rogerclee

Maybe that was the original style, but it is obvious that this style is pretty deficient, and it is very important for a negative double to strongly suggest major length, due to how important the majors are in bridge scoring. There is a reason the modern style is what it is--it's just more effective. I disagree that there is a trend by the general bridge playing population back to this original style of negative doubles, it is just basically these forums. I think it mostly comes out of debates between the stronger players on these forums which weaker players can easily misinterpret, not to imply that anyone who doubled in this thread (or would double) is a weak player.

I Agree with you on most, but to me a negative double only shows 3+ cards on the unbid suits, and strongly suggests 4 hearts. If the bidding goes 1♣-(2♠)-X-(3♠)-4♥. I would expect partner to have 5 clubs for his bid, otherwise doubling 3♠. I don't think it is standard to play that a negative double here guarantees anything in other unbid suits, just 4+♥. Disagree with your second point, it would actually be normal for double there to show a strong hand without 4 hearts and no clear direction.

Maybe this is a little bit of a rant, but I just wanted to say that I think there is a pretty dangerous trend on these forums to just make a negative double when we don't have 4 of a basically-promised major. Nowadays people on these forums will just make a negative double because it seems in the abstract like a clever way to get around a bidding problem. This is really false, and I think non-expert players should really avoid doing this, since it is really easy to abuse this idea. Keep in mind that lying about suit length is huge, it has a much larger impact on the auction than lying about your high card points. Think about the plusses and minuses of describing this hand as "4+♥ with values" before making a bid that seems cool. When we have a reasonable alternative like 3♣, I think doubling has no merit. Doubling with only 3 cards should really only be considered when you have sufficient values but the only other attractive call is pass. The reason for this is that pass is a really vague bid, so it may be better to lie about having one card than to say nothing about your hand. Here we have a call available which is a much milder distortion than double, so this is a very easy decision to me.

3♥, I don't think this is close at all. Calling this a 12 point hand is basically a failure to play bridge.

Wow I thought this was an extremely easy 6♦ bid. 5♠ was fitted, and partner passed just in case we had an awesome hand for spades and could sacrifice at a level lower. I don't see any reason to punish partner for bidding very intelligently. Hidden:

Partner has ♠AJ9x ♥Qx ♦AJxx ♣Jxx, so it appears that anything except 4N will get you to a making slam, unless you think this hand should accept the invitation.

I would still call this hand a normal 3NT bid. Anyway what I meant was that people often say they expect something like a semi-solid 6 card suit and some outside values. This is really nonsense, since you are leaving yourself with no attractive bid when you have an offshape hand with lots of values.

3N, some people play 3N here must have a trick source, but this hand is a good example of why that doesn't make any sense.

Agree with this. It also has the benefit of allowing you to never confuse a fitted bid for a splinter, which I think most of us have done at least once before.

IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠T9 ♥AQJTx ♦AQJ9x ♣J 1♥ - (2NT) - 4♦ - (5♣) ? 2NT was the minors, 4♦ was a splinter. Pass now is forcing.

Pull with 5♥.

This kind of problem is pretty common actually, everyone seems to just bid 3N even with a 5-card major if the hand is around 16-17 balanced (or better).

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought a club void was much more likely than this kind of heart position.

LOL

Pass of course, this is practically textbook.

IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠QT9xxx ♥x ♦x ♣QJxxx 3♠ - (P) - 4♠ - (4NT) ? Agree with 3♠?

IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠Qx ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣AKQxx 1♣ - (1♠) - 3NT - (P) ?

A lot of people pass on hands like this under the logic that if partner can reopen, then he has shortness, so the hand will play well, and if partner can't reopen, then he probably has 3 spades, so you probably aren't missing anything. But this hand is too good, so this looks like an easy 3♥.

Definitely double, definitely a second diamond now.

Shows doubt about playing 3N, and if this is true, we should bid 4♣ now.

I like 1♠ the most.

2♥, but you don't really need to change that much to get me to bid more.

LOL

Disadvantages: 1) You lose whatever 1♥-2♠ means. 2) Unlike most cases, where the opponents' ability to double your artificial bid is only a minor annoyance, it is a serious disadvantage in 1♥-2♠ auctions, since you are making it way more likely to face a 4♠ sacrifice over your 4♥ contract. Advantages: 1) 1♥-2N is now available to show some useful type of hand, like a balanced GF or something like this, which gives more integrity to your 1♥-2m auctions. 2) You get an extra step, which is actually really useful in terms of making your Jacoby 2N structure more efficient. For example, you could give yourself two ways to splinter, one being minimum and the other showing extras. My opinion, which is not based on experience playing this convention, is that it's not really worth it, but there are certainly some good pairs who play 1♥-2♠ = artificial raise.

Maybe south should have bid 2♠ instead of 1♠, but I think it's close and 1♠ is really fine. 3♠ was bad though, this is definitely a 3N bid. North bid his hand very well.