Take-out double after 1c-(1d)-

[cnszsun]

1♣-(1♦)-dbl

 

Playing simple natural system, i've been taught that double should show 4-4 in both majors. With only one major, you can bid it. But i've found a lot of players making double with 4-3 in majors.

Am i wrong or there are two different schools?

[Gerben42]

I think that's two different schools. Personally I think having Dbl show 4+4+ majors is nice on information value but a bit too low frequency for the cheapest bid. If you triple the frequency by allowing:

 

4 - 4

4 - 3

3 - 4

 

then it's much nicer. Alternatively use a convention :blink:

[helene_t]

I don't think 4-3 is very helpful unless you're short in diamonds so that partner can ruff at the short side if he plays in a 4-3 fit. If that's the agreement, there may be an inference that you have at least 3-card club support, so that opener can rebid a 5-card. But next time you're 4441, I suppose you can double with that distribution as well.

[Gerben42]

Well you don't PLAY the 4-3 fit yet, of course, it's just the start of the auction.

[mike777]

1♣-(1♦)-dbl

 

Playing simple natural system, i've been taught that double should show 4-4 in both majors. With only one major, you can bid it. But i've found a lot of players making double with 4-3 in majors.

Am i wrong or there are two different schools?

ya exactly 4-4 here.

1) with 4-5 I still play reverse flannery on over 1D or just bid one spade with invite+

2) with 54 I just bid one heart.

3) with 43 or 34 I bid the 4 card suit.

[helene_t]

Well you don't PLAY the 4-3 fit yet, of course, it's just the start of the auction.

Well, if I don't intend to pass partner's bid in my 3-card, why promise a 3-card at all? Some play double as a 4-card in either major, then a bid in a major shows 5+.

[LH2650]

The writeup on negative doubles that may be found on the ACBL website, as well as Mike Lawrence's "Contested Auctions" book, support the 4-4 major interpretation. I think that this should be considered standard, but I do know good players who require a 5 card suit to bid.

[skjaeran]

The standard meaning of double here is exactly 4-4 in the majors.

With only one four card suit, it's standard to bid it at the 1-level.

With 5-4, it's standard to bid the 5-card suit. Some play flannery or reverse flannery, but that's not standard.

 

Personally, I use transfers here. Double show 4+ ♥ and denies 4♠ (I can have 5♠+6♥). 1♥ show 4+♠. 1♠ show exactly 4♠ and 4+ ♥.

[effervesce]

Sort of on this topic- has anybody here had any experience playing 1C-(1D)-X or 1m-(1M)-X as DENYING a 4 card major??

 

Robson/Segal say that this is a better structure for 1m-X but I've never tried it-and is supposed to be good for 5 card major systems where you cant freely raise opener's minor, but I've never played it and thus dont know whether it is better than the standard interpretation of the X as a takeout double here.

 

Their examples include

1C-(1H)

and you hold Kxx xxx xxx AJxx or Ax Jxx Qxx Kxxxx where (if you play normal t/o doubles) you dont really have a good bid.

[helene_t]

The standard meaning of double here is exactly 4-4 in the majors.

With only one four card suit, it's standard to bid it at the 1-level.

With 5-4, it's standard to bid the 5-card suit. Some play flannery or reverse flannery, but that's not standard.

I don't think so. A weak 5h4s starts with a double and then bids 2♥ next time if possible. A strong hand starts with 1♥, planning to reverse.

[Finch]

Sort of on this topic- has anybody here had any experience playing 1C-(1D)-X or 1m-(1M)-X as DENYING a 4 card major??

 

Robson/Segal say that this is a better structure for 1m-X but I've never tried it-and is supposed to be good for 5 card major systems where you cant freely raise opener's minor, but I've never played it and thus dont know whether it is better than the standard interpretation of the X as a takeout double here.

 

Their examples include

1C-(1H)

and you hold Kxx xxx xxx AJxx or Ax Jxx Qxx Kxxxx where (if you play normal t/o doubles) you dont really have a good bid.

In one partnership I play 1C (1D) x as denying a 4-card major and promising 4 clubs, balanced, unsuitable to bid 1NT. I play 1m (1H) x as denying four spades. (However I play 1m - 1S - x as (nearly) promising four hearts, as it's important to be able to show the heart suit somehow).

 

In the other regular partnership I play the 'standard' way where 1C (1D) x shows 4-4 in the majors and 1m (1H) x shows exactly four spades.

 

After 15 years or so of each partnership I have no strong feelings about which is better.

 

I think that the Scandinavian approach of 1m (1H) x shows 4+ spades and 1m (1H) 1S denies four spades (so opener declares both the 4-4 spade fit and 1NT) is cute, and probably better than x denies 4 spades, 1S shows 4+, but it's only just become legal in the UK and I haven't tried it out yet.

[Edmunte1]

I play x= exactly 4♥ and 4♠. I also played x=4+♥, 1♥=4+♠, 1♠=8+ hcp, no 4M, which works well too

[skjaeran]

The standard meaning of double here is exactly 4-4 in the majors.

With only one four card suit, it's standard to bid it at the 1-level.

With 5-4, it's standard to bid the 5-card suit. Some play flannery or reverse flannery, but that's not standard.

I don't think so. A weak 5h4s starts with a double and then bids 2♥ next time if possible. A strong hand starts with 1♥, planning to reverse.

Well, probably the standard differs from country to country. Your way of doubling with 4♠5♥ and rebid 2♥ is obviously based on the same reasoning as 1♠=4♠4+♥ in my non-standard methods, where we're both able to rebid 2♥. :lol:

[skjaeran]

Sort of on this topic- has anybody here had any experience playing 1C-(1D)-X or 1m-(1M)-X as DENYING a 4 card major??

 

I've never played double in the first sequence as denying a 4 card major. Neither 1m (1♠) x as denying 4♥'s. The latter I really can't see will work at all - how are you supposed to show 4♥'s?

 

I've played 1m (1♥) x as denying 4♠'s for several years (until 2.5 years ago). It's simple, and works reasonably well. You don't need to work hard on follow-ups - it's playable with a pick-up partner.

 

I think that the Scandinavian approach of 1m (1H) x shows 4+ spades and 1m (1H) 1S denies four spades (so opener declares both the 4-4 spade fit and 1NT) is cute, and probably better than x denies 4 spades, 1S shows 4+, but it's only just become legal in the UK and I haven't tried it out yet.

 

This is how I've played it for a couple of years now. For us it followed logically from playing with transfer responses over 1♣ - it seemed logical to use the transfer philosophy over a 1♥ overcall in the same way as over a 1♦ overcall. It's easier to distinguish between 3- and 4-card support for opener - 1♠ by opener show 3 card ♠'s and "raise" to 2♠ shows 4 (and a minimum). So opener might play the 5-3 fit, the 4-4 fit and NT (most of the time).

[jchiu]

I have had the dual of this debate with echognome, who is currently starting his new job as a Senior Tax Transfer Pricing Analyst for Price Waterhouse Coopers.

 

We first asked the same question: what should a negative double over 1♣ (1♦) show?

 

We quickly agreed that it should show at least 4-4 in the majors. The primary advantage resulted from being able to promptly being able to determine our degree of fit. Whether opener had a strong hand, and could raise to the appropriate level without having to cuebid and allowing the opponents to suggest rather than unilaterally take a profitable sacrifice. With a competitive hand, opener has the opportunity to bid on the two-level or using good-bad 2NT without worrying that his partnership has no 4-4 fit anywhere.

 

There are disadvantages disallowing 4-3 and 3-4 in the majors, but they are comparatively small. The solution is to bid the four-card major as if the overcaller passed instead. Here, we are only slightly worse off when responder has a one-bid hand with a single five-card major. But opener can choose to raise on three-card support (after advancer passes), or to trot out the competitive double (after advancer raises). Only in the former case does the degree of fit become concealed, and in the latter case is opener's precise strength partially concealed. But this is rarely noticably worse than if the opponents remained silent to begin with.

 

The real heart of the debate that Matt and I had was: should we use the negative double for 5-4, 4-5, and 5-5 hands?

 

My perspective was: it is fine to use the negative double on 5-4 or 4-5 hands worth only one bid, even though the 5-3 fit may occasionally be concealed. However, if opener "raises" in the five-card suit, it is entirely up to responder to compete further on the three-level or stretch and bid game. I did not really approve of making negative doubles on 5-5 hands, even if they are (substantially) less than invitational strength. This is where I disagreed with Matt, since I thought that doubling would have a large chance of silencing partner, even if he is 3-3 in the majors. Alternately, responding 1♠ as in the uncontested auction would at least encourage partner to compete half the time when he has a reasonable major suit fit.

 

Matt concured with me on the 5-4 hands, but felt that it was much more important to get the 5-5 hands off his chest in one bid. He insisted that it mattered to finding thin games when partner has hearts instead, and claimed that the heart suit may be lost alltogether when partner has 2-3 spades and 4 hearts. He even brought this so far as to try it on ♠ Jxxxx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ xx ♣ x.

[Fluffy]

I have had the dual of this debate with echognome, who is currently starting his new job as a Senior Tax Transfer Pricing Analyst for Price Waterhouse Coopers.

So we can call Matt a STTPAfPWC! (wich makes exactly the same sense to me than the detailed one)