[gwnn]

flowers for algernon!

[hotShot]

PhantomSac, on Feb 5 2010, 11:00 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.

You can't blame someone because he doesn't reach your posts/day.

[Ulrich]

PhantomSac, they telling me you are Ladyboy, ist dis true?

[jjbrr]

ladyboy, ja.

[Dirk Kuijt]

Agua

I quoted the BWS statement because my opinions really aren't worth much, and I know it. I'm not one of experts posting on this board, and I'm well aware of that fact. Therefore, I reported what the Bridge World said without comment. I did, and do, think that it was an interesting data point, and one that hadn't been made before.

[jdonn]

We need a team of researchers and historians for bbo. Now.

[cherdanno]

Dirk Kuijt, on Feb 4 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

FWIW, I found this on the Bridge World site as part of the description of Bridge World Standard:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...=bwsall.html#VE

Quote

After one club — (one of a major) — double — (pass) — ?, opener’s two-diamond rebid does not show extra values.

That I find surprising I have to admit. 62% of experts voted in favor of this.

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on Feb 4 2010, 12:53 AM, said:

open 1D or rebid 1NT? I would open 1D and rebid 2C...so that hand is out.

one of the reasons we aren't having a major problem with this type of auction

[jdonn]

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.

[aguahombre]

Codo, on Feb 5 2010, 12:49 AM, said:

Aqua did I miss your irony sign somewhere?

No..I missed the:

-----------

separating Dirk's message from Roland's quote, and thought dirk was deriding the people discussing the merits of treating 2D as a reverse, when all he was doing was providing data.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 05:33 PM, 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.

No, dbl would just promise a hand that could handle a 2♦ rebid (either by passing, bidding 3♣, bidding 2♥, or having invitational+ values).

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Feb 5 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 05:33 PM, 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.

No, dbl would just promise a hand that could handle a 2♦ rebid (either by passing, bidding 3♣, bidding 2♥, or having invitational+ values).

You're logically inferring, but it doesn't say that.

Do you really go through your head before making a double "if partner bids 2♦, check, 2♠, check, 3♦, check" or do you just say "yay 4 hearts double!"

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 5 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 05:33 PM, 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.

No, dbl would just promise a hand that could handle a 2♦ rebid (either by passing, bidding 3♣, bidding 2♥, or having invitational+ values).

You're logically inferring, but it doesn't say that.

Do you really go through your head before making a double "if partner bids 2♦, check, 2♠, check, 3♦, check" or do you just say "yay 4 hearts double!"

are you saying you don't?

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

Do you really go through your head before making a double "if partner bids 2♦, check, 2♠, check, 3♦, check" or do you just say "yay 4 hearts double!"

I vote for "yay 4 hearts double" or a plan after the double if I don't have 4 hearts.

Partner can help the plan by not rebidding 2D unless he would have done so after 1c-1H in an uncontested auction.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

Do you really go through your head before making a double "if partner bids 2♦, check, 2♠, check, 3♦, check" or do you just say "yay 4 hearts double!"

I would ask myself "can I handle any rebid by p"?

Then I would realize I couldn't.

Then I would realize I have thought for so long that I would put p under ethical pressure if I passed. So I would probably double anyway

[awm]

As one who plays 2♦ NF in this auction, I can make a few comments:

(1) I certainly don't play that the double promises diamonds.

(2) However, when I am minimum for a double, I tend to consider my length in the opponents suit as a factor in my decision. When I have substantial length in their suit I tend to pass instead (or bid notrump). This prevents me from "rescuing" the opponents on a misfit hand, and partner usually balances when we have anything. So my doubles are generally "either 4+♥ and short spades, and/or 4♥ and inv+ values." For example I would pass on the hand of ♠Qxxx ♥AJxx ♦xx ♣xxx mentioned earlier in the thread.

(3) No I don't "think about all opener's possible rebids all the time." But neither do I "automatically double because I have four hearts." In fact I think my approach (double aggressively with shortage in the enemy suit, pass with length there unless holding too much in the way of values) is extremely standard in higher-level auctions (say after 1♦-2♣).

(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."

[karlson]

+1 for awm's style of doubling vs passing, except that I would still play 2♦ as a reverse (if doubler's minor is clubs instead of diamonds, you're still being forced to 3c).

[jdonn]

Adam didn't negative doubles promise both unbid suits the way they were initially defined?

[awm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

Adam didn't negative doubles promise both unbid suits the way they were initially defined?

I am sure that I was not alive when negative doubles were initially defined.

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 some people have different agreements. That's fine. Maybe their agreements are even better. But I think it's funny that they claim their agreements are standard and my agreements are not, given past history on this issue.

[PhantomSac]

awm, on Feb 5 2010, 12:57 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."

Huh? When did BWS define a negative X of 1S as showing diamonds?!?! Maybe I missed the memo?

If you are talking about the 2D bid being defined as "not a reverse" I don't know how many times I have said in this thread that 2D "not a reverse" is STANDARD.

If you think that 2D being "not a reverse" means that your style of negative Xs is standard, that is a random assumption to make.

I stand by

1) It is completely standard, forum standard, expert standard, whatever to make a negative X when you have enough points and 4 hearts. You can have any number of diamonds, it doesn't matter. I posted the first FIVE google links as evidence of this, and my experience playing bridge indicates that this is how people play.

2) It is not standard to play 2D as a reverse over a negative double. Pretty sure I have said this at least five times now.

3) It is dumb to play 2D as not a reverse playing the STANDARD way of playing negative doubles (as in the way the vast majority of people play negative doubles, and the way they are written in every single one of the links I posted). Obviously this is my OPINION, and I have given my reasons for it. I think a lot of standard things are dumb. You may disagree, obviously many do since 2D as a reverse is NOT standard. However posting your opinions on stuff like this is one of the points of this forum.

I don't know if you actually believe what you said about negative doubles is expert standard, but please don't act like BWS has implicitly agreed with you by not playing 2D as a reverse. The huge majority of the bridge population does not play negative Xs like you, and does not play 2D as a reverse.

If you want to make some argument that your way of negative doubles are normal, try to find a link that agrees with you that is not 11+ years old, because I picked the first FIVE hits off of google (not a cherry picked sample), and they all agreed with me. Additionally, I know that I am right, so that helps!

Oh and I just re-read and saw that jdonn claimed 2D being a reverse is standard. If you were talking to him, fair enough, he was definitely wrong. Sorry I have been accused a few times already of saying 2D reverse = standard when I have said things like I doubt 1 out of every 10 people play it as a reverse etc, and even in my first post I said "But people still play 2D doesn't show extras" so I was getting a little pissed about it.