[HeartA]

2D doesn't show extras. I would 2S. The problem with 2S is, if pd bid 3H I would have bid 4C, by-passing 3N. 3C is my second choice.

[awm]

This is a matter of partnership agreement of course. There seem to be basically two ways to play negative doubles:

(1) The negative double shows four or more hearts. Basically any hand that would bid 1♥ over 1♣ (except perhaps a few really embarrassing ones that just want to keep the auction alive) will double. Under this interpretation, opener's rebids should mean exactly the same as they would mean if the auction had gone 1♣-P-1♥-P (except that a 1♠ rebid is not available, and that the 2♠ cue shows a big hand that would be awkward to bid in a constructive auction such as single-suited clubs GF). Therefore 2♦ rebid would show extras, 3♦ rebid would be a splinter for hearts, and so forth. In this case your bid is 2♦.

(2) The negative double is more of a "takeout" double. In addition to usually promising four hearts (although in this style a negative double on an awkward 2344 with no stopper is more possible), the double promises either a fit for diamonds, a fit for clubs, or invitational or better values. Using this method, responder would tend to pass or bid notrump with (for example) a 4432 pattern and less than invitational strength. Playing this style, opener is basically responding to a takeout double and 2♦ doesn't show extras, 3♦ is natural with extras, and 2♠ is the normal rebid with a strong hand. In this case your bid is 2♠.

If I had no idea which style partner plays, I would bid 2♠ because it shows a good hand (which you have) and it's forcing. I suspect the expert population is fairly evenly divided here -- in fact Mike Savage recently sent out an email poll to top players from the LA area on whether 2♦ in this auction shows extras and got evenly divided response. My personal preference is the second style.

[hatchett]

I prefer 2♦ to show extras just as if partner had responded 1♥. This seems logical if X in principle just shows 4♥. I would choose 2♦ here which is a one round force for me.

[mikeh]

I prefer 2♦ to show extras, altho after a 1♠ overcall, the negative double will deliver more values than would be shown by a 1♥ response had LHO passed. Accordingly, the minimum requirement for 2♦ is less in the given sequence than if I were reversing with silent opps. Still 'extras', but a good 15 will do, while for a 2♦ reverse over 1♥ I'd need a (very) good 17 or better. Needliess to say (altho I'm saying it anyway) the negative double, for me, speaks only of the ♥ suit.

[awm]

Another interesting point is the relationship between this sequence and the opening style. Some people (including some very good players) will always open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors and frequently open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors if not strong enough to reverse. If this is your opening style, then bidding 2♦ over partner's double should show extras -- after all you can't have four diamonds without extras when you open 1♣!

On the other hand, there's another set of people (again including some very good players) who would virtually never open 1♦ when holding longer clubs, and who frequently (or even always) open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. Playing this style it seems almost necessary that 2♦ not show extras (or that a 1NT bid not suggest a spade stopper, I suppose), since it will often be the case that opener holds four diamonds in the auction suggested without even five clubs.

[paulg]

2♦ does not show extras for me.

Historically (for me), when bidding clubs meant that you had the suit, the takeout double implied support for both unbid suits. Nowadays, as I open 1♣ with a balanced hand with 5 diamonds and 2 clubs, I have a different reason but the same answer!

I quite like 3♠ to show this hand now, with 3♣ as second choice.

Paul

[mike777]

I do not see how 2d can show extras

In any case 3clubs now.....keeping it simple.....I hope

btw I guess if you play more my style which is to open 1d with most 45 or 54 hands then 2d can be inferred to show something extra since you would open 1d or open 1c and rebid 2c with most minimums?

[whereagles]

There's a point in 2♦ NOT showing extras, but it can be played either way.

Incidently, since responder probably has 7+ hcp, 3♠ here should get us to a decent 3NT game if there's a stop, or to 5 or 6♣ otherwise.

[HeartA]

awm, on Oct 30 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

If this is your opening style, then bidding 2♦ over partner's double should show extras -- after all you can't have four diamonds without extras when you open 1♣!

I don't see the logic here. Even if one opens 1D with 4-4 minors or 4-5 with 4 Ds (which is my style, too. For 4-5 minors with 4 Ds which minor to open depends on the strength of minors), 1C opening doesn't deny 4 Ds, nor does it imply reverse strength with 4 Ds. With 6C-4D, you would open 1C even if you have dead minimum; and with ?, ?, Qxxx, AKQxx, one would open 1C.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Oct 30 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

I do not see how 2d can show extras

If you belong to the school that opens 1♦ with 4-4 minors, then I don't see how 2♦ can be played as NOT showing extras

Consider this: when negative doubles were in their infancy, they really only meant that you wanted to bid but lacked the hand needed to bid anything else: it was a catchall bid. They got refined, to the point that the vast majority of experts treat a negative double of 1♠ as promising ♥s and the ability to handle opener's likely rebids, and nothing more. I doubt that any significant number of good players use the double to show both red suits: what the heck do you do with only ♥??? Pass???

So, if we accept that the negative double carries no inferences of playability in ♦s, opener has to understand that a 2♦ bid may drive partner, on a rock-bottom minimum negative double to have to bid 3♣.

Not only is this risking turning a plus into a minus, but there are real hand evaluation issues as well.

The mere fact that opener MAY hold a minimum for 2♦ does not mean that he HAS a minimum: he will also bid 2♦ with extras.

Now, responder, with extras himself, is stuck, especially if his interest lies in ♣s.

He lacks room between 2♦ and 3N to distinguish between a full-value (but non-forcing) invite in ♣s and a desperate correction based on weakness.

So both players are making bids that carry very little quantitative information. Both may be minimum, with even 3♣ in serious jeopardy, or they could each be full value and be cold for game. You have to be a very good guesser to play this method.

As for if one opens 1♣ on 4-4, this is actually one of the sequences that I think is the most difficult for the approach. Now, if opener will bid 2♦ on a minimum 4-4 and on a good 4-5 or 4-6, what the heck is responder supposed to do???

With some 3=4=3=3 minimum negative double, is he to pass 2♦, finding partner with 4=6? The odds are that even if 2♦ makes, 3♣ was a better spot.

But if he guesses to bid 3♣, that's when partner holds a minimum 4=4 in the minors.

And, no matter what, both partners have the same valuation problem... not necessarily if responder fits ♦... he can bid 3♦ voluntarily, but certainly if he has ♣s. Is he inviting on a decent 10 or 11 count or is he running on a minimum 3=4=2=4 hand?

Now the frequency of these problems are impacted by your 1N range and the hands with which opener will rebid 1N without a stopper, but one has to stick one's head in the sand to say that these issues never arise.

I am just not good enough a guesser to play these methods. For me, I don't let their interference totally screw up my normal bidding. 2♦ over 1♥ is natural and strong: 2♦ over a negative double of 1♠ can be weaker, but not minimum, because the negative double will deliver a slightly stronger minimum holding than would 1♥, so the combined minimum partnership strength to arrive (temporarily) in 2♦ is unchanged, and I can use my normal bidding methods thereafter.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

am i alone in interpreting 3S as a splinter for hearts?

I think so...

[mikeh]

With all my energy spent on the meaning of 2♦, I quite forgot to bid!

However, when one is as sure as I am that 2♦ shows extras( ) at least my bid is easy: 2 resounding ♦s, showing 4+♦, longer ♣s and extra values.

Wow, does this hand make my arguments on 2♦ look good so far!


BTW, those 3♠ bidders answer this: You hold x AJxx KQx AKQxx any votes for '3♠ shows this type of hand?'

[HeartA]

mikeh, on Oct 30 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

......a negative double of 1♠ as promising ♥s and the ability to handle opener's likely rebids, and nothing more. I doubt that any significant number of good players use the double to show both red suits: what the heck do you do with only ♥??? Pass???

And what if responder holds 8 (or so) HCP, good D (AQJxx of diamonds, for example) and 3 hearts? You pass? I wouldn't. I agree that dbl, in general, promises H, but it doesn't deny diamonds, does it? As you said, "and the ability to handle opener's likely rebids". You mean 2D has to be excluded from the rebids unless opener has "extra" value? IMO, the rebids include 1N, 2C/2D and 2H. 1N, promises S stopper and balanced hand, of course; 2C implies not stopper in S, but decent C suit (5 good one or 6+) with minimum value; 2D shows 4 (perhaps 5, not likely though) and 5+ clubs (of course), and 2H show 4+ (occasionally 3 good ones) hearts. After opener's 2D, responder can try 1) 2H (decent 5+); 2) pass, minimun with moderate D fit; 3) 2S, D fit (not strong enough to freely bid 2D), 4) 3C, sign off; or 2NT to show 4 (+) hearts and S stopper(s).

[mike777]

I guess with that D responder hand you have to bid 2D..ok as a NFB and not too bad per Mike Lawrence style?

Anyway I am the only 3club bidder, wow....I did not think my bid that far out of the mainstream.

[paulg]

3♠ is unambiguous for me as double does not guarantee four hearts. 2♠ would be used on strong hands where the strain in uncertain.

p

[whereagles]

mike777, on Oct 30 2006, 11:22 PM, said:

Anyway I am the only 3club bidder, wow....I did not think my bid that far out of the mainstream.

3♣ is perfectly ok. I would definitely bid that if I knew there was a chance pard misinterpreted 3♠.

3♠ is a bit of a mastermind, but game sure looks good on these cards.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Oct 30 2006, 11:06 PM, said:

BTW, those 3♠ bidders answer this: You hold x AJxx KQx AKQxx any votes for '3♠ shows this type of hand?'

There is, obviously, a case for 3♠ to show that hand, but I think it's something one must pre-agree with pard. The way I'm used play it, these sort of jumps are pure stopper asking. Others might be used to other meanings, like splinter, for instance. Anyway, the point is the meaning of 3♠ depends more on a definition than on logic.

Waddayaknow.. I just made a case for bidding 3 CLUBS