[gszes]

http://www.bridgebas...p?cb=peNHQA42BU
look at hand 7

---

2c??????????? surely if there is insufficient power to make a neg x that we might play on the 1 level there is insufficient power to risk a 43 fit at the 2 level

[virgosrock]

gszes, on 2018-June-19, 07:28, said:

http://www.bridgebas...p?cb=peNHQA42BU
look at hand 7

---

2c??????????? surely if there is insufficient power to make a neg x that we might play on the 1 level there is insufficient power to risk a 43 fit at the 2 level

This is the second post within a few weeks where GUBBO has done this. But hey! unerring judgement since spades break 5-0 :)

[pescetom]

Not sure how GIB plays negative double, but in my book he lacks both strength and diamonds to make that bid.
2♣ is slightly over too, but much less risky; if partner needs to pass with a 43 fit then opps have the points anyway.

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2018-June-19, 12:25, said:

Not sure how GIB plays negative double, but in my book he lacks both strength and diamonds to make that bid.

He doesn't have to have diamonds for a negative double, but he needs to be able to control the auction in which opener responds 2♦ holding 4-5 in the minors and a minimum. There are four ways you can play this:
1) Opener won't respond this way as 2♦ would be a reverse, he would rebid 2♣
2) Opener would have opened 1♦ so the problem doesn't exist
3) Responder can correct to 3♣ with this hand so no problem
4) If responder bids 3♣ after opener's 2♦, it shows invitational values, so he can't double with this hand.

Apparently, GIB plays style 4). As long as he does this consistently and it is described in the notes, it is OK.

[Stephen Tu]

I highly doubt GIB is doing this out of any coherent bidding plan as helene suggests. I think just randomly the min for neg double was set at 7 pts while the min for raising is 6 points, and thus it picks the one that fits. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to give up the boss suit like this. If I am going to conceal a major to raise it's going to be hearts when they have spades and I have more cards in the minor.

It ought to play the 2d reverse as showing extras, but doesn't. And after 2d, 3c is just wide ranging 7-12.
Requiring both spades and diamonds to make a negative double to me seems massively restrictive, and would leave many decent hands with no reasonable bid, in a x= 4 spades, 1s=5 spade structure.

[virgosrock]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-June-19, 18:26, said:

I highly doubt GIB is doing this out of any coherent bidding plan as helene suggests. I think just randomly the min for neg double was set at 7 pts while the min for raising is 6 points, and thus it picks the one that fits. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to give up the boss suit like this. If I am going to conceal a major to raise it's going to be hearts when they have spades and I have more cards in the minor.

It ought to play the 2d reverse as showing extras, but doesn't. And after 2d, 3c is just wide ranging 7-12.
Requiring both spades and diamonds to make a negative double to me seems massively restrictive, and would leave many decent hands with no reasonable bid, in a x= 4 spades, 1s=5 spade structure.

methinks there is a mindset among non-USA players that such negative doubles show tolerance for unbid suits(s). In USA invariably the other major only.
There used to be an English negative double which showed tolerance in other suits as well. Can't remember the name though started with the letter S - Sputnik?

[helene_t]

virgosrock, on 2018-June-20, 05:47, said:

methinks there is a mindset among non-USA players that such negative doubles show tolerance for unbid suits(s).

Yeah, but this affects only players at club level and so, maybe also some very old fashioned players.

I am sure that the GIB programmers did not intend to implement that style. However, the way GIB calls are explained is usually based on minimum number of cards in each suit. It doesn't use OR-clauses.

You see this in take out doubles also. A take out double "promises" 3+ cards in each unbid suit, and the robot partner will assume this to be true. But in practice, t/o doubles are also made with some very strong yet not flexible hands.

[jdonn]

What Stephen said is exactly right, although I thought it had been corrected at some point.