Too many controls?

[manudude03]

Club match on Monday:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxhkqtdakxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Sitting West:

 

You open 1♣ (2+ if it matters), LHO overcalls 1♠, partner doubles, pass to you. Whats your plan? (partner bids 3♥ if you bid 2♠ general GF)

[the hog]

I would have bid 3D over the double. (Not 2 as this does not show my powerhouse). I would not bid 2S. 2S does not show what I have. Does it show a 3 suiter? I don't think so. Anyway if partner bids 3H over 3D I can raise to 4 and am happy to have shown my shape.

[655321]

2♦, reverse.

[jdonn]

2♦, reverse.

Bingo, sometimes it's too easy.

[straube]

2D reverse. Dbl only shows hearts.

[the hog]

2♦, reverse.

2D is not a reverse over a sputnik double, just as 1C (1S) X (P) 2H is not a reverse.

[mich-b]

2♦, reverse.

2D is not a reverse over a sputnik double, just as 1C (1S) X (P) 2H is not a reverse.

I think we have been through this many times before.

To me it seems an American approach to consider 2♦ a reverse.

I would be happy to hear from more Europeans how they play it.

 

2♦, reverse.

Bingo, sometimes it's too easy.

Even if you don't play this style you have to realize that many people consider 2♦ to show a minimum hand. And indeed they would be better placed than you if you replace the ♣AK with 2 small ♣s in the OP's hand.

Obviously the OP plays this style, otherwise he would not have been posting this. So maybe it would be more productive to answer the question within the limits of his system , rather than announcing your preferred style?

[Codo]

Hopefully we won't start this discussion again, what this double shows....the debate got nearly as heated as a debate about religion.

 

I would bid 3 ♦ too despite the fact that double just shows hearts for my partner. 2 ♦ is an underbid even if it is a reverse.

[655321]

Even if you don't play this style you have to realize that many people consider 2♦ to show a minimum hand.  And indeed they would be better placed than you if you replace the ♣AK with 2 small ♣s in the OP's hand.

Obviously the OP plays this style, otherwise he would not have been posting this. So maybe it would be more productive to answer the question within the limits of his system , rather than teaching him your preferred style?

Wow, I disagree with this post on many levels.

 

After a standard negative double (promising hearts, saying nothing about diamonds), 2♦ is indeed a reverse. OP did not say that his double promised diamonds, and no doubt he would have said if he played anything unusual here. If double does not promise diamonds, somebody playing that 2♦ is not a reverse is not better off when they hold a weak hand with 4 diamonds. Certainly they could bid 2♦, but doubler might now preference back to clubs at the 3 level (hence the reason a reverse needs extra values).

 

Neither of us know why the hand was posted, perhaps OP was interested in hearing discussion on whether or not 2♦ is a reverse. It is very presumptuous of you to say that in answering we must assume that a reverse is not a reverse.

[mich-b]

Even if you don't play this style you have to realize that many people consider 2♦ to show a minimum hand.  And indeed they would be better placed than you if you replace the ♣AK with 2 small ♣s in the OP's hand.

Obviously the OP plays this style, otherwise he would not have been posting this. So maybe it would be more productive to answer the question within the limits of his system , rather than teaching him your preferred style?

Wow, I disagree with this post on many levels.

 

After a standard negative double (promising hearts, saying nothing about diamonds), 2♦ is indeed a reverse.

Well, if you take the above sentence as given truth , than of course you are right.

But the problem is that for many (The_Hog and others) this is not true.

For them (and I think many others outside the USA) the double shows either support for BOTH unbid suits , or a "plan". And they think their treatment is standard.

[Siegmund]

I am fine with 2♠ and continuing to game in the suit of partner's choice. I can understand 3♦ but that really just seems to needlessly crowd the auction and imply much less tolerance for hearts.

 

And I don't know which I find stranger - the idea that a "standard negative double" says nothing about diamonds (it doesn't promise diamonds, but it sure as heck promises a plan for what to bid next if partner picks the 'wrong' red suit - most often notrump or a retreat to opener's first suit), or the idea that 2♦ over said double shows extras.

[PhantomSac]

Why do you think a negative X promises diamonds? It says "I have 4+ hearts and enough to bid, if I have 5+ hearts I don't have enough to bid 2H."

 

It is normal to double on Qxxx AJxx xx xxx, it's normal to X on xxx AKxx xxx xxx, it's normal to X on Qxx Axxxx xx Jxx, etc etc. A negative double is basically the same as bidding 1C p 1H, except it has a bit of a higher lower limit. As such the reasoning for 2D being a reverse is the same as over 1C p 1H, you are forcing partner to preference you to the 3 level if he has a better fit for your first suit, so you must have extras.

 

I am normally all for the "obviously OP doesn't play it this way, so we should answer in the constraints of his system." That being said, if OP had asked us what we would do over 1C p 1H p ? I'm sure we'd all say 2D. It may be less well known that 2D in this auction is a reverse, but that's all the more reason to post it. It's not like it's a fancy convention, it is a simple bidding logic error that people have that is an artifact from the days when negative doubles promised the unbid suits. Now, people will always double with 4 hearts so they are not showing the unbid suits, but they still seem to think that 2D doesn't show extras.

[jdonn]

2♦, reverse.

Bingo, sometimes it's too easy.

Even if you don't play this style you have to realize that many people consider 2♦ to show a minimum hand.

I am here to tell those people that they are playing a style which is not standard as far as I'm concerned, at best old fashioned (endorsed by the poster who always calls this a sputnik double!), and at worst quite bad.

 

And indeed they would be better placed than you if you replace the ♣AK with 2 small ♣s in the OP's hand.

I would have opened 1♦ with x KQT AKxx xxxxx but thanks. And what's your point anyway, that I do not have a perfect rebid in competition on 100% of the hands I open? That anyone playing any weird or bad thing can find a hand that it works well on?

 

Obviously the OP plays this style, otherwise he would not have been posting this. So maybe it would be more productive to answer the question within the limits of his system , rather than announcing your preferred style?

Well aren't you more than a bit presumptuous. He didn't say what style he is playing or why he posted this. Are you a mind reader?

 

Maybe he is interested in whether the spade shortness and fitting heart holding upgrade the hand to a game force on this auction. Maybe he is just learning and didn't consider the ramifications of his system choices. Maybe if for some strange reason he couldn't double on xxxx AKQx xxx xx he would tell us about his unusual system choices. Maybe he isn't sure which style is standard and part of the reason for posting was to find out what people thought. Or maybe you should just mind your business and not impose your probably-wrong judgments of why and what people should and shouldn't post on the world.

[Siegmund]

Apologizing for drifting off topic a bit:

 

Almost everyone has a tendency to think of his own system, or the most popular system in his area, as more standard than it really is... but it seems to particularly badly afflict the BBO forums, where all the cool kids play a hypermodern flavor of 2/1 that has yet to spread to the suburbs let alone the boonies.

 

Having run into it twice in one day today - let me just say that I feel Justin, Josh, et al. overestimate how many modern bidding trends have become (or should be) standard, even more so than Hardy did with his rather ambitiously titled book.

[Pict]

I am quite open to the view that 2D reverse is the solution to this common situation.

 

But I couldn't assume that playing in the UK, so I definitely wouldn't bid 2D.

 

In practice this hand is so strong that it shouldn't matter if I bid 2S or 3D, but I would bid 3D, maybe just because I want to do the same without the heart queen.

[PhantomSac]

Siegmund, are you saying that a negative X showing just 4+ hearts and not saying anything about diamonds is not a standard treatment?

 

I'm with you in general on the point that people think their system is standard too much, but that one is ridiculously standard, sorry.

 

If you're saying 2D showing a reverse is not standard, I agree, few (almost no) weak (and by weak I mean 95 % of bridge players) know that 2D should be a reverse, thus 2D showing a reverse is not a standard treatment. In fact I think I even implied this when I said:

 

Now, people will always double with 4 hearts so they are not showing the unbid suits, but they still seem to think that 2D doesn't show extras.

 

Of course this logically makes no sense if one would play 1C p 1H p 2D as a reverse, and 1C 1S (X) p 2D, where the X basically shows the same exact thing that the 1H bid showed in the first auction, as not a reverse. From a theoretical standpoint it is silly, and that is pretty easy to see, but that is still what people tend to play.

 

I'm not sure where I said "2D = reverse is standard and what most people play" because I said the opposite of that. I did state that 2D should be treated as a reverse for the same reasons that 1C p 1H p 2D is a reverse.

 

Why did I say that? Because this hand was posted on the forums, so OP probably was wondering if 2D should be a reverse or not, and I feel that it clearly should be. You can feel free to disagree and state your reasons why.

 

The only reason you have given that I have seen is that you think X says something about diamonds. Why? Would you not double with the example hands I gave? Do you think most people would not X?

 

If you would clarify what part you are disagreeing with that'd be cool, that's why I tried to engage you in a discussion about it. If you are disagreeing with the hands I said are normal negative doubles, you don't have to believe me but you are wrong, and it's not some "hypermodern trend" that I am overestimating how standard it is. 95 % of tournament bridge players will double if they have a hand with 4 hearts that wants to bid, as they should, how else are you going to find your 4-4 heart fits?

 

Of course if that is our disagreement then it is coming down to me saying "it is normal to double 1S with many hands that don't have diamonds" and you are saying "you are overestimating how common your beliefs on standard bidding are" and I'm saying "no I'm not you are way off."

 

I can't really prove that I am right and you are wrong if that's what it's coming down to, but you can take my opinion for what its worth, I feel that I am 99.9% to be right though, and I don't usually say that.

[PhantomSac]

Also I highly doubt that 655321 or jdonn would expect even 1 out of 10 average club players to take 2D in this auction as a reverse. But who cares? I mean this hand is an obvious 2D if it's a reverse, and an obvious 2S if it's not, it's not really interesting either way. I suspect OP really didn't know if 2D would be a reverse, so them telling him that it should be is very helpful to him and anyone who reads it and hopefully learns something from it.

 

Presumably the discussion stemming from this will help people decide if they think 2D should be a reverse or not. I agree that someone should state as some have by now that you should not bid 2D with a pickup partner, because there is a significant risk in getting passed.

[hotShot]

1♣ promised 2+ but you only do that if your shape is exactly 4432.

Your 2♦ bid is promising 4♦, depending on your style that implies your 1♣ opening promised 4 or 5 cards. So if a reverse means anything in your system, you could have started your bidding with 1♦ to avoid it.

[Siegmund]

On your posted example hands such as Qxxx AJxx xx xxx, yes, a large majority of tournament players would double after 1♣-(1♠). A small minority of them -- I don't know how small, maybe it's 5% maybe its 20% -- will have explicitly agreed that the double promises hearts and says nothing whatsoever about diamonds. Some of that minority may also have an agreement that they treat opener's 2♦ as a reverse. But I would expect the majority of them to justify their bid saying something like "yes, it's an abuse of the negative double, but I'm unlikely to get burned, and I've got three clubs anyway so I'll get away with it if I have to retreat to 3♣ after partner's 2♦ rebid" (or, on the alternative hand with 3 diamonds and 2 clubs, that they'll pass and play in the 4-3 diamond fit.)

 

You may be assured that just about all the conventions books currently being sold to the masses attending regionals are very explicit that negative doubles show either both unbid suits, or one of the unbid suits plus a planned rebid if partner bids the other. For example, the exact wording in 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know, currently the top seller in the "conventions books" category, is: "You will usually have four cards in each of the two unbid suits. You will always be able to stand partner's bidding in any unbid major suit, and if you do not have the unbid minor you will have support for opener's suit." In the section on opener's rebids, "with 4-card support for one of the suits partner has shown by doubling, you bid that suit." Many of the books explicitly warn that that 2♦ is not a reverse even though it looks like one.

 

Maybe that's not the best way to play it. Maybe that's not "Expert standard" anymore. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that somewhere there's a group of a hundred 2/1-playing experts 90 of whom don't play it that way. Maybe there are a few clubs and units where that's not how the up-and-coming intermediates are taught the convention. But if we are talking just about "standard", without qualifiers -- you're going to have a really long wait until 1♣-1♠-X saying absolutely nothing about diamonds is the usual way of playing it.

[mike777]

Club match on Monday:

 

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> KQT </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AKxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AKxxx </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

Sitting West:

 

You open 1♣ (2+ if it matters), LHO overcalls 1♠, partner doubles, pass to you. Whats your plan? (partner bids 3♥ if you bid 2♠ general GF)

2s

 

I have crap so often I need to bid something to "ALERT" PARD.

 

GIVEN op....I REBID 4H.

[PhantomSac]

But if we are talking just about "standard", without qualifiers -- you're going to have a really long wait until 1♣-1♠-X saying absolutely nothing about diamonds is the usual way of playing it.

 

On your posted example hands such as Qxxx AJxx xx xxx, yes, a large majority of tournament players would double after 1♣-(1♠).

 

These two statements just don't mesh. A random 7 count with a doubleton diamond and no shape is not some extraordinary exception to some rule. It is a common hand that as you say, a large majority of tournament players would double on (I would bet on at least 90 %, I'm not talking about EXPERT players, where it would be 99 %).

 

So effectively you are saying people will routinely double on hands that do not have diamonds and are not rare or exceptional, but that it will be a long time before the usual way of playing it is that it says nothing about diamonds? Apparently it is already the usual way!

 

People are being disingenuous to themselves if they think that the X is showing both unbid suits, but they can just often have a doubleton diamond, and never have short hearts. In that case they're showing hearts with their double, and not showing anything else, regardless of what they say.

 

But I guess we agree to disagree. I'm not sure why you think you know more about what standard bridge procedures are than me, but perhaps you should poll people you know, or people on these forums to decide whether you are right or not. Perhaps you are even wrong. I might even suggest that perhaps it is you who is out of touch with what is standard, but I don't even think that's true since you freely admitted that a large majority of people would double on the normal looking hands I gave that were negative doubles that didn't contain diamonds, and didn't contain a club fit.

[mike777]

Club match on Monday:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxhkqtdakxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Sitting West:

 

You open 1♣ (2+ if it matters), LHO overcalls 1♠, partner doubles, pass to you. Whats your plan? (partner bids 3♥ if you bid 2♠ general GF)

back...i bid 2d if i understand the bidding so far

[PhantomSac]

Also I took a look at the (11 year old) book 25 conventions you should know to see what they had to say about negative doubles since you referenced it.

 

There is a subsection:

 

Doubling to show four hearts

 

Under it it says "All balanced hands of 6+ points with four hearts must start by making a negative double." Hmm, what happened to having the other minor?

 

This is far more common of what even beginners learn these days. The book contradicted itself, what a shocker. As I said, when negative Xs were invented, they showed the unbid suits. Now they don't.

 

It also says that in the auction 1m 1H X, X shows 4 spades and 1S shows 5 spades. It says nothing about the other minor.

[PhantomSac]

A google search for "negative doubles"

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/negdbl.htm

 

"This solution is the negative double. To use this convention, you and partner agree that if you open the bidding and the opponent makes a direct suit overcall, a double by responder is NOT for penalty. Instead, it shows:

 

* At least a fair response (7+ pts.) AND

* 4-card length in at least one of the unbid suits -- usually the unbid major suit. (Some pairs agree that if the two unbid suits are majors -- for example, after 1C by partner, 1D by RHO -- a negative double promises 4 cards in both suits. "

 

Says nothing about minors, just that you show 4 cards in the unbid major, and only show 2 suits if there are 2 unbid majors.

 

Later confirms this with "If you have 4-card support for the suit partner has shown with the double, you should always show it. "

 

Note suit, singular.

 

Second hit:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_double

 

"In understandings regarding negative doubles, the emphasis is on major suit lengths. "

 

"After 1m – (1♠), in contrast to the prior sequence, most experts prefer the negative double here to show at least four hearts – not exactly four hearts."

 

Note, nothing said about minors.

 

Third link:

 

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Doubles/NegativeDouble.html

 

"If the opening is a Minor suit and the overcall is a Major suit, then the Negative Double means a 4-card suit in the other Major suit. By using the Negative Double to show this 4-card suit, your partner will take further action."

 

Nothing said about minors or "support for both unbid suits."

 

etc etc. Hopefully you can see you were wrong. These were not cherry picked, they were the first three google links.

[PhantomSac]

For fun:

 

fourth hit:

 

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~belk/negative.htm

 

"Showing a Major Suit. If only one major has been bid, a negative double promises the other major. For example:

1D — (1S) — Dbl: Promises 4 hearts and 6 points,

and denies the ability to bid 2.

 

Since a bid of 2 requires 5 hearts and 10 points, responder must either have only 4 hearts or have less than 10 points (or both)."

 

Nothing said about the unbid minor/support for partner's minor.

 

Fifth hit:

 

http://www.rpbridge.net/5a00.htm

 

"In the majority of cases the negative double is used when there is exactly one unbid major suit, the primary purpose being to locate a trump fit in that suit. This brings up an important rule:

 

If there is one unbid major suit, the double shows four or more cards in that suit."

 

One example he gives for a negative double is xxx AKxxx T9x xx over a 1S overcall.

 

Nothing said about minors.

 

I am bored but you can keep going down the google list until you find someone that agrees with your definition, but maybe with all of these links etc plus people who play bridge every day of their life you will believe that people do not play a negative X as showing diamonds (or saying anything at all about minors).