[karlson]

Scoring: IMP

p - 1♣ - 2♠ - ?

---

[dicklont]

Maybe 2NT for Ken "stoppers, schmoppers" Rexford, but I simply call 3♣.

[rogerclee]

3♣, this is less of a question of the stopper, and more just that this hand isn't good.

[Fluffy]

I prefer a double, but I think you can convince me of the contrary.

[jdaming]

Flat distro and JXX in the opps suit while we are I think a little better than 3♣ not enough better to 2NT which I think is a ton closer than double which is a complete misrepresentation of our hand.

[awm]

3♣. Sometimes raising partner's minor is right.

Obviously there are bad things that can happen, but the bidding reduces the odds of partner having only three clubs, and this hand really is not so good that I want to be in game opposite a random 14 count (not to mention the lack of spade stopper for 2NT). I don't have a strong desire to find my 4-3 heart fit where the hand with three is totally flat, so no double for me.

[neilkaz]

awm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

3♣. Sometimes raising partner's minor is right.

Obviously there are bad things that can happen, but the bidding reduces the odds of partner having only three clubs, and this hand really is not so good that I want to be in game opposite a random 14 count (not to mention the lack of spade stopper for 2NT). I don't have a strong desire to find my 4-3 heart fit where the hand with three is totally flat, so no double for me.

I agree 100% ..3♣ for me also.

[mtvesuvius]

I also like double, because this is just a little too much for 3♣, but I'm open to convincing...

[rogerclee]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 15 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

I also like double, because this is just a little too much for 3♣, but I'm open to convincing...

Maybe this is a little bit of a rant, but I just wanted to say that I think there is a pretty dangerous trend on these forums to just make a negative double when we don't have 4 of a basically-promised major. Nowadays people on these forums will just make a negative double because it seems in the abstract like a clever way to get around a bidding problem. This is really false, and I think non-expert players should really avoid doing this, since it is really easy to abuse this idea.

Keep in mind that lying about suit length is huge, it has a much larger impact on the auction than lying about your high card points. Think about the plusses and minuses of describing this hand as "4+♥ with values" before making a bid that seems cool. When we have a reasonable alternative like 3♣, I think doubling has no merit.

Doubling with only 3 cards should really only be considered when you have sufficient values but the only other attractive call is pass. The reason for this is that pass is a really vague bid, so it may be better to lie about having one card than to say nothing about your hand. Here we have a call available which is a much milder distortion than double, so this is a very easy decision to me.

[Fluffy]

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Keep in mind that lying about suit length is huge, it has a much larger impact on the auction than lying about your high card points. Think about the plusses and minuses of describing this hand as "4+♥ with values" before making a bid that seems cool.

I Agree with you on most, but to me a negative double only shows 3+ cards on the unbid suits, and strongly suggests 4 hearts.

If the bidding goes 1♣-(2♠)-X-(3♠)-4♥. I would expect partner to have 5 clubs for his bid, otherwise doubling 3♠.

[TimG]

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 15 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

I also like double, because this is just a little too much for 3♣, but I'm open to convincing...

Maybe this is a little bit of a rant, but I just wanted to say that I think there is a pretty dangerous trend on these forums to just make a negative double when we don't have 4 of a basically-promised major. Nowadays people on these forums will just make a negative double because it seems in the abstract like a clever way to get around a bidding problem.

I think that was pretty close to the original intent of negative doubles: double showed something to say but no good way to say it. Back in the beginning, a negative double didn't promise length in any specific suit (rather it showed not enough length to bid that suit).

I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong about the current trend, I just think it is interesting that the current trend is more of a back to the basics thing than a modern twist.

On the hand in question, I think 3C is much more to the point than a double. Opener is not going to stretch to bid 3N over this with some uninteresting 14 count, but he might bid 3N when he now thinks his clubs represent a source of tricks.

If you double, what do you do over partner's 2N? Over 3H?

[rogerclee]

Fluffy, on Feb 17 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Keep in mind that lying about suit length is huge, it has a much larger impact on the auction than lying about your high card points. Think about the plusses and minuses of describing this hand as "4+♥ with values" before making a bid that seems cool.

I Agree with you on most, but to me a negative double only shows 3+ cards on the unbid suits, and strongly suggests 4 hearts.

If the bidding goes 1♣-(2♠)-X-(3♠)-4♥. I would expect partner to have 5 clubs for his bid, otherwise doubling 3♠.

I don't think it is standard to play that a negative double here guarantees anything in other unbid suits, just 4+♥.

Disagree with your second point, it would actually be normal for double there to show a strong hand without 4 hearts and no clear direction.

[rogerclee]

TimG, on Feb 17 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

I think that was pretty close to the original intent of negative doubles: double showed something to say but no good way to say it.  Back in the beginning, a negative double didn't promise length in any specific suit (rather it showed not enough length to bid that suit).

I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong about the current trend, I just think it is interesting that the current trend is more of a back to the basics thing than a modern twist.

On the hand in question, I think 3C is much more to the point than a double.  Opener is not going to stretch to bid 3N over this with some uninteresting 14 count, but he might bid 3N when he now thinks his clubs represent a source of tricks.

If you double, what do you do over partner's 2N?  Over 3H?

Maybe that was the original style, but it is obvious that this style is pretty deficient, and it is very important for a negative double to strongly suggest major length, due to how important the majors are in bridge scoring. There is a reason the modern style is what it is--it's just more effective.

I disagree that there is a trend by the general bridge playing population back to this original style of negative doubles, it is just basically these forums. I think it mostly comes out of debates between the stronger players on these forums which weaker players can easily misinterpret, not to imply that anyone who doubled in this thread (or would double) is a weak player.

[Fluffy]

Double only showing one place to play?, too small of a target for your cheapest bid.

EDIT: Maybe I missguided you, I would also double with singleton diamond having a safe place to land (either spade stopper or club fit).

A better definition for my double style would maybe be... double: 3+ hearts, at least 2 places to play.


Still I don't think double is obvious on this hand, but the reason I don't like it is that we are stuck with no rebid next round, and 3♣ might send a better message in many hands.

[Apollo81]

3♣. We're allowed to have a max once in a while. Besides even if partner has extras with a stopper, there's no guarantee we'll make game.

[Fluffy]

EDIT: I either missread apollo's post, or he just edited it when I was about to quote it.

[Apollo81]

Fluffy, on Feb 17 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

EDIT: I either missread apollo's post, or he just edited it when I was about to quote it.

I edited it a little right after I posted it.