[dogsbreath]

hi
..i didnt vote because not all sensible options available. If i have less than a game-going hand then I promise 4card Hearts. On stronger hands i can have anything other than a cue-raise or pre-emptive raise or a natural 2/3NT bid or a (non-forcing) bid in a new suit.

Rgds Dog

[joshs]

Here is my best definition of x (under standard agreements) in the auction 1m-(1S)-?

x means "I would have bid 1H but am unable to bid 2H".

You might want to extend this definition in one of a couple of ways:
x means "I would have happily bid 1H but I am unable to bid 2H" if you think that you shouldn't make a negative x with some of the weaker hands that would have bid 1H.

Another way to extend the definition: x means, "with the knowledge that my RHO holds spades, I would have bid 1H had he passed". In that way you might include some hands with a strong 3 card holding that would have bid NT except now rather pretend they have 4 hearts.

Finally, there is "I would have bid something at the 1 level, probably hearts, and have at least 3 hearts."

Note that these last 2 definitions are really degenerate cases.

Finally, the orginal Al Roth Defintion "I would have happily made a bid with this hand, but I no longer have a good bid available and I lack the values to cuebid". No one plays this way anymore....

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Feb 27 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

a particular popular book for the masses

Could you give a more specific reference? My first thought was "negative doubles" by Marty Bergen, but I am absolutely sure that Marty does not say this.

marty sez (or he did in another book) the bid fits adam's definition above - i would have bid 1H but can't bid 2H... he also says that it *implies* diamonds, but doesn't promise them.. and as free and others have said, if a free bid is not forcing the double can show normal (standard) else any game force hand

[civill]

I'm with Helmer ,and more as below:

It's better not to bid directly,or without enough good HCPs/shape to bid directly.

[joker_gib]

For me, it promises 8+, 4♥+ 95% of the time. If not I'm ready to hear 4♥ by partner.

It doesn't say anything about ♦

Alain

[Fluffy]

It shows a 8+ HCP hand with no better bid avaible. Nothing else. I was never dealt a 4243 without stopper, maybe when I do I'll change my mind

[fyrish]

For me it promises 4♥ and tends to have tolerance for ♦ - otherwise support for ♣

[pigpenz]

I play as 4 hearts 100% and tends to imply diamonds

[Kalvan14]

4 hearts are at least 95% guaranteed. I find very difficult to imagine a hand which is not worth a cue-bid, or a raise in clubs, and still necessitates of a negative double without 4/+ hearts.

[Vilgan]

What would be the benefit of X without 4 hearts? I guess if you have AKQ of hearts, your partner might forgive you. I don't see why it would ever promise diamonds, as you could easily have 3 4 2 4 and be interested in a major suit fit first, with the ability to come back to clubs later if they don't have hearts.

Eric

[pclayton]

paulhar, on Feb 27 2006, 01:55 PM, said:

I thought it was: guarantees 4 hearts; says nothing about diamonds. However, a particular popular book for the masses states that it implies both suits. My reasoning is as follows:

What are you going to do with:

S-7542
H-AK94
D-62
C-J73

over 1C by pard and 1S overcalled? If you choose a negative double suggesting diamonds as well as hearts, partner will do the wrong thing over 3S (preemptive) on your left (or even 2S) when he holds some diamonds (not at all unlikely given your shortness.) While I'd like to think that everybody would make a negative double with the above hand, those that argue that pass is correct (because you don't have diamonds) will give up in many part score battles they should be winning.

Paul, nice to see you posting on here again.

What book are you referring to? The only method that seems remotely like what this book is suggesting is Sputnik Doubles that were popular in the 60's. My understanding was that a Sputnik just said I want to make a call, but there isn't one available. No particular rules (except maybe strength) were associated.

As Negative Doubles evolved, Sputniks were discarded.