interfere after my dbl, and partner does not bid, I will need convincing to compete with a flat hand. Maybe a penalty-X is better.

In this "Sandwich" position, I personally like conventional meanings when searching for a fit: (1♦)-p-(1♥)- ? 1NT showing at least 5+,4 with 5+♥ and exactly 4♣'s. DBL showing at least 4,5+ with exactly 4♥ and 5+♣, or strong balanced. This give the option of using cue-bid of first suit ( here ♦ ) as 5+,5+ weak, and 2NT as 5+,5+ strong. I normally pass with balanced hands up to 16-17 hp in this situation and see where the opponents are heading.

3♠ for me, even when partner has passed. Though I would consider dbl if partner has not bid, but never passing.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sk74ha10954d3c7642&s=saq1096h3da109caj109]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] E -- S -- W -- N 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ 3♦ - 4♠ - p - p 5♦!- p* - p - p!! Deal and bids. My thoughts were that my pass was forcing, given I volunteraly bid game. But, after getting some signals from different people, I will have to say that I will double myself next time! It should be mentioned that we actually had agreed on Forcing pass in some given situations, but that my partner did NOT recognize it in the current one. Also, this was my first Topic! And I am very pleased! Ty for all the responses. :rolleyes:

I just read about this structur in "I Helgemo's verden" (In Helgemo's world). And it seems quite attractive, not just because our (Norway's :) ) elite-players are using it, but it gives the opener the chance to rebid 2NT with an unbalanced hand unsuitable for jump-shift. Does this structure/convention have an official name? But, as you pointed out: KISS is a valuable guideline for a "convention-lover", like myself. I like the idea of being a naturalist, though I do feel more "safe" in conventionalities (hope my grammar is correct).

For 1M-1NT-3m, one should generally show 5-5 or at least 5-4, and normally game-forcing. Does anyone have agreement regarding 1M-1NT-2NT? Or does people generally use this as invitational showing (17)18-19hp. I have read a couple of meanings connected to it as a forcing bid, where responder bids 3♣ with minimum and no support for openers major. Other bids constructive, resulting one might miss out on a fit in clubs. However, this opens up for the possibility to stop at the 3 level if no good fit is found and prospects to 3NT seems bad. Is this the general consensus for people using 1♥/♠-1NT;2NT as forcing? Any thoughts? I'd really like inputs to a conventional meaning with a unbalanced hand. Reason for this is recently missing out on a slam in clubs where all, but one pair, were in 4♠+1. Responder had long clubs, but no chance to show it.

I wish to hear your opinions, because my partner did NOT understand the situation we were in. She actually chose to pass(!) making us loose 6 imps when 4S was played at the other table.

As South, my hand is dealt as: ♠AQ1096 ♥3 ♦A109 ♣AJ109 None / E - Team match, Imps- Bidding is as follows: 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠; 3♦-4♠-p-p; 5♦!-? What to do? As South 4♠ is maximum and saying we have game. It is obvious from South's position that E is making a sacrifice bid, with maybe 9 trumphs all together - but a 5♦X may be a bare minimum compared to 5♠. I chose to pass, which should be, in any agreement given the above auction, forcing partner to make a choice between 5♠ and a penalty-dbl. Is this correct? What is your choice? PS: changed original error where it showed ♥ instead of ♠