Negative Double and Landing Zone

[kenrexford]

An auction came up this weekend that I thought to be relatively obvious as to meaning and yet was apparently out in left field as to majoritarian interpretation. Any thoughts?

 

1H-2D-X-P-3C???

 

If, with no jump, the auction is 1X-P-2Y-P-3Z, "3Z" shows extra values as a "high reverse." What, then, does 3C in this sequence show?

 

The hands were xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx opposite Axxxx-void-Jxx-QJxxx.

 

The small majority I polled (partner, and one other) felt that 3C showed nothing extra, because 3D, as a cuebid, would handle any GF hand without a known fit.

 

I (a sole minority) felt that 3C should show extra strength, perhaps 15+. With less, with no ability to bid 2NT (no stopper), rebidding 2H as a temporaizing bid would work best. It seemed to me that the double carried a "plan" if Opener rebid his suit with a minimum, just like any 2/1 in Standard.

 

We stopped at 4C, down two after the hand was played with the wrong line, for -200.

[Guest Jlall]

There are very notable differences in the auction you gave and 1H p 2D p 3C. A 2/1 promises a rebid, a negative X does not. Your example hand is a very good example of this, if opener had rebid 2H, responder would (should) pass and end in the 5-0 fit. A negative X does not show any kind of plan and does not promise or deny enough values to take another call.

 

The other notable difference is that a cuebid is available to opener when he has a strong hand in the neg X auction but not in the standard auction.

[kenrexford]

This is what the majority said, but I do not get it. How can any call ever be made without a plan? This thinking seems absurd to me. With no "plan," why not pass and let partner re-open? How do you intelligently get a lower-ranking new suit into he picture (clubs) if the only call with a strong hand is a cuebid (3D)?

 

To continue my theory advocacy, I'll suggest the "majority" auction against my own, with comments:

 

MAJORITY:

1H (Opener, possible 5332 with 11-count these days)-2D-

X (I have four spades and maybe four clubs)-P-

3C (I have four clubs, with 11+ HCP's, possibly 9+ now that my Qx is possibly worthless, but no enough to cuebid, whatever that shows)-P-

Pass (We can probably make slam opposite Kx-Axxxx-x-Axxxx, but you might have a piece of crap).

 

MINE:

...

x (I have a plan)-P-

2H (no spade fit; possibly bust)-P-

3C (5-5 blacks, constructive (8-9)-P-

Pass

[Kalvan14]

I'm with the majority opinion: the negative double, in principle, is trying to find a fit. 3♣ does not promise extras.

 

With you interpretation, opener with xx KJxxx xx AKJx would rebid 2♥, and play a horrible contract in a 5-1 fit. A rebid of 2M should deny in principle any of the unbid suits: the only exception if when the holding in M is something like AKJTx and the holding in the minor is Jxxx (if Jxxx is the holding in OM, I'd re-bid 2OM, no doubt).

 

The situation is in a way similar to (1♦) - X - (P): I would not choose 1M in a 3-cards suit if I had 5 clubs, even with a weak hand.

[Guest Jlall]

This is what the majority said, but I do not get it. How can any call ever be made without a plan? This thinking seems absurd to me. With no "plan," why not pass and let partner re-open? How do you intelligently get a lower-ranking new suit into he picture (clubs) if the only call with a strong hand is a cuebid (3D)?

I'm glad you've asked for opinions, and then called them absurd when everyone gives you the same answer. Quite amusing.

 

Some people see bridge as a game of communication between partners until 1 is ready to place the contract. As such, most bids especially early on are describing your hand and not made with some kind of follow up plan. A negative double shows 4 spades (almost always) and some values. Why is a plan needed? One might not pass and let partner re-open because they recognize that this only causes rebid problems later, is not descriptive in any way, and partner doesn't always reopen.

 

As for intelligently getting clubs into play, this is a problem caused by wide ranging bids and interference made by the opponents. Trying to sort out strain and level when one hand has shown 5+ hearts and 11-21 and the other hand has shown 4+S and 8+ points can indeed be difficult. You have 3C, 3D, and 4C available. This means 3C can made on up to 15 highs, and the cuebid is awkward and doesn't necessarily show clubs. No scheme is perfect in this scenario. I'm not sure how your structure of NOT BIDDING clubs with minimums makes clubs easier to get to.

 

I ask you of your plan, how do you intelligently avoid 5-1 (or 5-0) heart fits? How do you intelligently find clubs when game is not on? How do you deduce when you have a 6-2 fit when partner might have only 5? Whatever answer you will give will carry with it flaws in different auction types. The fact of the matter is in an auction like this, some guesswork is called for. Sometimes you will get to a 40 % game, and sometimes you will miss a 55 % game. Sometimes you will miss the right strain. It is all a question of percentages. Perhaps the collective bridge world has more knowledge and experience when it comes to this than you do, and is using the percentage method in this sequence. If your method were superior, more people would play it. That is how it works.

[kenrexford]

If your claim that "this is how it is" somehow means that intelligent review of an auction is obviously flawed because the world somehow has come to a concensus, then you'd apparently believe that the average duplicate results achieved are based upon sound, logical bidding, not general ignorance of bridge theory resulting in repeated errors of judgment.

 

When I claim that the DEFAULT, STANDARD interpretation, apparently, seems "absurd," I mean just that. Not that people are absurd for bidding according to rules established by their forefathers. If you disagree, and believe the establishment answer to not be absurd, then bolster this with logic, not with rage that you, who apparently find establishment thinking part of who you are as a person, have for the outrage of questioning.

 

Can you end up in a 5-1 or 6-0 fit? Not at all. A negative double is not a "prepared bid" if your recourse after Opener rebids his suit is to pass with a stiff or void. Get real. With a void in Opener's suit, a prepared double has a plan, like rebidding spades or bidding a new suit, or 2NT.

 

Can you not see that nonsense of your main argument? You want to double immediately, without a plan, because not doubling would cause rebidding problems later. WHAT!?!?!? You need a great plan for the pass, but not for the double? You are concerned about "what next" if you pass, but you could care less what happens if partner does not support your little four-card spade suit???

[awm]

The issue is that one of the possible plans for a negative double is to pass opener's non-forcing rebid. In every sequence in standard (or 2/1) bidding, when opener rebids his suit either (1) it's forcing or (2) it shows extra length.

 

After 1♥-2♦-X, if opener rebids 2♥ is partner allowed to pass? If not, then this forces responder to take another call with 8 points as well as with 11, making the auction quite difficult for opener to judge. I don't think it's right to randomly bid to the three-level on a misfit with 20 combined points, do you? Then again, if 2♥ is not forcing, what does doubler do with a singleton? For example:

 

KJxx

x

xxx

Axxxx

 

Suppose the auction starts 1♥-2♦-X and opener rebids 2♥? What do you do? If you pass, can't opener have:

 

Axx

KJxxx

x

KQxx

 

Surely 2♥ will go down (perhaps several) on repeated taps. Obviously a club contract is better and even 5♣ has some play. So I guess you bid 3♣ with the hand above... but can't partner have:

 

Qxx

AQJxxx

xx

Kx

 

On the plus side, 2♥ is pretty good. But you're not playing 2♥, you're playing 3♣ (or maybe 3♥). Either of these is down on normal breaks.

 

So maybe you should pass 2♦?

 

AQxx

AKxxx

xxx

x

 

Partner passes it out, but 4♠ likely makes on a cross ruff.

 

The general principle is that when opponents are in the auction, space becomes cramped and it is hard to accurately decide both strain and level. Standard tools emphasize finding the right strain, as playing the wrong strain is generally much more expensive than being a level higher or lower than is best-possible. Your suggestion helps to accurately gauge opener's strength, but leaves responder in the dark about strain.

[Guest Jlall]

If your claim that "this is how it is" somehow means that intelligent review of an auction is obviously flawed because the world somehow has come to a concensus, then you'd apparently believe that the average duplicate results achieved are based upon sound, logical bidding, not general ignorance of bridge theory resulting in repeated errors of judgment.

My point is that there is a reason that nobody agrees with you. That seems to be common for you, yet you always stubbornly cling to your beliefs. I often wonder why you even post here, nothing said will change your mind. Or are you here to show us the light? If you cannot see that conventional wisdom is conventional wisdom for a reason, well...

 

When I claim that the DEFAULT, STANDARD interpretation, apparently, seems "absurd," I mean just that. Not that people are absurd for bidding according to rules established by their forefathers. If you disagree, and believe the establishment answer to not be absurd, then bolster this with logic, not with rage that you, who apparently find establishment thinking part of who you are as a person, have for the outrage of questioning.

 

I understand that you think that the standard definition is absurd. As for bolstering my opinion that "the establishment" is correct, you may reread my last post. I will summarize it for you:

 

1) Partner can pass 2H. Thus it has to say something about your hand and not be a temporizing bid. Making a non forcing "temporizing" bid does NOT make finding fits easier as it focuses on limiting your hand, and leaving more room for hands with extras.

 

2) A cuebid and a jump are both available with strong hands. Though this is not perfect and can become awkward, nothing is perfect due to the nature of the problem. Both hands have very wide ranges on both shapes and strength and the opponents have taken away some bidding space.

 

But go ahead Ken, stick it to the man.... I mean the establishment.

 

Can you end up in a 5-1 or 6-0 fit? Not at all. A negative double is not a "prepared bid" if your recourse after Opener rebids his suit is to pass with a stiff or void. Get real. With a void in Opener's suit, a prepared double has a plan, like rebidding spades or bidding a new suit, or 2NT.

 

You're right, it's not a prepared bid. You will always pull 2H with a stiff? So with 4135 what's your plan? 2N with no stopper and a 9 count? 3C which could lead to a 5-1 itself (or will pard pull that with a stiff?) 2S on the 4 bagger? How will you avoid it? Perhaps you're the one that's not "getting real." What is so prepared about this X? You're showing 4 spades, some values (about 8+) and denying heart support.

 

Can you not see that nonsense of your main argument? You want to double immediately, without a plan, because not doubling would cause rebidding problems later. WHAT!?!?!? You need a great plan for the pass, but not for the double? You are concerned about "what next" if you pass, but you could care less what happens if partner does not support your little four-card spade suit???

 

I want to double immediately to describe my hand, and show some values and some spades so that we have the best chance of getting to the right contract. Similarly, I do not want to pass with strong hands that are not trap passes because that is not descriptive. I want to pass only with weak hands or trap passes. That is how I play the game, the mere mortal that I am, I try to give partner the best description of my hand. I don't bypass 5 card suits for 3 card suits, my negative Xs do not promise rebids, I do not pass 2D because I have a stiff heart if I have some values, I just submit to the establishment and do my best. I'm not as enlightened as you, sir, sorry.

[kenrexford]

This is a good set of hands, all very distributional. On one, with a stiff in the overcalled suit, and three-card spade support, 2S seems automatic.

 

I can easily propose other hand types that cause additional problems if you insist upon bidding clubs, though.

 

KQxx-xx-AJxx-xxx is a simple one.

What about KQxxx-xx-Axx-xxx?

Or, perhaps Kxxx-x-AQxx-Qxxx?

 

How high do we go in notrump? How high do we go in clubs?

 

Consider that the actual hand was xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx. Unless we play in notrump, this is a functional 11-count in support of clubs, bid at the three-level. We have no assured club fit, and we bypassed 2NT. How does this make sense? When opener has the ability to reopen with a double, it seems best to my thinking for the free-doubler to have a prepared action. That seems to be, in the actual auction:

 

1. Heart tolerance, or

2. Ability to bid 2NT (10-11 or so HCP), or

3. Ability to rebid spades, or

4. Ability to complete pattern with 3C.

 

Maybe this is absurd.

[Finch]

I happen to agree with ken. Sorry.

I play a very simple agreement: I treat 1H (2D) x as if partner had responded 1S and the next hand had overcalled 2D. 3C thus shows extra values (though not necessarily a game force). What's more I believe this is standard in England among those who have actually discussed it.

[Codo]

It allways depends on your X: If your double just shows Spade, you must sit wait and pray like Ken.

If you play it like the majority (it is the majority, isn`t it?), that you have Spades and CLUBS OR a rebid after any bid from Pd, you have no problem with a 3 Club rebid from pd.

With the Hands from Ken, some 4342, you simply bid 2 or 3 NT or you pass and wait for pds reopening.

And in most cases, he will reopen, because he is short in their suit.

 

Very simple and not many 5-0 fits included.

[kenrexford]

Apparently the entire country of England, bridge players that is, offends Mr. Lall for being ridiculous intermediate cads?

[whereagles]

I would say the "default" is that 3♣ does not promise extras. That is how I'd interpret it if it happened at my table.

 

A good-bad 2NT works wonders here, though.

[kenrexford]

If 3C does not show extra strength, then what does Opener do with extra strength? The range for a heart-club two-suited opening is perhaps 10 to 20 HCP's. If 3C could be bid on 10, do you bypass 3NT to bid 4C with 14-15? Do you cuebid, then bid 4C with 16+? All with four clubs.

 

By asking this, I am not trying to trap you. I play with "mere mortals" from an American perspective, and against them. So, I beg your indulgence to explain the theory on rebids by Opener in this situation.

 

What is the rebid with:

 

(A) xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx

(:) Kx-Axxxx-x-A10xxx

© Kx-AKxxx-x-A10xxx

(D) Kx-AKxxx-Qx-AKxx

(E) Kx-AKxxx-x-AKxxx

[Codo]

Hi Ken, from mortal European to mortal European:

 

(A) xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx 3 Club

( Kx-Axxxx-x-A10xxx 3 Club

© Kx-AKxxx-x-A10xxx 3 Diamond

(D) Kx-AKxxx-Qx-AKxx 3 Diamond

(E) Kx-AKxxx-x-AKxxx 4 Club, RCKB for Club in my partnership), else, I have to bid 3 Diamond and maybe find problems later.

 

For a take-out double of 2 Diamond, pd expects 8+ HCPs 4 spades, 4 clubs and few diamonds, or a hand, which does not fit in another bid, f.e. too strong for a NT bid, or ?

So all your given hands are quite unlikely, becuase the opss will have a lot of diamonds between them.

In real life, Pd more often looks at something like 4531 or 2524 and is very happy, that you have offered him two places to play and not just Spades...

[cherdano]

I happen to agree with ken. Sorry.

I play a very simple agreement: I treat 1H (2D) x as if partner had responded 1S and the next hand had overcalled 2D. 3C thus shows extra values (though not necessarily a game force). What's more I believe this is standard in England among those who have actually discussed it.

Hmm, I suppose you don't pass with the same hands on the two auctions? :)

Seriously, I assume you rebid 2♥ after 1H (2D) x (P) most of the time when you would pass after 1H (p) 1S (2D)? Anyway, to my intuition the two auctions look very different.

 

Also, does this mean that you would usually double after 1H (2D) with, say, a 4243 hand with 8 points or so? I would think in the style explained by Justin (which I would have thought of as normal), one would have to wait for better takeout shape.

 

Arend

[david_c]

Apparently the entire country of England, bridge players that is, offends Mr. Lall for being ridiculous intermediate cads?

Oi! There's no need for this cheap point-scoring, and as an Englishman I would appreciate it if you left us out of it.

[han]

With 5-5 in hearts and clubs I would always bid 3C over the negative double.

 

I agree with Arend that this auction is quite different from 1H-(p)-1S-(2D) as you don't have pass available.

[mikeh]

Another good topic! A seemingly common auction, yet one that I suspect few players have explicitly discussed, even in quite seasoned partnerships.

 

To me, both sides have valid points, and neither is absurd. I do disagree with the notion that the posted sequence is analogous to 1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♦). It may make life easier to agree to play them as similar, but they are fundamentally different.

 

My own interpretation of the posted sequence is closer to Ken's than to Justin's, as I read their posts.

 

One point that no-one has yet raised, as far as I can see, is that opener may wish to take into account that responder may have a weak hand with a long ♠ suit: I assume that we are not playing negative free bids (lest anyone take this as a pitch for nfb, I think they come with a huge price at imps and thus do not use them).

 

I know that there are two schools of thought for what 2♠ shows directly: I believe that I am in the minority in that for me it is a game force, but even the majority would double and then bid ♠ with, say, an 8 count and a 6 card suit.

 

So I like 3♣ to show some extras. It is not a high-level reverse in the sense of a standard 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ sequence, where 2♦ shows 10+ and 3♣ establishes a gf. But it is, say, a king extra in terms of playing values (which may be distributional rather than high card).

 

This does mean that I will sometimes reach a 5-1 fit when responder passes 2♥. I would question the chances of it being a 5-0 fit: it is difficult to construct realistic hands on which opener rebids 2♥ and responder has a clear double and pass under those constraints (please note, I said difficult, not impossible, so there is no need to post examples :P )

 

However, show me the player who claims that his methods avoid all problems in competitive auctions and I will show you a liar B)

 

As for the availability of a cue or a jump for all forcing hands, that may be true, but I am not suggesting that 3♣ shows a forcing hand. Given that the double can be made with modest values, there will be a family of hands for opener that are 'extra values' yet not sufficient to create a force, especially before establishing a fit. And the jump to 4♣ should be reserved for hands with no tolerance for 3N or a spade contract opposite a long suit with a poor hand.

 

For me, 3♣ fills that gap, while 2♥ is a default bid. For those seeking analogies to other auctions, consider 1♥ 2♦ 2♥: for me this does not promise 6: it is the default bid with no ability to make another, more descriptive, bid. Yes, I know the analogy is flawed :D

[Finch]

To me, both sides have valid points, and neither is absurd. I do disagree with the notion that the posted sequence is analogous to 1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♦). It may make life easier to agree to play them as similar, but they are fundamentally different.

I agree they aren't the same and it was a somewhat poor analogy. Opener can either pass or double 2D in the other sequence which takes away the need for a default bid).

 

I was trying to say that in general, if I open at the 1-level, the next hand overcalls and partner makes a take-out double promising, the way I play it, exactly one suit, then opener's rebids are pretty much as if partner had responded in that suit at the 1-level.

 

So I'm thinking of the sequences

 

1m - (1S) - x (promising 4 hearts)

1S - (2m) - x (promising 4 hearts)

1H - (2m) - x (usually promising 4 spades)

1m- (1H) - x (in the partnership where this promises 4 spades)

 

So to take this sequence, 1H (2D) x, I try and rebid as if partner has responded 1S. Except that I'm at the 2-level, so the strength I have for higher bids is similar to that when RHO overcalled 2D over partner's 1S bid: 3C shows extras but isn't game forcing; 2H is neutral; 2NT shows balanced extra values (I don't play good/bad in this sequence and I don't open 1NT on all 5332s).

 

Agreed, if you play that 1H (2D) x promises both spades and clubs, then opener has a much easier time in the rebid department, but then responder is a bit stuck on a number of hands.

 

For the sequences where I believe responder has promised both unbid suits

- 1C (1D) x and 1H (1S) x - then opener is free to bid a level higher, as he is simply raising partner (1H (1S) x (2S) 3C just shows a hand that wants to compete in clubs).

[awm]

Over 1♥-2♦:

 

KQxx-xx-AJxx-xxx is an easy pass for me. Partner will virtually always balance with my holding such long diamonds. I don't feel obligated to double if I will have trouble with the followups. On the rare occasion that partner doesn't double, we likely have only 22-24 combined points and the opponents are probably playing in a 6-card fit (maybe 7) so I see no particular reason that our 2NT partial needs to score better than defending undoubled.

 

KQxxx-xx-Axx-xxx? I will pass on this hand also. Double will not work out all that well in either style. While it's certainly true that I wouldn't want to double and hear 3♣, doubling and hearing a 2♥ bid that's frequently five isn't much better. We still could have an 8-card spade fit, or a heart fit, and I don't know whether to bid spades (might be passed in a 5-1 when we have 8 hearts) or raise hearts (might play 5-2 at the three-level) or just pass (might play 5-2 fit with a making 4♠ game). Pass and partner will normally balance with six hearts, and will also balance with many hands including three spades (say 3-5-2-3 or 3-5-1-4). The only time double is really better than pass is when partner has four spades and too many diamonds to balance. I'd say this is rare.

 

Perhaps Kxxx-x-AQxx-Qxxx? Another easy pass of 2♦ (see hand one).

 

I should note that my negative doubles don't strictly show "8+ points and 4+♠" in this auction. I tend to double quite light (even 6-7 points) holding shortness in the opposing suit. I will pass hands even up to 10-11 points with length/strength in the opposing suit, since partner will balance. Many of your "bad example" hands for opener involve extreme shortage in diamonds; this is quite rare in my style unless doubler is holding serious values, since otherwise the opponents seem to have a 10-card diamond fit but yet no raise.

 

After the negative double:

 

xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx: I'd try 2♥ with the strong suit and wasted values in diamonds. I don't think 3♣ is wrong per se, but staying low (and undoubled) with bad hands is key. Change the hand to something like xx KQxxx xx AQTx and I will bid 3♣ though.

 

Kx-Axxxx-x-A10xxx: 3♣ is clear.

 

Kx-AKxxx-x-A10xxx: I'd also bid 3♣ on this hand; opposite a non-heart fit it is a trick better than the preceding hand, but I am not happy to force game opposite a negative double. Note that given my diamond singleton, I expect partner to have game-going values for the negative double anyway (well unless partner has short diamonds also, in which case 3♣ is hardly going to end the bidding).

 

Kx-AKxxx-Qx-AKxx: Clear 3♦ call. Game values, want to find 3NT when it's right.

 

Kx-AKxxx-x-AKxxx: 4♣, partner will normally have a fit here (or if not, six spades) and in any case this is a very slammish hand. I don't expect partner to "negative double" with diamond length unless holding a lot extra, which helps here.

 

While it can be somewhat problematic to respond 3♣ on both the second and third hands, how is this worse than the rebid problem you'd face holding:

 

Qxx AQJxxx Kxx x

x KJxxx Qxx AQxx

 

Are both these 2♥ bids for you? How do you like your chances of reaching the right spot when partner has a minimum double? Seems like if partner bids 3♣ often you could be totally stuck on the first hand, if partner passes 2♥ often you are totally stuck on the second hand.

 

My feeling is that the US standard style Justin and I prefer is better when doubler has either a weak hand short in the opposing suit (most likely opener's rebid names the best fit) or when doubler has a game force (opener describes shape, no need to scramble for a forcing call over the 2♥ temporizing bid). Your style works better when doubler has an invitational hand (note that all your bad examples for the standard style are invitational-range hands), especially when the invite includes a bunch of cards in the enemy suit (meaning no fit for clubs). However, I don't tend to double with the invitational hands with a bunch of cards in the enemy suit, which really removes them from the equation. Also, the US standard style has the nice property of reaching the best fit virtually all the time, even if it's a level higher than it strictly should be (even if I doubled on the example hands I'd reach the right strain, just might play 3♥ instead of 2♥ or 3NT instead of 2NT). I don't see this working out for your methods, which avoid game when you're light on points but could easily play the wrong partial on those hands.

[Walddk]

If you play it like the majority (it is the majority, isn`t it?), that you have Spades and CLUBS OR a rebid after any bid from Pd, you have no problem with a 3 Club rebid from pd.

How do you know that you represent the majority? I don't think you do actually; among the majority of experts, double shows spades, and spades only. Hence 3♣ shows extras.

 

Another interesting auction is:

 

1♣ (1♠) X (pass)

2♦

 

This is a reverse to me because responder has shown nothing but hearts. Incidentally, I don't play 2♦ as necessarily natural, but a reverse it is. On this auction either natural or a hand too good for a 3♣ rebid. I know we have been through all this in a thread a few months ago.

 

Roland

[Finch]

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

[Walddk]

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

I don't think this was meant for me. It's a clear double in both cases, and in your second example it's purely coincidental that responder has clubs too.

 

Roland

[Finch]

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

I don't think this was meant for me. It's a clear double in both cases, and in your second example it's purely coincidental that responder has clubs too.

 

Roland

No, it was aimed at awm. Sorry, should have added a quote in.