Negative Double Poll

[paulhar]

Assume you and your partner play some "standard" system where a 1C opening bid shows and opening hand with 3+ clubs (4+ if that's your style) and doesn't imply or deny extra strength. Also assume that you are playing "negative" doubles where the opener is expected to bid over the auction 1C by opener, 1S by overcaller, double by responder (i.e. they are not playing penalty doubles.)

 

I have a definite opinion here but have seen some conflicting opinions in bridge literature, and would like to get a consensus about this auction. Thank you in advance for your answers. Also, if you think one of the above choices is totally rediculous, let me know that.

[pbleighton]

Absolutely 4+ hearts, nothing about diamonds. This is how almost everyone in my neck of the woods plays it.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If I don't have Hearts then I have Diamonds. (The expectation being 4H 100% of the time.)

[han]

I'm somewhat in the middle between "absolutely guarantees 4+ hearts" and "tends to promise 4+ hearts". I voted for the latter because I try not to define bids as rigid as the former.

 

It says nothing about diamonds of course.

[cherdano]

It usually shows 4 hearts, but it could also be a stopperless strong 2=3=4=4 hand. In my view it promises the ability to handle a 2♦ rebid, either because you have 4 diamonds, or because you can correct to clubs. But this is automatic when you have spade shortness - I think with (45)22 you have to bid 1N or pass, or be strong enough to rebid 2N over 2♦.

 

Of course there is the debate whether a 2♦ response is a reverse...

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

I'm somewhat in the middle between "absolutely guarantees 4+ hearts" and "tends to promise 4+ hearts". I voted for the latter because I try not to define bids as rigid as the former.

 

It says nothing about diamonds of course.

Almost word for word what I was going to say.

[joshs]

I think the vast majority of experts would x 1S holding:

a. xxx KQx Axxx xxx or xxx KJx Axxxx xx

 

and some would x holding:

b. xxx KQx QJxxxx x

 

but 99.5% of the time it produces 4 hearts.

 

Playing x as just cards with no convenyiant bid (the orginal negative x convention) is playable but almost no one plays it that way anymore.

[Sigi_BC84]

Playing x as just cards with no convenyiant bid (the orginal negative x convention) is playable but almost no one plays it that way anymore.

What do you do with a strong hand then if you play new suits on the two-level as non-forcing in this auction? The cuebid is already quite overloaded and brings you to the three-level immediately.

 

--Sigi

[luke warm]

i voted for it guaranteeing 4+ hearts and *tending* to show diamonds, tho not necesarily.. same as a redouble *implies* no support (not guarantees) after 1y (x) xx

[joshs]

Playing x as just cards with no convenyiant bid (the orginal negative x convention) is playable but almost no one plays it that way anymore.

What do you do with a strong hand then if you play new suits on the two-level as non-forcing in this auction? The cuebid is already quite overloaded and brings you to the three-level immediately.

 

--Sigi

Who said anything about new suits non-forcing???

[pclayton]

Double should be a hand thats not embarrassed to be flopped when it continues DBL - (3♠) - 4♥ - All Pass. :P

 

So as far as 100% having 4 hearts: Almost but not quite.

[Gerardo]

Agree with Arend, must be able to handle both unbid suits rebids by opener, not necessarily having support in them (thought support is almost always there in the unbid major(s))

[Helmer]

Hi

 

I played it like this:

 

a) few points - 6 to 11 always 4+ card ♥ and either the un-bit minor

or support for the opening minor-suit.

 

If you don't have this - either pass, NT or support should be possible bids.

 

:P (9) 10-11 points - same, but if 5-card ♥, bid 2 ♥.

 

c) opening hand, not need 4-card ♥, but maybe better to bid 2♠.

 

Good luck

Helmer

[hatchett]

Like some others I don't play that it guarantees 4H but it I play it quite a bit stronger than tends to show 4H. It doesn't say anything about ♦. Hence a 2♦ rebid by opener is a reverse

[temp3600]

Here's the meaning I like most : "I have enough strength that I want to compete, but no natural call available."

[Free]

Depends also if you're playing negative free bids or not... But I'd say that it tends to show ♥ and/or tends to show ♦, so it basicly doesn't say much :P

[awm]

For me, it almost always shows 4♥ since most of the "awkward" hands have four clubs and can raise opener's suit (perhaps via a 2♠ limit raise). I think once or twice I have doubled with only three hearts, but it's always a strong 3-card holding.

 

As for diamonds, I do not treat opener's 2♦ rebid as a reverse. I think the double is takeout, and really suggests a diamond fit. If not holding a diamond fit, doubler will either be quite strong (easy to continue over 2♦) or have a good fit for clubs (willing to play 3♣ in what's almost surely a nine-card fit opposite opener's 4-5 minors hand). There are plenty of ways for opener to show a strong hand in this auction (including 2♠ or any jump) and I'd rather allow opener to pattern out than force a 2♣ (or 1NT) rebid on ordinary 2-2-4-5 hands with no spade stopper.

[AceOfHeart]

i have to say this, it depends also if you play free bids as forcing or nonforcing.

[paulhar]

I thought it was: guarantees 4 hearts; says nothing about diamonds. However, a particular popular book for the masses states that it implies both suits. My reasoning is as follows:

 

What are you going to do with:

 

S-7542

H-AK94

D-62

C-J73

 

over 1C by pard and 1S overcalled? If you choose a negative double suggesting diamonds as well as hearts, partner will do the wrong thing over 3S (preemptive) on your left (or even 2S) when he holds some diamonds (not at all unlikely given your shortness.) While I'd like to think that everybody would make a negative double with the above hand, those that argue that pass is correct (because you don't have diamonds) will give up in many part score battles they should be winning.

[han]

a particular popular book for the masses

 

Could you give a more specific reference? My first thought was "negative doubles" by Marty Bergen, but I am absolutely sure that Marty does not say this.

[dogsbreath]

hi

..i didnt vote because not all sensible options available. If i have less than a game-going hand then I promise 4card Hearts. On stronger hands i can have anything other than a cue-raise or pre-emptive raise or a natural 2/3NT bid or a (non-forcing) bid in a new suit.

 

Rgds Dog

[joshs]

Here is my best definition of x (under standard agreements) in the auction 1m-(1S)-?

 

x means "I would have bid 1H but am unable to bid 2H".

 

You might want to extend this definition in one of a couple of ways:

x means "I would have happily bid 1H but I am unable to bid 2H" if you think that you shouldn't make a negative x with some of the weaker hands that would have bid 1H.

 

Another way to extend the definition: x means, "with the knowledge that my RHO holds spades, I would have bid 1H had he passed". In that way you might include some hands with a strong 3 card holding that would have bid NT except now rather pretend they have 4 hearts.

 

Finally, there is "I would have bid something at the 1 level, probably hearts, and have at least 3 hearts."

 

Note that these last 2 definitions are really degenerate cases.

 

Finally, the orginal Al Roth Defintion "I would have happily made a bid with this hand, but I no longer have a good bid available and I lack the values to cuebid". No one plays this way anymore....

[luke warm]

a particular popular book for the masses

 

Could you give a more specific reference? My first thought was "negative doubles" by Marty Bergen, but I am absolutely sure that Marty does not say this.

marty sez (or he did in another book) the bid fits adam's definition above - i would have bid 1H but can't bid 2H... he also says that it *implies* diamonds, but doesn't promise them.. and as free and others have said, if a free bid is not forcing the double can show normal (standard) else any game force hand

[civill]

I'm with Helmer ,and more as below:

 

It's better not to bid directly,or without enough good HCPs/shape to bid directly.

[joker_gib]

For me, it promises 8+, 4♥+ 95% of the time. If not I'm ready to hear 4♥ by partner.

 

It doesn't say anything about ♦

 

Alain