Playing normalish 2/1 with a good partner,

[ASkolnick]

I play negative doubles always as "2 places to play including spades" except when I play precision.

 

Not sure why is 2♥ a bad bid? This should show strength in the minors by the following principles.

 

If you have spades, you can always bid x number of spades, at the appropriate level?

 

You can certainly play, 1C-1H-x-P-2S as forcing for one round since partner has one of the following:

 

Normal, spades or drop dead in diamonds. So I would say that 2 Hearts should be a good hand with both minors. Partner can then bid accordingly at the 2 level or raise the minor that he has. If he does not have a minor, he can rebid his spades or NT.

[rogerclee]

So I would say that 2 Hearts should be a good hand with both minors. Partner can then bid accordingly at the 2 level or raise the minor that he has. If he does not have a minor, he can rebid his spades or NT.

LOL

[jdonn]

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

[orlam]

We discussed this auction several months ago and the consensus was that 2♦ was not a reverse.

Really?

[Hanoi5]

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

 

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

 

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

 

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

 

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

[Winstonm]

If my partner has a more pedestrian hand I think he would be disappointed by a reverse.

Could you explain the basis of that comment please?

Sure,

 

I don't think the hand is good enough for a reverse. I think partner will say in the post mortem, that hand wasn't good enough for a reverse. I would answer, you're right, it isn't good enough for a reverse.

[Winstonm]

Why wouldn't you reverse over a 1♠ response, Winston?

I don't think the hand is good enough. I understand it has only 4 losers, but when your strength is in the minors the loser-count is based on an an 11-trick suit contract so partner needs two cover cards (and in this case those must be aces or else they aren't worth much in a suit contract).

[gnasher]

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

 

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

 

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

 

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

 

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

Suppose that you have Kx xx AQxx KJxxx, and the bidding goes

 

  1♣ 1♥ 1♠ pass

 

(where 1♠ shows five). Would you bid 2♦ saying "this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (3x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's"?

 

And if not, why is it different?

[Winstonm]

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

 

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in? This gets to the heart of the question of preparedness in bidding, the reason argued to open 1D when 45 in the minors.

[Codo]

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

... because that is the real problem?

 

How much sense is in the question whether to bid 2 ♦ or 3 ♦ when you know that x shows both unbid suits? Then 2 ♦ obviously shows a much weaker hand.

 

And how much sense is in the question when you know that the double just shows 4 spades? Then 2 ♦ obviously is a reverse.

[jdonn]

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

 

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in?

Nope. What else do you suggest when you are 3334 without a stop? I actually think Qx is a great holding to rebid 1NT, the lack of a raise or (if they let me play it there) spade rebid implies length with partner, so we definitely want to declare from my side.

[jdonn]

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

... because that is the real problem?

 

How much sense is in the question whether to bid 2 ♦ or 3 ♦ when you know that x shows both unbid suits? Then 2 ♦ obviously shows a much weaker hand.

 

And how much sense is in the question when you know that the double just shows 4 spades? Then 2 ♦ obviously is a reverse.

When there is a 1♥ opening, we (at least on a good day) don't get into long discussions about 4+ or 5+ or canape or precision or opening bid styles or everything else that factors into a 1♥ opening bid. Even without precise 100% agreement, we pretty much all know what a 1♥ opener shows.

 

The same for the negative double here. It shows 4 spades. If you play it shows 0-3 spades, or 4+ spades, or it promises diamonds also, then I'm very happy for you. But in that case such a person is not contributing much usefulness to the problem.

[Hanoi5]

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

 

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

 

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

 

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

 

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

Suppose that you have Kx xx AQxx KJxxx, and the bidding goes

 

  1♣ 1♥ 1♠ pass

 

(where 1♠ shows five). Would you bid 2♦ saying "this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (3x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's"?

 

And if not, why is it different?

I bid 2 clubs on that hand. 1♠ doesn't promise diamonds while x sort of does.

[sireenb]

2♦ reverse...

 

I have just read all the other comments and I still think it should be a reverse. With a weak hand 4-5 in the minors I would bid 2C and there is always 1S with 3 cards to show a weak hand

[the hog]

The same for the negative double here. It shows 4 spades. If you play it shows 0-3 spades, or 4+ spades, or it promises diamonds also, then I'm very happy for you. But in that case such a person is not contributing much usefulness to the problem.

Josh, that is absolute bullshit! There are a lot of players who play that the X does not show S, and "Yes" we have had this discussion before, and "yes" some posters here play this and like the idea. If you play that X shows 4S then I am sad for you, but if you like that, thats fine. Degustibus non est disputandum.

 

As Roland says, the meaning of the X is really the crux of the problem. If the op had said x = 4S, then I would totally agree with your comment.

[mike777]

btw there seems to be quite the discussion assuming x=4 spades as opposed to 4s+ if 2d is a strong reverse in the email poll results I got so far to this problem.

 

Perhaps someone can find this auction in a book on negative doubles and quote it? I checked a few old books on the subject and this auction is not quoted.

 

 

Here is a quote from Encyclopedia of Bridge 6th edition (p. 306):

 

1c=(1s)=x=p

?

 

 

"Is North's 2d bid similar to a reverse, promising extra strength, or is it a simple placement of the contract? If South's double promises diamonds, North needs no extra strength to bid 2d; if South promises only hearts, North needs a good hand."

 

I note they used the words, good hand, not a strong reverse which would have been clearer. :)

[jdonn]

Degustibus non est disputandum.

I wasn't arguing what is better (it's clear to me that at least two methods are better than either of those anyway). I was stating what is standard.

 

As Roland says, the meaning of the X is really the crux of the problem. If the op had said x = 4S, then I would totally agree with your comment.

He didn't say 1♣ shows an opening hand either. Somehow I just know anyway.

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxhjdakqxckqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣-1♥-X-P

??[/hv]

Just to confuse things Perhaps 2h is a reasonable option playing with a true pick up WC partner?

[peachy]

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=26840

 

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"

- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.

- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.

- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.

I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

 

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.

1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.

1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).

1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts

and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

 

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

[Winstonm]

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

 

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in?

Nope. What else do you suggest when you are 3334 without a stop? I actually think Qx is a great holding to rebid 1NT, the lack of a raise or (if they let me play it there) spade rebid implies length with partner, so we definitely want to declare from my side.

Josh,

 

Did you misremember the hand? The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.

Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

 

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N. That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

[the hog]

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=26840

 

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"

- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.

- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.

- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.

I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

 

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.

1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.

1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).

1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts

and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

 

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

This might be the normal style in the States. It is not the normal style amongst better tournament players in Australia. Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club. Bridge isn't just played in the USA it might surprise some of you to know.

[jdonn]

Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club.

The thread said 2/1!!! You are going to unbelievable lengths to refuse to admit you could ever be wrong about anything.

[jdonn]

Josh,

 

Did you misremember the hand?  The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.

Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

 

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N.  That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

Yes I misremembered though it's still an easy 1NT bid to me. I would certainly prefer Qx in their suit, that's for sure.

 

Think of it another way. Rebidding 1NT on any hand where you would have passed a 1NT bid by partner takes a TON of pressure off him when he has 4 in the other major and their suit stopped. Partner can be 4-4 in the majors and make his negative double, not worried that 1NT will be missed any time you don't have a spade fit with him.

[andy_h]

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=26840

 

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"

- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.

- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.

- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.

I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

 

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.

1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.

1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).

1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts

and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

 

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

This might be the normal style in the States. It is not the normal style amongst better tournament players in Australia. Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club. Bridge isn't just played in the USA it might surprise some of you to know.

I don't think so. Transfer responses over 1♣ are (slowly) getting through here in Oz, but I have hardly seen any pairs that play transfers over interference including X/1♠ denying 4♠/showing 4+♠ (whichever way you want it). I believe the default is still the normal negative double where X=4♠ and 1♠=5+♠.

[kenberg]

2D

In these games where I am playing with someone with no extensive agreements, which pretty often I am and which i understand to be the case herfe, i try to assess what will probably happen next.

 

It is possible that 2D will be followed by three passes but I don't think that it is likely and if it does happen it is far from a certainty that this will be bad. If 4-4 in the minors I open 1D. Regardless of arguments for or against opening 1D on 4-4, I think that is fairly common and so I think partner will play me for at least five clubs. It would not amaze me if he bids 2NT over 2D. The opponents have bid hearts but they were not raised, and I have one, it seems pretty possible partner has something in hearts that he will want to show. I will not take 2NT as Leb, and even if it is he can probably make some sense of the 3H that I will bid over 2NT.

 

Suppose I bid, instead, 3D and partner bids 3NT. I will pass but I sure hope he has the ace of clubs to go with his major suit stoppers. It seems to me that 2D followed by 3H over 2N shows suitable uncertainty about playing 3NT.

 

My view is that we can haggle over exactly what the negative double promises and how strong 2D is later. For the moment, I expect 2D to be the best bet at getting a good result.