[karlson]

No one said anything about the double promising diamonds, just that double should promise one of the minors. (unless better than minimum)

[Fluffy]

I'd routinelly double with 2344, so I think 2♦ is non forcing. I can see the advantages of 2♦being a reverse, but the sequence is very low frequency and it looks like an exception to me.

I would also double with 4423 and don't care much partner bidding 2♦ now, I have fit in clubs

[jdonn]

Yes at least don't mix up who is saying what, Justin has been saying std is it doesn't show extras and I have been saying std is it does, we don't automatically agree on every point. If I'm wrong then sorry, but I can't back down from 2d not showing extras is dumb (the way negative doubles are normally played) whether it's std or not.

I would still not bid it on some big hand playing with an unknown partner because I would be worried about how he would take it. But the fact I want to avoid a misunderstanding is beside the point, since regardless of this particular case there are a number of "standard" bids that most players aren't aware of.

[jdonn]

awm, on Feb 5 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

But what I was referring to was the idea that 1♣-1♠-X-P-2♦ is not forcing. This was evidently true when negative doubles were originally defined. And it was true a few years ago when BWS came out.

Obviously if negative doubles meant something different when they first came out than they mean now then you can't equate in this way, since essentially it's followups to two different conventions we would be discussing. You are trying to say the way you play followups to negative doubles is how it's always been. But negative doubles themselves aren't how they've always been.

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on Feb 5 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

(4) I find it interesting that my approach is apparently the way that negative doubles were initially defined (see Hog and his "Sputnik doubles") and my approach is also the one endorsed by BWS (okay a few years old, but a poll of supposed experts)... yet the forum experts almost without exception deride this style and call it non-standard as well as believing it inferior. Just another piece of evidence that "forum standard" is not always the same as "expert standard."

I thought it had been proved many, many, many times that there is no such thing as 'expert standard'.

I am also in the camp that says:

1. Most people have not discussed with their regular partner whether or not 2D shows extras on this auction

2. Most club players that I play against simply would not bid 2D here. They would bid hearts, cue bid, bid NT, rebid clubs or jump to 3D with a good hand. They wouldn't bid 2D on a minimum because they wouldn't know whether or not it showed a good hand. They wouldn't bid 2D on a maximum because they'd worry partner would think it is a minimum.

3. Of the partnerships I know that have actually thought about this sequence, 100% play that 2D is a reverse i.e. they play as if the auction had gone 1C P 1H P 2D. The bit they haven't all discussed (we have!) is whether e.g. 3C is forcing by responder over this (as in an uncontested auction, with 2S the bad hand), or whether all forcing hands cue and other bids are weak.

So I certainly agree with gnasher.
I think I agree with Justin, although he hasn't explicitly said what I have put here under 2. I have played the majority of my bridge in the UK, and the rest in continental Europe (although generally only against good non-UK players, so I don't know what people play at random clubs).

As a complete side issue, note that the auction 1D (2C) x is commonly played in a rather different style, where the doubler does not promise both majors: he usually has at least one major and either diamond support or a good hand that can handle all continuations. And while 1C (1D) x traditionally showed at least 4-4 in the majors, life is progressing on apace... x as a transfer to hearts is becoming pretty common amongst regular partnerships who are interested in system.

[hanp]

I disagree with Justin that 2D as a reverse is standard.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

It also says that all the negative double promises is 4 in an unbid major. So they are logically inconsistent. Even the people who argue here that 2♦ doesn't show extras usually argue that it's because the double promised diamonds.

I used to quote BWS for things but it was 9 years ago, which is a long time in this regard. Does anyone really believe the vote would be the same now? I'll be the first to admit that it used to be standard, until people had given this type of auction more thought.

I don't think it's logically inconsistent. With 4432 or 4423 of course you double, and if, ugh!, partner once in a blue moon bids 2♦, then you pass or correct to 3♣. With 5422 you may have to pass - shocking!
I will ignore 4522 as otherwise I would lose the argument

[Ulrich]

PhantomSac, on Feb 5 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

Ulrich has such a weird posting history. Came here in 2004, posted sporadically through 2004, made 4 posts in 05-beginning of 07, disappears for 2.5 years, comes back in 09 and suddenly can't speak english very well (despite being fluent before!), and makes a couple of posts in 010, all the while having 25 total posts.

I having weird posting history? Vot about you? You coming back and posting as many different people and now as ladyboy.

Vun last comment regarding dis biddink.
When Liechtenstein playing Netherlands, I wuz playing with Zwackelman - nummer 2 in Liechtenstein, (by long way after me). I can't remember name of Dutch player, but I know his job - he drives buses, because everyone call him
Bus Driver. He bid 2D in this same bidding, and he not have extra.

After smashing Dutchies in this match we smashing USA. Funny, have same sequence
(1C) 1S (X) (P)
(2D)

Rodwall bidding 2D here and he have 18 points! Oh waiting one moment plz, him playing Precision. Not same I guessink?

[jjbrr]

lol we're being leveled

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Feb 5 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

It also says that all the negative double promises is 4 in an unbid major. So they are logically inconsistent. Even the people who argue here that 2♦ doesn't show extras usually argue that it's because the double promised diamonds.

I used to quote BWS for things but it was 9 years ago, which is a long time in this regard. Does anyone really believe the vote would be the same now? I'll be the first to admit that it used to be standard, until people had given this type of auction more thought.

I don't think it's logically inconsistent. With 4432 or 4423 of course you double, and if, ugh!, partner once in a blue moon bids 2♦, then you pass or correct to 3♣. With 5422 you may have to pass - shocking!
I will ignore 4522 as otherwise I would lose the argument

You are 5422 and pass to play your 4-2 fit in a minor and act like this is logical and not a big deal?

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Feb 5 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

It also says that all the negative double promises is 4 in an unbid major. So they are logically inconsistent. Even the people who argue here that 2♦ doesn't show extras usually argue that it's because the double promised diamonds.

I used to quote BWS for things but it was 9 years ago, which is a long time in this regard. Does anyone really believe the vote would be the same now? I'll be the first to admit that it used to be standard, until people had given this type of auction more thought.

I don't think it's logically inconsistent. With 4432 or 4423 of course you double, and if, ugh!, partner once in a blue moon bids 2♦, then you pass or correct to 3♣. With 5422 you may have to pass - shocking!
I will ignore 4522 as otherwise I would lose the argument

You are 5422 and pass to play your 4-2 fit in a minor and act like this is logical and not a big deal?

I meant to pass over 1S.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Feb 6 2010, 03:44 AM, said:

I don't think it's logically inconsistent. With 4432 or 4423 of course you double, and if, ugh!, partner once in a blue moon bids 2♦, then you pass or correct to 3♣.

Is that once in a blue moon? Even if he'll bid 2♦ only when he's 2245 or 3145 without a stop, that's still going to happen quite a lot given that you're 4-4 in the majors.

[helene_t]

hanp, on Feb 5 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

I disagree with Justin that 2D as a reverse is standard.

lol I agree with Justin that 2♦ as a non-reverse is standard for non-experts.

I disagree with Frances. I think almost all club players in UK, Netherlands and Scandinavia play this as a non-reverse and that they wouldn't be concerned about bidding 2♦ with a minimum. This is partly because of the consequences of playing 4-card majors (although most Dutch club players now play either 5-card majors or almost-5-card-majors, the system they learned was 4-card majors) and because of the weak notrump in UK, but also because:
- Dutch, Scandinavian and Scottish players learned to open 1♣ with 4-4 minors so they don't always have the alternative of rebidding a 5-card clubs
- In the 70s and until the Berry Westra books became the predominant teaching material (which happened gradually in the late 90s and the last decade), most Dutch players learned negative freebids. This means that many hands with a 5-card hearts which couldn't handle a 2♦ response to a negative dbl, would not dbl in the first place.
- They haven't been taught (or maybe they have been taught but haven't understood) negative doubles as something different than just generic t/o doubles, i.e. they respond to negative doubles like they respond to other t/o doubles: bid any suit at the lowest level with a minimum, cuebid with any GF hand.

[hanp]

I asked a very fine Dutch player about this auction, she says they play it as extras but NF.

[mike777]

FWIW


BRidge Encyclopedia page 306


If x only promises hearts 2d shows a good hand, similiar to a reverse.

It goes on to say the meaning of this auction is open to debate.

[Lobowolf]

If you're not going to play 2♦ as a reverse, why not play 1♣-1♥; 2♦ as not promising extras, too? After all, the 1♥ bidder usually has one of the minors, or maybe a rebiddable heart suit. WTP?

[awm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 6 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

If you're not going to play 2♦ as a reverse, why not play 1♣-1♥; 2♦ as not promising extras, too? After all, the 1♥ bidder usually has one of the minors, or maybe a rebiddable heart suit. WTP?

There are three reasons.

(1) After 1♣-1♠-X-Pass, opener has no need to show spades. Opener can pass or bid notrump on hands with spades. This frees 2♠ to show strong hands with no clear direction. In the natural sequence, opener needs to show his spades (there could be a spade fit). I suppose you could play 1♠ forcing, but that creates other issues.

(2) Some of us like the 1NT rebid after 1♣-1♠-X-P to contain a spade stopper, or at least some spade length that we can "fudge" as a stopper (like Jxx or whatever). After 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass there is no problem bidding 1NT on a small doubleton spade.

(3) The set of hands where responder bids 1♣-P-1♥ is not the same as the set of hands where responder bids 1♣-1♠-X. Perhaps this is not true for you, but for me the double usually shows a bit more strength than my minimum 1♥ response, and also will not have four spades unless holding invitational values. This means the second auction carries a virtual guarantee of a minor suit fit (or game invitational values) opposite a 5♣-4♦ hand, as well as normally holding half the high card strength at minimum. The first sequence could easily be a no-fit hand opposite 5♣-4♦ and could be substantially less than half the high card strength.

[jdonn]

It would never occur to me not to make a negative double if I was 5422. I mean I might pass because I want to penalty pass or I suppose bid 1NT on some hand, but I would never pass because I have some higher minimum with that shape. Now 2♦ not showing extras makes even less sense to me, it prevents responder from being able to show his hand.

And I think it's unbelievably bad not to double with Qxxx AJxx xx xxx, sorry.

[pooltuna]

hanp, on Feb 5 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

I disagree with Justin that 2D as a reverse is standard.

I didn't know you were allowed to disagree with Justin!!

[PhantomSac]

pooltuna, on Feb 6 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

hanp, on Feb 5 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

I disagree with Justin that 2D as a reverse is standard.

I didn't know you were allowed to disagree with Justin!!

It's ok as sarcasm