BBO Discussion Forums: Negative double or not? - BBO Discussion Forums

msjennifer, on 2016-June-29, 23:24, said:

I would absolutely expect a real life advanced or expert player to know what a negative double of 2♦ shows, and for a first game together, this isn't something that I would think about bringing up when filling out a convention card when there are so many other things to discuss.

I would even expect intermediate players who have been playing clubs and local tournaments to know what this shows. Either they should have learned it when they were taking lessons as a beginner, or they had it come up during a game. I would try to simplify my bids as much as possible, but there are limits to how much you can avoid and I would make a negative double with this hand because I really don't like 3♣. At worst, we'll have a disaster this time but partner will know the next time, and the next time, and the time after that.

notproven, on 2016-June-29, 14:51, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-29, 16:22, said:

So what advantage are you gaining by promising a 3rd card in the other major? When does this actually win you the board?

Granted in Acol you get away with it a lot more since you are taking 4333/4xx4 hands out of the equation in the common style. But still partner can be 4xx5 and one can construct hands of that shape where spades is the only game that makes. If you can't double just because you are short in one of the majors I can't see how you find the major on these. Or if partner is 4xx6 and you are say 4234 or something and are barred from doubling.

msjennifer, on 2016-June-29, 23:24, said:

Yes,he should have.That is trust.Trust a new partner until you find he is not so advanced.If not,he may think you do not read books.

I wonder where the 10+ meme comes from. Maybe it is an Acol or K/S thing (10+ means GF opposite the 15-19 balanced variant of the opening) or a Goren thing (10+ means inv+ opposite the 13-15 balanced variant). In a 15-17 system like modern SA it doesn't really make sense. 6+ or 7+ or 11+ I could think of a rationale for.

Stephen Tu, on 2016-June-30, 02:17, said:

It means you feel the best description of the hand is to show both majors, eg a 3442 hand only worth one bid where you will pass 2M.

If partner has an 18-19 balanced hand we obviously want to be in game. He is likely to have a doubleton in diamonds so he can reopen, but with three diamonds he might pass. Requiring a stronger hand for a negative double means that opener has to reopen with any balanced 18 count. That caries risks.

If partner has a balanced 12-14, dbl might land us in a too high 3♣ contract. But if they don't double us or we only go one down and 2♦ was making then it is ok.

If partner has an unbalanced hand short in diamonds, he will reopen anyway and having passed we will have to show extras now. That could take us too high. Double at least will allow us to stop in 3♣, unless partner thinks that doubled followed by 3♣ shows a strong hand.

I am wondering how it will go if partner is 4414 and minimum. If we double and next hand raises, might he bid 3♥? That would take us to 4♠. But maybe we will make it.

All things considered, and after having read the comments by Timo, I am changing my vote to double. 3♣ could work if we belong in 4♣ or 5♣ and next hand is about to raise to 3♦, but I think that dbl will let us find a club contract most of the time while 3♣ would often lose a spade fit.

Often there is a mixture of judgment questions and agreement questions. So it is here.

My partner opens 1C, my RHO calls 2D. I have a stiff heart. I don't have to be able to see through cards to figure that partner is highly likely to hove exactly four hearts in his hand. If he had five, he would have opened one heart, especially since from my club holding it seems unlikely partner holds six clubs. If he has only three hearts, and this is it's possible of course, then there are a lot of hearts on my left. So I bid, until I learn otherwise, on the assumption that partner has four hearts. He could also have four spades. So I would like to double.

Can I do so safely? Yes, I think so. In reasonable safety, as long as partner does not think that I must be 4-4. I start by assuming LHO will not raise diamonds and partner bids his major at the 2 level. If partner has four spades to go with his presumed four hearts he will, I hope, bid 2S expecting that if the auction continues he can then bid 3H letting us play at the 3 level in whichever major I have, in this case spades. But if my neg double had the same shape except with four hearts and one spade, we will still be fine.

But I must be prepared for the auction to get more exciting. If partner has both majors and a big hand he can bid 3S. With a bigger hand, 3D. When he holds four hearts but not four spades and a big hand, that's the case here, he might well bid 4H. OK, that consumes some space, too bad about that, but I can now bid 5C. I don't know if we can find 6C, someone has to make a leap of faith to get there, but we will be in a decent contract.
Or maybe after my negative double my LHO jumps to 4D and partner bids 4H. Not everyday, but it could happen. OK, this is not as big a hand, or does not have to be as big a hand, as the free leap to 4H. But it's not nothing. The opponent's values seem to be in diamonds, there is some shape on the hand, partner must (is highly likely to) have at least four clubs on this auction, he has values, 5C is very comfortable.

No guarantees on anything, but the negative double looks fine to me. Finding 6C? Maybe, maybe not.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-30, 04:35, said:

How is this an advantage to constrain your negative doubles to these shapes? What's wrong with including additional shapes, and bidding nt or supporting original opening suit if partner doesn't bid the major you were hoping for? If you have adequate strength and shape to make the correction and land in a reasonable spot, what is going to go wrong?

Why should the negative doubler be always required to pass partner's 2 of a major? What should rebidding 2nt or 3 of opener's minor mean, if playing your style?

We who allow negative double on lots of shapes double on the same hands you do, plus many more. You have to show us how this hurts us, how your restriction allows you to reach superior contracts on some hands. What class of hands are you actually gaining on?

Stephen Tu, on 2016-June-30, 07:20, said:

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.

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.

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-30, 08:16, said:

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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?

kenberg, on 2016-June-30, 06:06, said:

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?

helene_t, on 2016-June-30, 08:58, said:

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.

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.

helene_t, on 2016-June-30, 09:52, said:

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.

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.

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-28, 15:54, said:

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.

helene_t, on 2016-June-30, 11:19, said:

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.

Phil, on 2016-June-30, 11:32, said:

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.

notproven, on 2016-June-29, 09:09, said:

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.