[awm]

Over 1♥-2♦:

KQxx-xx-AJxx-xxx is an easy pass for me. Partner will virtually always balance with my holding such long diamonds. I don't feel obligated to double if I will have trouble with the followups. On the rare occasion that partner doesn't double, we likely have only 22-24 combined points and the opponents are probably playing in a 6-card fit (maybe 7) so I see no particular reason that our 2NT partial needs to score better than defending undoubled.

KQxxx-xx-Axx-xxx? I will pass on this hand also. Double will not work out all that well in either style. While it's certainly true that I wouldn't want to double and hear 3♣, doubling and hearing a 2♥ bid that's frequently five isn't much better. We still could have an 8-card spade fit, or a heart fit, and I don't know whether to bid spades (might be passed in a 5-1 when we have 8 hearts) or raise hearts (might play 5-2 at the three-level) or just pass (might play 5-2 fit with a making 4♠ game). Pass and partner will normally balance with six hearts, and will also balance with many hands including three spades (say 3-5-2-3 or 3-5-1-4). The only time double is really better than pass is when partner has four spades and too many diamonds to balance. I'd say this is rare.

Perhaps Kxxx-x-AQxx-Qxxx? Another easy pass of 2♦ (see hand one).

I should note that my negative doubles don't strictly show "8+ points and 4+♠" in this auction. I tend to double quite light (even 6-7 points) holding shortness in the opposing suit. I will pass hands even up to 10-11 points with length/strength in the opposing suit, since partner will balance. Many of your "bad example" hands for opener involve extreme shortage in diamonds; this is quite rare in my style unless doubler is holding serious values, since otherwise the opponents seem to have a 10-card diamond fit but yet no raise.

After the negative double:

xx-KQ109x-Qx-A10xx: I'd try 2♥ with the strong suit and wasted values in diamonds. I don't think 3♣ is wrong per se, but staying low (and undoubled) with bad hands is key. Change the hand to something like xx KQxxx xx AQTx and I will bid 3♣ though.

Kx-Axxxx-x-A10xxx: 3♣ is clear.

Kx-AKxxx-x-A10xxx: I'd also bid 3♣ on this hand; opposite a non-heart fit it is a trick better than the preceding hand, but I am not happy to force game opposite a negative double. Note that given my diamond singleton, I expect partner to have game-going values for the negative double anyway (well unless partner has short diamonds also, in which case 3♣ is hardly going to end the bidding).

Kx-AKxxx-Qx-AKxx: Clear 3♦ call. Game values, want to find 3NT when it's right.

Kx-AKxxx-x-AKxxx: 4♣, partner will normally have a fit here (or if not, six spades) and in any case this is a very slammish hand. I don't expect partner to "negative double" with diamond length unless holding a lot extra, which helps here.

While it can be somewhat problematic to respond 3♣ on both the second and third hands, how is this worse than the rebid problem you'd face holding:

Qxx AQJxxx Kxx x
x KJxxx Qxx AQxx

Are both these 2♥ bids for you? How do you like your chances of reaching the right spot when partner has a minimum double? Seems like if partner bids 3♣ often you could be totally stuck on the first hand, if partner passes 2♥ often you are totally stuck on the second hand.

My feeling is that the US standard style Justin and I prefer is better when doubler has either a weak hand short in the opposing suit (most likely opener's rebid names the best fit) or when doubler has a game force (opener describes shape, no need to scramble for a forcing call over the 2♥ temporizing bid). Your style works better when doubler has an invitational hand (note that all your bad examples for the standard style are invitational-range hands), especially when the invite includes a bunch of cards in the enemy suit (meaning no fit for clubs). However, I don't tend to double with the invitational hands with a bunch of cards in the enemy suit, which really removes them from the equation. Also, the US standard style has the nice property of reaching the best fit virtually all the time, even if it's a level higher than it strictly should be (even if I doubled on the example hands I'd reach the right strain, just might play 3♥ instead of 2♥ or 3NT instead of 2NT). I don't see this working out for your methods, which avoid game when you're light on points but could easily play the wrong partial on those hands.

[Walddk]

Codo, on Mar 13 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

If you play it like the majority (it is the majority, isn`t it?), that you have Spades and CLUBS OR a rebid after any bid from Pd, you have no problem with a 3 Club rebid from pd.

How do you know that you represent the majority? I don't think you do actually; among the majority of experts, double shows spades, and spades only. Hence 3♣ shows extras.

Another interesting auction is:

1♣ (1♠) X (pass)
2♦

This is a reverse to me because responder has shown nothing but hearts. Incidentally, I don't play 2♦ as necessarily natural, but a reverse it is. On this auction either natural or a hand too good for a 3♣ rebid. I know we have been through all this in a thread a few months ago.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 13 2006, 09:20 PM, said:

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

I don't think this was meant for me. It's a clear double in both cases, and in your second example it's purely coincidental that responder has clubs too.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Mar 13 2006, 09:25 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 13 2006, 09:20 PM, said:

While you make some worthwhile points, I would really hate to play a method where I have to pass over 2D holding KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx vul against not.

I don't think this was meant for me. It's a clear double in both cases, and in your second example it's purely coincidental that responder has clubs too.

Roland

No, it was aimed at awm. Sorry, should have added a quote in.

[joshs]

This auction represents a fundamental philosphical issue in bridge bidding.
The question is:
what is more important, finding the correct strain or the correct level

The dominant opinion, at least in competative auctions, is that strain is more important than level, since:
a. if you are in the right strain but get slightly too high, you probably will have play for your contract, so only have a slightly negative expectation
b. if you are in the right strain and end up slightly too low, you at least will go plus, so again only have a slightly negative expectation
c. if you are in the wrong strain, but the right level your expectaition is probably very bad, if the contract is no good, and slightly negative if its a playable alternative contract
d. getting too high in the wrong strain can be a disaster
e. even staying low in the wrong strain can be a disaster at MPS or when vul (did you say down 4!)

Vulnerability, and how playable your possible landing places are, always effect the exact calculus.

The negative x auction, is an important one to know what your default "scramble" agreements.

The way I see the auction 1H-(2D)-x
x says "I would have bid 1S and I think we should bid on over 2D, but I can't bid 2S"
In general, responder should have some idea what to do next if opener doesn't like spades, and also what to do if opener "likes spades."

The quotes are because in some people's style's they will bid a 3 card spade suit in preference to rebidding a 5 card heart suit, or going to 3C but this is not universal. Its good to know your partneships defauts, especially in that you don't tank so long, and partner might then pull you out of that strain if you make the wrong bid...


Opener's rebids:
With 4+S you bid some number of spades
With 5+C you bid some number of clubs
With 6+H you bid some number of hearts
With 4 reasonably good diamonds you usually pass
After that, there is no universal agreement about:
a. what to do with 4 clubs and a min
b. what to do with 3 spades
c. what to do with no good bid (2533 for instance)
d. when exactly do you bid 2N

Personally, I think bidding here has to be flexible. You can rebid a reasonably good 5 card suit, you can rebid a 3 card spade suit (just do it fast please!), you can bid 3C on 4C's and a min, you can make speculative penalty passes. You just try to do the best you can.

You don't want to bid 3C on 4C and a min (in general a partnership should try to stay off the 3 level without extra shape or a majority of the values) but its better to get to a playable strain, even if its too high.

With the hand in question, the very strong heart suit (KQT9x) and minimum values should argue for a 2H rebid (bid it fast please), but if you opened xx Qxxxx Ax AKxx you just have to rebid 3C even if it gets you too high. I think rebidding a non-forcing 2H is just silly on Qxxxx. You can't handle a 5-2 heart fit very well and a 5-1 fit can be a disaster, at least if vul.

When partner makes a negative x they should be prepared for most of your bids, but its an imperfect world. Just like when you x 1S holding Ax KQxx KQxxx xx, you are hoping for the best and will suffer sometimes when partner bids the suit you weren't ready for, the same can be said for negative x auctions. Bridge is a game of probabilistic risk assessment, at every bid/play you are trying to minimize the cost of being wrong, given the scoring and match conditions....But sometimes, anything you do can "be wrong" in that it gaves you a less than optimal result. You just need to be philospohical about it...

[Kalvan14]

IMO, there are some little issues here:
1♥-(2♦)-X is a T/O of the reds (and denies a fit in hearts). I would submit that it does not guarantee 4 spades (i.e., it is not the same as if the bidding were 1♥ - (P) - 1♠).

Unsurprisingly, I have no problem with KQxxx xx xxx Axx: it is a 2♠ for me (which is not an NFB: invitational, 9-12). [at the same level, mind: 3♣ would be forcing]

If you are always guaranteeing 4 spades, what are you bidding with Axx xx xxx KQxxx?

To summarise: X for T/O, guaranteeing tolerance at least in the unbid and strongly hinting at OM; same level bids natural and invitational; change of level bids forcing; cue-bid is obviously forcing.
The corollary of this is that: 1♥-(2♦)-X-(P)-2♠-(P)-3♣ is invitational; 1♥-(2♦)-X-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ is forcing.

[Codo]

Quote

How do you know that you represent the majority? I don't think you do actually; among the majority of experts, double shows spades, and spades only

I did not know the majority, this is why I put the sentence: "(it is the majority, isn`t it?), " in my words.
I made this statement because f.e. Justin, Kavlan, Whereangles told in this threat, that the majority won`t take 3 ♣ as showing extras, so they surely have the same approach, that the double shows both black suits- and they too believe, that they are in the majority

But in another threats, we had these discussions before: Does a neg. double promise all unbid suits or just the major? The votes hand been splited, right now, there are 51 % for "just the major".
So I must admit, that the majority of this forum do play the X to show just spades.


But where is your advantage with this approach?

Frances fears, that he is not able to double with KQxxx xx Axx xxx, or holding Kxxx x AQxx Qxxx.
I would never pass with the second hand, why should I? But even if I am forced to do so. What bad thing can happen? Pd is there to bid again. You will find "any" 4-4 spade fit avaiable.
But Justin showed some hands, where the approach with X just show spades failed and reached a 5-1(2) Fit in Hearts instead of a 4-4 Fit in Clubs.

So what are the benefits of your approach, which compares for these disadvantages?

[Walddk]

Codo, on Mar 14 2006, 09:23 AM, said:

So what are the benefits of your approach, which compares for these disadvantages?

I am less concerned about missing a fit in a minor, but it will bother me if I lose a major fit, maybe even a game. Take the first hand Frances shows:

♠ KQxxx
♥ xx
♦ Axx
♣ xxx

and give opener

♠ Axxx
♥ AKxxx
♦ Kx
♣ xx

If responder passes 2♦, and this comes back to opener, he will obviously downgrade ♦K. He will often pass now because it's unlike that we have a spade fit (no negative double). If he re-opens with a double, however, it is quite likely that he will get 3♣ from responder (3235), and that is what he doesn't want to hear.

Roland

[Winstonm]

I am in agreement with myself, regardless of my own stupid arguments against me, and am prepared to kill myself to prove that I was right all along!

IMO, bidding after a negative double should show enough hand to compete at the level indicated by the combined power of both hands - meaning as the level of the negative double gets higher the less opener has to hold to bid at the next higher level. There is a substantial difference between 1H-2D-X and 1S-2H-X. Or to put it another way, it is not what opener shows but the minimum that doubler shows that leads to level of bids.

If the aution started 1H-1S-X-2S-3C, then opener IMO should hold extras as doubler does not have to hold a great deal for this low-level negative double.

Winston

[mikeh]

Codo, on Mar 14 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

But in another threats, we had these discussions before: Does a neg. double promise all unbid suits or just the major? The votes hand been splited, right now, there are 51 % for "just the major".
<snipped>
But Justin showed some hands, where the approach with X just show spades failed and reached a 5-1(2) Fit in Hearts instead of a 4-4 Fit in Clubs.

My strong belief is that, amongst real experts, at least in NA, far more than 51% take the negative double as ostensibly for the unbid major(s) only: thus in 1♥ (2♦) x, I would expect that the real expert consensus would be overwhelmingly that the double is neutral about ♣ and positive about ♠.

I should qualify that by stating the obvious: doubler expects to be able to handle all reasonably foreseeable developments, including a 3♣ bid by opener. This is not to say that he will be happy with all developments; he may be bailing from 3♣ into a 5-2 ♥ fit. Of course, his degree of happiness will depend upon what he expects opener to hold for 3♣.

Secondly, I think you misunderstood Justin's post (or I did ). Few here are suggesting that the negative double must deliver ♣. The issue is merely whether opener should go looking for ♣ with a minimum. We would not be looking at that question if the double promised ♣: then 3♣ would be clear on many hands: a minimum 2=5=2=4 would happily bid 3♣.

There is a substantial group of us who view the 3♣ bid as high-risk in the absence of a known fit, and thus, for us, the bid delivers some extra strength: there is, I think, some variation within this group as to the amount of extras required. Justin appears to be of the opposite view, which, based on bridge logic, suggests a reduced ability to make a negative double, or a higher tolerance for 3-level misfits compared to 2 level misfits.