[Halo]

4432 versus 2434, with void heart and six on the left. I don't know. Game opposit a 4432 12 count, don't know. Best sequence opposite 2335, don't know. Reassuring that some people know.

[Cascade]

Halo, on Mar 28 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

3C

Seems a good idea to show my support. Spades aren't necessarily lost if they were worth finding.

I like the idea in general of showing your support ...

but aside from anything else 3♣ here shows nothing like the values you have.

[effervesce]

X, t/o. Why settle for a less descriptive bid?

[gwnn]

skaeran, on Mar 27 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 27 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

There is no bridge bid but double.

Almost agree. A double is not a bid though...

I wanted to make that exact same post (maybe a different smiley), but I chickened out. I very much respect your courage

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Mar 27 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

X. Where does this never double with a void idea come from?

I saw Garozzo make this comment when he was playing on BBO some months ago.

[helene_t]

Larry Cohen writes in "To bid or not to bid" that you should try to avoid doubling with a void at high levels. Not sure if this counts as high level. Anyway, there will sometimes be no alternative, such as this hand. "Never" is simply ridiculous (and more so than so many other "never" rules).

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Mar 28 2008, 03:44 AM, said:

Larry Cohen writes in "To bid or not to bid" that you should try to avoid doubling with a void at high levels. Not sure if this counts as high level. Anyway, there will sometimes be no alternative, such as this hand. "Never" is simply ridiculous (and more so than so many other "never" rules).

He does, but when you have takeout double shape and values what choice is there? This advice to 'not double with a void' seems like nothing more to me than 'try your best not to be holding a void in your hand'. To me doubling with a void is less common than with a singleton only in the sense that I hold fewer voids than singletons.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2008, 06:27 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 28 2008, 03:44 AM, said:

Larry Cohen writes in "To bid or not to bid" that you should try to avoid doubling with a void at high levels. Not sure if this counts as high level. Anyway, there will sometimes be no alternative, such as this hand. "Never" is simply ridiculous (and more so than so many other "never" rules).

He does, but when you have takeout double shape and values what choice is there? This advice to 'not double with a void' seems like nothing more to me than 'try your best not to be holding a void in your hand'. To me doubling with a void is less common than with a singleton only in the sense that I hold fewer voids than singletons.

Exactly - "they don't always deal me the perfect text-book hand".

[Halo]

Be good to have the hand.

I know it doesn't mean much, but personally I always like to see if I was wrong/wrong or wrong/right (right/right is of course not available on this vote!).

[dcvetkov]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 28 2008, 03:44 AM, said:

Larry Cohen writes in "To bid or not to bid" that you should try to avoid doubling with a void at high levels. Not sure if this counts as high level. Anyway, there will sometimes be no alternative, such as this hand. "Never" is simply ridiculous (and more so than so many other "never" rules).

He does, but when you have takeout double shape and values what choice is there? This advice to 'not double with a void' seems like nothing more to me than 'try your best not to be holding a void in your hand'. To me doubling with a void is less common than with a singleton only in the sense that I hold fewer voids than singletons.

I really liked this post;) Josh

It sounds like this is one of those bids " Double and hope for the best"..but still it should do us more good then harm on the long run. You may have to accept occasional disaster, just like occasional -530 or simular in your column;).
You are still alive and playing bridge, arent you?

[TimG]

In Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century, Marshall Miles has a short section on "'Negative' Doubles at Higher Levels" in which he advocates for a pass after 1♦-3♥-DBL-P holding ♠A63 ♥AT54 ♦AT83 ♣63. He goes further and says that he would pass with ♠A63 ♥QJ9 ♦AJ42 ♣J63 (though he admits he is likely in the minority here).

He cites a bidding problem from Bridge magazine where pass was the top vote getter after P-P-1♠-3♣; DBL-P holding ♠KJ973 ♥A96 ♦AQ4 ♣52. The two panelist comments that he cites are Barry Rigal's "Pass. Negative doubles should be passed with balanced hands. I hope we can beat it, but guessing which red suit to bid is a fairly arid and unrewarding pastime." and Karen McCallum's "Pass. Partner has a good balanced or semi-balanced hand. Three clubs doubles may be our last plus score. This is a much easier decision if your agreements regarding negative doubles mandate balanced flexible hands, no two-suiters, and absolutely never contain a singleton in the opponents' suit (above the one-level)."

[jdonn]

TimG, on Mar 29 2008, 09:07 AM, said:

In Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century, Marshall Miles has a short section on "'Negative' Doubles at Higher Levels" in which he advocates for a pass after 1♦-3♥-DBL-P holding ♠A63 ♥AT54 ♦AT83 ♣63.  He goes further and says that he would pass with ♠A63 ♥QJ9 ♦AJ42 ♣J63 (though he admits he is likely in the minority here).

He cites a bidding problem from Bridge magazine where pass was the top vote getter after P-P-1♠-3♣; DBL-P holding ♠KJ973 ♥A96 ♦AQ4 ♣52.  The two panelist comments that he cites are Barry Rigal's "Pass.  Negative doubles should be passed with balanced hands.  I hope we can beat it, but guessing which red suit to bid is a fairly arid and unrewarding pastime." and Karen McCallum's "Pass.  Partner has a good balanced or semi-balanced hand.  Three clubs doubles may be our last plus score.  This is a much easier decision if your agreements regarding negative doubles mandate balanced flexible hands, no two-suiters, and absolutely never contain a singleton in the opponents' suit (above the one-level)."

I was his partner for several years. Even ignoring the fact he is eccentric, he plays the negative double differently than standard. For him it just shows a balanced hand and has no strong implication of 4 in the other major, he wouldn't double in a million years on the hand in the thread.

Also those passes are on the 3 level.

[TimG]

I didn't mean to suggest the treatment was standard, just citing one expert viewpoint for consideration.

[FrancesHinden]

Funny that this thread generates 3 pages of replies when the vast majority thinks it's obvious to double.

At the table I bid 3H, worried (i) about defending 2Hx, (ii) about getting to a cold 6C contract, but although my partner didn't object I've been convinced that was a bit of a silly call (you are strong enough to bid 4C or 5C next round if LHO raises hearts).

There is no right "at the table" answer here, by the way. Double gets you to 4S going off, 3H gets you to 3NT going off. It's not actually clear single dummy which is the better spot. The winning action is for you to double and partner to pass and you to nip 2Hx one off, but that isn't going to happen.

[han]

So partner actually didn't have a hand suitable to convert but still 2HX was the top spot. I think the lesson is that with two aces you shouldn't be afraid to double with a void.