Two negative double questions

[han]

In a team match yesterday I had the following hand:

 

K109x

Jxxx

Qxxx

x

 

Partner opened 1C and RHO overcalled 1S. Would you double? Is it a close decision?

 

My next question is about what you would do with the following hand after the same auction:

 

xxx

QJx

K10xx

AJx

 

Is double an option for you? Would you ever double with this shape?

[mikeh]

That's 4 negative double questions, Han.. not two B) Twice as much work as I was expecting!

 

On the first (two): yes, I would double, and yes this is very close, but this is just a tad too good to pass and bidding 1N is wrong.. we can get back to notrump (sometimes) when it is right.. we can never get hearts if I bid notrump (unless partner has 5).

 

On the second (two): double should be an option, and I would consider it, but for me I might try pass and then, if lucky enough to hear partner reopen, cuebid. The danger with this is that LHO might raise or partner might not reopen.... the latter point is not likely to be a disaster at imps, since we rate to be thin for 3N.

[pclayton]

1. Yes I would double and yes its very close. If I pass, the auction can get a little awkward.

 

2. This is a classic problem. In the MSC this genre is usually solved by a pass and a cuebid, or raising the minor with 3. I prefer the former. I would have to have a stronger heart fragment to make a negative x.

[han]

You are right Mike, I slipped in 4 questions for the price of 2! Here are some more:

 

On the second hand, doesn't the pass-cuebid route usually show a penalty pass? If you do pass, what would you do if partner reopens with a double?

 

How do you feel about the relative merits of double, 2D and 2S on that hand?

[mikeh]

You are right Mike, I slipped in 4 questions for the price of 2! Here are some more:

 

On the second hand, doesn't the pass-cuebid route usually show a penalty pass? If you do pass, what would you do if partner reopens with a double?

 

How do you feel about the relative merits of double, 2D and 2S on that hand?

pass followed by a cue, when partner reopens with a double does not show a penalty pass... pass shows that hand B)

 

As Phil pointed out, the pass then cue is a well-recognized method of showing this sort of hand: no side 4 card major (no negative double), no 4+ support for partner (no cue bid over the overcall), no stopper (no notrump bid over the overcall).. and yet enough values to force to the 3-level when partner reopens with a double.

 

I have never liked this method... the only thing going for it is that it may be better than the alternative... the negative double when, if partner bids hearts, we are in a moysian with the long hand being tapped.

 

The approach is the same regardless of whether partner reopens with a double or a (non-notrump) bid.

 

As I observed in my first post, the main problem with the approach, other than getting too high, is that LHO may raise. If he does, and it goes P P, then I think that double should show this hand. Using it this way means that you give up on the penalty double... but, if you have a hand that wants to play for a penalty double at the one-level, it will be a rare hand on which LHO freely raises the overcall (and when he does, maybe your penalty double wasn't going to be as good as you had thought).

 

This would be a good topic to discuss with a regular partner

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes, neg. is an Option, and the neg. X would be my bid

#2 yes, but for me the neg. X does not gurantee a 4 card

major, so I am able to cancel the message, that I have

one

If the neg. X does gurantee a 4 card suit, ... well I would

bid the X anyway.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

I double on the first and pass on the second. I hate doubling on hands like the second even though a lot of people do it. If partner passes the hand out the odds are overwhelming he has a balanced minimum with three or four spades, we won't be missing game.

[rogerclee]

I really dislike passing on the second hand.

 

Here are some problems I foresee with passing on a hand this strong:

 

With 11 points I do not share jdonns view that we are unlikely to miss a game if partner passes out 1S with a balanced 13 or 14.

 

Also, what is the plan after 1C 1S p 2S p p ? Does double all of the sudden show this hand and not a trap pass? I don't buy that. If we balance with 2N for the minors we are not showing a hand nearly this strong (and might bid that way with x xxx QJxxx Jxxx or similar).

 

What is the plan after 1C 1S p 3S p p ? We have a monster now but have no clue what to do. Whatever we do will be a guess.

 

What is the plan after 1C 1S p 2H p p ? Again, we have no way to show our hand.

 

What is the plan after 1C 1S p p 2C? If we cuebid our hand will sound like a trap pass. Are we going to drive to game after partner reopens with 2C since our hand is so good and a cuebid does not convey a hand this strong, or a hand that is like this. If so we are doing so unilaterally.

 

Also, should we have a slam I expect it to be very hard to bid it accurately after we start wtih pass unless we get to bid uncontested (which will be unlikely since slam is usually good opposite a stiff spade which means the opps will keep bidding). Even if we get to pass and then cuebid over a double, would we not bid this way with the same hand type and a 10 count? What about a 9 count? I would argue that if the range is 9-10 for that auction (which it would be for me, since I would never pass with 11) then we are too strong and partner might misjudge anyways. I would argue that if the range is 9-11 then that range is too wide. To me this hand with 11 points is not similar to this hand with 9 points where passing is certainly fine.

[rogerclee]

1 more thing, when partner passes out 1S he doesn't only do so with balanced hands, he could pass out hands that are unbalanced with 4 spades that are quite strong, ie AKxx K Jxx KQxxx, AQJx Axx J Kxxxx etc type hands, he could pass out hands with 14-16 and 4S 5C very easily.

 

Maybe none of these risks is that likely individually but they all add up. I don't really find making a negative double that distasteful, and I don't even mind bidding 2D that much. I think both of those bids have less downside. Obviously just my opinion. Obviously every bid has some downside.

[peachy]

I Dbl on first and it is not close.

I Pass on second and this is almost painful, as it alwys is with this sort of hand in this auction. If my hearts resembled a "suit", I might lie and Dbl anyway, but i think Pass is best even then.

[Edmunte1]

I would pass on first, I would double on second

[jdonn]

Also, what is the plan after 1C 1S p 2S p p ? Does double all of the sudden show this hand and not a trap pass? I don't buy that. If we balance with 2N for the minors we are not showing a hand nearly this strong (and might bid that way with x xxx QJxxx Jxxx or similar).

 

What is the plan after 1C 1S p 3S p p ? We have a monster now but have no clue what to do. Whatever we do will be a guess.

Serious question, not sarcastic. What would balancing with 3♣ and 4♣ mean to you on those auctions?

[mikeh]

1 more thing, when partner passes out 1S he doesn't only do so with balanced hands, he could pass out hands that are unbalanced with 4 spades that are quite strong, ie AKxx K Jxx KQxxx, AQJx Axx J Kxxxx etc type hands, he could pass out hands with 14-16 and 4S 5C very easily.

 

Maybe none of these risks is that likely individually but they all add up. I don't really find making a negative double that distasteful, and I don't even mind bidding 2D that much. I think both of those bids have less downside. Obviously just my opinion. Obviously every bid has some downside.

I think we all recognize that pass and cue is not a panacea.

 

BTW, I do think that a reopening double after LHO raises and it goes P P to you is, on the basis of frequency (even adjusted for size of gain) best used as this hand-type rather than a penalty double... I will gladly trade you all of your penalty double hands on such a sequnce for my ability to make a card showing reopening rather than be committed to either the negative double or 2♦.

 

The negative double has problems that are self-evident.. it is really a question of subjective assessment as to whether these problems are less or more costly than the pass and cue solution.

 

But I find the idea of bidding 2♦ to be, to put it mildly, bizarre.

 

The potential problems are both significant and numerous, but itemizing them requires consensus on whether we are promising another bid, or, if not, what bids are we permitted to pass?

 

I would, for example, be ok with the idea that I pass 2N. But, if we accept that, we have to ask how partner handles various 15-16 point hands with a stopper and an unbalanced hand..

 

But I think the most damning comment on 2♦ is that it is a forcing, natural call, suggesting a trump suit, on a hand where almost the worst news we can get is a raise.

[rogerclee]

The potential problems are both significant and numerous, but itemizing them requires consensus on whether we are promising another bid, or, if not, what bids are we permitted to pass?

I think "expert standard" is that raising, rebidding your suit, and bidding 2N are all non forcing. I know some people (kokish) think that 2N should be forcing which is a reasonable and maybe superior agreement, but I don't think it is standard. Yes this leaves the cuebid a bit overloaded, but you need some way to stop in partscore if 2D just requires 10 or 11 points.

 

 

I would, for example, be ok with the idea that I pass 2N. But, if we accept that, we have to ask how partner handles various 15-16 point hands with a stopper and an unbalanced hand..

 

He would either cuebid or bid 3N obviously. Are you arguing against a non forcing 2N or something? If so that's fine, but it is not really relevant here unless you think a forcing 2N is standard. I agree that if I cannot pass 2N then 2D becomes significantly worse/unbiddable.

 

But I think the most damning comment on 2♦ is that it is a forcing, natural call, suggesting a trump suit, on a hand where almost the worst news we can get is a raise.

 

So what you're trying to say is 2D overstates our diamonds? Obviously I agree, and we are misdescribing our hand by bidding 2D for that reason. However, it is a nonsensical argument that we should not make a bid if the worst news we can hear is partner raising that bid. It is completely arbitrary to say "We should not make a bid when the worst rebid partner can make is raising it, but we can make a bid if the worst thing he can do is some other bid." and really has no logical basis.

 

A better argument would be that by misdescribing our hand we increase the likelihood of getting to the wrong contract. However this is an instance where we have to misdescribe our hand, and we just have to pick which lie will give us the best chance to get to the right contract. FWIW I prefer double, but I also prefer 2D to passing.

 

Since everyone else was passing and not really mentioning it's downsides, I felt the need to mention why I disliked it in order to stir up some debate! :)

[jdonn]

However this is an instance where we have to misdescribe our hand, and we just have to pick which lie will give us the best chance to get to the right contract.

Sorry if I'm being picky. I don't think pass is a misdescription, since I don't think it shows anything other than "doesn't fit any other bid", and has no real official maximum. Obviously that doesn't mean pass is the best choice though, since it's perfectly reasonable to believe some other choice, despite being a "lie", increases the odds of achieving the best result. But I think the question is, do we choose a misdescription rather than pass and if so which one, not which misdescription do we choose.

 

Honestly I don't feel that strongly anyway. This is very borderline, although with a little less I would think pass is clear. Probably the cutoff on hands like this should be, if you would invite after a 1NT rebid by partner then you shouldn't pass, and this looks like an invite, so maybe I should do something.

[fred]

I would Pass with the first hand. I think it is fairly close. If you moved my 109 of spades to my heart suit I would Double.

 

This may sound bizarre, but I prefer 2C with the second hand. I have been doing this for several years and it seems to work OK. My second choice would be to Double (and I think it is close). I don't like Pass much and I don't like 2D at all.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

This may sound bizarre, but I prefer 2C with the second hand. I have been doing this for several years and it seems to work OK.

I have only one partner who loved to do that, but to me the problem is as opener I loved to bid 1♣ 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ 3♣ because the opponents so often bid 3♠. However, several times doing this I found myself in a 4-3 fit! So this certainly did not get good results with me, although I can easily be faulted for that :)

 

I guess I have never understood why choose 2♣. If your goal is finding game, DBL > 2♣ and 2♦ > 2♣ since you can show an invitational strength hand. If your goal is to go plus, I would definitely argue pass is at least as good as 2♣ if not better, since the opponents are probably in a 6 or 7 card fit with a minority of the strength if 1♠ is passed out. I have heard players say things like 'my strength compensates for my missing trump', which never made much sense to me, and anyway is just as good an argument for a double.

[TimG]

Sorry if I'm being picky. I don't think pass is a misdescription, since I don't think it shows anything other than "doesn't fit any other bid"

Back when Roth invented the negative double, his definition was something very much like "doesn't fit any other bid".

[helene_t]

First one I like to double but this is something to discuss with p. Shogi would not like me to double with this hand so with him I would pass.

 

Second one I think is very close to 2♠ but I must be crazy since nobody else considers that. I think I will go with 2♣ though.

[han]

I picked up this hand on a Dutch bridge forum. I was the lone doubler there, others voted for 2D, 2S and also one 1NT. I have found that pass is rarely an option for Dutch bridge players.

[cherdano]

Sorry if I'm being picky. I don't think pass is a misdescription, since I don't think it shows anything other than "doesn't fit any other bid"

Back when Roth invented the negative double, his definition was something very much like "doesn't fit any other bid".

Well, the negative double today should really have a different name than Roth's negative double.

The double today says "I have 4 hearts, enough values to bid, and not a penalty pass.".

[dake50]

On both hands, I think the S-stop/no S-stop is paramount.

Hand 1 has stop so 1NT even shy a Q. This doesn't bar partner showing good hearts.

Hand 2 is cue 2S asking S-stop /or where? Again light, but focusing on S-stop.

[cherdano]

I would pass with the first hand and double with the second.

[Codo]

I rerally don`t care about the first hand. Double and pass are fine, maybe 1 NT can work on a good day too. I would double.

 

The second hand is a problem: In my regular partnership we play that 2 NT here shows a club raise inv. or better, so the cuebid is free to show a hand which cannot been shown different- most likely this hand type, because we have non forcing bids with 2 ♦♥ and forcing bids with 3 ♦♥ for one suiters. The first proirity in the answer is to show a spade stopper with 2 NT (11-13) or 3 NT (around 14-16).

 

Of course this creates some other problems, but up to now it serves us well.

[hotShot]

I picked up this hand on a Dutch bridge forum. I was the lone doubler there, others voted for 2D, 2S and also one 1NT. I have found that pass is rarely an option for Dutch bridge players.

I would expect that in a Dutch bridge forum. They have a strong Acol background there, where 2♦ would just be promising (9)10+ HCP an 4♦'s.