[shevek]

An old question this

After
1♣  (1♥)  ?

does your group

a) double with four spades, bid 1♠ with five? If so, how do you handle:

♠K65   ♥74   ♦A9754   ♣T62  ?

b) bid 1♠ with 4+ so you can double with the hand above?

c) bid 1♠ with a decent four if you welcome a 3-card raise, otherwise (b)

[jillybean]

Double and pass 1nt, partner will expect 4 ♠ but won't be surprised by only 3

[1eyedjack]

I go with option c and I pass with the example hand in a.

[FrancesHinden]

To whom is this question aimed?

The standard method taught round 'ere (London) is to bid 1S with 5 spades, and double with 4 spades.

Personally, I play that in one partnership and play double as 4+ spades/1S as the 'unbiddable' hand in the other partnership.

[Gerben42]

In my Nuremberg Club we play the Dbl with 4, 1♠ with 5. Playing this, I would probably cheat a ♠ and hope partner is aware of the possibility.

From a teaching point of view, however, I would suggest that Dbl shows "I have a good hand but I don't have a bid", which would suggest that Dbl denies 4 ♠ and 1♠ shows 4 or more ♠, just like without interference.

Spoiler

Not for B/I: I play "Italian" with regular partners.

Dbl = 4/5 Spades (support Dbl applies)
1 Spade = Less than 4 Spades, no convenient bid
2 Hearts = 6+Spades, weak or strong
2 Spades = 6+Spades, 8 - 11

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

from a teaching point, I find B) the simplest.

But you are planning to write a book for int./adv.,
so I would go with the expert standard in your
area.

If you, for what ever reason include the Law of Total
Tricks in your text, than I would go with a), because
the Law is about how good is our fit, to be able to
comp. to the 3 level, if this should be relevant.

In my regular (I have only one), we play c).

I am really even handed, or as they "wash me, but dont
make me wet".

With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt

[ArtK78]

There are two ways to play this.

The normal (I won't use the word "Standard") way to play is that the 1♠ bid shows 5 spades and the negative double strongly implies 4 spades.

The minority view is that the 1♠ bid shows 4 spades and the double denies 4 spades and shows values.

I have played both methods. I prefer the bid showing 4 spades and the double denying 4 spades, but my partners have never managed to adjust to that method, so I don't play it with anyone at this time.

[skjaeran]

I play that double shows 4-5 spades and 1♠ denies. I'm thus bidding 1♠ with the example hand. I used to play the other way around for some years, but when starting playing transfer responses over 1♣ it was natural to swithch these two bids. (Originally I played 1♠ as 5+ and double as 4, which used to be standard in Norway. These days I don't think you can say there's a standard anymore, though most beginners are taught that a negative x shows 4 spades.)

[TylerE]

Way I play it is that 1m-(1M)-X 99.9% promises exactly 4 is the unbid major, with a bid of the suit showing 5.

After 1♣-(1♦) the bid only promises 4.

[awm]

Treatment (A) is standard.

I don't see much problem with pass on the example hand. When partner opens 1♣ we will rarely have a big fit in diamonds (especially opening 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors). If partner has fewer than four hearts then it is likely LHO will raise after which I can balance. If partner has four hearts and a weak notrump then I don't see a huge problem defending 1♥ here. Why rescue opponents from their seven-card fit into our own (probably seven-card) fit?

In contrast there are a number of benefits to 1♠ showing five, for example:

(1) It solves the "bridge world death hand" for partner, who can now jump-raise on three-card support opposite five spades, or jump-rebid opposite a known four-card spade holding.

(2) It helps partner decide whether/how to compete if opponents jump-raise hearts to the three-level.

Both of these situations seem more important than the specific hands where I hold 3-2-5-3/3-3-5-2/2-3-5-3 shape with no heart stopper and not enough points to bid 2♦, but actually need to compete for the partial and cannot rely on partner to balance or LHO to raise.

I've played the version where X=4-5♠ and 1♠="takeout without four spades" a fair amount in the context of a strong club system, and found it to be only a mild win over the standard treatment. And this is despite the fact that the "problem" hands are much more frequent in a big club (i.e. 4-4 and 4-5 in the minor hands are problematic because you can't "just raise" when partner's 1♦ could be two).

[ArtK78]

TylerE, on Jan 7 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

Way I play it is that 1m-(1M)-X 99.9% promises exactly 4 is the unbid major, with a bid of the suit showing 5.

After 1♣-(1♦) the bid only promises 4.

After 1♣ - (1♦), it is standard for a negative double to show 4 cards in both majors. A bid of one of a major over 1♣ - (1♦) - ? should have the same meaning as if there was no 1♦ overcall (except that you are not forced to keep the bidding open, so you can assume that third hand has some real values).

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jan 7 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

There are two ways to play this.

There are at least four that have followings:

DBL = four spades, 1♠ = five+ spades ("standard")
DBL = 0-3 spades, 1♠ = four+ spades
DBL = four+ spades, 1♠ = 0-3 spades
DBL = 4-5 spades, 1♠ = 0-3 spades, 2♥ = 6+ spades (in-between would usually be transfers in this method)

I have played them all and prefer the last one.

[jdeegan]

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

There are at least four that have followings:

DBL = four spades, 1♠ = five+ spades ("standard")
DBL = 0-3 spades, 1♠ = four+ spades
DBL = four+ spades, 1♠ = 0-3 spades
DBL = 4-5 spades, 1♠ = 0-3 spades, 2♥ = 6+ spades (in-between would usually be transfers in this method)

I have played them all and prefer the last one.

There is one even older treatment from when this was called the "Sputnik" double.
DBL = 3 spades or 4 "unbiddable" spades
1♠ = Q108x of spades or better (or longer).
The advantage of this method (esp. at MP's) is that it can get you to 2♠ quickly (sometimes in a playable 4-3 fit) and screws up the opponents reliance on the law of total tricks and/or the presence of three spades in one of the opponent's hands as an indication of shortness in their partner's hand. You also have an easy way to show modest values with only three spades.

I must say that the modern method where 1♠ denies four spades sounds interesting to me. It ought to work assuming you can work out the appropriate continuations. How does one defend against it? What are the continuations? Is it legal in ACBL pairs or team events?