[jmcw]

Scoring: MP

1♣ 1♠ X 2♠
?

---

Anybody play a DBL here to show this hand?. If so please expand.

[gwnn]

i play 3♥ to show this hand. x would be 1345 ideally.

[Jlall]

I'd bid game.

[Phil]

I think we have enough for game, but I also play good/bad 2N here which provides a lot of flexibility.

[the hog]

These posts are not helping the op. I guess the answer is "no". Anyway, I agree with the Philster.

[Phil]

A renegative double, at least how I've been taught and play, is in these situations:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠
dbl

and

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 2♠
dbl

to show four hearts. This is used generally in an eastern Scientific "up the line" style.

[Jlall]

Double here just shows extra values and is takeout, typically with 3 hearts but not always (1246, 18-19 bal no stopper, 2245 etc all possible).

[aguahombre]

Yep, the double should show what Phil and Justin say. But I thought failure to follow suit was renegetive, and the double by Opener described by Phil's second post was renegative, or resnapdragon. does this qualify as a troll?

[gwnn]

not yet. off topic replies to an almost troll might be.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Oct 24 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd bid game.

yes you are pretty much forced into this corner since you would like 3♥ to mean this hand just like it would over 1♣ 1♠ X P but you have to use 3♥ to cover the normal 2♥ bid over the same auction.

[kenrexford]

I don't think anyone offering posts here is answering the question as to what a "renegative double" shows. As I learned this years ago and played it, I'll take a stab.

As I understood the "renegative double," it was sort of a concept similar to good-bad or a maximum overcall double (never understood that terminology), in the eraly days before people came up with those alternative solutions. Also, it was strangely limited to the specific instance of a negative double by Responder -- why is a mystery. But, nonetheless, the idea was that in this very auction, a double by Responder having shown hearts, and spades raised by advancer, the double was used to distinguish a weak raise to 3♥ from a strong raise to 3♥. Which was weak and which was strong I cannot recall.

That idea then got expanded by a lot of people who play Montreal Relays to have Opener also make negative doubles ater the 1♦ response and intervention. However, that is really just an Opener's negative double. The "re-" in "re-negative double" means that the double happens twice, meaning open-overcall-double-advance-double.

The utility of this approach has lost some merit, IMO, in that good-bad works better after spade intervention. In the event of heart intervention and a leap (1min-1♥-X-3♥-? or 1min-2♥-X-3♥-X, it has merit but is really a specific instance of maximal overcall, specific as to level of intervention rather than as to Responder's first action.

I also think it has merit in the context of a two-suit negative. Thus, for example, after 1♣-1♦-X-3♦, 1♣-2♦-X-3♦, or 1♦-2♣-X-3♣, a double by Opener operates as a way to show some fit (unspecified yet) with a different range than naming the fit. However, this also is alternatively an expansion of the maximal overcall double, perhaps.

[Trinidad]

I play double here as: It's our hand. "Do Something Intelligent Partner."

The actual hand would have bid 3♥ without the 2♠ bid, so now I will bid 4♥ (as a transfer to 4♠X ).

But if you want to agree with partner that Dbl shows a hand too good to bid 3♥, I guess that is playable. But what are you going to do with the good 1345 hands, then?

Rik

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Oct 25 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

I don't think anyone offering posts here is answering the question as to what a "renegative double" shows.  As I learned this years ago and played it, I'll take a stab.

Quote

You are right I was just reading the responses and scanning the OP's question

As I understood the "renegative double," it was sort of a concept similar to good-bad or a maximum overcall double (never understood that terminology), in the eraly days before people came up with those alternative solutions. Also, it was strangely limited to the specific instance of a negative double by Responder -- why is a mystery. But, nonetheless, the idea was that in this very auction, a double by Responder having shown hearts, and spades raised by advancer, the double was used to distinguish a weak raise to 3♥ from a strong raise to 3♥. Which was weak and which was strong I cannot recall.

Quote

Logic seems to dictate that the re -X show the invitational hand as the weak hand is unlikely to be convertible

That idea then got expanded by a lot of people who play Montreal Relays to have Opener also make negative doubles ater the 1♦ response and intervention. However, that is really just an Opener's negative double. The "re-" in "re-negative double" means that the double happens twice, meaning open-overcall-double-advance-double.

The utility of this approach has lost some merit, IMO, in that good-bad works better after spade intervention. In the event of heart intervention and a leap (1min-1♥-X-3♥-? or 1min-2♥-X-3♥-X, it has merit but is really a specific instance of maximal overcall, specific as to level of intervention rather than as to Responder's first action.

I also think it has merit in the context of a two-suit negative. Thus, for example, after 1♣-1♦-X-3♦, 1♣-2♦-X-3♦, or 1♦-2♣-X-3♣, a double by Opener operates as a way to show some fit (unspecified yet) with a different range than naming the fit. However, this also is alternatively an expansion of the maximal overcall double, perhaps.

Thanks for the info as I had not seen it before

[gnasher]

I use 2NT by opener as a good 3♥ bid. However, bidding game is quite tempting anyway. I think I bid 3♥ on a weak notrump with four hearts, 2NT on a reasonable unbalanced minimum, and 4♥ with an unbalanced non-minimum.

I don't agree with the argument that good-bad 2NT solves the problem of distinguishing different heart raises. After
  1♣ 1♠ dbl 2♠
  2NT 3♠
responder can't effectively judge whether to bid on, because he doesn't know whether there's a heart fit or not.

As usual, transfers are probably better than either of these methods.

Regarding nomenclature, the prefix "re-" implies repetition, so it ought to refer to a sequence like:
  1♣ 1♠ dbl 2♠
  pass pass dbl
If I were looking for a linguistic abomination to describe the double by opener in response to a negative double, I'd choose "co-negative".

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Oct 25 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

I don't agree with the argument that good-bad 2NT solves the problem of distinguishing different heart raises.  After
  1♣ 1♠ dbl 2♠
  2NT 3♠
responder can't effectively judge whether to bid on, because he doesn't know whether there's a heart fit or not.

It does work, if the 2NT bid shows a heart fit (good or bad, ur choice).
With diamonds, you could just bid diamonds, since you have 2 levels and 5 diamonds is so far away, but u are not likely to have enough diamonds to do that anyway, after opening 1C.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Oct 25 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

It does work, if the 2NT bid shows a heart fit (good or bad, ur choice).

I don't usually quibble about terminology, and I know that nomenclature varies across the world, but I've never heard anyone use the term "good-bad 2NT" to mean a 2NT bid that shows a raise. It's possible that that's what Phil meant, but I rather doubt it.

Also, in the first line of the post of mine that you quoted you'll find the sentence "I use 2NT by opener as a good 3♥ bid", so I'm not quite sure who you think you're disagreeing with.

[aguahombre]

just that the example you gave where u opened 1C then it went 1S X 2s back to you, seems a logical extension of good-bad, where there doesnt seem to be a different good use for 2NT (depending on what double means, i guess). so it could be used for a heart bid, good or bad. thus, your followup auction with 3S on your left would not leave partner in doubt about whether you had heart support.

[jmcw]

jmcw, on Oct 24 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♣ 1♠ X 2♠
?

---

Anybody play a DBL here to show this hand?. If so please expand.

Thanks for the posts to date. Is there a consensus here?

DBL = Solid opener likely 3 card support
2NT = Minimum or Good opening with 4 card support
3♥= Solid opener with 4 card support

Did I get it right?
If so, 2NT does not solve the problem with this hand. Responder will sign off in 3♥ fearing the minimum raise.

[billw55]

pooltuna, on Oct 25 2009, 08:21 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 24 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd bid game.

yes you are pretty much forced into this corner since you would like 3♥ to mean this hand just like it would over 1♣ 1♠ X P but you have to use 3♥ to cover the normal 2♥ bid over the same auction.

No concern about diamond wastage?

[pooltuna]

billw55, on Oct 26 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 25 2009, 08:21 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 24 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd bid game.

yes you are pretty much forced into this corner since you would like 3♥ to mean this hand just like it would over 1♣ 1♠ X P but you have to use 3♥ to cover the normal 2♥ bid over the same auction.

No concern about diamond wastage?

sometimes you just have to roll the dice. When you do you try to play the odds as best you can figure them.