[mike777]

btw there seems to be quite the discussion assuming x=4 spades as opposed to 4s+ if 2d is a strong reverse in the email poll results I got so far to this problem.

Perhaps someone can find this auction in a book on negative doubles and quote it? I checked a few old books on the subject and this auction is not quoted.


Here is a quote from Encyclopedia of Bridge 6th edition (p. 306):

1c=(1s)=x=p
?


"Is North's 2d bid similar to a reverse, promising extra strength, or is it a simple placement of the contract? If South's double promises diamonds, North needs no extra strength to bid 2d; if South promises only hearts, North needs a good hand."

I note they used the words, good hand, not a strong reverse which would have been clearer.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 13 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

Degustibus non est disputandum.

I wasn't arguing what is better (it's clear to me that at least two methods are better than either of those anyway). I was stating what is standard.

Quote

As Roland says, the meaning of the X is really the crux of the problem. If the op had said x = 4S, then I would totally agree with your comment.

He didn't say 1♣ shows an opening hand either. Somehow I just know anyway.

[mike777]

Mbodell, on Feb 12 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣-1♥-X-P
??

---

Just to confuse things Perhaps 2h is a reasonable option playing with a true pick up WC partner?

[peachy]

The_Hog, on Feb 13 2009, 04:12 AM, said:

gnasher, on Feb 13 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26840

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"
- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.
- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.
- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.
I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

Quote

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.
1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.
1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).
1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts
and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 13 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Quote

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in?

Nope. What else do you suggest when you are 3334 without a stop? I actually think Qx is a great holding to rebid 1NT, the lack of a raise or (if they let me play it there) spade rebid implies length with partner, so we definitely want to declare from my side.

Josh,

Did you misremember the hand? The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.
Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N. That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

[the hog]

peachy, on Feb 14 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 13 2009, 04:12 AM, said:

gnasher, on Feb 13 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26840

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"
- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.
- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.
- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.
I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

Quote

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.
1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.
1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).
1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts
and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

This might be the normal style in the States. It is not the normal style amongst better tournament players in Australia. Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club. Bridge isn't just played in the USA it might surprise some of you to know.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 14 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club.

The thread said 2/1!!! You are going to unbelievable lengths to refuse to admit you could ever be wrong about anything.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

Josh,

Did you misremember the hand?  The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.
Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N.  That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

Yes I misremembered though it's still an easy 1NT bid to me. I would certainly prefer Qx in their suit, that's for sure.

Think of it another way. Rebidding 1NT on any hand where you would have passed a 1NT bid by partner takes a TON of pressure off him when he has 4 in the other major and their suit stopped. Partner can be 4-4 in the majors and make his negative double, not worried that 1NT will be missed any time you don't have a spade fit with him.

[andy_h]

The_Hog, on Feb 14 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

peachy, on Feb 14 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 13 2009, 04:12 AM, said:

gnasher, on Feb 13 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26840

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here.  The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"
- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.
- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.
- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣..  The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.
I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

Quote

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.
1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.
1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).
1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts
and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

I think the "normalish" is exactly what SAYC booklet happens to say. It is a coincidence that sSAYC booklet has the "normalish" methods described for negative doubles.

"Normalish" for negative doubles these days is that it promises the unbid major or majors or one unbid major of five or more cards that could not be bid freely; except when bidding has begun 1C (1D) in which case it guarantees both majors 4-4. The Sputnik days are long gone, I don't know of anybody who requires both unbids for a negative double and it would also be foolish to expect a pickup partner to promise both unbid suits (or understand it as such!) .

This might be the normal style in the States. It is not the normal style amongst better tournament players in Australia. Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club. Bridge isn't just played in the USA it might surprise some of you to know.

I don't think so. Transfer responses over 1♣ are (slowly) getting through here in Oz, but I have hardly seen any pairs that play transfers over interference including X/1♠ denying 4♠/showing 4+♠ (whichever way you want it). I believe the default is still the normal negative double where X=4♠ and 1♠=5+♠.

[kenberg]

2D
In these games where I am playing with someone with no extensive agreements, which pretty often I am and which i understand to be the case herfe, i try to assess what will probably happen next.

It is possible that 2D will be followed by three passes but I don't think that it is likely and if it does happen it is far from a certainty that this will be bad. If 4-4 in the minors I open 1D. Regardless of arguments for or against opening 1D on 4-4, I think that is fairly common and so I think partner will play me for at least five clubs. It would not amaze me if he bids 2NT over 2D. The opponents have bid hearts but they were not raised, and I have one, it seems pretty possible partner has something in hearts that he will want to show. I will not take 2NT as Leb, and even if it is he can probably make some sense of the 3H that I will bid over 2NT.

Suppose I bid, instead, 3D and partner bids 3NT. I will pass but I sure hope he has the ace of clubs to go with his major suit stoppers. It seems to me that 2D followed by 3H over 2N shows suitable uncertainty about playing 3NT.

My view is that we can haggle over exactly what the negative double promises and how strong 2D is later. For the moment, I expect 2D to be the best bet at getting a good result.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

Josh,

Did you misremember the hand?  The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.
Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N.  That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

Yes I misremembered though it's still an easy 1NT bid to me. I would certainly prefer Qx in their suit, that's for sure.

Think of it another way. Rebidding 1NT on any hand where you would have passed a 1NT bid by partner takes a TON of pressure off him when he has 4 in the other major and their suit stopped. Partner can be 4-4 in the majors and make his negative double, not worried that 1NT will be missed any time you don't have a spade fit with him.

Do you open 1D or 1C when 1345? If you open open 1C, do you still bid 1N in this auction with something like x, xxx, AQxx, AKxxx?

Reason I am curious is I have always opened these hands 1D and never found a real good reason to change my ways.

[CSGibson]

As to the OP: 2♦ reverse (and forcing 1 round). I have heard several voices for 3♦; for me that would be a mini-splinter in support of partner's major.

[Free]

Imo 2♦ is not a reverse, so I'd bid 3♦

[Codo]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 14 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

Nor is it the normal style when playing variants of Polish Club.

The thread said 2/1!!! You are going to unbelievable lengths to refuse to admit you could ever be wrong about anything.

Josh, even 2/1 is played in more then one place.
And the double is still not played the same way everywhere.

But you did not answer the question: When the x just promises spades, what exactly did Mbodell ask?

I mean, when your style is the consensus of 2/1 worldwide, why isn`t this a simple "2♦ wtp???" answer?
Maybe because your way of thinking is not as universal as it seems to be for you?

[jdonn]

Codo, on Feb 16 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

I mean, when your style is the consensus of 2/1 worldwide, why isn`t this a simple  "2♦ wtp???"  answer?

Because some people don't know. That doesn't mean it's untrue.

The same argument works against you. You are saying obviously 2♦ is a reverse if double is 4 spades and nothing about diamonds, and obviously 2♦ is not a reverse if double showed diamonds also or if double showed 0-3 spades. So if that's true why didn't he ask what the double is instead of asking what to bid now?

[straube]

WinstonM said:

Do you open 1D or 1C when 1345? If you open open 1C, do you still bid 1N in this auction with something like x, xxx, AQxx, AKxxx?

Reason I am curious is I have always opened these hands 1D and never found a real good reason to change my ways.

If you're playing a strong club, then opening 1D and rebidding 2C to show 5/4 or 4/5 works pretty well. You're limited to something like 15 points.

If you're playing a standard system (like SAYC or 2/1), then you have a bigger problem if 1D-1L, 2C can be either 5/4 or 4/5 and something like 11 to 17. Probably what you're playing is that 1D-1L, 2C shows either 11-15 with 4/5 or 11-17 with 5/4.

A fairly standard treatment is that 4/5 hands will open 1C and reverse or rebid clubs depending on whether opener has a strong (16+) or regular (11-15) hand.

A common treatment used to be that with 5/4 one rebid diamonds with 11-15 and rebid clubs with 16 or more. One can argue that bidding diamonds again with 1-3-5-4 is sort of like bidding clubs again with 1-3-4-5.

Nowadays the trend is to show the pattern and not reserve the 2C as a forcing bid, but many pairs play that it is almost forcing. After all, opener can still have 11-17 or so and if game is still possible, responder wants to give opener a third chance to bid. Responder can give a false preference to 2D just to give opener that chance.

If, however, 1D-1L, 2C can be 4/5, it's no longer safe to give a false preference and games will be missed when opener has 5/4 and 16-17.

[straube]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 14 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

Josh,

Did you misremember the hand?  The Qx in question was spades, not hearts.
Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx

You were asked what to rebid and you said 1N.  That may be your style but it the Qx in my partner's 4 card suit isn't a strong reason to play from my side.

Yes I misremembered though it's still an easy 1NT bid to me. I would certainly prefer Qx in their suit, that's for sure.

Think of it another way. Rebidding 1NT on any hand where you would have passed a 1NT bid by partner takes a TON of pressure off him when he has 4 in the other major and their suit stopped. Partner can be 4-4 in the majors and make his negative double, not worried that 1NT will be missed any time you don't have a spade fit with him.

My partner and I play that the double shows 4 spades. Not at all sure that this is correct. My point, however, is that we also play that when opener rebids 1S at the 1-level, he usually shows three spades. With four spades, opener would bid 2S.

It doesn't help with this hand, but it would with others. In fact, one could argue for a 1S rebid being a catchall bid or even showing diamonds and a minimum hand.

[mike777]

This may have been said but an option here is:
2d=natural, minimum
3d=natural, extra, nongame forcing
2h=cuebid game forcing.


"I think 3D is about right. Over that, with a bad hand, responder can pass or bail to 4C with a bad hand with a club preference such as: QJxx xxxx x Axxx. The good news is that responder knows that opener has at least 5 clubs, at least in all my partnerships where we always open 1 diamond with 4-4 in the minors.



And over 3D, with a better hand, responder can bid anything besides 4C to move towards game in NT or in either minor."

[awm]

straube, on Feb 16 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

If you're playing a strong club, then opening 1D and rebidding 2C to show 5/4 or 4/5 works pretty well. You're limited to something like 15 points.

I disagree that this works pretty well. In fact I think it is one of the substantial disadvantages to playing a strong club system. Not only does this method make it hard to pick the right partial when responder has equal length in the minors, it also makes it hard to reach the right partial on a declined invitation (i.e. responder can't bid 3♦ on 3-card support and play there if opener is minimum). And it even makes things awkward on slam auctions, because after you bid fourth-suit forcing it is harder for opener to disambiguate shape (more distributions are possible).

Obviously strong club systems have many advantages (and I do play them in some partnerships) but if I'm playing standard or 2/1 I certainly would not want to add this particular "feature" to my methods.

[straube]

awm, on Feb 16 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

straube, on Feb 16 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

If you're playing a strong club, then opening 1D and rebidding 2C to show 5/4 or 4/5 works pretty well.  You're limited to something like 15 points.

I disagree that this works pretty well. In fact I think it is one of the substantial disadvantages to playing a strong club system. Not only does this method make it hard to pick the right partial when responder has equal length in the minors, it also makes it hard to reach the right partial on a declined invitation (i.e. responder can't bid 3♦ on 3-card support and play there if opener is minimum). And it even makes things awkward on slam auctions, because after you bid fourth-suit forcing it is harder for opener to disambiguate shape (more distributions are possible).

Obviously strong club systems have many advantages (and I do play them in some partnerships) but if I'm playing standard or 2/1 I certainly would not want to add this particular "feature" to my methods.

I'm still comfortable with "pretty well". I know that Meckwell used to even rebid 2C with 1-4-(53) shape, though I think they changed this so that 2C always promises 5/4 or 4/5.

It's true that when responder wants to make an invitation, he's disadvantaged in not knowing which of opener's minors is longer, but at least he knows partner has four cards in each suit. Strong club pairs who use 1D-1L, 2C don't have the kind of silliness that many standard players who open and then rebid clubs do. For example, with 1-3-4-5 the bidding for many will go 1C-1S, 2C (for reasons that I discussed in my previous post).

If there's a 4/4 or a 5/4 fit, the method will find it. If there's a 5/3 fit that goes undiscovered, the partnership can play 2N. Sometimes 2N is a better contract anyway.

I like for 1D-2H to show 5S and 4H and less than GI. This avoids silliness when responder is 5-4-2-2 and opener is 1-3-(54). It has other advantages, too. If one is afraid of 4-5-2-2, then consider a rebid of 1S with 3-1-(54); just make sure you have methods to untangle this....my partner and I decided that it wasn't worth the extra memory work.

Finally, if one uses 4SF, a strong club pair can relay out partner's exact shape.