negative doubles(2)

[jogs]

1m-(1♥)-1♠.

1m-(1♥)-X

 

The consensus of bridge experts play the 1♠ as showing 5 spades and the double to show 4 spades. But what does one bid with fewer spades. Are players required to pass all 0-11 HCP hands with no heart stop?

 

1♦ - (1♥) - ?

 

How does one bid 3=2=3=5 and 2=3=3=5 hands?

 

a) ♠ Kxx ♥ Ax ♦ 954 ♣ QJxxx

b) ♠ Kxx ♥ Qx ♦ 954 ♣ KJxxx

 

Are these a choice between 1NT and pass?

 

c) ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ 954 ♣ AQxxx

 

A forced pass?

 

The 'pass' is pulling too much duty. This forces too many reopenings with minimums by the opening bidder.

Does anyone else have an opinion on how these hands should be bid.

Should the boundary between 1♠ and double be placed elsewhere?

 

* 1♦ promises 3 cards. Usually shows 4+. Can only be 3 when pattern is 4=4=3=2.

[Vampyr]

My opinion is that of double and 1♠, one should show spades and one should deny them.

 

If partner would rather know about the fifth spade, I don't mind playing that 1♠ shows five and double implies but does not promise four, and might be bid on awkward hands like those you mention.

 

PS do you have a source for this consensus?

[jogs]

 

PS do you have a source for this consensus?

 

It is just from articles I've seen on the subject.

[Mbodell]

In the US it is certainly standard that 1♠ shows 5+. X usually has 4, but it is ok to do it with 3 with the right hand.

[rmnka447]

After 1 ♦ - (1 ♥)- ?, a negative double implies 4 ♠, but doesn't guarantee them.

 

You can have a hand that is too good to pass but not good enough to bid directly over the 1 ♥ overcall. Besides 1 ♠, the other non jump bid available over 1 ♥ is 2 ♣. If 2 ♣ is a forcing bid (as here for most people in the US), then a negative double followed by a ♣ bid implies a hand with not quite enough to force with, but with a ♣ suit and enough that you don't want to pass.

 

If you live someplace where 1 ♦- (1 ♥) - 2 ♣ is non forcing, then I believe the process is reversed. You bid 2 ♣ with a non forcing hand with ♣. With a hand that you would force, then you double and bid ♣ on the next round.

 

One issue that needs to be agreed upon is how much a forcing bid promises in these type of auctions. Some people may see what you can force with slightly differently.

 

If partner bids ♠ over your negative double, bidding a new suit should deny a ♠ fit. If you have 4 ♠, then you have to pass, raise, or make some other bid confirming the ♠ fit.

 

One other consideration to be aware of is whether your ♣ suit is good enough to bid at the 3 level.

 

Also one other thing to understand is that if you pass and subsequently bid a suit over partner's reopening double, you imply a hand weaker than a hand with which you would negative double and then bid a suit.

 

Let's take your example hands and assume opener rebids ♠ over a negative double --

 

c) ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ 954 ♣ AQxxx

 

This is an absolute minimum hand that I'd consider doubling and bidding ♣ over ♠ on. Sub in a red suit K for a red suit spot, then I think most people would make a direct, forcing 2 ♣ bid over 1 ♥.

 

b) ♠ Kxx ♥ Qx ♦ 954 ♣ KJxxx

 

Qx is worth something, but I'm not sure how much when it's in the opponent's suit. Also, I'd be uncomfortable bidding 3 ♣ on KJxxx after a ♠ rebid. So reluctantly, I'd pass this hand.

 

a) ♠ Kxx ♥ Ax ♦ 954 ♣ QJxxx

 

If I'm leery of bidding ♣ at the 3 level on KJxxx, then that must also be true of QJxxx. So after a negative double and ♠ rebid by opener, a NT rebid implies no ♠ fit, a ♥ stopper, and either a diamond fit or a ♣ holding I'm unwilling to bid.

[ggwhiz]

I see nothing wrong with a double that gets you to a moyse in spades when the 3-card suit has pump protection and have had some great results from it.

 

Contrast that to bidding a 4-card spade suit that has to ruff a heart and that is WRONG! Of interest is pairs that will bid a 4-card major after 1♣-1♦ and will only double with both majors. Also WRONG but just my opinion.

[Finch]

1m-(1♥)-1♠.

1m-(1♥)-X

 

The consensus of bridge experts play the 1♠ as showing 5 spades and the double to show 4 spades. But what does one bid with fewer spades. Are players required to pass all 0-11 HCP hands with no heart stop?

 

 

I don't believe there is such a 'consensus' globally. Outside the US, where there is no requirement to play 1S as natural, there is no such consensus.

[jogs]

I don't believe there is such a 'consensus' globally. Outside the US, where there is no requirement to play 1S as natural, there is no such consensus.

One, I come from ACBL land. Two, speaking only of those who play 1♠ as natural.

[manudude03]

Even among those who play 1S as natural, there are some who play 1S as 4+ and X as 0-3 spades

[RMB1]

The consensus of bridge experts play the 1♠ as showing 5 spades and the double to show 4 spades.

Is it?

 

Many experts play double as take-out without 4 ♠ (this is in Robson and Segal) or they play double as 4+ ♠, as an extension to transfer responses to 1♣.

[jogs]

Even among those who play 1S as natural, there are some who play 1S as 4+ and X as 0-3 spades

I think this style is optimal. 1♠ should be 4+ spades. A biddable spade suit, meaning ATxx, KJxx or better. Double is 2-4 spades. With 0-1 one should be able to find another call or pass.

[mike777]

1m-(1♥)-1♠.

1m-(1♥)-X

 

The consensus of bridge experts play the 1♠ as showing 5 spades and the double to show 4 spades. But what does one bid with fewer spades. Are players required to pass all 0-11 HCP hands with no heart stop?

 

1♦ - (1♥) - ?

 

How does one bid 3=2=3=5 and 2=3=3=5 hands?

 

a) ♠ Kxx ♥ Ax ♦ 954 ♣ QJxxx

b) ♠ Kxx ♥ Qx ♦ 954 ♣ KJxxx

 

Are these a choice between 1NT and pass?

 

c) ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ 954 ♣ AQxxx

 

A forced pass?

 

The 'pass' is pulling too much duty. This forces too many reopenings with minimums by the opening bidder.

Does anyone else have an opinion on how these hands should be bid.

Should the boundary between 1♠ and double be placed elsewhere?

 

* 1♦ promises 3 cards. Usually shows 4+. Can only be 3 when pattern is 4=4=3=2.

 

 

looks like you have an easy 2c bid on all three, not sure why people think this is a problem....pard should not open on crap.

 

 

My guess is you only have a problem when pard opens crappy bal hands.

--------

 

If pard does open crappy bal hands say 11-13 bal...then I now bid 1nt with all three of your examples and live with the system.

[fourdad]

looks like you have an easy 2c bid on all three, not sure why people think this is a problem....pard should not open on crap.

 

 

My guess is you only have a problem when pard opens crappy bal hands.

--------

 

If pard does open crappy bal hands say 11-13 bal...then I now bid 1nt with all three of your examples and live with the system.

 

I agree with mike777 100%!

[Winstonm]

The intervening bid makes a competitive auction much more likely so it is critical to find your fit ASAP; therefore, the 5+ spades requirement for the free bid makes sense so a 5/3 spade fit isn't buried under a pile of hearts.

 

When it is decided that a particular bid should be used in a particular way, then all other bidding must suffer some degree of inelegance. I would raise the minor with 4 and sometimes even 3-card support and bid 1NT with no stopper, and I most certainly play a 2/1 here as 1-round forcing only.

[cherdano]

I don't believe there is such a 'consensus' globally. Outside the US, where there is no requirement to play 1S as natural, there is no such consensus.

I don't think there is such a consensus within the US either.

 

There is, however, a consensus between cherdano and myself that having just one forcing bid in spades is inferior. The most likely big swings in these type of auctions arise when we have to decide whether to compete over their 3H/4H bids. Having just X = 4+ spades is much inferior to X = 4 spades, 1S = 5+spades, and IMO this isn't made up for with the benefit of an artificial 1S for "unbiddable hands" (which usually do ok with one of 1N, 2m or pass). If you want to have 1S = artificial, then you need something like 2H = 6+ spades, X = 4-5 spades in my opinion.

[zillahandp]

What is wrong with 2c or 2d on hands with 33 in majors? And 8/9/10 depending on minor suit length and quality or 1nt with similar but fewer points but worthy of a bid?

[jdonn]

I like the "standard" meaning of X is 4 spades and 1♠ is 5+. I think separating 4 from 5 is incredibly important. I have seen several times where X was 4 or 5 spades the auction went 1m (1♥) X (4♥) P (P) X (P) and opener bids 4♠ with 3, reaching a silly 4-3 fit. That exact sequence I have witnessed at least 3 or 4 times to a 4-3 fit. And it was never good. If I don't have 4 spades or a heart stopper I usually just pass with up to 10 or even 11. We don't have spades so it's harder to outbid them, and if it gets passed out I have done reasonably well. If they raise hearts and it comes back to me I can often balance with 2NT to get to a minor suit fit.

[dave_beer]

The current consensus is indeed that DBL shows exactly 4-card ♠ suit and that 1♠ shows 5+.

 

The older alternative is that 1♠ showed 4+ and DBL denied ♠. The newer alternative, frequently used by pairs who also play transfer responses, is similar to the older alternative except that they may restrict DBL to show 4 or 5-card ♠ suit and some other call to show 6+. This could become the consensus in the not-so-distant future.

 

Assuming partner's opening bid was 1♦, responder has to make a least of evils choice between PASS, 1NT, 2♣ and 2♦. My preference is for 2♦ on inadequate support. I may take another call if 2♥ comes back to me.

[rmnka447]

I thoroughly agree with the importance of being able to distinguish between 4 ♠ and 5+ ♠ by using double and 1 ♠ respectively to show those holdings.

 

If you choose to use only one call/bid to show 4+ ♠, then you can pose some difficult rebid issues for opener. Let's say that call is 1 ♠. Assume opener has a minimum opener with 3 ♠ 3 ♥ 2 om 5 m. Since opener doesn't have "pump protection", a 4-3 fit is often not desirable to play. The defense may be able to force a long trump suit ruff and cause declarer to lose trump control. If opener knows responder has 5+ ♠ raising is no problem. OTOH, if opener doesn't support the 4+ ♠ call/bid, later it may found that responder had 5+ ♠ and a fit was missed.

 

I don't necessarily agree that one has to have ♠ when negatively doubling ♥. Most of the time, you will have the major. It was the primary impetus for the development of negative doubles. But if your side can find any fit -- even in a minor -- it can be important. If you can drive the opponents one level higher and set them, it can often be a very good result no matter the form of scoring. +50 versus -110 by most other tables is a great result at MPs. At IMPs, part score swings can often be the difference in close matches.

[mike777]

As far as imp matches, I note in the Forum vs JEC matches it is almost never the case where partscore competition matters.

 

We lose the matches mostly on game bidding, play of the hand and defense not partscore competition.

 

I am suggesting that focusing on partscore competition be much less of a priority for the vast number of posters including me.

 

I am suggesting that bidding to the best game, making that game or beating the opp in game is much more important in Imp matches for most of us.

[steve2005]

I don't see problem passing. your partner balances aggressively right?

[jogs]

As far as imp matches, I note in the Forum vs JEC matches it is almost never the case where partscore competition matters.

 

We lose the matches mostly on game bidding, play of the hand and defense not partscore competition.

 

I am suggesting that focusing on partscore competition be much less of a priority for the vast number of posters including me.

 

I am suggesting that bidding to the best game, making that game or beating the opp in game is much more important in Imp matches for most of us.

Partscore is probably ignored by most top pairs. And it may be only 20% of the imps. Think it may be nearly 40% of the boards. If one pair focused more than others on partscores they should have a small advantage. Might make a difference in a close match.

[rmnka447]

As far as imp matches, I note in the Forum vs JEC matches it is almost never the case where partscore competition matters.

 

We lose the matches mostly on game bidding, play of the hand and defense not partscore competition.

 

I am suggesting that focusing on partscore competition be much less of a priority for the vast number of posters including me.

 

I am suggesting that bidding to the best game, making that game or beating the opp in game is much more important in Imp matches for most of us.

To be sure, the big swings normally determine the matches. But in close matches where both teams fare well -- bid and make the games/slams, defend well, etc. -- the part score results do become important. Those matches outcomes, then, often do turn on a few part score results.

[mike777]

Again using the forum vs Jec as the standard of measure you need to be close first...we are not close at this point so let us focus on the higher priority for the vast majority of us

 

 

the assumption that the match is close is a false dichotomy

 

 

to focus a bidding system to win the highly competitive part score is a false dichotomy..lets get to the best games or best slams first at the cost of a losing partscore

 

To repeat I suggest to use the Jec matches as a measurement for the forum members and myself.

[jogs]

Again using the forum vs Jec as the standard of measure you need to be close first...we are not close at this point so let us focus on the higher priority for the vast majority of us

 

 

Most members are lower on the bridge evolution scale. Would not be competing in the Vanderbilt or Bermuda Bowl. May even play mostly matchpoints, where nearly 40% of the boards are partscore battles. Also this thread is posted on the intermediate and advanced forum.