simple question

[Lobowolf]

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.

"The textbooks" (at least all of the ones I've seen, although those are primarily (though not exclusively) American ones) do NOT say that the double promises diamonds.

 

BI's who play 5-card majors and 15-17 no trump and follow the textbooks know only that their partner has promised hearts. Hopefully, they wouldn't bid TWO diamonds without extras after 1♣-1♥, let alone THREE on the given auction.

 

BI's without specialized agreements who have both minors should open 1♦, unless their clubs are long and/or strong enough to open and rebid clubs, in which case that's what they should go on the given auction.

[Codo]

We agree, that in different countries the double is taught differently, so whether 3 ♦ shows extras or not for a BI is more a cultural thing.

 

But I cannot belive that telling newbies toopen in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

 

To handle 1 diamond openings which may include longer clubs is far from simple. The downsides to have no better rebid then 2 clubs are obviously there but not strong enough to overcome some badly needed easy rules for the bidding.

[helene_t]

But I cannot belive that  telling newbies to open in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

Probably agree although I can imagine teaching beginners that a 1♣ opening denies four diamonds, which is sensible if one plays Walsh. Playing 5cM, the rule is "longer biddable suit, higher-ranking if equal length" which is a simple rule and can also be justified technically. So yes, I would prefer teaching 1♣ with 45 minors although I don't feel strongly about it.

 

But even if we open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ (which has merits, for example if we have a (31)45 and reopen with a double of our singleton suit, p will bid our opening suit with 3-card support), I would still teach beginners that the double shows hearts only. It's not like it's causing much problems. We can just rebid our 5-card suit if p doubles the suit in which we have a singleton. Which doesn't happen very often. If he doubles our 3-card suit we may be able to rebid 2NT. If we are 2245 we might have opened a weak 1NT if that is what we play. In short, this isn't a problem I worry about myself, much less something I think beginners should be worried about. Teaching a weak notrump I would be much more worried about in which contested auctions a NT rebid shows extras.

 

Alternatively, I can imagine teaching negative freebids, in which case I wouldn't teach sputnik double specifically but just say ("all doubles show either support for all unbid suits, or a strong hand"), but I think that's too non-standard to teach, except maybe in the Netherlands where negative freebids are quite popular. In standard methods (whether we are in UK, NA or elsewhere), a sputnik double is different from other t/o doubles and will have to be taught separately anyway.

 

To me, saying that 3♦ doesn't show extras is just as absurd as saying that

1♣-(1♥)-1♠-(pass)

2♦*

doesn't show extras, for the same reason (namely that you might have a 1345 without a heart stopper).

 

The below auction is more frequent so it is more important that beginners learn to get that right:

1♣-(1♠)-x-(pass)

?

Playing 5-card majors (or Scottish/Dutch/Scandinavian style), doubler has to cater for opener having a balanced hand with four hearts, so he has to double with "any" hand that has four hearts and cannot afford to be worried about the diamond suit. Now one could teach that a minimum doubler without diamonds would have to be prepared to hear a weak 2♦ response and have enough clubs to bid

1♣-(1♠)-x-(pass)

2♦-(pass)-3♣

but there are some problems with this:

- opener would have to bid 3♦ with a reverse in diamonds

- doesn't 3♣ sound like a game try rather than a weak preference?

- In Dutch/Danish style, opener would only have promised four clubs so we could easily belong in 1NT.

- Would responder without a known fit realize that he would have to bypass 2NT because he is too weak to bid 2NT?

- In the OP situation, responder would have to take preference with 4♣ ....

 

Well I suppose we are not going to agree on this.

[Codo]

Helene,

 

I like your summary, despite the fact that I do not agree and that I do not need to be confinced whether "double shows just the other major" is a better approach or not.

When I would life just 150 km away from where I am now, I would teach newbies that 1m (1♠) x shows 4 hearts and shows nothing else, because this is standard in Poland (and most other countries). But it is not standard here, so I would stick to what is standard.

 

But anyway the difference is much smaller then it seems. There are not many hands, where the "double just show 4 hearts" crowd will double and the guys who claim"double has all unbid suits or can handle any rebid" won't. Maybe some particular hands where responder has 4 hearts and length in their suit but no hand to bid NT over the possible responses from partner. But even there it would not matter much, because when you have to pass, partner with shortage will surely reopen.

[helene_t]

It's always nice to read your respectful, disagreeing posts, whether we are discussing theology or negative doubles :)

 

Anyway, agree it's not a very important issue so if the local textbooks are good quality and recommend something that is generally understood by local club players (which I believe is the case in both UK and NL, I suppose the same is true in Germany) I would live with whatever those textbooks say, at least until the students have finished the textbooks and want to go on.

 

I am not so happy with textbooks teaching archaic methods which students will have to (or at least should) abandon later. Then it becomes a dilemma whether I want to confuse the students with my own poorly written notes contradicting the textbooks, or whether I waste time teaching them methods which they are (hopefully) never going to play after finishing the classes. But there are many such methods which are more crucial than the discussion in this thread. Strong twos for example. Etc.

[andy_h]

When I first learnt bridge as well as reading textbooks, I learnt that negative doubles when both or neither majors have been bid shows the other 2 suits (so 1H-1S-X, 1S-2H-X, 1C-1D-X and 1D-2C-X). And that when only one major has been bid, the negative double promised the unbid major and nothing about any other suits. This was because, say, the 1S overcall of 1m-1S has denied us the space to respond 1H so we have to get into the auction with hearts, and also that 1m-1H-X/1S showed 4S/5+S respectively. I never found any problems with them at all and thought that was pretty easy to understand. And when the time comes, through experience, you soon realise the 1D-2C-X auction is an exception.

[Old York]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s8643haj93dj76c92&w=sakqt52h5d543cj65&e=sj9ht874dakt82ct4&s=s7hkq62dq9cakq873]399|300|Hand 119 by Ron Klinger

1♣-(2♠)-X-(3♠)-

4♥-ppp

1♣ opening is natural and denies weak balanced hand[/hv]

 

I have only found 1 textbook example on this auction, which clearly shows that the negative double shows 4+Hearts and 6+points and does not show Diamonds or Club support, so I have egg on my face again

 

The hand is based on 4cM and weak no-trump, so the double in this situation is slightly safer than if the 1♣ opening was Sayc 15-17

 

Tony

[helene_t]

Wow, in spite of all I have been saying in this thread it wouldn't occur to me to double with the North hand. It does illustrate the point that playing a weak notrump, one has to stretch to take action over the 2♠ bid to cater for opener having a 15-17 balanced hand. But I think it's a very extreme example. It's not like the North hand would be happy to hear a 3NT bid by opener, and a 3♣ bid wouldn't be my dream either at this vulnerability. I would chicken out. If North passes, South can double 3♠ and the contract would be the same.

 

Thanks for your research, Tony.

[Lobowolf]

But I cannot belive that  telling newbies toopen in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

 

To handle 1 diamond openings which may include longer clubs is far from simple. The downsides to have no better rebid then 2 clubs are obviously there but not strong enough to overcome some badly needed easy rules for the bidding.

What's your preferred rebid for novice/intermediate players after 1C-1S when holding mediocre clubs and a 1-3-4-5 hand?

[Lobowolf]

Bridge World Standard, for what it's worth, when holding a minimum hand with 4-5 in the minors, is "use your judgment."

[vuroth]

What's your preferred rebid for novice/intermediate players after 1C-1S when holding mediocre clubs and a 1-3-4-5 hand?

I can tolerate 1♣/2♣. I can tolerate 1♦/2♣. Either way you prefer it, an alert partner should know that 1345 is a problem distribution.

[hanp]

Novices have different things to worry about. I would recommend 1NT to intermediate players who would like to become good at bridge.

[vuroth]

Obviously, this is a blind spot with me, but I just can't bring myself to like 1NT there, nor opening 1NT with any 5422. If I'm not balanced, I don't want to tell partner than I am....

[gwnn]

I hate this "oh no, don't teach B/I this, it's too complicated, they can't handle it!" like the notion of promising only the unbid major was some sort of toxic nuclear waste. It's like when you see someone talking to a 5 year old in the same manner as they'd communicate with a baby kitten.