simple question

[Old York]

Playing Sayc 15-17 with 5 card majors makes it imperative that you know how to use negative doubles correctly.

....

The negative double should show all unbid suits in the same way that any take-out double should show all unbid suits, especially if minimum

LOL

Yes..... it is bound to sound like a contradiction if you ignore the bit in the middle

maybe it is too easy to snip that bit out

[helene_t]

However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use

I don't see why playing the double as showing the unbid major only is unsuitable for beginners.

 

People tend to consider the methods they happen to be most familiar with to be the "simplest" and/or most "natural" ones. For example here in UK a lot of people believe that weak notrump is the easiest and most natural approach. Needless to say, most people in strong-notrump countries think the opposite.

 

I suppose a case could be made for playing all doubles as showing either

- support for all unbid suits, or

- a hand too strong an immediate bid

The consequence of that would be that we play negative freebids. Not necessarily a bad idea but AFAIK they are not commonly taught to beginners anywhere.

[Lobowolf]

I don't believe this is the modern style.  You may want to read a thread I started awhile back.  It seems that there are two approaches...

-Echognome

Thanks for the link, very helpful :)

 

However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use

 

The actual example I quoted was from a very well respected text book, altho I doubt that the author uses these recomended methods in high level money games

 

Trying to give advanced methods to novices is a bit like handing a live hand grenade to a child :lol:

 

Tony

Negative doubles show at least one unbid major except specifically over

1♣-(1♦).

 

That's a standard (in the USA, anyway) treatment, and I don't see why it would be unsuitable for novice/intermediate players.

 

 

What bid would you have them make with

♠xx

♥AJxx

♦KTxx

♣Qxx

 

over 1♦-(2♣)?

[Old York]

What bid would you have them make with

♠xx

♥AJxx

♦KTxx

♣Qxx

 

over 1♦-(2♣)?

If you make a negative double with this hand, you will probably survive, but the bid should show both majors. That is the textbook answer (I did not write the textbooks)

 

What really worries me is that beginners are being advised to double with hands like this:

 

♠AJxx

♥Qx

♦KTxx

♣xxx

 

and are also being told that it is ok if opener rebids 2NT, so how can you ever know if 2NT is scrambling or genuine? If 2NT is left in, oppo can take the first 6 tricks, and if you "correct" to 3♦ then you could be in an inferior contract

 

There is no answer, unless you are a regular, experienced partnership. so I still feel that these methods are very dangerous for novice/beginner

I am not saying that these methods should never be used by beginners, only that they fully understand the dangers

 

Tony

[Codo]

3♦ shows extras, and to think otherwise is insane unless you play the double promises diamonds, in which case your definition of double is what's insane.

I agree... and it is no answer to argue that the 'double shows hearts' school is limited to some of the posters.... take a look at who espouses this: it will include ALL the experts! I don't know of a serious player who would assert that 3♦ doesn't show extras...I am sorry if this offends anyone, but that's my view of the probable skill level of anyone who thinks that the double has to deliver diamonds as well as hearts.

 

BTW, this situation is a good advertisement for weak notrump openings, since opener can rebid 2N with a balanced 15-17, not worrying about stoppers because we are in a gf after the negative double of 2♠ opposite a strong notrump... and we have the 3-level in which to sort out the details.

Sorry Mike, this remark is silly and not true.

 

First there are Experts who play the double different from your view (f.e. Chemla-Perron).

 

And second: This is the BI section. So what is right for the experts must not be right for the BIs too.

 

Maybe in the US they teach a different style to newbies, but at least here they teach the BIs that a double shows the unbid suits. You may hate this style, but it is reality for many players, so your remark was totally pointless.

 

The original question was: Does 3♦ shows extra values?

 

You may belive or know that it does show extras to everybody at the Cavendish. You may know that you style is superior. But all these facts or opinions do not answer the question.

[gwnn]

(...)better to wait and see if opener can re-open

He can't reopen.

[rogerclee]

Codo I am a firm believer that if you are a non-expert who wants to play like an expert, you should try your best to play like an expert.

[Codo]

Roger, I see this point, but somehow the teachers here do not agree.

 

Our official system here in Germany f.e starts without transfers but with strong two bids.When you are Interm. you switch to Transfers and Benjamin.

When you are getting beyond this point, you may try any stuff you want.

 

I am no teacher myself, so I have no strong opinions about this, but maybe you should not teach BIs to bid like experts asap.

[Old York]

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields

Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

 

Under standard methods ....

1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits

2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

 

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

 

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

 

Tony

[Lobowolf]

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields

Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

 

Under standard methods ....

1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits

2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

 

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

 

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

 

Tony

Must be different on your side of the pond. 100% Standard in the USA is that the double shows one unbid major (in those auctions where there is an unbid major), except specifically in the auction 1♣-(1♦)-X, where it shows both majors.

 

If responder has exactly one 4 card major in the given auction [1♦-(2♣)-X], he's stuck if he can't double (which is, presumably, why the double doesn't promise both).

 

I'm not sure what textbooks you're referring to when you say both majors is the "textbook answer," but perhaps they're British. I know what the American ones say.

[Lobowolf]

"A negative double at the one level or when there is exactly one unbid major guarantees at least four cards in any unbid major...; otherwise, that requirement is only tentative..."

 

-Bridge World Standard.

[hanp]

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

 

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

[MarkDean]

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

 

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

What would you do with Jxx xxx AQJx Qxx playing standard negative doubles?

[cherdanno]

I don't think anybody plays that double promises both unbid suits. It is playable though to require responder to be prepared for any rebid by opener (i.e. if opener rebids 3D with a minimum, responder will be prepared to play there or to correct to 4C or suggest a 3NT contract).

[helene_t]

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields

Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

 

Under standard methods ....

1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits

2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

 

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

 

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

 

Tony

Must be different on your side of the pond.

No, but it may be related to 4-card majors. I don't know how bridge is taught to beginner's in the UK, but I could understand that when partner's choice of a minor suit opening reduces the chance that he has a 4-card major, responder is under less of an obligation to show a 4-card major by doubling, so the shape requirements for the negative double becomes stronger.

[Old York]

Ron Klinger (Australia) and many other writers suggest that a negative double should always promise both unbid suits after:

1♣-(1♦)

1♦-(2♣)

1♥-(1♠)

1♠-(2♥)

 

After 1♣-(1♠) his example for a minimum negative double is:-

♠T5

♥Q652

♦A983

♣974

This allows opener to support Hearts or Diamonds or re-bid Clubs or NT (if showing 15-19 with spade stopper) in relative safety. Maybe this double could horrify Sayc players who are forced to open 1♣/1♦ on weak balanced hands

 

[unfortunately, he does not go into great detail about other auctions like 1♣-(2♠) ...... but that is unlikely to be covered in non-expert books]

 

If this is only treated as "tentative" then I would be interested to see the text book suggestions for re-bids by opener. How can opener identify responders suit?

 

Tony

p.s. I checked the BBO-FD cards but there were no continuations

[hanp]

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

 

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

[hanp]

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

 

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

What would you do with Jxx xxx AQJx Qxx playing standard negative doubles?

That's an ugly hand, I think I might bid 1NT. I would not double with xxx in hearts. If you were making a point I missed it.

[MarkDean]

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

 

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

What would you do with Jxx xxx AQJx Qxx playing standard negative doubles?

That's an ugly hand, I think I might bid 1NT. I would not double with xxx in hearts. If you were making a point I missed it.

I was trying to make a point, but now that I reread your post, perhaps I misunderstood the reason for your question. So, feel free to disregard.

[Old York]

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

 

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

1/ please read earlier posts where I said that I doubt the author uses these methods in high level money games :D

 

2/ please read the post that you are quoting from, you will see your answer if you look :)

 

Should this all have been originally posted in Sayc - 2/1 or perhaps in Adv - Expert?

 

It seems that the vast majority of posts have little to do with B/I or non-sayc

 

Tony

[Lobowolf]

I think intermediate/novice players should certainly learn about negative doubles. Per BWS and American authors/authorities, and in the absence of other agreements or gadgets, 1♣ - (1♦) - X promises both majors; 1♦ - (2♣) -X does not.

 

This is because there's a simple alternative over 1♣-(1♦) when you only have one major -- bid it!

 

Bidding a 4-card major at the 2-level on moderate values, however, is not a sane option; so the double covers that hand. Are you more likely to be better positioned if you have both majors? Of course. But there is no good alternative if you only have one, so double is it.

[helene_t]

I suppose Klinger writes that 1m-(1♠)-x shows 4+ hearts and says nothing else, at least if it's his 5-card majors book.. It does not necessarily follow that

1♣-(1♠)-x-(p)

2♦

shows extras, though. I would personally prefer to teach beginners that the x is equivalent to a 1♥ response (OK, strictly this is true only if we play Walsh, and although I would also teach Walsh to beginners in an ideal World, I wouldn't in practice because elementary textbooks don't).

Anyway, if the x is equivalent to a 1♥ reverse then 2♦ is a reverse. Then it won't be too difficult to guess that the same holds for the OP.

[the hog]

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

 

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

Nope. Of course rdk doubles.

[NickRW]

No, but it may be related to 4-card majors. I don't know how bridge is taught to beginner's in the UK, but I could understand that when partner's choice of a minor suit opening reduces the chance that he has a 4-card major, responder is under less of an obligation to show a 4-card major by doubling, so the shape requirements for the negative double becomes stronger.

That's right. Strong NT and 5 card majors versus weak NT and 4 card majors makes quite a lot of difference to the likely hand types partner may have when contemplating a negative double and what it might sensibly mean.

[Wackojack]

After reading all the posts carefully, here is the answer:

 

For BI's that play 5 card majors and 15-17 no trump and just follow the text books (i.e. you dont play 2NT scrambling or 2NT lebensohl but you do insist that the double show ♥+♦) then 3♦ does not show extras. And bingo you have found the ♦ 4-4 fit unless you have been forced to bid 3♦ on a 3 card suit when you are in trouble.

 

For BIs that play 4 card majors and 12-14 no trump and as above follow the text books, then 3♦ will show at least 5♣s and 4♦s and so again need not show extras.

 

AE's of course dont follow the text books and play 2NT as scrambling or Lebensohl and double as only guaranteeing ♥s. So whatever system you play, 3♦ will show extras and at least 5♣s and 4♦s and you will be well placed to locate the best contract.

 

For BI's that play 2NT scrambling or 2NT Lebensohl and play double as guaranteeing ♥ only, then 3♦ should show extras but you could be in trouble because you are playing with a live grenade. :unsure: