[cnszsun]

1C-(1H)-DBL-(Pass)-2D
Do you need extra values to bid 2D like a reverse sequence?
Thanks.

[bearmum]

cnszsun, on Jan 30 2006, 07:09 PM, said:

1C-(1H)-DBL-(Pass)-2D
Do you need extra values to bid 2D like a reverse sequence?
Thanks.

NOPE - assuming you have 4♦ as P has made a negative X asking you to bid one of the other 2 suits

[Walddk]

Depends on your agreements. If the double shows both unbid suits, 2♦ doesn't show extras; it's merely support of responder's diamonds.

If, on the other hand, as most experts play it, double only shows spades, 2♦ should be a reverse, because responder hasn't promised diamonds. I am a subscriber to the latter, but it's all a matter of what the double promises.

Roland

[coyot]

Walddk, on Jan 30 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

Depends on your agreements. If the double shows both unbid suits, 2♦ doesn't show extras; it's merely support of responder's diamonds.

If, on the other hand, as most experts play it, double only shows spades, 2♦ should be a reverse, because responder hasn't promised diamonds. I am a subscriber to the latter, but it's all a matter of what the double promises.

Roland

That leaves you in a mess - you are forced to bid something you might not entirely have... (i.e. notrump rebid without heart stopper or 1444 or 1345 shapes).

Possible solutions:
1) Treat a negative double as promising all unbid suits and forcing for one round. If partner does NOT have a diamond 4card, his problem

2) Don't use negative double in this sequence WITH spades (bid 1♠ with 4+card).

I have played it this way ever since - treat 1 over 1 bids after interference just as without interference - and use the extra bids given by opponents for hands that are difficult to bid. There are easy tools to find 5-3 spade fit in these cases, the distinction between 4card and 5card of responder is not that important.

[MickyB]

Down to agreements. There doesn't seem any need for a 1♠ bid to show ♠ here, maybe it should be some kind of catch-all.

[FrancesHinden]

In one partnership I play double promises (exactly) 4 spades. The subsequent auction is pretty similar to if it had started 1C P 1S P, so 2D is a reverse.

In the other regular partnership I play that double denies spades and promises diamonds, in which case 2D doesn't show extras, although because of our opening bid agreements it shows 4 diamonds and 5 clubs.

[mikeh]

As the posts show, the meaning depends upon context. For me, it is a reverse, because the double is about ♠ in my partnerships (in some, it is 4+ ♠, with transfers in effect over a 1♥ overcall, in others, the double shows precisely 4♠.)

As for the problem if you are 1=4=4=4, those of you who are familiar with my posts will appreciate that I would NEVER have this problem. That shape is one of the (several) reasons why, in my view, opening 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors is a misguided notion. Yes, I know that those who do open 1♣ might make an exception with 1=4=4=4, and/or rebid 1N here

[mike777]

Are you guys and gals saying with most 4-5 or 5-4 in the minor suit hands (4d and 5club) unbalanced hands and 11-16 hcp I need to open 1D so I can rebid 2clubs?

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jan 30 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

Are you guys and gals saying with most 4-5 or 5-4 in the minor suit hands (4d and 5club) unbalanced hands and 11-16 hcp I need to open 1D so I can rebid 2clubs?

As you wish, I don't recommend it. Don't distort the lengths of your suits is my philosophy, and I can't remember when I last made an exception to that rule.

Roland

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jan 30 2006, 01:38 PM, said:

Are you guys and gals saying with most 4-5 or 5-4 in the minor suit hands (4d and 5club) unbalanced hands and 11-16 hcp I need to open 1D so I can rebid 2clubs?

As with what to open with 4=4 in the minors, so too is there a divide on 4=5. I am very firmly in the 1♣ camp: altho with AKQ10 Jxxxx I would be tempted to open 1♦... just tempted, mind you

I have no qualms about rebidding 1N with no stopper in an unbid major after 1♣ - 1Major when I am 2=2=4=5, and no qualms about rebidding a 5 card ♣ suit if I have to. I hate distorting shape.

[han]

I have played the double in three different ways:

A) Exactly 4 spades (1S would show 5). In this case 2D is a reverse.

B ) 4+ spades (1S would deny spades). In this case 2D is also a reverse.

C) The double is minor oriented (1S would show 4+ spades). In this case 2D shows a fairly minimal hand.

(A) is most standard and (B ) and (C ) are better (I think that (B ) might be best in theory but I prefer (C ) because it is easier to remember for me).

I know that there are beginning bridge players who think that a negative double shows both unbid suits, but I don't know where and why they learned this. No active experts play this.

[luis]

I think the most flexible agreement is that 2♦ does not show extra values. Assuming we are playing standard negative doubles not exactly promising a number of spades or things like that.

Luis

[mikeh]

luis, on Jan 30 2006, 04:09 PM, said:

I think the most flexible agreement is that 2♦ does not show extra values. Assuming we are playing standard negative doubles not exactly promising a number of spades or things like that.

Luis

The problem I have with this is that standard negative doubles (at least in NA) do promise a specific number of ♠ (precisely 4) and do NOT promise any number of ♦.

Therefore, bidding 2♦ should logically be a reverse, whether that is flexible or not is irrelevant. Simply put, partner may be sitting there with 4=3=3=3 6 count and you are now forcing him to the 3-level to give you preference. That makes it a reverse.

And consider the implications of claiming the opener can or should bid 2♦ with no extras.

What does he do with a real hand? xx xx AKJx AKQxx?

If he will bid 2♦ on xx xx AJxx AKJxx, how does he show the big hand? Please don't tell me he cue bids or jumps to 3♦


'flexible' is the expert's favourite term, but I think it is ill-suited to this scenario.

Of course, if the double promises ♦, then 2♦ is a minimum, and 3♦ can be invitational and the cue bid an ambiguous game force.

[han]

Hmm, according to my earlier statement Luis is not an active expert.. I guess I have to take that back. How foolish of me to think I knew what people elsewhere play.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Jan 30 2006, 05:00 PM, said:

Hmm, according to my earlier statement Luis is not an active expert.. I guess I have to take that back. How foolish of me to think I knew what people elsewhere play.

The first thing you have to get use to saying (as an instructor, or teacher) is that there are plenty of ways to bid... others may disagree, but this is the way I like .... blah blah blah.....

The minute you say "this is what you have to bid", a dozen real experts will come up with a half a dozen other ways to bid.

for me, I like double on 1C-(1H)-X to show Diamonds with a tolerance for clubs. If I have spades (any number) and enough to bid, I willl bid 1S. Thus, for me, 1C-(1H)-X-(P); 2D is not a reverse, and is not forcing. Playing "generic negative doubles" where double promises 4♠ exactly and nothing specific in diamonds, 2♦ would be a reverse.

[han]

Of course you are right Ben. Sometimes it is fun to make a statement like "no expert plays this" even if you know it is false (as it always is). This probably isn't the place to make these statements though.

[han]

Thanks Justin! (moderator, insert crying smllie here)

[luis]

Hannie, on Jan 30 2006, 10:15 PM, said:

Of course you are right Ben. Sometimes it is fun to make a statement like "no expert plays this" even if you know it is false (as it always is). This probably isn't the place to make these statements though.

I don't play that a double "Shows" spades and diamonds. I play that a negative double just denies a bidable suit or a penalty double or support for opener, by inference many times this means he has cards in the remaining suits that's why I think it's flexible to plyay 2!d here as natural and not showing extras.

PS: I also hate when people say negative doubles "show" this or that they deny things that's why they are called negative :-)