1S (2C) X?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=skq986h32daq5ckj7&s=s72hak984dj632c86]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 Pass  1♠    2♣    Dbl

 Pass  2♦    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

[cherdano]

This is a negative double, almost always with 4 hearts, could have more if too weak to bid 2♥, some values. The less takeout shape you have, the more values you need (with length in clubs and little values you pass).

[pbleighton]

Correct, but you are also showing 4+ hearts. You may have better values if you only have 4 hearts.

 

I would have doubled here.

 

Were I your pd I might have bid 2N here, though it's a stretch. A double after 2C should have 8+ hcp.

 

I would have opened his hand 1NT.

 

Peter

[goobers]

I would have opened his hand 1NT.

 

Peter

Yay, I was afraid I would be tossed into the fire for opening 1NT.

[mike777]

1) Agree one spade not 1nt, xx in H;

2) Agree x not 2H, too weak.

3) Prefer 2nt rebid.

[pbleighton]

Agree one spade not 1nt, xx in H;

 

P***y.

 

:P

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

very normal neg X.

[gwnn]

I prefer a 1NT opener, but 1♠ is just as fine. Both the X and the 2♦ rebids are perfect.

[kenrexford]

The double was "correct" for this hand. However, the definition provided was "incorrect." So, I could not answer the poll well.

 

The incorrect part is that a negative double does not deny ability to bid at the two-level and does not absolutely deny spade support. There are times when a negative double might be made with a very strong hand.

[Fluffy]

The definition of the double is almost perfect IMO, only exception is you might have enough streght, but not a biddable suit (or you can say enough shape, then definition is perfect :)).

 

Double has nothing to do with hearts.

 

2♦ rebid would be my third choice after 2NT and 2♠.

[vuroth]

I get the whole 1♠ vs 1NT thing. Whichever way you prefer to open, though, once partner shows hearts, why are you not immediately thinking NT?

 

5-3-3-2, with partner bidding your short suit, sounds to me like a hand that should be in NT, especially if partner isn't supporting our 5 card suit. 2♦ sounds to me like a request to chose between playing opposite 5♠ or 4♦, if I'm minimum.

 

Am I wrong, or is north saying that their hand is better for suit play than notrump? If that's what's going on, why?

 

V

[bid_em_up]

The double was "correct" for this hand.  However, the definition provided was "incorrect."  So, I could not answer the poll well.

 

The incorrect part is that a negative double does not deny ability to bid at the two-level and does not absolutely deny spade support.  There are times when a negative double might be made with a very strong hand.

I agreed with Ken, which explains why there is one vote for incorrect. I misread the question.

 

The hand is ideal for a neg X. So X is correct as the bid you should make.

 

However, your definition of "correct" is "incorrect", imo. The X does not have to deny 3 spades. It does tend to put more emphasis on the other two suits, though, so if you hold 3 spades you tend to have slighter stronger values for the X (as you will be making a delayed raise of spades later, probably at the three level, if partner does not have hearts).

[hotShot]

The double was "correct" for this hand. However, the definition provided was "incorrect." So, I could not answer the poll well.

 

The incorrect part is that a negative double does not deny ability to bid at the two-level and does not absolutely deny spade support. There are times when a negative double might be made with a very strong hand.

I agree that a neg. double does not deny the ability to bid at 2 level, but i strongly disagree that it could include hands with 3♠ opposite a 5-card ♠ opener.

[foo]

West,All,IMP,

♠KQ986♥32♦AQ5♣KJ7

 

♠72♥AK984♦J632♣86

 

West North East South

 

Pass 1♠ 2♣ Dbl

Pass 2♦ Pass Pass

Pass

If the auction had been Uncontested, it very likely would have gone

 

1S-1N;2D-2S

This is often called a "False preference" since you are at the top of the minimum responding range.

 

Do the same thing here.

1S-(2C)-perfectly normal Neg X;2D-2S

 

If Opener can not take another bid, you aren't likely to be missing any games.

As for the partscore, the 52 will tend to play better than the 43, and you'd rather be in 2M vs 2m.

 

Be warned that some play this Contested auction sequence as showing a 3 card Limit Raise, so discuss this with partner to make sure you are on the same wavelength.

 

 

I have sympathy with those that think Opener should rebid 2N

(this Neg X promises ~8 HCP at least, so Opener knows 15+8= 23= 2N likely to be safe)

OTOH, Responder does not have to have even close to AK98x in H's. They could have xxxx.

Call me old fashioned, but NT bids in Contested auctions should at least be based on a reasonable assumption of a stopper being present.

From Opener's perspective, there are 14 HCP outside of H's unaccounted for and only 10 HCP in H's unaccounted for.

Even if we give the 2C bidder the AQ of C's (and they have to have more than that if they are bidding sanely when their partner has passed), the odds are still ~8:10 that Responder's HCP are not in H's

 

(pa)-1S-(2C)-X;2D may be a tad on the conservative side, but it's not unreasonable given the auction.

[jtfanclub]

Were I your pd I might have bid 2N here, though it's a stretch. A double after 2C should have 8+ hcp.

Is this like a response to 1♣ should have 6+ hcp?

 

'Cause lemme tell you, when all of the minimum responses are at the two level, my partners don't seem to wait for 8 hcp to X. I'm lucky if they wait for 6.

 

But maybe my partners are atypical.

[foo]

Were I your pd I might have bid 2N here, though it's a stretch. A double after 2C should have 8+ hcp.

Is this like a response to 1♣ should have 6+ hcp?

 

'Cause lemme tell you, when all of the minimum responses are at the two level, my partners don't seem to wait for 8 hcp to X. I'm lucky if they wait for 6.

 

But maybe my partners are atypical.

"The book" says

1= Responder's 2NewSuit in a contested auction requires the trick taking strength of the average 10+ HCP and 5+ cards in new suit.

 

2= A Negative X over a 2 level overcall requires the trick taking strength of the average 8+ HCP.

(a Negative X over a 1 level overcall only requires the trick taking strength of the average 6+ HCP)

 

If your partnerships are not adhering to these standards, the wisdom of the majority of experts is that you are living dangerously.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

What "book" are you quoting? Who wrote this "book?"

 

Meckwell bids when they hold 13 cards. They often open 8+HCP in 3rd seat.

 

Meckwell is considered an expert pair by virtually everyone in the know.

 

My partners often make negative doubles after 1S-(2C) with 6+HCP.

 

Regards,

Robert

[pbleighton]

Is this like a response to 1♣ should have 6+ hcp?

 

'Cause lemme tell you, when all of the minimum responses are at the two level, my partners don't seem to wait for 8 hcp to X. I'm lucky if they wait for 6.

 

But maybe my partners are atypical.

 

No question responses have become ligher at the one level. I will respond with 4-5 myself when it looks right to do so. When I respond light, and pd is down in 2NT, I acknowledge responsibity, htough I don't feel too bad. However, I still require more once the opps have bid at the 2 level, especially red at imps. This is common where I play, in the Northeast U.S. After a one level overcall, which is frequently < 10 hcp, we will have more combined hcp than after a two level overcall with usually > 11 hcp.

 

But each to his own :D

 

Peter

[foo]

What "book" are you quoting?  Who wrote this "book?"

 

Meckwell bids when they hold 13 cards.  They often open 8+HCP in 3rd seat.

 

Meckwell is considered an expert pair by virtually everyone in the know.

 

My partners often make negative doubles after 1S-(2C) with 6+HCP.

 

If you have the bidding judgment, playing skills, and track record of a (multiple times) World Champion, you get to decide whether or not the "normal" rules apply to you in any given situation.

 

After all, players of that caliber write "the book" we are talking about.

 

OTOH, if you are a more ordinary mortal...

[jdonn]

I'm with foo on this, it really does show like 8+ on the two level. If someone wants to do it with less based on judgement it's their business, but it's also their fault if they end up too high. I also for the life of me don't see what Meckwell opening on light hands has to do with this, unless someone has evidence beyond mere suspicion of them consistently making negative doubles on the two level on very light hands as well.