responding to negative doubles

[rsteele]

After: P-P-1D-1H

D-P-? what is needed to bid 2S? If the bid is one spade what does the negative doubler need to raise to 2S?

[Zelandakh]

The usual way to play this situation is that a "raise" at the one level shows 3 card support and you raise to your usual level with 4 card support. So

P - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥)

X - (P) - 1♠ - (P)

2♠

 

would simply show a weak hand with (usually) 5 spades, keeping the bidding open to cater to Opener having a big hand.

 

 

Edit: Many play the first double as showing precisely 4 spades. In this case the 2♠ bid could not show a 5th spade. Instead it would deny the ability to make a more useful response, so no diamond support (2♦) or heart stopper (1NT).

[TimG]

Really? I would expect 1♠ to not only be non-forcing, but to deny significant extras; I don't think responder must keep the bidding open to cater to opener having a big hand.

 

But, I don't often play negative doubles, so I'm ready to learn something.

[perko90]

The usual way to play this situation is that a "raise" at the one level shows 3 card support and you raise to your usual level with 4 card support. So

P - (P) - 1♦ - (1♥)

X - (P) - 1♠ - (P)

2♠

 

would simply show a weak hand with (usually) 5 spades, keeping the bidding open to cater to Opener having a big hand.

 

While I can agree with Zel on the interpretation of opener's 1♠ vs 2♠ bids, I don't think you can extend that concept to the negative doubler.

The negative doubler won't have 5 spades in this auction because they would have just bid 1♠ instead. 2♠ has to be extra strength.

[barmar]

But, I don't often play negative doubles, so I'm ready to learn something.

You don't? What do you do instead?

 

I think I've read that most bridge experts consider this one of the most important conventions. I know there are some partnerships that invert the meaning of 1{SP] and Double, but I think this is a small minority. How do you convince your partners to adopt your preference, since I would expect almost all of them to be used to playing NegX?

[TimG]

You don't? What do you do instead?

 

Play tentative penalty doubles along the lines of those described by SJ Simon.

 

The person I play almost all of my bridge with is the person who suggested playing this way, so there was no convincing needed.

 

I should say that the lack of a negative double is much less worrisome in a majors first, four-card major, approach. The lack of negative doubles is not without cost, but the availability of tentative penalty doubles is not without benefit either.

[Finch]

There are various subtly different ways to play the double of 1H. The 'traditional' way is that double shows exactly 4 spades (and 1S shows 5+ spades). If you play that style, and you play a strong NT, then:

 

1S = a minimum opening, usually only 3 spades and no better rebid (Axx xx KQxx Kxxx say). 1S might sometimes have 4 spades. Zel's comment that opener might have a "big hand" feels very unusual to me, as 1S is usually played as non-forcing.

2S = minimum opening, 4 spades.

 

You don't have to play exactly this way - there are other ways to play the double as well as other ways to play opener's rebids, but unless you have explicitly agreed otherwise then both 1S and 2S are minimum openings and non-forcing.

[Stephen Tu]

1S = a minimum opening, usually only 3 spades and no better rebid (Axx xx KQxx Kxxx say). 1S might sometimes have 4 spades. Zel's comment that opener might have a "big hand" feels very unusual to me, as 1S is usually played as non-forcing.

2S = minimum opening, 4 spades.

 

You don't have to play exactly this way - there are other ways to play the double as well as other ways to play opener's rebids, but unless you have explicitly agreed otherwise then both 1S and 2S are minimum openings and non-forcing.

 

There is also an older school of thought that opener's 2s shows extra values and a non-minimum opening. I don't know exactly when people started playing 1s = usu 3, 2s = normal minimum w/ 4, nor what the current percentage breakdown is between "new school" and "old school". I think enough play the old way that it's prudent to ask partner their expectations.

 

But it seems these days a lot of the time 4th hand, advancer will bid 2h/3h/4h, so opener doesn't often have a choice between 1s/2s, and forgetting to ask which way partner plays doesn't end up mattering!

[mfa1010]

I think it is probably theoretical best to have 2♠ as showing extras. The point is to avoid sequences like 1m-1♥-x-p-3♠ down, which is so terrible on a 4-4 where we'll practically never have law protection in opps having a makable contract. When they don't raise the hand tends to be misfitish. I know that 1m-1M-3M down on a 4-4 is terrible too, but that problem is hardly a good excuse for not optimizing the system after a neg double.

 

We have a lot of space after 1♠, so we should be able to handle that it is wide ranging with both 3 and 4 spades possible. We can clarify later and still stay low if we want.

 

I'm used to a 1♠ response showing 3 or a very bad 4, and 2♠ a respectable minimum. But I think that this is only part of the way to the best treatment.

[lalldonn]

I think it is probably theoretical best to have 2♠ as showing extras. The point is to avoid sequences like 1m-1♥-x-p-3♠ down, which is so terrible on a 4-4 where we'll practically never have law protection in opps having a makable contract. When they don't raise the hand tends to be misfitish. I know that 1m-1M-3M down on a 4-4 is terrible too, but that problem is hardly a good excuse for not optimizing the system after a neg double.

 

We have a lot of space after 1♠, so we should be able to handle that it is wide ranging with both 3 and 4 spades possible. We can clarify later and still stay low if we want.

 

I'm used to a 1♠ response showing 3 or a very bad 4, and 2♠ a respectable minimum. But I think that this is only part of the way to the best treatment.

I see your point, but there is a lot to be said for getting in the way of the overcaller bidding again when you have a min with 4 as well. An overcaller's hand is really poorly defined so he is in a bad position with extra strength or distribution if he has to risk the 3 level to show it.

[mfa1010]

That is true.

[dburn]

Opener can rebid 2♥ with sundry good hands; if this is defined as "extras with four spades or some other hand type that will bid again over responder's 2♠", then opener can bid 2♠ comfortably with four spades and a minimum and avoid having to jump to 3♠ with marginal extra values. Of course, the partnership needs to work on continuations over 2♥ if responder has extras also, but this need not present insuperable difficulties.

[mfa1010]

Opener can rebid 2♥ with sundry good hands; if this is defined as "extras with four spades or some other hand type that will bid again over responder's 2♠", then opener can bid 2♠ comfortably with four spades and a minimum and avoid having to jump to 3♠ with marginal extra values. Of course, the partnership needs to work on continuations over 2♥ if responder has extras also, but this need not present insuperable difficulties.

I have never heard of that treatment before but it sounds very reasonable. It probably takes a little work to figure out how to proceed, just as you say.

 

I often play weak NT and then opener has a problem with a good strong NT hand and four spades. A bad strong NT could just bid 2♠, but that would be an underbid with say a 17-count, if 2♠ shows nothing more than a decent minimum. 2♥ as you suggest then has the disadvantage of wrongsiding the hand.

[lowerline]

Both are minimal in high card points, but 2♠ shows an unbalanced hand, while 1♠ shows a balanced hand. This is especially interesting for those who play a short club...

 

Steven

 

 

[aguahombre]

The simple way of looking at this is:

 

If responder has shown a hand which would have responded 1M, pretend he responded 1M. A raise is a raise; whatever other tools you had are still in effect (splinters, reverses, whatever). Being able to rebid 1S is just a bonus to be used when otherwise you would have had to "raise" with only 3 and you hate to do that.

 

If 1m (1H) X shows exactly four spades, actually 1S by opener doesn't have to guarantee 3 spades either ---just a hand which would have rebid 1NT but doesn't have a heart stop.

[dburn]

If 1m (1H) X shows exactly four spades, actually 1S by opener doesn't have to guarantee 3 spades either ---just a hand which would have rebid 1NT but doesn't have a heart stop.

Not sure I'd go that far. With such as ♠64 ♥1062 ♦AQ32 ♣AK107 I think most would rebid 2♣ or 1NT after 1♦ (1♥) Dble - (Pass). Indeed, even if ♣A were ♠A I doubt I (or many other people) would rebid 1♠. Verb. sap. - this is why you should open 1♦ and not 1♣ with this hand type.