Negative double or not?

[Stephen Tu]

The problem with being 4243 is that the auction goes 1♣-(2♦)-X-(4♦) and now you're on a complete guess as to whether you have any fit at all in the majors. At least playing the X semi 2 suited or better you know you have a 4-3 fit and very likely 4-4.

Why does this matter? If opener is strong enough to bid 4M, responder corrects to 5c, you should have a decent shot of making it. Opener with less shapely hands but extra strength can double 4♦ leaving defending as an option, and if responder doesn't bid the major held can correct 4H to 4S offering choice of contracts or correct 4S to 5c.

 

It's not a box of chocolates over a 3♦ raise where partner bids 3♠ and I have 4 hearts and no diamond stop, can easily get to 5♣ when I want to be elsewhere.

Again why can't one correct to 4♣ if 4♥ and no diamond stop?

 

Of course doubler isn't required to pass, but I need a diamond stop for 2N. I have the advantage that partner won't have a weak NT as we would open one. Rebidding partner's minor would be maybe 10-12 with 4 clubs and probably no diamond stop, a bit better than this hand.

 

OK if you say original post is not quite strong enough to neg double, but with stronger hand, what's the advantage of limiting this sequence to hands with 4 cd support only? With 5 cd you are more likely to make it, partner can assume 4 and be pleasantly surprised you have an extra.

 

I just don't see hands where you are actually reaching superior contract to the std method. I mean maybe over the 3d raise where opener can bid 3M more freely with total minimums not being worried about a 4c pull and possibly capture some partial swings that the other style might miss. But I think you give up on a lot of hands. You are 4135/4234 GF, what do you do over 1c-(3d)-? Commit to 3nt when 4s might be the only make? What if you have that shape and no diamond stop?

[helene_t]

If partner has both majors and a big hand he can bid 3S. With a bigger hand, 3D.

It can't be right that 3♦ is bigger than 3♠. 3♦ allows us to stop in 3♥. 3♠ is nonforcing and denies four hearts imo.

 

Is there concensus that p will rebid 2♠ with 4-4 in the majors?

[kenberg]

It can't be right that 3♦ is bigger than 3♠. 3♦ allows us to stop in 3♥. 3♠ is nonforcing and denies four hearts imo.

 

Is there concensus that p will rebid 2♠ with 4-4 in the majors?

 

I doubt that there is a consensus. I have thought of starting a thread about defaults. I play with pick-ups, and even when not a stranger we often have limited agreement. It seems completely clear to me that with a normal take-out double, say (1C)-X-(Pass), responder should bid 1S when 4-4 with modest values. Doubler could easily be 4-3 in spades and hearts. If advancer bids 1H the spades will be likely lost since doubler will not now bid 1S over 1H and, assuming the auction does not die, no one may have the values to later bid 2S since it would force the auction to 3H when doubler had four hearts and three spades. So that seems clear. Now over a negative double it is less clear, but I think that it is still best.

 

 

As to 3D on a 4-4 invit, maybe so. The idea of first cue bidding 3D and then passing the major suit response seems odd to me. But maybe so.

 

People do, sometimes, open 1C holding six clubs and five spades so I suppose showing five could be right.

[helene_t]

I think it is better to bid hearts because responder can still bid 2s with a weak hand with 5-3. I might be wrong though. If overcaller bids again and responder doubles again then you are better placed if you bid spades first.

[kenberg]

I think it is better to bid hearts because responder can still bid 2s with a weak hand with 5-3. I might be wrong though. If overcaller bids again and responder doubles again then you are better placed if you bid spades first.

 

Fantasizing

Here I am with five spades, three hearts and a weak hand. Partner opens 1C, then 2D on my right.. Perhaps I double, it depends on how weak is weak. Pass on my left, partner bids 2H, then pass on my right. We have a 4-3 heart fit at the 2 level, possibly a 5-0 spade fit, nobody has doubled us (yet) and I am have a weak hand. I don't think you could get me to bid 2S. If the opponents double, I might think about it. But I am far from sure I would do it.

 

Anyway, this all illustrates why it would be good to have some commonly agreed default meanings. Easier said than done.I doubt any approach can be called unequivocally standard.

[helene_t]

Yeah maybe 5-3 was a silly argument. What about 5-2 or 6-2 or 6-3. It is also the question if double then 2S shows club tolerance. I don't think it can. Dbl then 3he must show a flexible hand since otherwise I would bid 3h immediately. Btw we should play inversion here so a weak hand with spades only bids 2h. Then dbl followed by 2s would show a flexible hand.

[Phil]

I play that a negative double shows (at least) 2 places to play, doesn't promise both majors but if we bid one instead it promises 5+. Feels like a 50-50 split with people that don't play it that way but more flexible imo. What do you do after 1♣ - 2♦ to you with a 4-1-3-5 forcing hand?

 

This hand is a pretty clear cut admittedly light negative double in this style with the 5th club in reserve but not so much if the red suits were 2-2

 

Same here but you have to be careful. If LHO bumps you need to have partners x to be both majors or neither. Otherwise a 44 fit can get buried.

[kenberg]

Yeah maybe 5-3 was a silly argument. What about 5-2 or 6-2 or 6-3. It is also the question if double then 2S shows club tolerance. I don't think it can. Dbl then 3he must show a flexible hand since otherwise I would bid 3h immediately. Btw we should play inversion here so a weak hand with spades only bids 2h. Then dbl followed by 2s would show a flexible hand.

 

Living in the Washington DC area, I naturally grabbed my copy of Washington Standard (Sterve Robinson). Steve is not God, but even mortals can be useful.

 

Steve s[eaks of 1D-(2C), I don't see 1C-(2D) but presumably it's similar enough.

 

 

Summary (of the WS approach here, as I understand it): X shows either both majors or else one major plus opener's minor. Thus,

1C-(2D)-X-(Pass)

2H-(Pass)-2S

shows four spades and clubs. It does not show long spades. The 2H bid could well be on 4-4 in the majors since the negative doubler is, in this approach, free to bid 2S on a four card suit when not holding hearts. Thus, a 2S response to the negative double denies four hearts (not explicit in WS but it seems to follow).

 

I think we can agree that this is not the way everyone plays this. But I can imagine it covers many cases and is dependable.

 

I am not sure what you mean by inversion.

[kenberg]

Same here but you have to be careful. If LHO bumps you need to have partners x to be both majors or neither. Otherwise a 44 fit can get buried.

 

I'm working on this: First with 1D-(2C).

1D-(2C)-X-(3C)

X, by opener, is now both or neither. So 3D is exactly one major? After which they can be sorted out in a p/c (well a pass or raise)/correct manner, at least if the opponents forego further interference.

 

1D-(2C)-X-(3C)

X-(Pass)-3H-(Pass)

3S

 

Negative doubler has shown he has hearts, and not denied he has spades. Now the 3S bid shows that opener has spades. Presumably negative doubler, if he has spades but not hearts, is prepared for opener to go back to clubs if opener lacks spades.

 

Like that?

 

Seems to work. A little tougher after 1C-(2D)-X-(3D) since 3C is unavailable.

 

I had never heard of this, but then I there are a lot of things I have never heard of. Old dog looking for new trick.

[masse24]

1) In standard American, SAYC or 2/1, a negative double guarantees tolerance for the other two suits, . . . No exceptions. Period.

 

3) West's initial pass is strange. 3♣ is 100%.

 

I Disagree.

 

A negative double, in this auction, promises one (or both) majors and 8+ HCP. If only one major then it also includes a safe landing spot. In other words . . . Two places to play. I would expect this to be fairly standard and understood--undiscussed--with an advanced player. You suggested actually reading Lawrence, Bergen, Kantar, et al. Bergen states, in this exact auction: "1♣ - (2♦) - X" that "Responder shows at least one of the majors and at least 8 HCP." As you stated, "Basic bridge as taught by world class players."

 

I do agree that West's initial pass is strange. However, I am with Mr. Ace, I would double every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[kenberg]

This series of posts illustrates why bidding on BBO is so horrendous: most players make up their own systems and call it "Bridge". The original post is a beginner question about 2/1. So I went to Mike Lawrence's book on 2/1 - THE BOOK. You might also want to read Eddie Kantar or Marty Bergen or some other World Class player/writer, but they'll all give you the same answer to this beginner problem. Check my posts; I didn't just make up something, I confirmed all of it in Mike's book first.

 

Granted, many of truly expert pairs have adopted useful variations: supported by pages of system notes and hours of discussion and play. But, first they all read about the system and thoroughly understood the principles. That's why they win world class events, not because they've picked up a few dubious tips from the local club. If you want to deviate from standard, fine, but make clear what is standard first, then tell us why your variation plays better.

 

 

Which Mike Lawrence book? His Workbook on the 2/1 system? Or some other text? Please quote a page number, because I cannot find it. I perused my copy, he like gives 2 negative double auction examples, neither of which is 1d-2c-dbl or 1c-2d-dbl. I don't see anywhere where he claims negative double has to guarantee both unbid suits.

 

Every reference I have, negative double does not guarantee both unbid suits unless specifically the auction 1c-(1d)-dbl. In other situations, you can double with one unbid major with sufficient strength for the level, and either a stopper in the overcalled suit, so you can bid NT later, or support for partner's opening suit, so you can take a preference. You just need a reasonable backup plan if partner bids the major you don't have. Reserving dbl only for those hands that have both unbid suits IMO is underutilizing the cheapest most flexible call by a ton, and leaving a lot of hands essentially unbiddable. You support partner's minor instead, and take a horrible MP score because the major fit scores better. Or you decline to invite because it's too thin to invite 11 trick minor game but if you knew partner had major fit you'd take a shot at the major game. You have some auction like 1c-(2s)-?? And you can't double because you don't have diamonds, so you bid 3nt and miss the superior 4H. Or 1c-(3d)-? you want to bid game in major if you have fit, 3nt/5c if not, how can you cater to both possibilities without being able to double with one major only?

 

I've read a ton of bridge books in my life from a lot of those authors. I think I would have remembered if negative double always guaranteed both unbid majors.

 

 

 

 

I learned almost exclusively from books from top class authors. I didn't pick up the idea that negative double doesn't guarantee both majors from some total random at the club. I can't see how guaranteeing both majors is playable. What can possibly be wrong with doubling, then pulling back to clubs if partner bids hearts? What does that even mean if double guarantees both majors, you play that as a game try in the major I guess?

 

I'm pretty sure how I play is standard. Guaranteeing unbid suits on all auctions is non-std. If you dispute this, please give title, publication date, and page numbers of the book supporting your thesis.

First 3 books I looked at, Modern Bridge Conventions by Root/Pavlicek, Washington Standard by Robinson, Bidding Dictionary by Truscott, all support my contention as standard. I can supply page numbers if you don't believe me. I doubt any of the books in my collection say otherwise.

 

I'll come in on this a bit.

 

 

 

Mike Lawrence: Double! New Meanings for an Old Bid. Copyright1994, Pages 12-17 or so. I will select some.

 

on page 15 he gives the auction 1D-2C.

 

Then he poses the question: "If East doubles two clubs, does he promise both majors?:

He answers his question:

 

"No, East can double with only one major but he had better be careful."

 

He provides examples:

 

No:

73

AQ74

874

J653

 

Yes:

JT73

Q8

A742

KJ3

 

In this latter one, if partner responds in heart to the double, ML recommends NT.

 

General theme: If you ask partner to bid whatever major he has, and if you only have one major, you need a back up plan when he bids the major that you don't have. Of course so.

 

 

A couple of things that I think are true:

 

After 1D-(2C) and presumably after 1C-(2D)

Not all experts agree on just how to handle this.

Few if any experts insist that the negative double shows support for both majors.

If you only have on major, you need some foresight. Or detailed agreements.

 

I play a fair amount of pick-up on BBO. I run into problems, but not so many that I collapse in agony. With the OP hand I double because I believe I can land on my feet pretty much however it goes, just as long as partner keeps an open mind.

 

A regular partnership sits down and works through the details. Playing pick up, you wing it. Sometimes it is something in between.

 

Recommendations for pick up on BBOI

#1 Develop a sense of humor.

#2 What is elementary and standard for you might be weird for someone else.

#3 Go for the practical, not the optimal.

 

 

I double on the OP hand. I freely admit that after that, when partner leaps to 4H, I have a guess to make. I bod 5C or I bid 6C. If we were Meckwell, we might have other optinos, but we aren't 6C is on. So of course I would have bid it. Of course.

 

Btw. I regularly try to get partners to buy the Conventions disk by ML that BBO sells. I have had very limited success in this. Everyone is positive that s/he already knows how such and such a convention is played. I make no claims that ML has the best approach. As I said earlier about Steve Robinson, he isn't God. But if two people read the same literature, this might help. It really isn't all the same.

[kenberg]

This morning I was trying to get various books and papers in some sort of order and I ran across Better Bidding With Bergen. (second printing, 1988). On page 31 he laments the confusion on negative doubles: Not only is it easy to observe with average players, but this confusion can even be seen each month in the comments of the panelists in the 'Masters Solvers' Club' of the Bridge World". He goes on to quote Eddie Kantar "No two expert partnerships play negative doubles alike".

 

Even allowing that Kantar might be overstating it a bit, and noting that BBB is thirty years old (1st printing was '86) it seems clear that any claim that everyone knows just how negative doubles are played is optimistic.

 

So we are back to "do your best not to confuse partner" in pick-up games, and "go over the details, in this and in any convention" if you are forming a regular partnership. And avoid the urge to asseret "Everyone who knows anything at all plays it like I do".

 

On this last point: Playing the other day, partner opened a club, rho doubled, I bid 1H, passed out, +200. Partner explained that he understood 1H to show fewer than ten points, I said I played it as forcing, and then we went on enjoying the game. If we were to play at all regularly we would sort this out and surely modern (in this case "modern" =post 1960 or so) opinion is on my side. But if I play pick-up, it happens. If you can't stand it, don't play pick-up.