Negative doubles
dranon
there better alternatives?
Playing 2/1, with no specific discussion other than negative doubles
are operational through 3s
First hand:
Partner opens 1H in first position, all non vul
RHO sticks in a weak 2S bid and you hold:
A54
K54
AKT3
KT7
Second hand:
Partner again opens 1H in first position, you vul, they not
RHO sticks in a 1s bid this time and you hold:
83
K
AQ92
QJ9753
The question, I guess, is two-fold:
Do you start with a negative double in each of these hands?
What are the implications of starting (versus not starting) with a
negative double as opposed to another bid of some sort?
Thanks
Andrew
> Are both of these hands negative doubles in the circumstances, or are
> there better alternatives?
>
> Playing 2/1, with no specific discussion other than negative doubles
> are operational through 3s
>
> First hand:
>
> Partner opens 1H in first position, all non vul
> RHO sticks in a weak 2S bid and you hold:
>
> A54
> K54
> AKT3
> KT7
I would start with 3S, a strong heart raise. With such prime cards,
this hand is well suited for play in hearts. This hand is clearly safe
in 4H, so why not just raise?
Negative double would be more appropriate on the same shape but 10-11
HCP. You hope partner will bid 3m and you will convert to 3H to show
an invitational 3H raise.
> Second hand:
> Partner again opens 1H in first position, you vul, they not
> RHO sticks in a 1s bid this time and you hold:
>
> 83
> K
> AQ92
> QJ9753
I would start with 2C. You have 12 points and a 6-card suit. You have
the values to compete at a higher level if the opponents make an
inconvenient 3S/4S raise so start with your natural call.
> The question, I guess, is two-fold:
>
> Do you start with a negative double in each of these hands?
No, I won't double on either.
> What are the implications of starting (versus not starting) with a
> negative double as opposed to another bid of some sort?
A negative implies:
* no fit for partner
* the ability to play in multiple strains.
When you have a borderline choice between neg X and a suit call,
always consider how you will handle further competition. For example,
on hand 2, consider this auction:
1H-(1S)-X-(4S)
?-(P)-?
What will you bid now? 5C could be very wrong and double means you
have never shown your 6-card suit. In contrast this auction describes
your hand fairly well:
1H-(1S)-2C-(4S)
?-(P)-X
X = card-showing, denying heart fit.
If the hand had been: xx, K, AQxxx, QJxxx, then the case for starting
with negative double is much stronger. Double gets both minors in the
picture with one bid. If you overcall 2D and the opponents make an
inconvenient spade raise, you may lose the clubs. So a negative double
followed by a strong bidding later is a better description.
So the principle is: If you have the values for either a neg double or
a call in a new suit, double if you are indifferent between the 2 suit
strains and overcall if you have a marked preference for one over the
other.
Andrew
jogs
1. Double on this turn. Show hearts or make
a new suit forcing call on the next turn. Double
followed by hearts shows 3-card heart support.
3S followed by hearts shows 4-card heart
support.
2. 2C. Bidding my suit. Partner has room to
show diamonds. Might be right to pass if
partner rebids 2H. Opening hand opposite
a opening hand with no fit often doesn't
make game.
Ron Johnson
> Are both of these hands negative doubles in the circumstances, or are
> there better alternatives?
>
> Playing 2/1, with no specific discussion other than negative doubles
> are operational through 3s
>
> First hand:
>
> Partner opens 1H in first position, all non vul
> RHO sticks in a weak 2S bid and you hold:
>
> A54
> K54
> AKT3
> KT7
>
> Second hand:
>
> Partner again opens 1H in first position, you vul, they not
> RHO sticks in a 1s bid this time and you hold:
>
> 83
> K
> AQ92
> QJ9753
>
> The question, I guess, is two-fold:
>
> Do you start with a negative double in each of these hands?
No. Though I'm pretty sure Al Roth would have started with
a negative double on hand 2. He played very strong free bids
and pretty much all his negative doubles showed was an inability
to make a free bid.
I wouldn't start with a negative double on the first hand.
Game going hand with no interest at all in playing in
the minors. Can't see how starting with a double helps
to sort out the NT versus hearts issue. Not that you're
likely to have the tools in a casual partnership.
I'd start with whatever game forcing in heart tool I
have at hand. It's not perfect but it'll never lead to
a stupid contract. (I make no guarantees about not
reaching a bad contract)
Hand 2, I'd take the chance and make a forcing call
in clubs. While I'm very interested in playing in
a minor (or 3NT) I don't think a negative double
will help. If we're to play in diamonds, partner probably
has a 3D call.
We may easily end up overboard. I'll take the
blame and move on if it happens.
> What are the implications of starting (versus not starting) with a
> negative double as opposed to another bid of some sort?
In general you're suggesting that there's no clear direction
to your hand if you start with a negative double here.
So you can safely try supporting on a marginal heart holding
(if you had a clear raise you'd have raised) or try NT
with a marginal holding.
boblipton
Well, styles vary, but I think on the first one I bid 2 Spades, since
these points are sharp enough to cut a slam on. And on the second one
a negative double is a possibility, but 2 clubs is better, since
partner can bid 2 diamonds himself with an appropriate hand.
Bob
metobillc
> there better alternatives?
>
> Playing 2/1, with no specific discussion other than negative doubles
> are operational through 3s
> First hand:
>
> Partner opens 1H in first position, all non vul
> RHO sticks in a weak 2S bid and you hold:
>
> A54
> K54
> AKT3
> KT7
I bid 3S. 3N is possible, and I may pass if partner bids it, but
we're most likely playing in hearts.
> Second hand:
>
> Partner again opens 1H in first position, you vul, they not
> RHO sticks in a 1s bid this time and you hold:
>
> 83
> K
> AQ92
> QJ9753
I'd bid 2C. Two-card disparity, and enough values to bid again (the
stiff K is upgraded to full value).
> The question, I guess, is two-fold:
>
> Do you start with a negative double in each of these hands?
> What are the implications of starting (versus not starting) with a
> negative double as opposed to another bid of some sort?
Depends on the situation. In the first case, I'd expect the negative
double to show inv+ values, deny hearts, and be looking for 3N. There
are some situations where it's safe to negative double then show (3-
card) support, but this isn't one of them IMO. In the second case,
I'd expect equal length or 1-card disparity in the minors, or a weak 1-
suiter if the partnership allows those into the negative double.
paul
It would not occur to me to make a negative double on either hand. I
can't imagine how I would convey my strength and shape if I started
that way.
#1 I'll raise hearts with a 3S cue-bid. Wish I had a clearly stronger
bid but perhaps partner will cue-bid. I won't venture beyond 4H on my
own steam.
#2 is a simple 2C response; I can bid diamonds next or cue 2S. I would
make a negative double with less strength or shape (4-4.)
Andrew
I agree 2S would be a good call but the opponents may complain it is
insufficient.
Andrew
Fred.
>
> - Show quoted text -
While Al Roth required significantly more than was common for an
opening or a free bid at the one level, his requirements often get
exagerated these days. While he requied 14 points including 10 HCP
for a 1st or 2nd hand opening, he counted fairly liberally (both
length and shortness) for distribution. While he required a 11 HCP
and the promise of a rebid for a free bid at the 1-level, the
requiement for a free bid at the 2 level was the same.
I suspect that he would have called 2 C on the second hand, and rebid
3C if partner didn't call 2D. Making a negative double and then
bidding clubs would have shown a good suit in a weaker hand.
See p. 379 of Al Roth and Jeff Rubens, _Modern Bridge Bidding
Complete_, New York, 1968, for his free bid requirements.
Fred.
OldPalooka
I'll bite on the first hand. I want to listen since there is no way
to show a prime square 3 card slam invite. Why not give partner extra
room to show some speed if he wants. Why not accept a slam fit in
diamonds if there is one.
-- Bill Shutts
henry...@yahoo.com
I don't know that I would make a neg double with the first hand, but
if partner has, say,
xx
AQxxx
KJxx
Ax
you wouldn't mind being in 7d, and it might be hard to find if
responder bids 3s = strong heart raise.
On the 2nd hand, 2c is clear for the reasons Andrew gave.
Henrysun909
Eric Leong
I would make a negative double on both hands.
One the first hand, I want to convey something in the minors, a good
hand, and adequate but not great trump support. To that end I would
plan to make a negative double, cuebid in spades, and then bid hearts.
Another advantage in a negative double is you start the bidding off
low so if partner bids a minor the information will be useful to bid
to a higher level.
On the second hand, I want to convey a limited hand with both minors
with clubs longer than diamonds. If I took a small club and replaced
it with a spot card in a major my hand would be perfect for the bid.
So 12 out 13 cards makes my hand right for the bid. When I bid clubs
later after partner bids say diamonds then he will know I also have
longer clubs and better than a minimum negative double. Bidding 2C
does far less in describing your hand to partner. All you show so far
is five clubs and at least nine hcp. You only show immediately 5 out
of 13 of your cards and you pray to catch up later. Also, if you don't
get diamonds in to the picture immediately partner with clearly weak
diamonds is going to be far more reluctant to introduce the suit at a
higher level then if you start off with 2C. Also, partner could have
say something like: S x H AQ10xxx D Kxxxx C A. You want to make it
easier for partnership to find the 6D slam.
Eric Leong
jogs
> On Oct 1, 11:27 am, dranon <dra...@dranon.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > Are both of these hands negative doubles in the circumstances, or are
> > there better alternatives?
>
> > Playing 2/1, with no specific discussion other than negative doubles
> > are operational through 3s
>
> > First hand:
>
> > Partner opens 1H in first position, all non vul
> > RHO sticks in a weak 2S bid and you hold:
>
> > A54
> > K54
> > AKT3
> > KT7
>
> I would start with 3S, a strong heart raise. With such prime cards,
> this hand is well suited for play in hearts. This hand is clearly safe
> in 4H, so why not just raise?
>
>
> Andrew
Clearly we're willing to play 4H with this hand.
Opponents don't always go away quietly. If
they compete with 4S opener may wish to
know whether we hold 8 or 9 combined hearts
to assist in deciding to double 4S or go to 5H.
3S should show 4 cards while double shows
three or less.
dranon
wrote:
Thanks for all that responded.
On the first hand, Eric pretty much guessed the sequence: opener rebid
3h over the negative double and had to guess over 3s whether it was
asking for a spade stopper, showing a spade stopper or indicative of a
big hand with less than 4 trump.
Assuming the above, and given that opener did not hold a spade
stopper, and instead held an absolutely minimum opening hand with 7
hearts, should opener return to hearts or cue-bid a minor control at
this point if he has one?
If opener cue bids a minor control, I presume the partnership will
land on its feet by RKC.
If opener returns to 4h would you now pass or is this hand worth going
to the five level in this sequence?
On the second hand the intervening 2s led opener to pass with a bare
minimum 3-5-2-3 hand. When the negative doubler then continued with
3c opener couldn't find a raise with JT2, Axxxx, xx, AKx. Of course,
the DK was onside, and clubs split 2-2. Eric makes the argument that
a negative double identifies more cards. I suspect that it also tends
to argue for a hand that could not make a 3c bid because of strength
considerations.
boblipton
This is, in bridge terms anyway, a religious matter. And one that,
therefore, should be discussed in advance. Some people like to have
cue-bidding is optional. I prefer to set things out so I could bid 4
Hearts with a wide range of hands, which tightens the range of the 4
Spades cuebid here and demands cuebids -- and leaves me the choice of
doubling, pulling or cuebidding if it comes back to me at 4 Spades.
Of course, this requires a lot of discussion with partner and should
be with a regular partner-- usually at the table there are so many
contingencies on the 'basic' convention that cuebids in competitive
auctions don't get mentioned until the first break, if then.
>
> If opener cue bids a minor control, I presume the partnership will
> land on its feet by RKC.
Maybe. I think that once cuebidding starts, it's best to continue
cuebidding which frees 4NT for other purposes: I like it to show the
Ace or King of Trumps, but am open to other suggestions.
>
> If opener returns to 4h would you now pass or is this hand worth going
> to the five level in this sequence?
Having made a slam try below game and heard partner say "No;" and
recognizing that the SK is a positional stopper of doubtful value, I
pass.
>
> On the second hand the intervening 2s led opener to pass with a bare
> minimum 3-5-2-3 hand. When the negative doubler then continued with
> 3c opener couldn't find a raise with JT2, Axxxx, xx, AKx. Of course,
> the DK was onside, and clubs split 2-2. Eric makes the argument that
> a negative double identifies more cards. I suspect that it also tends
> to argue for a hand that could not make a 3c bid because of strength
> considerations.
That is the standard meaning: a negative double followed by a suit
shows a hand that is not strong enough to bid the suit in the first
place. The contrary understanding is a common one, of 'negative free
bids' and should apply only after discussion.
jogs
- shows a hand that is not strong enough to bid the suit in the first-
- place. The contrary understanding is a common one, of 'negative
free
- bids' and should apply only after discussion.
While the overwhelming majority of American players
play neg doubles this way, I'm convinced game theory
wise, it's a poor strategy. Negative free bids must be
the superior strategy, especially when allowed to show
a major on the two level.
boblipton
The question of which understandings are superior is not one I
intended to discuss. It may be like the Otto engine, which is
theoretically inferior to, say the Wankel Rotary, but with a hundred
years of art, works better. All I'm saying is that if I sit down and
don't specifically add negative free bids, they're not in operation.
They may be better, but they're not standard.
Bob
jogs
That's the difference between theory and practice. Don't
attempt to play neg doubles with a stranger.
derek
> attempt to play neg doubles with a stranger.
I always play negative doubles with strangers. I try to establish how
high we play them, first, but I can safely expect that they all _do_
play negative doubles. Some don't play them well (ie, not as I
would :-)), but almost everybody I meet _thinks_ they play negative
doubles. Whereas negative free bids are alien territory.
OldPalooka
Yes, but you believe game and slam bonuses are mythical. Almost every
good young player I knew in the '70s experimented with Negative Free
Bids and found unsolvable problems with good hands when the opps
raised (and they are more prone to raise to an uncomfortable level
today). Mostly they adjusted by making lighter forcing free bids when
it was right to compete (especially compared to Dick Walsh's
standards).
-- Bill Shutts
jogs
Obviously I meant neg free bids. But you'll be
surprised there isn't even total agreement on how
to respond to neg doubles.
1H - (1S) - X - p
?
2=5=3=3 Do you rebid 2H or 2C? Better three card
minor? Does the quality of the suits influence your
rebid? Do you sometimes rebid 1NT? Don't think
everyone agrees.
derek
> On Oct 4, 12:06 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 12:47 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 6:21 pm, boblipton <boblip...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The question of which understandings are superior is not one I
> > > > intended to discuss. It may be like the Otto engine, which is
> > > > theoretically inferior to, say the Wankel Rotary, but with a hundred
> > > > years of art, works better. All I'm saying is that if I sit down and
> > > > don't specifically add negative free bids, they're not in operation.
> > > > They may be better, but they're not standard.
>
> > > That's the difference between theory and practice. Don't
> > > attempt to play neg doubles with a stranger.
>
> > I always play negative doubles with strangers. I try to establish how
> > high we play them, first, but I can safely expect that they all _do_
> > play negative doubles. Some don't play them well (ie, not as I
> > would :-)), but almost everybody I meet _thinks_ they play negative
> > doubles. Whereas negative free bids are alien territory.
>
> Obviously I meant neg free bids. But you'll be
> surprised there isn't even total agreement on how
> to respond to neg doubles.
I wondered, but, no, I won't be surprised :-)
> 1H - (1S) - X - p
> ?
>
> 2=5=3=3 Do you rebid 2H or 2C?
2H isn't even an option (partner doesn't have three, and will correct
to 2H with 2 in many cases), though 1N is (only if it's Ax or Kx).
> Better three card minor?
Clubs, because partner didn't promise 4 diamonds (he didn't promise 4
clubs,either, but he did promise 4 in one of them).
> Does the quality of the suits influence your
> rebid? Do you sometimes rebid 1NT? Don't think
> everyone agrees.
Certainly not.
jogs
Why can't partner have three? 2=3=4=4 10-11 HCP.
In forcing notrumps responder bids 1NT with a three
card limit raise. Knowing whether responder has
three or four card support is often the critical criteria
for bidding close games.
Qx AKQJT 432 432. 2H is the correct rebid.
>
> > Better three card minor?
>
> Clubs, because partner didn't promise 4 diamonds (he didn't promise 4
> clubs,either, but he did promise 4 in one of them).
Kx Jxxxx AKQ 432
Isn't 2D a better description of this hand than 2C.
Ron Johnson
>
> See p. 379 of Al Roth and Jeff Rubens, _Modern Bridge Bidding
> Complete_, New York, 1968, for his free bid requirements.
I think it's fair to say that Roth didn't actually play
what he advocated and that his call at the table
(particularly in a negative double situation)
depended a great deal on his table feel. He
made more really strange looking negative doubles
in practice than anybody I can think of.
I think Jeff Rubens was a great choice as a collaborator
in that he's always been good at thinking through
the systemic implications of any given theoretical
choice. Working with Rubens probably allowed him
to give a better definition to free bids and negative
doubles than at any point before that.
Rubens has written some very funny stuff on his
trying to pin B. J. Becker down on the meaning of
sequences. Never wrote anything that I'm aware of
on his work with Roth.
castigamatti
I would have bid 3S on the first hand and double on the second one, a
bit Rothish I guess.
BR
Frances
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not that simple. I've played 2H/2S in competition as negative
free bids for 20 years in one partnership, and played them as natural
and forcing in another. Neither approach has been obviously superior.
If you hold
KQ10xxx
Jx
x
xxx
and the auction starts 1H (2D) you want to be playing negative free
because 2S describes your hand perfectly
However, if you hold
KQJxx
Ax
x
Kxxx
and the auction starts 1H (2D) you want to be playing 2S as natural
and forcing because that describes your hand perfectly
jogs
Nothing works all the time. Still I prefer to
hold 13 card hands.
After 1H-(2D) you wont hold 13 HCP very
often. And playing neg free bids double
first and bid the suit later.