Respond to a Negative Double

[jmcw]

[hv=pc=n&e=sat5h975dakj7cq82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d2cdp]133|200[/hv]

 

Scoring is Matchpoints. The X shows at least 1 4-card or longer Major and about 8+ points.

 

Would your bid change if you were a touch weaker?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sqt5h975dakj7cq82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d2cdp]133|200[/hv]

[mich-b]

2NT.

Pass might work well, especially against someone who is known to be an unsound overcaller.

[Hanoi5]

2♦. I'm too afraid of bidding a Major and play at the 2 level with a 3-3 fit. 2NT with such a lousy stopper, I don't think so. Partner will find another bid if we belong to 3NT.

[jogs]

With only 8 HCP responder should have both four card majors.

Should have at least 10 HCP with only one four card major.

 

2♦ sounds like the best rebid. Responder should not

bid 2NT without clubs doubly stopped. He should call 3♣

to allow opener to rebid 3NT. With Kxx and Qxx, put the

interventor on opening lead, not his partner.

[peachy]

2D is the least of evils. Some folks bid a 3-card major but that just often ends up in 3-3 fit...no good. The negative doubler may not have both majors and has no idea to correct to spades; besides, he might have diamond support.

[gnasher]

If you bid 2♠, you're not very likely to play in a 3-3 fit. Partner will correct with four diamonds, so it will be a 3-3 fit only if he's something like 3433.

 

A bigger danger of 2♠ is that parter will raise it, or just that you play there in a 4-3 fit with the long hand being forced or overruffed.

[xxhong]

2NT looks natural and shows the value and shape of these two hands. Any other bids are not as good as 2NT IMO. those who are afraid of declaring 3-3 2M fit may play a 4-1 fit in 2D facing: KJxx AJxx x xxxx.

[hv=pc=n&e=sat5h975dakj7cq82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d2cdp]133|200[/hv]

 

Scoring is Matchpoints. The X shows at least 1 4-card or longer Major and about 8+ points.

 

Would your bid change if you were a touch weaker?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sqt5h975dakj7cq82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d2cdp]133|200[/hv]

[jmcw]

2NT looks natural and shows the value and shape of these two hands. Any other bids are not as good as 2NT IMO. those who are afraid of declaring 3-3 2M fit may play a 4-1 fit in 2D facing: KJxx AJxx x xxxx.

 

I was thinking much the same when this had came up at the local club.

 

Bidding either red suit runs the significant risk of missing our best fit.

 

On the other hand 2NT is not ideal on the given ♣ stopper, but on balance, I thought the least of evils.

 

Is there agreement that a 2NT range is 12+/14 and that the detractors rejected solely on the dubious stopper?

[gnasher]

I usually bid 2NT on these hands, because if partner has a good hand I'd prefer not to have misdescribed my shape. If we belong in game it should probably be 3NT from my side, so I prefer not to plant any other ideas in partner's mind.

 

However, I don't think 2NT is necessarily better than the alternatives. The main problem with 2NT is that if partner passes it will often go down. Two of any suit has some chance of being the right spot - you may find that it's an eight-card fit, or a seven-card fit may play OK - but 2NT will rarely be best. Also, 2NT doesn't give us a second chance. If we bid 2♦, partner, with short diamonds, may convert to a 5-card major.

 

I've considered, but never played, these artificial solutions to this problem:

(1) Swap 2♦ and 2NT, so 2♦ shows a weak notrump without a major, and 2NT shows a one-suiter in diamonds.

(2) Play 2♦ as two-way, either a one-suiter in diamonds or a weak notrump without a major. With short diamonds, responder should remove to something, so sometimes we'll end up one level higher when opener really does have diamond length, but sometimes we'll be able to stop in 2♦.

 

There are also ways to sidestep the problem:

- Open 1♣ on all balanced hands, so that the problem occurs in fewer auctions.

- Play some clever transfer-based method where responder is more specific about his suit lengths. Han?

[AlexJonson]

I was planning to rebid 1NT (I guess) so now it's 2NT, unless I've a conventional solution.

[xxhong]

Facing some 4-5 or 5-4 majors, you may like to play 2M, still, 2M doesn't have to be good either. The intrinsic problem is that this hand is relatively weak and you are somehow forced to 2NT (unless you want to take risk to pass). I sometimes think that it's wise to play some sort of transfers over 1D 2C, like x showing D fit, 2D shows H, 2H shows S, 2S transfers to 2NT, blabla. The transfer can be based on 4 cards for gf hands, and 5 or 6 for weaker hands. Anyway, this is a good example to show why you want to overcall 2C frequently over 1D.

 

I usually bid 2NT on these hands, because if partner has a good hand I'd prefer not to have misdescribed my shape. If we belong in game it should probably be 3NT from my side, so I prefer not to plant any other ideas in partner's mind.

 

However, I don't think 2NT is necessarily better than the alternatives. The main problem with 2NT is that if partner passes it will often go down. Two of any suit has some chance of being the right spot - you may find that it's an eight-card fit, or a seven-card fit may play OK - but 2NT will rarely be best. Also, 2NT doesn't give us a second chance. If we bid 2♦, partner, with short diamonds, may convert to a 5-card major.

 

I've considered, but never played, these artificial solutions to this problem:

(1) Swap 2♦ and 2NT, so 2♦ shows a weak notrump without a major, and 2NT shows a one-suiter in diamonds.

(2) Play 2♦ as two-way, either a one-suiter in diamonds or a weak notrump without a major. With short diamonds, responder should remove to something, so sometimes we'll end up one level higher when opener really does have diamond length, but sometimes we'll be able to stop in 2♦.

 

There are also ways to sidestep the problem:

- Open 1♣ on all balanced hands, so that the problem occurs in fewer auctions.

- Play some clever transfer-based method where responder is more specific about his suit lengths. Han?

[jogs]

I was thinking much the same when this had came up at the local club.

 

Bidding either red suit runs the significant risk of missing our best fit.

 

On the other hand 2NT is not ideal on the given ♣ stopper, but on balance, I thought the least of evils.

 

Is there agreement that a 2NT range is 12+/14 and that the detractors rejected solely on the dubious stopper?

 

Looking for the ideal spot is the wrong approach toward these hands. You should be scrambling for a plus score. It's rarely right to be in 2NT in a contested auction. 2♦ is not shutout. Responder with a good hand wont pass it. With 5-4 in the majors, he can now show his five bagger. 2NT may already be too high when responder is minimum.

[han]

- Play some clever transfer-based method where responder is more specific about his suit lengths. Han?

 

The agreement I have with my regular partner is not transfer based, and I can't say whether it is clever, but it is more specific about suit lengths. Double promises 4+ spades but does not promise or deny 4+ hearts.

 

Playing this I'd bid 2S.

 

Otherwise I'd bid 2NT on the first hand and 2D on the second.

[jmcw]

Looking for the ideal spot is the wrong approach toward these hands. You should be scrambling for a plus score. It's rarely right to be in 2NT in a contested auction. 2♦ is not shutout. Responder with a good hand wont pass it. With 5-4 in the majors, he can now show his five bagger. 2NT may already be too high when responder is minimum.

 

Your point makes sense to me..at least to a point.

 

A 2♦ rebid on a 4 card suit runs the considerable risk of missing a much better Major suit fit. If West holds a dub♦ and a 5 card Major should he pull?.

Opener could have 6♦ and a stiff in the Major!

[gnasher]

A 2♦ rebid on a 4 card suit runs the considerable risk of missing a much better Major suit fit. If West holds a dub♦ and a 5 card Major should he pull?.

Your 2NT bid will also miss that major-suit fit.

[BriddlesBo]

Anyone one for "3C" as a Western-Cue (with agreement of having a Partial Stop in Clubs)? Partner can still show a 5-card Major, return to 3D....noting that the NegX bidder should always have an "out" if Opener bids the WRONG Major (i.e. after WRONG Major he has Diamond support or stopper in Clubs....at least that's best treatment by NegX bidder).

[whereagles]

I feel like passing, lol.

 

The problem with 2♦ is that pard won't be anxious to bid a 5-card suit over it. Perhaps 2♥ is the best bid, as pard is more likely to have 5-4 with 5 hearts than he is to have 5-4 with 5 spades.

[jogs]

I feel like passing, lol.

 

The problem with 2♦ is that pard won't be anxious to bid a 5-card suit over it. Perhaps 2♥ is the best bid, as pard is more likely to have 5-4 with 5 hearts than he is to have 5-4 with 5 spades.

 

Assuming the OP is not playing neg free bids. With

♠ K43 ♥ KQJ76 ♦ 543 ♣ 64

Doesn't responder wish to be allowed to show hearts

on the two level?

 

Or are your minimums for the negX higher?

[jmcw]

Assuming the OP is not playing neg free bids. With

♠ K43 ♥ KQJ76 ♦ 543 ♣ 64

Doesn't responder wish to be allowed to show hearts

on the two level?

 

Or are your minimums for the negX higher?

 

A negative free bid was not an option. 2 of a new suit would show 10+ and be F1.

 

The double showed a minimum of about 8 with no upper limit if balanced.

[Zelandakh]

The agreement I have with my regular partner is not transfer based, and I can't say whether it is clever, but it is more specific about suit lengths. Double promises 4+ spades but does not promise or deny 4+ hearts.

 

Would you mind posting the rest of the method please han?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

The agreement I have with my regular partner is not transfer based, and I can't say whether it is clever, but it is more specific about suit lengths. Double promises 4+ spades but does not promise or deny 4+ hearts.

 

I'm interested in the method also.

 

One expert had a similar agreement after ( which she said originated in the Memphis area ):

 

1C - ( 1D ) - ??

1H = 4+

1S = 5+

and " Negative doubles at

all levels

guarantee spades and say nada about hearts. "

 

Since she said " at all levels", I'm assuming after:

1D - ( 2C ) - ??

2H = 4+

2S = 5+

and

DBL = 4 spades and "says nada about hearts"

[jogs]

A negative free bid was not an option. 2 of a new suit would show 10+ and be F1.

 

The double showed a minimum of about 8 with no upper limit if balanced.

 

1♦ - (2♣) - X

 

I have no idea if there is a consensus way to play this neg dbl?

I prefer new suit non-forcing.

 

♠K43 ♥ KQJ76 ♦ 543 ♣ 64

 

1♦ - (2♣) - X - (p)

2♦ - (p) - 2♥ non forcing

 

seems safer than

 

1♦ - (2♣) - X - (p)

2NT - (p) - 3♥ non forcing

 

At least that's how I feel.

 

If dbl then 2♥ is forcing, how would you bid the hand shown?

[whereagles]

Assuming the OP is not playing neg free bids. With

♠ K43 ♥ KQJ76 ♦ 543 ♣ 64

Doesn't responder wish to be allowed to show hearts

on the two level?

 

Yes, but you can't have it all so I would try 2♥ on that hand. I'm a passed hand anyway, so pard won't take me too seriously.

[kenberg]

I would also bid 2♥ with that example hand with five hearts, and I would do it passed hand or not. It's forcing but not game forcing, I have a good five card suit and a hand with decent values. With a lesser hand I have a problem, but not with this one.

 

 

With the original hand I guess I try 2NT. I am glad to see the hand posted because I think this frequent situation is not well treated in the literature. After 2NT, partner knows that I have at least four diamonds (I have to have four of something) and so there is something to be said for taking me back to diamonds whenever he is, say, 4=3=4=2. If he is 4=4=2=3 maybe spades would have been better but that's not certain. Nothing works all the time.

[jogs]

. Nothing works all the time.

 

That's certainly true. When opponents put pressure on us, we'll be lucky to be right 60-70% of the time. Cohen and Bergen say bid up to the level of your trumps. But they neglect to mention that flat patterns are unlucky. With a 4-4 fit and 20 HCP, the expected tricks is 7 1/2, not 8. Flat patterns produce fewer tricks than trumps.

2♦ gives the partnership a greater chance of declaring on the two level. Which should lead to a greater percentage of plus results.