[gwnn]

Scoring: MP

---

1♠-2♦-p-p
2♠-p-p-3♦
end

MP(-110)<MP(+420)

1♠ was about 10-14 hcp, NS don't play negative freebids.

[ArtK78]

I don't understand responder's first pass at all. What is wrong with a negative double? You have hearts, values and even a partial fit with partner.

Passing just does not come close to doing justice to the hand.

I have some sympathy for the pass over 2♠ - you don't want to hang partner for balancing. Still, you have grossly underbid (nonbid?) the hand at this point. The only excuse for not raising is that partner is limited to a 14 count. Still, opposite the right 14 count, game could be a claim.

The final pass is inexplicable.

By the way, I don't expect to get to game on these cards unless the opponents force me to bid it. Game is not a claim - you need 3-2 spades with no adverse ruff. Still, you have to play this hand in spades, not defend diamonds undoubled.

[Apollo81]

100% South, first for missing an auto negative double and then for not competing to 3♠.

[han]

South should buy some Audrey Grant books.

[keylime]

Ditto Han.

[gwnn]

OK so everyone blames S, who was me. I will not go on justifying/making up excuses here. I'd just like to understand negative doubles a little more. (and this thread is misplaced, I know, sorry about that)

If I had made a negX it would have gone:

   1♠-2♦-X
p-2♠-p-p
3♦-p-p-?

Is 3♠ clear now? Why is it clear? What's the line of thinking that lets me know the law is off 2 tricks here? Well, technically I need know only that it's off 1 trick, as long as I know we have an 8 card fit, which I'm not 100% certain of.

Also, I ran across this hand in the R/S book:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-2♣-?

---

5332, with 9hcp 2 controls doubleton support and Jxx in opps suit.

The book advocates passing and seems to imply it is a pretty clear-cut choice (pg 163). Is the method of scoring and vulnerability quite enough to tilt us from pretty clear cut pass to absolute clear cut double? Could anyone explain to me what the major difference here is? Thanks.

PS the whole hand was:

Scoring: MP

---

[cherdano]

I think Robson/Segal's claim that pass is clear-cut is debatable. But anyway, the hand in the original post is substantially more offensive than the one R/S give -- you have Kxxxx instead of AQxxx as your suit, and more importantly Qx instead xx in partner's suit.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Dec 4 2007, 12:59 AM, said:

I think Robson/Segal's claim that pass is clear-cut is debatable. But anyway, the hand in the original post is substantially more offensive than the one R/S give -- you have Kxxxx instead of AQxxx as your suit, and more importantly Qx instead xx in partner's suit.

Double on the hand they show seems clearcut to me.

[Apollo81]

gwnn, on Dec 4 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

OK so everyone blames S, who was me. I will not go on justifying/making up excuses here. I'd just like to understand negative doubles a little more. (and this thread is misplaced, I know, sorry about that)

If I had made a negX it would have gone:

   1♠-2♦-X
p-2♠-p-p
3♦-p-p-?

Is 3♠ clear now? Why is it clear? What's the line of thinking that lets me know the law is off 2 tricks here? Well, technically I need know only that it's off 1 trick, as long as I know we have an 8 card fit, which I'm not 100% certain of.

I almost commented on this in my original post (but I was too lazy).

I think that after you negative double, the burden is on your partner to act over 3♦ (after all it is all white, MPs, and he has a singleton). It's possible others will disagree with me. If he passes, your hand's action is also not clearcut (although I suspect I would pass in tempo).

The auction you originally gave and the auction after a negX are a lot different because
a. in the first auction partner's 2♠ bid was free, after a neg X he has fewer options
b. in the first auction you had not described your hand at all / your hand was great in context, in the second auction you already described the key features of your hand

[pclayton]

I doubt many are reaching this perfecto game. I'd run out of steam at 3♠, although a negative double looks pretty obvious to me initially.

[han]

I also think the R/S hand is a clear double.

http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Club-Introduc...96799238&sr=8-2

[mike777]

gwnn, on Dec 3 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ AKxxxx ♥ Qx ♦ x ♣ QJxx ♠ Qx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ Jxx ♣ KTx

1♠-2♦-p-p
2♠-p-p-3♦
end

MP(-110)<MP(+420)

1♠ was about 10-14 hcp, NS don't play negative freebids.

South 75% yes he should neg x
North 25% I would reopen with a double. I open 99% of all hands with a double if short in the overcall suit.

Now we have a strong indication that the opp are in a 9 card d fit and should not be allowed to play at the law level when we might bid 3s.

[fifee]

mike777, on Dec 4 2007, 04:03 PM, said:

gwnn, on Dec 3 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AKxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Qx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> QJxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Qx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Kxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Jxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

1♠-2♦-p-p
2♠-p-p-3♦
end

MP(-110)<MP(+420)

1♠ was about 10-14 hcp, NS don't play negative freebids.

South 75% yes he should neg x
North 25% I would reopen with a double. I open 99% of all hands with a double if short in the overcall suit.

Now we have a strong indication that the opp are in a 9 card d fit and should not be allowed to play at the law level when we might bid 3s.

I agree with re-opening double. If partner has ♥s, he will have made a negative double. If he has opponent's suit, he may likely have passed. Playing negative doubles, this is automatic for me.

I agree 100% with negative double with this hand and with the Robson/Segal hand.

[fifee]

Using Firefox browser seems to cause translation problems !