[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2025-August-13, 21:42, said:

A negative double is only used with hands that cannot make a natural bid for various reasons

The original reasons were that responder lacked either or both of the strength and length for a natural forcing new suit bid

This 1D (1S) x.

Fairly early in the history of negative doubles this became a way of showing hearts. It showed either 4 or 4+.

If responder held 5+ then he lacked the values for a 2H bid

You do NOT bid 2H in that sequence when you have 5+ hearts and whatever your system strength requirements are for a 2 H bid

1D (2C) x. Some might think this shows both majors but that’s not mainstream expert treatment. X shows either both majors or 1 major and good diamond support. Limiting it to both majors causes serious problems. Say you hold AQxx xx AJxxx xx. If x promises hearts as well as spades you can’t double and the spade suit may be lost

But if you held AQxxx xx AJxx xx, you’d bid spades since you have 5+ and the strength to bid.


All of that is by way of saying that negative doubles DENY a 5+ suit with whatever you require for a free bid. Btw that’s why negative free bids fell out of fashion….they inverted the problem…one has to double with a good hand and a good suit and preemption really screws things up

Negative doubles fix a problem. Good hands with good suits aren’t part of that problem and DO NOT use negative doubles

Good hands with suits too short to bid or weaker hands with long suits but not the strength to bid….those are the problems

With a slam oriented 6-6 major hand, you by definition have both the length and the strength to bid your suits


I suggest finding a reasonably good basic 2/1 text because you seem unfamiliar with basic bidding ideas. You’re far from alone in that, even amongst players who’ve been playing for years

Most people ‘learn’ from other club level players, virtually none of whom have a good understanding of basic principles. So we have the uninformed learning from the uninformed. As one of the local experts I admit to some fault here. But I’ve tried teaching at the club and in my experience people may listen, may nod their heads, but they either forget or choose to revert to what they’re used to since pretty much given up teaching

Thanks for the clarification.
I have seen it played as, and played it, as negative or slammish hand.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-August-14, 16:42, said:

Thanks for the clarification.
I have seen it played as, and played it, as negative or slammish hand.

I’ll bet you haven’t seen this played that way by any good player

I’ve stopped being surprised by the unusual ideas espoused by bad players

[harikannan]

A different auction: 1H (2S) .... to us.

Would you consider a double with 7, A4, AK865, AT952?

[DavidKok]

No.

Mikeh said it very well. Putting it in my own words: if we have a lot of distribution, a lot to tell, we should be showing our hand. When instead we don't have that much to share we should be asking. Making nebulous bids on unbalanced hands with long suits is bound to make things difficult for partner, because they have no way to tell that their 3-card fragment (or, in Kathryn's case, a doubleton) is golden.

With shape, show. With lack of shape, ask. On close calls, make the shape-showing bid in favour of the nebulous bid.

[smerriman]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 01:24, said:

Would you consider a double with 7, A4, AK865, AT952?

Sneaky

[harikannan]

 DavidKok, on 2025-August-15, 01:45, said:

No.

Mikeh said it very well.

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

[P_Marlowe]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 02:18, said:

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

Hi,

it is your turn over 3D, before the preemptive raise can happen, due to this you start with your longest 5+
major and bid the 2nd at whatever level you feel comfortable.
I would also not worry to much about 6-6 hands, they exist, black swan exist, I have seen them, but they
are rare.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

harikannan, on 2025-August-15, 02:18, said:

I get it. Still, expecting LHO to raise the preempt, don't you feel we need to get both minors in the mix?

3♦ is natural and game forcing. I will get to bid again. If the opponents are silent from here on out that's actually scary - it means partner has the spades, and it's looking like a misfit (imagine 4=5=2=2 opposite). However, I think I'm strong enough to bid on over 3NT to probe for slam, and partner can sign off in 4NT with an unsuitable hand.
The more interesting case is when LHO raises the preempt. Now I might have to bid at an uncomfortable level. However, this would be even more true if I had doubled first! Double doesn't nearly show this AAAK 5-5 minors hand, and partner will not play me for this if I do not take more action. Preempts work, and we make the most of our limited space and time by starting to describe immediately. This is exactly the scenario where doubling loses.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-August-14, 21:56, said:

I’ll bet you haven’t seen this played that way by any good player

I’ve stopped being surprised by the unusual ideas espoused by bad players

X does "fix the problem" of partner passing your forcing bids.
I am not suggesting this is a good use for the X here

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-August-15, 07:03, said:

X does "fix the problem" of partner passing your forcing bids.
I am not suggesting this is a good use for the X here

There are two ways to fix that problem, and neither features a double.

One is to later explain to partner what a forcing bid means

The other is to find a better partner

The first is the preferable approach.

[Huibertus]

jillybean, on 2025-August-13, 11:33, said:

Start with a X

A slow X to inform partner he shouldn't pass I assume?

[smerriman]

smerriman, on 2025-August-15, 01:48, said:

Sneaky

For those wondering about my comment, the (second) hand harikannan posted was part of a bidding contest last month. Double was the majority choice for the panel (13 votes), ahead of 3♦ (6 votes) and 3♣ (3 votes).

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2025-August-16, 01:14, said:

For those wondering about my comment, the (second) hand harikannan posted was part of a bidding contest last month. Double was the majority choice for the panel (13 votes), ahead of 3♦ (6 votes) and 3♣ (3 votes).

But there was also Zia "3♦, what's the joke?"
Interesting discussion there, particularly about the merits of 3♣ which I would not have considered.
I suspect one factor causing weaker players to prefer Double is doubt about whether 3m is NF, F1 or GF after 2♠ interference.
But there are several experts there arguing for Double.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-August-16, 02:39, said:

But there was also Zia "3♦, what's the joke?"

Yes, amusingly just after Brink saying he thought 3♦ bidders have no clue about bridge People certainly have strong opinions, but definitely an interesting discussion.

[harikannan]

As Davidkok feared, if partner is 4=5=2=2, then 3NT may be the best spot. If LHO furthers the preempt and partner is 2=5=3/4, double keeps it flexible to find the right minor. Even good rules for bidding may admit some exceptions!

[jillybean]

Huibertus, on 2025-August-16, 00:48, said:

A slow X to inform partner he shouldn't pass I assume?

This isn’t the first time you’ve suggested that I use tempo to cheat at the bridge table.
I find it very offensive.

[DavidKok]

harikannan, on 2025-August-16, 04:23, said:

As Davidkok feared, if partner is 4=5=2=2, then 3NT may be the best spot. If LHO furthers the preempt and partner is 2=5=3/4, double keeps it flexible to find the right minor. Even good rules for bidding may admit some exceptions!

I'm afraid you've misread or misunderstood. If LHO furthers the preempt I would prefer to have bid 3♦, so that I can double or bid clubs the next round. Double-then-double will not inform partner of the great double fit if partner does have, say, 2=5=3=3.
If partner is 4=5=2=2 then 3NT is most likely the best spot, but I am giving up on getting there. At best I will get to play 4NT opposite that hand.