Response to a negative double

[akwoo]

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♥ - ?

 

Standard where I live is 3♥, which promises 10+ hcp and 3+ spades.

[Finch]

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. :(

 

You might like to play 1C - 1H - 1NT as a non-forcing club raise (and 2C as diamonds) because opener hasn't promised clubs, but after 1D - 1H you think it more useful to retain a natural 1NT and bid 2m naturally?

 

[i dunno, I play 1S in both auctions as denying spades]

[PhilKing]

You might like to play 1C - 1H - 1NT as a non-forcing club raise (and 2C as diamonds) because opener hasn't promised clubs, but after 1D - 1H you think it more useful to retain a natural 1NT and bid 2m naturally?

 

[i dunno, I play 1S in both auctions as denying spades]

 

After One Club we just play 1♠ as fewer than 4♠, 1NT as nat and 2♣ as diamonds and 2♦ as clubs. After One Diamond it's mostly the same except 2♦ is limited, often with three-card support. As you probably recall, after 1♦-1♥, 2♥ is a transfer to 6NT down 6 when partner forgets it shows spades. :angry:

 

I guess it's better to swap 1♠ and 1NT in the transfer structure, but I am not changing much for a while.

[Zelandakh]

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.

As a junior I played 1♣ - (1♥) - X as showing diamonds but 1♦ - (1♥) - X as 4 spades. The simple reason being that the latter did not take up any space whereas the former did and we wanted to keep our competitive auctions as similar as possible to the uncontested ones. The modern version of this seems to be X showing spades and 1♠ as a general noise and no obvious bid.

[jallerton]

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. :(

 

After a 2+ 1♣ opening, it can clearly workd out badly to raise to 2♣ with "only" 4-card support, so it can be handy to us double to show a hand with values but no convenient bid.

 

After a natural 1♦ (or natural 1♣) opening, opener can just raise the minor with 4-card support, and on (depending on style) some hands with 3-card support also. Thus Responder can normally find something to bid, so the "values but no convenient bid" hands are a lot less frequent.

 

Maybe that's the second reason, or maybe I'm just expressing the first reason in a different way.

 

After One Club we just play 1♠ as fewer than 4♠, 1NT as nat and 2♣ as diamonds and 2♦ as clubs. After One Diamond it's mostly the same except 2♦ is limited, often with three-card support. As you probably recall, after 1♦-1♥, 2♥ is a transfer to 6NT down 6 when partner forgets it shows spades. :angry:

 

This misunderstanding must be quite common. It happened against me a couple of months ago and the opponents ended up in 6NT-8! I never found out what the actual agreement was, but there's does seem to be an obvious advantage to natural methods.

[PhilKing]

This misunderstanding must be quite common. It happened against me a couple of months ago and the opponents ended up in 6NT-8! I never found out what the actual agreement was, but there's does seem to be an obvious advantage to natural methods.

 

Er, that was against me. :angry: :angry: :angry: Not that it's relevant, but I was right. The irony is it wasn't my bit of system - it was something I presume CS and GO played, based on the Bocchi notes.

 

I'm not bitter or anything, since it's not like it was in the last match of the Premier League with us leading by 4vps. -6 was just wishful thinking. But to be fair, 6NT just needed a finesse and a break or two, as I recall.