Simple(?) Negative Double Question

[jeffford76]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1sdp2hp3c]133|100[/hv]

 

Assume that you have agreed to play 2/1 with negative doubles, but have had no further discussion about this sequence for the purposes of answering the question. (Although, to be clear, you are not playing non-forcing free bids.)

 

If you think something non-standard is better, please comment.

[aguahombre]

How about long clubs, to play, and DOES not have four hearts? I dislike using "other" for such a logical choice.

 

I guess some would say it isn't logical to bid at the 3-level with a hand unwilling to bid 2C; but, I was thinking our style where 2C is GF, not just forcing ---and we were able to distinguish between the two with the two different choices.

Edited August 28, 2012 by aguahombre

[TWO4BRIDGE]

" After making a Negative Double, the ONLY forcing bid the doubler can make is a cue-bid of the opponents suit " .

 

by Lorne Russell ( OKBridge Manager , from his Double Trouble Series ) .

 

Thus, 3C is non-forcing .

[jeffford76]

How about long clubs, to play, and DOES not have four hearts? I dislike using "other" for such a logical choice.

 

Ok, added.

[jonottawa]

Option 6 is playable, but adds significant complexity (opener can no longer jump to 4♥ with a good hand and 4 ♥.) (I think some of the people who voted for option 1 were really voting for option 6, but it might have not been added to the poll yet and I'll let them speak for themselves.)

 

Option 2 (& 1, as opposed to 6) is unplayable (no offense, awm.)

 

Option 3 is how I prefer to play (the initial double promises ♥) and I consider it standard.

 

Edited to account for the addition of option 6 (and my failure to take the wording of option 1 literally enough.)

[rwbarton]

With long clubs and not 4 hearts wouldn't South have started with 3♣ (weak) or 2♣ then 3♣ (invitational) or 2♣ then some unambiguously strong bid (GF)? So I don't think it is the first option, assuming WJS in competition is standard.

 

I also don't understand how the second option is different from the fourth; if we have less than invitational values, why not pass 2♥? Are we worried about playing 2♥ in a 4-3 fit? We might not have a club fit either. It doesn't make sense to me to try to improve the partscore to a higher level when we might well be in a fit already. If the second option's "suggestion to play" implies invitational values, then it sounds a lot like a nonforcing game try in hearts, which is the fourth option.

 

I would take 3♣ to mean the same as in the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣. For me that might be a natural forcing game try in ♥, a natural nonforcing game try in ♥ or a short suit game try in ♥ (partner points out that opener might have to raise on 3 in the original auction and therefore it would just be natural and forcing) depending on the partnership. I don't have a strong opinion about what is best, but standard would be the first.

[han]

I would take 3♣ to mean the same as in the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣.

 

Bingo.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1sdp2hp3c]133|100[/hv]

 

Also from Lorne's handout [ my post # 3 ] , is the following Neg-DBL example :

 

1C - ( 1S ) - DBL - ( p )

2H - ( p ) - 3D

 

Does it look familiar ??

 

He says: " Since a 2H bid ( by you ) would promise 5+ ♥ and 10+ hcp, the DBL says you have less than 10 hcp or only 4 ♥ or both .

The Neg-DBL of 1S usually shows at least 4 ♥ -- if you DON'T have ♥ you may have a LONG ♦ suit and be prepared to PULL his 2H to 3D " .

 

Does this look familiar ??

[jeffford76]

I would take 3♣ to mean the same as in the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣.

 

This is what I had assumed as well, but a good local player surprised me by saying that it showed the long clubs hand, so I wanted to poll more widely.

[the hog]

" After making a Negative Double, the ONLY forcing bid the doubler can make is a cue-bid of the opponents suit " .

 

by Lorne Russell ( OKBridge Manager , from his Double Trouble Series ) .

 

Thus, 3C is non-forcing .

 

That depends whether you play negative free bids, doesn't it?

[Siegmund]

but a good local player surprised me by saying that it showed the long clubs hand, so I wanted to poll more widely.

 

The long-clubs meaning is the one in all the old textbooks and most of the new ones. Twenty or even ten years ago I would have expected it to be the 90+% answer in this kind of a poll.

 

Having alternative ways to show the medium club hand (people playing 1S-pass-2C as GF and 1S-pass-3C as 8-10 with six clubs, for instance) is a very new trend. And from previous threads, "1D-1S-X is exactly the same as a 1H response" is a remarkably popular view on the forum, much more so than in real life anywhere I've been.

[CSGibson]

The long-clubs meaning is the one in all the old textbooks and most of the new ones. Twenty or even ten years ago I would have expected it to be the 90+% answer in this kind of a poll.

 

Having alternative ways to show the medium club hand (people playing 1S-pass-2C as GF and 1S-pass-3C as 8-10 with six clubs, for instance) is a very new trend. And from previous threads, "1D-1S-X is exactly the same as a 1H response" is a remarkably popular view on the forum, much more so than in real life anywhere I've been.

 

Why are you including uncontested auctions in this thread about negative double treatments? Did you just forget the OP?

 

I prefer the negative double to guarantee 4+ hearts, and that systemically requires me to describe other hand types, like long, weak clubs, to pass initially (though some system of transfer advances is also very playable). Invitational + hands, of course, still bid naturally.

[awm]

Does openers 2h absolutely guarantee four hearts? I'd say maybe not -- some of the same hands that raise hearts on three uncontested might bid 2h here too.

 

This being the case, I don't think we are absolutely locked into playing in hearts. 3c should offer a strain.

[Bbradley62]

(I think some of the people who voted for option 1 were really voting for option 6, but it might have not been added to the poll yet and I'll let them speak for themselves.)

Yup.

[Trinidad]

That depends whether you play negative free bids, doesn't it?

Of course, it does. That is why this sentence was included in the OP:

 

(Although, to be clear, you are not playing non-forcing free bids.)

 

Rik

[Siegmund]

Why are you including uncontested auctions in this thread about negative double treatments? Did you just forget the OP?

 

I was trying to draw a parallel. Hands that formerly always had to go through 1S-Pass-1NT-Pass-2any-3C, a few players are now experimenting with 1S-Pass-3C.

 

After 1D-(1S), minimal hands with long clubs formerly always had to double first and rebid clubs. I am presuming that the people who think negative doubles promise 4 hearts have an alternative treatment here -- 1D-(1S)-3C to show the 7-9ish hand with 6 clubs is a reasonable thing to do. But not something I've actually seen anyone do at the table, or advocate doing on here.

 

If you don't have any methods like that, I think that having X absolutely promise 4 hearts is on shaky ground. But it doesn't seem to worry forum posters.

[Vampyr]

With long clubs and not 4 hearts wouldn't South have started with 3♣ (weak)

 

Just as an aside, I'd be surprised if many people have this available. I would certainly assume some kind of fit bid with a first-time partner.

[han]

I don't know how this negative double style can work. Sure, if the opponents are silent ever after, then it probably works. But suppose partner has x AQxx AKxxxx xx. The auction goes:

 

1D - (1S) - Dbl - (3S)

??

 

What is he supposed to bid?

 

Even worse, suppose you have - J10xxx AQJxxx Ax. After the auction starts

 

1D - (1S) - Dbl - (4S)

??

 

is it safe to bid 5H?

 

I thought that currently everybody plays that double just shows 4+ hearts and the inability to bid 2H, but apparently there is still a significant minority plays the traditional Sputnik double. Is it playable? Do the problems I sketched above not occur in reality? And what do you do in practice when they do, just bid hearts and hope that partner didn't have some other hand?