Too many controls?

[hotShot]

I think the conflict the majority can't resolve is, that if a neg. double is forcing, how can responding the preference be a reverse?

[Siegmund]

I suppose it's really a semantic difference. To me, "it's the smallest lie on these cards" and "it is the system bid on these cards" are not the same thing. If it's a sufficiently common lie, then yes, one ought to consider making it an official system bid, and one ought to consider the effect of that on the rest of one's system.

 

The best parallel I can think of is opening 1NT with a 5-card major - where the realization that it was sometimes a sensible distortion no doubt occurred to people as far back as they ever played 5-card majors, but it took until somewhere around 1980 for anybody to dare to mention the possibility in a mainstream book and another 10 years after that for it to become the usual advice for novices.

 

Yes, 25 Conventions is an 11-year-old book and not a book I particularly care for. My point is that books of that age are what people are currently buying and putting on their bookshelves, and looking things up in when they want a source more authoritative than internet message board posts as to what is standard.

 

As for who has a better finger on the pulse of what the average player plays... I don't know you well enough to know; but as a general rule, I find that the top experts live in a rarefied atmosphere when they play against each other, and tend to accumulate a stable harem of clients who are willing to take the master's word as gospel. Some of them are rarely seen outside of the KOs and can play a whole regional seeing only ten opposing convention cards.

I don't claim to be better than adv++/exp-; but I spend my time playing pairs and selling books to a cross-section of tournament attendees; and am acutely aware of how sharp the regional differences in bidding preference are, even over distances of only a couple hundred miles. I am curious how different you find the bidding in NY and Texas, actually. I don't get farther east than Denver much, myself, and have learned the hard way not to speculate about what is normal for east coast 2/1ers.

[Codo]

I am with Siegesmund that there are big parts of the world, where the double

shows not just hearts- mine is one of it.

 

And here standard is negative to show both suits or a "plan".

 

That the majority of experts play it different is a sign that your idea of neg. double wmay be standard in some years everywhere. But right now, you are wellcommed to visit the club life here in Germany and watch and learn.

There are areas where your standard is not standard worldwide.

[PhantomSac]

lol ok whatever.

 

1) I have posted the first 5 google hits, all of them seem to back me up that 1C 1S X simply shows 4+ hearts and 6+ or 7+ points (and if more than 4 hearts less than 10 points).

 

2) I have offered my opinion as a professional bridge player who plays every day, mostly at the club, often in pair games at sectionals or regionals, often against normal tournament bridge players, that almost all of them would double with many hands that contain a doubleton diamond/not 4 clubs/whatever, regardless of their diamonds. Siegmund agreed with this and my example hands (well only explicitly with 1 of my example hands).

 

3) I noted that the one counter example, a book from 11 years ago, contradicts itself and says that all balanced hands with 6+ points and 4 hearts have to double 1S (sure sounds like 44(32) is possible or 3433!).

 

4) 2 other top experts have posted in this thread stating that they think 2D should be a reverse, which presumably means they do not think that X shows diamonds. Siegmund thinks some experts are sheltered from what people play, but they didn't just start out as experts. They played a lot of hands with and against a lot of people. Quoting books from 11 years ago for what is normal now while implying that JDonn is out of touch with what people do now is funny, since JDonn might not have even played 11 years ago.

 

I don't know what else I can do to convince anyone that the standard meaning and practice of a negative double in this auction is to do it without concern for your minor suit holdings. Obv you should find 4-4 heart fits. If you still don't believe me that's fine I guess.

 

At the very least I no longer feel like the burden is on me to prove my point. The evidence overwhelmingly seems to suggest that my view is the majority view, so hopefully Siegmund will realize that his post:

 

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.

 

and

 

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.

 

Was off base, at least in this situation wrt what a negative X of 1S shows in this auction. GL everyone.

[PhantomSac]

I am with Siegesmund that there are big parts of the world, where the double

shows not just hearts- mine is one of it.

 

And here standard is negative to show both suits or a "plan".

 

That the majority of experts play it different is a sign that your idea of neg. double wmay be standard in some years everywhere. But right now, you are wellcommed to visit the club life here in Germany and watch and learn.

There are areas where your standard is not standard worldwide.

Yes I heard of tribal clans in india who do not even play negative doubles. Why did we even assume negative doubles here, I mean the OP did not state that double was negative, and there are some parts of the world where negative doubles are not standard like in those tribal clans.

 

You post on an american website, and BBO is an american company run by...americans. The people who play there are predominately american. The people who post here are predominately american.

 

When nothing is said, we can assume standard bidding. If we cannot assume certain standards, then everything must be spelled out, and it's grossly inefficient. We all assume 5 card majors here. I would say that 5 card majors are standard. Are there parts of the world where 5 card majors are not standard? Yes! Does that mean we cannot assume 5 card majors? No.

 

In my humblest opinion, a negative double showing nothing about diamonds is standard. I honestly didn't know this would even be controversial or cause a debate. I don't know what happens in the tribal indian clans, or in the clubs in Germany, but I'm not really going to feel bad for not considering what the Germans might play when talking about what standard is. At the very least I am very confident on what standard in USA is, and that is what is assumed on the forums. Sorry if that insults you as a German, if this was a German forum I would not assume such things. We don't assume polish club on this forum even though it is standard.

 

When discussing with Siegmund what "standard" was I knew he was talking from the context of an american. He and I simply disagree about what is standard, fair enough. But it is completely assinine to disagree with my definition of standard because of what happens in clubs in Germany, or Poland, or anywhere else.

 

In fact most posts on this forum are completely assinine. Much respect to Siegmund for arguing his points with reason etc and actually seemingly trying to find where the truth lies, rather than say retarded things. I disagree with you but respect how you discuss things.

 

Good night!

[hanp]

2D, reverse.

 

I don't live in the US but I do play negative doubles.

[gnasher]

I don't live in the USA, but I play the double as promising only hearts, 2♦ as a forcing reverse, and 3♦ as a splinter for hearts. I'd assume that without agreement, playing with any reasonably good tournament player.

[gwnn]

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.

Completely disagree. I played a lot of tournament bridge in Romania, Hungary and Iceland and I routinely asked people whom I considered likely to promise both suits... They never, I mean NEVER said "it shows both suits". I know some players who play it that way, but they are only club players. I agree though that only few would think 2D is forcing and I also agree that it's logically unsound.

 

edit: I mean I know it's possible that Romania and Hungary have much more advanced bridge players than USA but I personally don't consider it a likely possibility.

Edited February 3, 2010 by gwnn

[hanp]

By the way, there is an excellent book by Marty Bergen called "Negative doubles" that talks in great detail about issues like these.

[hanp]

You post on an american website, and BBO is an american company run by...americans. The people who play there are predominately american. The people who post here are predominately american.

Not a very convincing argument imo.

[hatchett]

I also don't live in US and agree with hanp and gnasher.

[manudude03]

It was late when I posted the topic, didn't quite expect it to be this lively. I'm of the school that 2♦ is not a reverse (if it was, this problem would be a little too easy :) ). A negative double for me doesn't necessarily promise both unbid suits, but here it would be at least 4 hearts and be able to handle whatever partner bids. FWIW I asked a few of the top locals here if they would play 2♦ here as a reverse when a similar sequence occured a couple of weeks ago (1C-[1H]-X-2D) and it was unaminous that it was not a reverse.

 

It really isn't good to be showing squences that say 1m-1♠-X, since its completely different if it was a 1♦ opening (doubler can just have 4 hearts and 6 points and doesn't care if opener bids 2♣ since a 2♦ preference is availble)

 

The point of the topic was more about what to do in the later auction. As it was, our bidding went:

 

1♣-(1♠)-X

2♠-3♥

4♥-P

 

When I bid 4♥, part of me was wondering if this seemed like an underbid (slam is good opposite ♥AJxxx and ♣Q).

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=sxhkqtdakxxcakxxx&e=sxxhajxxxdxcjt9xx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Clubs were 2-1, hearts were not 5-0, but I won't say how many it made (it was a flat board though somehow). It was the only 1 of 4 slams our way that we missed. Not everyday you play a 24 board match where you make more slams than games :P .

[jjbrr]

For a long time I played 2♦ not reverse. Now I feel strongly it should be.

[pooltuna]

For a long time I played 2♦ not reverse. Now I feel strongly it should be.

The solution is for those who think a 2♦ call should not be a reverse post some hands for opener which are screwed on this auction I will attempt[hv=s=sxxxhakdakxcxxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

as an example for those who think it is a reverse to show how they will handle the hand. At this point I haven't put a lot of thought in to and so have not taken either side but to be fair I have an old fashioned view that suggests to me that it shows ♥ and a plan i.e. ♣ tolerance if no ♦.

[jdonn]

Pooltuna rebidding 1NT doesn't promise a spade stopper.

[helene_t]

Partner was me.

 

The agreement is that dbl shows hearts only and that 2♦ is not a reverse. I prefer 2♦ to be a reverse but w/e.

 

I think the fact that the local experts consider 2♦ as NF is irrelevant. Those people are used to playing Acol, and in that context it makes a lot more sense to play dbl as showing a hand that can handle a NF 2♦ bid, since opener will only have four hearts if he has 5+ clubs. Besides opener would always open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ when playing Acol. And can't rebid 1NT with 3145 as this would show 15-17. This means that responder can bid 1NT with a hand that has 4-5 hearts but can't handle a 2♦ rebid. After all opener doesn't have four hearts that often.

 

Playing 5-card majors I think you can't afford not to show the heart suit, but it is still rare to have a hand that has 4-5 hearts and can't handle 2♦. 5521 with a weak heart suit could be an example. I am not to worried about that. I am more worried about the fact that you don't have a natural rebid with a hand that wants to reverse in diamonds. You have to take up a lot of space with a 3♦ bid, or alternatively overload the 2♠ rebid.

 

btw you can't bid 2♠ with any reverse-strength hand. It will probably have to be gf. So even if 2♦ is NF it would have to be something like 14-17. So you still have to rebid 2♣ with 11-13 and 4♦5♣ I think. Unless you open those hands 1♦.

[Lobowolf]

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.

I think that for most tournament players (e.g. intermediate-ish level), the double shows hearts and says nothing about diamonds. The problem (for them) is that they haven't put much (any) thought into how this impacts auctions like the original post.

 

A negative double, when there's one unbid major, shows that major. Period. The problems created when responder can't double to show a 4-card major far outweigh the problems created by doubling without having support for an unbid minor. Give most tournament players a random hand with 4 hearts and lacking 4 diamonds, and the overwhelming majority of them (in the USA, anyway) will double. And in the long run, I like their chances against players of the same skill level who are systemically prevented from doubling because they don't have diamonds.

 

To the extent that this is true, 2♦ is a reverse for all of the reasons it's a reverse after 1♣-1♥.

[rogerclee]

I also play that over 1C (1H) 1S (P), that 2D shows a minimum hand.

 

Oh wait!

[manudude03]

It might just be that I was born and taught in the UK and so was brought up doing the Acol way of bidding, but it just feels like 2♦ as a reverse screws you more often than not (to the point where I think this hand was the first time I wished it was a reverse). There's already been 2 distortions posted for what seems like an uncommon problem (16-17 count (13)45 comes up about 0.06% if I've done the maths right, add a little more for 4045). It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

 

Of course playing it as a minimum does give partner some other problems too, but these seem easier to solve. Take something like KJx Axxx xxx xx, partner can easily bid 1NT and if opener just raises NT, its probably going to play just as well as ♥. The biggest problem I can see with playing 2♦ as a minimum is when you are forced to play in 1NT going down vs 2♥ making. I do suspect that those 5 or 6 imps I lose every time that happens is more than comphensated by the many more times I gain 4 or 5 from playing in the right minor or playing in a minor instead of NT. Playing strong NT does dampen the times where you miss game because you can't find the fit.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm ready to get lol'ed at

 

[rogerclee]

It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

What percent of hands are 1C openers? (among other restrictions)

[jdonn]

Yes it's not what % of hands overall, it's what % of hands when the auction starts 1♣ (1♠) X (P). Obviously that is much greater given that you are now only considering 1♣ openers. Also don't forget xx46, xx56, some xx47, etc.

[Siegmund]

At least we've nicely focused the debate down to two reasonable alternatives: either doubler has to have a plan, and opener is allowed to rebid freely, or doubler has made no promises, and onus is on opener to avoid getting in over his head.

 

I was a bit surprised at how much of a disconnect there is between what the books say and what the webpages say (though we would each choose different paragraphs of the same webpage to support our positions, in a few cases.) Probably good evidence that there is a trend afoot.

 

I shouldn't be surprised at all that the people who play 2♦ as a reverse don't think opener's 1NT bid shows a stopper, I guess.

[MFA]

Here, I think the standard expert treatment is 'NF reverse', which could be somewhat weaker than a normal reverse. With a gameforcing hand one has to start with 2♠.

 

This is btw also the treatment suggested by Marty Bergen in 'Better Bidding with Bergen' - the first time I read about this sequence, I think.

[helene_t]

It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

I don't think playing 2♦ as a reverse is modifying the system. On the contrary, I would say that since the dbl means the same as a 1♥ response, staying in the basic system is to play 2♦ as a reverse.

 

I don't think it creates any problems to play it as a reverse, either, any more than play 2♦ as a reverse in the uncontested auction. With 4♦5♣ you can rebid 2♣ or 1NT, just like you planned to do in the first place when you decided to open 1♣. Otherwise open 1♦.

 

Something else: My second call was 3♥, I wonder if that is correct. I assumed we were in a GF so I could show my 5th heart first and then support clubs later. Now I think I should have bid 3♣, Wayne could still have shown his heart support over that.

[the hog]

Instead of saying "It is a reverse and that's it!", perhaps it might be more sensible to see HOW the op plays it. It is clear that not everyone plays Sputnik doubles the same way.

(I call them Sputnik doubles specifically to annoy Josh. :D )

 

I also find the post by Phantom Sac parochial. Just because the majority of posters on this site are from the US, does not mean that we have to kow tow to your philosophies on bidding. Anyway, I am pretty sure, (without putting words into his mouth), that Fred would want this to be an international site and not specifically a US one.