negative doubles

[jogs]

1♠ - (2♥) - X

 

Do we really need this as a negative double? Do we want opener to rebid at the 3 level with a minor?

 

This hand appears in the October Master Solver's Club in the Bridge World.

 

matchpoints, both vul.

You, South hold:

 

a. ♠ A64 ♥ KQT5 ♦ 8542 ♣ J4

 

North - East - South

1♠ - (2♥) - ?

 

What do you bid?

 

Change the red suit cards?

 

b. ♠ A64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ J4

 

What do you bid now?

[Vampyr]

While I like to have 4-card support for a cuebid, I think that this is what I would do on both hands.

 

Are you getting a juicy penalty at the2-level? Maybe, although I think probably not. But in any case most people find that takeout is more useful on a frequency basis.

 

Do you find that you often wish you had a penalty double here? When you do, does partner normally oblige?

[Jinksy]

I'm content to bid 2♠ on the first one. A slight underbid, but a) it's MPs, and b) my H honours won't provide much value if we're playing the contract. Hand 2 is less comfortable, but I'll opt for 3♥ (which we play as exactly 3 card support).

 

That might not answer your real question, but I don't have an opinion on that without seeing a few sims, or bidding more hands each way than I can be bothered to :P

[Cyberyeti]

3♥ in both cases, 3 card raise to 3♠ or better (we play 2N as the 4 card raise).

[jogs]

While I like to have 4-card support for a cuebid, I think that this is what I would do on both hands.

 

 

If we didn't play neg doubles on this auction, the double could show 3 card support. Reserve the cue for 4 card support.

 

Do we really ever want to force opener to rebid a 3 card minor suit on the 3 level?

[Vampyr]

If we didn't play neg doubles on this auction, the double could show 3 card support. Reserve the cue for 4 card support.

 

As you have seen, many people use the cuebid and 2NT to distinguish the lengths. This approach is quickly becoming mainstream, it seems to me.

 

Do we really ever want to force opener to rebid a 3 card minor suit on the 3 level?

 

No, not at all. I have never seen this happen though. But as you have had bad results from using takeout doubles here, you may want to change your methods. Just figure out what you will do with good hands with no clear directions, one thing you may have to do is to expand your definition of 3-card support to include Hx.

[jogs]

c. ♠ 64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ A64

 

Isn't this hand a forced pass? I'm suggesting that a good 9 with at least doubleton in support is worth a double. Double says pard I got something, please compete. With 3 card support and 11 highs responder can raise to 3♠.

[Vampyr]

c. ♠ 64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ A64

 

Isn't this hand a forced pass? I'm suggesting that a good 9 with at least doubleton in support is worth a double. Double says pard I got something, please compete.

 

You mean takeout? Like most people would do with this hand?

[mgoetze]

As you have seen, many people use the cuebid and 2NT to distinguish the lengths. This approach is quickly becoming mainstream, it seems to me.

Robson and Segal's book may be out of print but its influence is unwavering.

[jogs]

You mean takeout? Like most people would do with this hand?

 

These sequences assume a 5 card major system.

 

I hate the use of the word 'takeout'. Think like support doubles. If a raise shows 4, the double shows 3 or one less. The double promises tolerance of spades. Since a direct raise here would be 3, this double promises 2. In many if not most cases opener would rebid 2♠ with a weak hand. But three card support is possible. Now 3♠ by responder would show 3. This has the advantage of allowing us to play 2♠ with 5-2. Don't defend less than a 3 level contract.

[Vampyr]

These sequences assume a 5 card major system.

 

I hate the use of the word 'takeout'. Think like support doubles. If a raise shows 4, the double shows 3 or one less. The double promises tolerance of spades. Since a direct raise here would be 3, this double promises 2. In many if not most cases opener would rebid 2♠ with a weak hand. But three card support is possible. Now 3♠ by responder would show 3. This has the advantage of allowing us to play 2♠ with 5-2. Don't defend less than a 3 level contract.

 

So you want to use a cuebid to show a 4-card raise, a raise to show 3 and a double to show two? And you will use 2NT as a form of Lebensohl to show NFB-type hands? This makes me uncomfortable because not all hand-types are covered. But I would be interested in knowing how this scheme works out I or ticw.

[fourdad]

3♠ in both cases.....we play 3♥ as western Q, 2NT as natural.

[Trump Echo]

It's seems likely we have game in Spades.

 

With either hand, I'd respond 3 Diamonds and follow that with a supporting bid of Spades.

[nige1]

1♠ - (2♥) - X

Do we really need this as a negative double? Do we want opener to rebid at the 3 level with a minor?

This hand appears in the October Master Solver's Club in the Bridge World.

matchpoints, both vul. You, South hold:

a. ♠ A64 ♥ KQT5 ♦ 8542 ♣ J4

North - East - South

1♠ - (2♥) - ?

What do you bid?

b. ♠ A64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ J4

What do you bid now?

IMO, it depends on methods but double should show that you have values but no other convenient call. Assuming 5-card majors, I rank

Hand a.

1. 2♠. Underbid in pursuit of the plus score at MPs
2. Pass. Partner is likely to protect.
3. 3♥. Slight overbid.
4. Double.
5. 3♦.

Hand b

1. 2♠ As above.
2. Double. Intending to bid 3♠ next.
3. 3♥.
4. 3♦.

[jogs]

So you want to use a cuebid to show a 4-card raise, a raise to show 3 and a double to show two? And you will use 2NT as a form of Lebensohl to show NFB-type hands? This makes me uncomfortable because not all hand-types are covered. But I would be interested in knowing how this scheme works out I or ticw.

 

No, cuebid shows 4. Direct raise to 3♠ shows 4.

 

Double promises 2(but can be 3). In the Max Hardy version of 2/1, 1♠ -1NT; 2♣ - 3♠, this sequence shows 3 card support.

1♠ - (2♥) - X - (p); 2♠ - (p) - 3♠.

The double promised 2. The raise to 3♠ now show 3.

 

I have not suggested any use for 2NT.

[jogs]

b. ♠ A64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ J4

 

Hand b

1. 2♠ As above.
2. Double. Intending to bid 3♠ next.
3. 3♥.
4. 3♦.

 

I like choice 2. Double. Intending to bid 3♠ next.

2♠ would be 3 card support 5 to 9 HCP,

[jogs]

Often when the hand belongs in 3NT we must right side the notrumps.

 

RHO could hold AJTxxx, KJTxxx,or KQT9xx in his suit. Having the overcaller on opening lead sometimes creates two stoppers in the suit, while advancer on lead reduces the stoppers to one.

 

Ax

-------KQT9xx

Jxx

[rmnka447]

I'd cuebid as a limit+ raise even with 3.

 

That's because I play all raises in competitive situations as 5-8 HCP. 2 ♠ would show 3 ♠, 3 ♠ would show 4♠, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 ♠.

[jodepp]

On the first hand: IMO one should not go headhunting with unannounced support for partner's suit, so even if a penalty double were available I wouldn't use it. I might try 2NT (if natural) at the table (maybe even 3NT if partner's opening bid style was 'sound'). In any event, I have no quarrel with a cuebid raise or a simple raise - it's an 'eye of the beholder' hand.

 

The second auction seems like a straightforward cuebid raise though (if I read the auction and hand correctly).

[jogs]

I'd cuebid as a limit+ raise even with 3.

 

That's because I play all raises in competitive situations as 5-8 HCP. 2 ♠ would show 3 ♠, 3 ♠ would show 4♠, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 ♠.

 

Maybe it is just me. I do not use the symbol when stating the number of cards in a suit.

 

2 ♠ would show 3 spades, 3 ♠ would show 4 spades, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 spades.

 

 

On the first hand: IMO one should not go headhunting with unannounced support for partner's suit, so even if a penalty double were available I wouldn't use it. I might try 2NT (if natural) at the table (maybe even 3NT if partner's opening bid style was 'sound'). In any event, I have no quarrel with a cuebid raise or a simple raise - it's an 'eye of the beholder' hand.

 

The second auction seems like a straightforward cuebid raise though (if I read the auction and hand correctly).

 

The two of you are not appreciating the value of the extra trump. Partner must know the trump length to assist him in judgment in contested auctions.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

On average the extra trump is worth a full trick.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

Not always. There is always a fudge factor.

[zillahandp]

I agree with nige1 even playing acol. If i pass on 1 how can p make a protectiive dbl?

[jodepp]

Maybe it is just me. I do not use the symbol when stating the number of cards in a suit.

 

2 ♠ would show 3 spades, 3 ♠ would show 4 spades, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 spades.

 

 

 

 

The two of you are not appreciating the value of the extra trump. Partner must know the trump length to assist him in judgment in contested auctions.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

On average the extra trump is worth a full trick.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

Not always. There is always a fudge factor.

[jodepp]

Maybe it is just me. I do not use the symbol when stating the number of cards in a suit.

 

2 ♠ would show 3 spades, 3 ♠ would show 4 spades, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 spades.

 

 

 

 

The two of you are not appreciating the value of the extra trump. Partner must know the trump length to assist him in judgment in contested auctions.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

On average the extra trump is worth a full trick.

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e

Not always. There is always a fudge factor.

 

I'm not sure I get what your saying. It is a practical impossibility to distinguish among some 3- and 4-card limit+ raises in competitive auctions, given that most players play a direct jump raise as preemptive. Also I'm not sure 'what I'm not appreciating'. The thread hands have only three trumps.

[jogs]

I'm not sure I get what your saying. It is a practical impossibility to distinguish among some 3- and 4-card limit+ raises in competitive auctions, given that most players play a direct jump raise as preemptive. Also I'm not sure 'what I'm not appreciating'. The thread hands have only three trumps.

 

I'm suggesting that the cue should show four card support, while the double then rebid of 3♠ shows 3 card support.

[phil_20686]

I think its pretty textbook here for both 3H and 2N to be spade raises. How you split them up is a bit open for debate.

 

Hand 1

I like just bidding 3N on these hands at unfavourable. At favourable I would try a penalty pass. At all white or all red I would probably go the penalty pass route. I think 2S is criminal; not because its an underbid, not sure that it is with those hearts, but tactically I would much rather defend 2H than play 2S, and when partner is inviting over 2S I would much rather defend 2Hx. If you have four hearts and it goes 1y 2x p p partner basically always reopens. If partner has enough to invite over 2S he *ALWAYS REOPENS*. Not reopening here with anything other than a dead min with 3 hearts is an instant shooting offence.

 

Hand 2

I would bid 3H wtp? xxxx hearts is really a pretty good holding to play 4S here. 2S would be a criminal underbid. Don't mind bidding 3D if partner is a devotee of Robson-Segal. Quite like it in fact.