Response to a negative double

[jogs]

Response to a negative double

 

Playing 5-card majors you hold

♠ Q9643 ♥ K3 ♦ AK5 ♣ Q63

You open 1♠.

 

1♠ - 2♥ - X - p

?

 

What do you rebid?

2♠, 3♣, 3♦ or something else?

 

jogs

[rhm]

2NT

 

Why not?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

2NT

 

Why not?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Yeh. I don't even care if partner doesn't recognize it as "pick a minor".

[Finch]

2NT. Natural, balanced hand. What's the problem?

[jogs]

Many views with few responses. Surprised by the

willingless to try 2NT natural. Cohen told us 20 years

ago that in contested auctions 2NT natural is rarely

the best place to play. And even when it is, we wont

know it. On this board they will make 4 or 5 hearts.

They rate to find 6 tricks before we can cash 8 tricks.

 

Negative double is

a generic term for sequences which start with: we bid,

they interfere, we double. Each sequence should be

treated individually.

 

1) 1♣-1♦-X

2) 1m-1♥-X

3) 1m-1♠-X

4) 1♥-1♠-X

5) 1♦-2♣-X

6) 1M-2♣-X

7) 1M-2♦-X

8) 1♠-2♥-X

 

This thread could be titled "negative doubles, part 8".

 

Doubler's most frequent pattern is probably 2=3=4=4.

That would be 7=5=7=7 pattern for our partnership.

6=8=6=6 pattern for them. That means even when we

hold 21-23 points, they may make more tricks in hearts

than we can in any of our 7-card fits.

 

I favor 2♠. Use as little room as possible.

[PhilKing]

Many views with few responses. Surprised by the

willingless to try 2NT natural. Cohen told us 20 years

ago that in contested auctions 2NT natural is rarely

the best place to play. And even when it is, we wont

know it.

 

Your three suggestions are to rebid a five card suit you have already shown or bid a three-card suit at the three level. Would you be surprised that some people find that surprising?

 

On this board they will make 4 or 5 hearts.

They rate to find 6 tricks before we can cash 8 tricks.

 

Whereas 2♠ will play brilliantly when partner passes with ♠x♥Jxx♦Qxxx♣AKxxx thinking we have, of all things, spades. He will be impressed when we go two down when the field is making 10 tricks in 2NT or 3NT.

 

Negative double is

a generic term for sequences which start with: we bid,

they interfere, we double. Each sequence should be

treated individually.

 

1) 1♣-1♦-X

2) 1m-1♥-X

3) 1m-1♠-X

4) 1♥-1♠-X

5) 1♦-2♣-X

6) 1M-2♣-X

7) 1M-2♦-X

8) 1♠-2♥-X

 

This thread could be titled "negative doubles, part 8".

 

Bad title. I make it sequence number 12, by. Rightly or wrongly, some of us play 1♣-1♥-X as denying four spades and 1♦-1♥-X as promising four spades, for example. They are not the same for a couple of reasons.

 

Doubler's most frequent pattern is probably 2=3=4=4.

That would be 7=5=7=7 pattern for our partnership.

6=8=6=6 pattern for them. That means even when we

hold 21-23 points, they may make more tricks in hearts

than we can in any of our 7-card fits.

 

We are where we are. 2NT is just a least of evils. No one is loving it. And as you say, responder is usually 44 in the minors, so we have no need for 2NT scramble and only a very limited need for Lebensohl. However, that just stymies us when we want to bid naturally.

 

I favor 2♠. Use as little room as possible.

 

 

2♠ says you want to play in 2♠ opposite a minimum double with normal shape - it doesn't say you want to save room. Save room for what? What you need is extra room for putting all your losing tricks horizontally.

 

.

[MrAce]

Phil for president !

[mich-b]

Rebidding 2NT does not necessarily mean the final contract will be 2NT. It may just be the best description of the hand. It may be the way to reach 3NT , or 3m (if pd chooses to correct to 3m (NF), knowing I have a balanced hand).

It's true that usually we are not happy about playing 2NT , but that does not imply that all natural 2NT bids are useless.

[jogs]

We are where we are. 2NT is just a least of evils. No one is loving it. And as you say, responder is usually 44 in the minors, so we have no need for 2NT scramble and only a very limited need for Lebensohl. However, that just stymies us when we want to bid naturally.

 

I favor 2♠. Use as little room as possible.

 

2♠ says you want to play in 2♠ opposite a minimum double with normal shape - it doesn't say you want to save room. Save room for what? What you need is extra room for putting all your losing tricks horizontally.

 

2♠ says whatever you agree it says. We are really discussing the best use of 2♠.

2♠ also increases the chances of them competing with 3♥.

If pard has 1=2=5=5, he can rebid 2NT. The reality is our best

spot is defending 3♥ when we have a misfit.

[mikeh]

2♠ says whatever you agree it says. We are really discussing the best use of 2♠.

2♠ also increases the chances of them competing with 3♥.

If pard has 1=2=5=5, he can rebid 2NT. The reality is our best

spot is defending 3♥ when we have a misfit.

While you are correct in your statement that 2♠ means whatever you agree it means, I cannot imagine ever wanting to agree that it means this hand and, in particular, this suit.

 

No matter what you agree it means, it must surely be passable. And it must surely include a hand such as AKJ10xx xxx Ax xx.

 

Since it must include that hand and suit, having an agreement that it can also include the OP hand and suit seems suboptimal, to be polite.

 

As for him bidding 2N with 1=2=5=5, my view is that 2N would be natural, say something like x K10x QJxx AQxxx

 

As for the opps bidding 3♥ (when it is bad for them to do so), the only question I have for you is where do you find opps who bid like that when we are in the middle of a misfit auction, with responder unlimited?

[Phil]

 

2♠ says whatever you agree it says. We are really discussing the best use of 2♠.

 

No, we are discussing the best of the bad rebids to a negative double. The concept of 'assigning' certain bids bad meanings that happen to fit a particularly awkward situation will temporarily win a post-mortem with a nitwit partner, but thats as far as it goes.

 

2♠ also increases the chances of them competing with 3♥.

 

One or both of them is well-upholstered in spades. They will gladly let you rot in your 5-1 or 5-0.

 

If pard has 1=2=5=5, he can rebid 2NT. The reality is our best

spot is defending 3♥ when we have a misfit.

 

I suppose by the same logic and debating style you could say, "2NT says whatever you agree it says. We are really discussing the best use of 2NT". Today I'll use it as a 1=2=5=5.

[jogs]

 

One or both of them is well-upholstered in spades. They will gladly let you rot in your 5-1 or 5-0.

 

 

Assuming a bad spade split, why do you think 2NT will do better? At least we are not doubled.

[Phil]

Assuming a bad spade split, why do you think 2NT will do better? At least we are not doubled.

 

That's a fair point, but in a trump contract they have the opportunity to separately take tricks in spades. More so, if I have to draw trump I need to give up extra tricks in the suit, since I have to lead them myself. In addition, its not always clear to attack my known five card suit in NT, and my texture gives me some positional protection against them running a lot of tricks.

[jogs]

With 1=3=54 and 9 HCP, partner should consider passing the 2♥ call.

He knows or should know that this is likely to be a unlucky board for us.

[Finch]

Let me ask you a different question.

As you are so certain you know what the correct call is, why did you bother starting this thread with a question?

[mikeh]

Let me ask you a different question.

As you are so certain you know what the correct call is, why did you bother starting this thread with a question?

Maybe because he wasn't looking to learn: he was looking to enlist our opinions to win an argument when his choice of 2♠ didn't find much support from the players he was playing with and against.

 

Heck, the (to me obvious) consensus 'least worst' 2N call wasn't even listed in his 3 options.

[jogs]

Heck, the (to me obvious) consensus 'least worst' 2N call wasn't even listed in his 3 options.

 

Actually 2NT could be the 'least worst'. At least

we agree all options are 'bad'.

Where I really disagree is which patterns should be

making the negative double. With one spade partner

should pass more often. With zero spades

perhaps double was the wrong call.

 

♠ AJx ♥ xx ♦ Qxxx ♣ KJxx

 

How does one bid this hand after

1♠ - 2♥ - ?

 

With no opposition bidding many partnerships would

start with a forcing notrump followed by 3♠.

I think we should follow the same line in a contested

auction. Double, followed by 3♠. Using this line

of logic, never double with a spade void. Double less

often with a singleton spade.

[han]

Besides 2NT being a good description of our hand, it also makes it easy to rightside 3NT. Imagine partner with Qxx of hearts for example.

 

With the 3-card raise I'd bid 3H, showing a 3-card invite or better. Either way, what partner does with the 3-card invite is not relevant. Partner will bid 3S next, whether you bid 2NT or 2S.

[dake50]

Did partner already not free bid 3C with C:AKxxxx + one of {DQ,HQ,HA,SK}?

Or D:QJxxxx +CAK?

If he confidently does not have one of those, what does he have?

SKx +HA +{CA, CK} seems a minimum negX pushing to the 3-level.

I try 2NT expecting 3NT.

[jogs]

Besides 2NT being a good description of our hand, it also makes it easy to rightside 3NT. Imagine partner with Qxx of hearts for example.

 

Notrumps compresses the total tricks. After a two level overcall we usually only belong in 3NT when there is a running minor. When partner holds Qx(x) or Ax(x) and a good hand, he should cue 3♥ and not bid notrumps first. He should also be aware of right siding 3NT(although it is unlikely we belong that high).

[CSGibson]

 

♠ AJx ♥ xx ♦ Qxxx ♣ KJxx

 

How does one bid this hand after

1♠ - 2♥ - ?

 

 

How is this a hard hand? Is there a more obvious bid than 3♥ for this? Why the hell would you want to hide your support for partner? While you might be able to make a theoretical argument that this is a playable treatment to differentiate between 3 & 4 card raises, you get into trouble in the real world where opponents don't cooperate by passing or making bids that don't take up space.

 

As to the OP, obvious 2N.

 

Oh, and side note, I accidentally hit reputation instead of reply originally. Please do not take my upvote as agreement, because I definitely do not agree with your post.

[Zelandakh]

Jogs, thank you so much for teaching me about negative doubles. I have clearly been advancing them all wrong these last years. Could you perhaps create similar teaching threads for parts 1 to 7? I would be most grateful. Don't worry about Mike, Phil, Han and co - they clearly have no idea about how to bid properly.

[mycroft]

"In competitive situations, 2NT is not necessarily natural. It is also not necessarily forcing." Partner has a bid, and now knows my hand (no 6th spade, heart stopper, no long minor - but presumably something in the minors because I don't have lots of hearts, and I only have 5 spades). I assume he'll do the right thing - and yes, if passing 2NT is the right thing, it's still going to suck.

[WellSpyder]

Rightly or wrongly, some of us play 1♣-1♥-X as denying four spades and 1♦-1♥-X as promising four spades, for example. They are not the same for a couple of reasons.

Phil, would you care to elaborate on the reasons for this? I've never actually noticed anyone making this distinction, perhaps because the two sequences don't tend to come up very often on adjacent or proximate boards.

[PhilKing]

Phil, would you care to elaborate on the reasons for this? I've never actually noticed anyone making this distinction, perhaps because the two sequences don't tend to come up very often on adjacent or proximate boards.

 

It's fairly common if playing five-card majors with a 2+ club to play play double after 1♣-(1♥) to try and locate a minor suit fit (and denying four spades) - a posh version of "stolen bid" double, if you like. After a natural diamond, that is less important, so we may as well distinguish between four and five spades.

 

I can't remember the second reason. :(