[Old York]

The OP asked does 3♦ show extra values after:
1♣-(2♠)-x-p-3♦

if it does, then 3♥ instead would also show extra values, but this is nonsense
1♣-(2♠)-x-p-3♥ shows a minimum

Playing Acol 12-14 with 4 card majors greatly simplifies these situations
Playing Sayc 15-17 with 5 card majors makes it imperative that you know how to use negative doubles correctly. Sayc tends to use the 1♣ opening as a catch-all bid, but this has the added problem that it invites overcalls

If you tend to use negative doubles just to show the other major, then there will be times when your partner cannot find an honest response. This may work out ok with regular partnerships who have discussed these situations, but pickup novice pairs should avoid this practice. The negative double should show all unbid suits in the same way that any take-out double should show all unbid suits, especially if minimum

e.g. The sequence 1♦-(2♣)-x must show both majors and some tollerance for Diamonds (unless very strong)

If you double (negative or normal take-out), you must be prepared for any response

Tony

[Lobowolf]

Old York, on May 8 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

e.g. The sequence 1♦-(2♣)-x must show both majors and some tollerance for Diamonds (unless very strong)

Tony

Strongly disagree. Unless you have a better bid than double to show the hand of moderate strength that has one 4-card major.

[jdonn]

Old York, on May 8 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Playing Sayc 15-17 with 5 card majors makes it imperative that you know how to use negative doubles correctly.
....
The negative double should show all unbid suits in the same way that any take-out double should show all unbid suits, especially if minimum

LOL

[Echognome]

Old York, on May 8 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

<snip>
e.g. The sequence 1♦-(2♣)-x must show both majors and some tollerance for Diamonds (unless very strong)

If you double (negative or normal take-out), you must be prepared for any response

Tony

Tony,

I don't believe this is the modern style. You may want to read a thread I started awhile back. It seems that there are two approaches that are in common practice nowadays. One approach is that double followed by a new suit at the same level is NF. E.g. 1♦ - (2♣) - Dbl - (P); 2♥ - (P) - 2♠ = NF.

Another approach is to play transfers in these auctions.

Otherwise, you will face serious problems competing for the partscore.

Anyway, read the thread for yourself here:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ouble+lebensohl

-Echognome

[Old York]

Echognome, on May 8 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

I don't believe this is the modern style.  You may want to read a thread I started awhile back.  It seems that there are two approaches...
-Echognome

Thanks for the link, very helpful

However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use

The actual example I quoted was from a very well respected text book, altho I doubt that the author uses these recomended methods in high level money games

Trying to give advanced methods to novices is a bit like handing a live hand grenade to a child

Tony

[Old York]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Old York, on May 8 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Playing Sayc 15-17 with 5 card majors makes it imperative that you know how to use negative doubles correctly.
....
The negative double should show all unbid suits in the same way that any take-out double should show all unbid suits, especially if minimum

LOL

Yes..... it is bound to sound like a contradiction if you ignore the bit in the middle
maybe it is too easy to snip that bit out

[helene_t]

Old York, on May 8 2009, 10:02 PM, said:

However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use

I don't see why playing the double as showing the unbid major only is unsuitable for beginners.

People tend to consider the methods they happen to be most familiar with to be the "simplest" and/or most "natural" ones. For example here in UK a lot of people believe that weak notrump is the easiest and most natural approach. Needless to say, most people in strong-notrump countries think the opposite.

I suppose a case could be made for playing all doubles as showing either
- support for all unbid suits, or
- a hand too strong an immediate bid
The consequence of that would be that we play negative freebids. Not necessarily a bad idea but AFAIK they are not commonly taught to beginners anywhere.

[Lobowolf]

Old York, on May 8 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Echognome, on May 8 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

I don't believe this is the modern style.  You may want to read a thread I started awhile back.  It seems that there are two approaches...
-Echognome

Thanks for the link, very helpful

However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use

The actual example I quoted was from a very well respected text book, altho I doubt that the author uses these recomended methods in high level money games

Trying to give advanced methods to novices is a bit like handing a live hand grenade to a child

Tony

Negative doubles show at least one unbid major except specifically over
1♣-(1♦).

That's a standard (in the USA, anyway) treatment, and I don't see why it would be unsuitable for novice/intermediate players.


What bid would you have them make with
♠xx
♥AJxx
♦KTxx
♣Qxx

over 1♦-(2♣)?

[Old York]

Lobowolf, on May 8 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

What bid would you have them make with
♠xx
♥AJxx
♦KTxx
♣Qxx

over 1♦-(2♣)?

If you make a negative double with this hand, you will probably survive, but the bid should show both majors. That is the textbook answer (I did not write the textbooks)

What really worries me is that beginners are being advised to double with hands like this:

♠AJxx
♥Qx
♦KTxx
♣xxx

and are also being told that it is ok if opener rebids 2NT, so how can you ever know if 2NT is scrambling or genuine? If 2NT is left in, oppo can take the first 6 tricks, and if you "correct" to 3♦ then you could be in an inferior contract

There is no answer, unless you are a regular, experienced partnership. so I still feel that these methods are very dangerous for novice/beginner
I am not saying that these methods should never be used by beginners, only that they fully understand the dangers

Tony

[Codo]

mikeh, on May 9 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

3♦ shows extras, and to think otherwise is insane unless you play the double promises diamonds, in which case your definition of double is what's insane.

I agree... and it is no answer to argue that the 'double shows hearts' school is limited to some of the posters.... take a look at who espouses this: it will include ALL the experts! I don't know of a serious player who would assert that 3♦ doesn't show extras...I am sorry if this offends anyone, but that's my view of the probable skill level of anyone who thinks that the double has to deliver diamonds as well as hearts.

BTW, this situation is a good advertisement for weak notrump openings, since opener can rebid 2N with a balanced 15-17, not worrying about stoppers because we are in a gf after the negative double of 2♠ opposite a strong notrump... and we have the 3-level in which to sort out the details.

Sorry Mike, this remark is silly and not true.

First there are Experts who play the double different from your view (f.e. Chemla-Perron).

And second: This is the BI section. So what is right for the experts must not be right for the BIs too.

Maybe in the US they teach a different style to newbies, but at least here they teach the BIs that a double shows the unbid suits. You may hate this style, but it is reality for many players, so your remark was totally pointless.

The original question was: Does 3♦ shows extra values?

You may belive or know that it does show extras to everybody at the Cavendish. You may know that you style is superior. But all these facts or opinions do not answer the question.

[gwnn]

Old York, on May 7 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

(...)better to wait and see if opener can re-open

He can't reopen.

[rogerclee]

Codo I am a firm believer that if you are a non-expert who wants to play like an expert, you should try your best to play like an expert.

[Codo]

Roger, I see this point, but somehow the teachers here do not agree.

Our official system here in Germany f.e starts without transfers but with strong two bids.When you are Interm. you switch to Transfers and Benjamin.
When you are getting beyond this point, you may try any stuff you want.

I am no teacher myself, so I have no strong opinions about this, but maybe you should not teach BIs to bid like experts asap.

[Old York]

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields
Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

Under standard methods ....
1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits
2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

Tony

[Lobowolf]

Old York, on May 11 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields
Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

Under standard methods ....
1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits
2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

Tony

Must be different on your side of the pond. 100% Standard in the USA is that the double shows one unbid major (in those auctions where there is an unbid major), except specifically in the auction 1♣-(1♦)-X, where it shows both majors.

If responder has exactly one 4 card major in the given auction [1♦-(2♣)-X], he's stuck if he can't double (which is, presumably, why the double doesn't promise both).

I'm not sure what textbooks you're referring to when you say both majors is the "textbook answer," but perhaps they're British. I know what the American ones say.

[Lobowolf]

"A negative double at the one level or when there is exactly one unbid major guarantees at least four cards in any unbid major...; otherwise, that requirement is only tentative..."

-Bridge World Standard.

[hanp]

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

[MarkDean]

hanp, on May 11 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

How do Chemla-Perron play the negative double?

Does anybody know of any other good bridge players that use a negative double to show both unbid suits? It would be great if somebody could poll these players what they would do with for example Jxx AQJx xxx Qxx after 1C - (1S).

What would you do with Jxx xxx AQJx Qxx playing standard negative doubles?

[cherdanno]

I don't think anybody plays that double promises both unbid suits. It is playable though to require responder to be prepared for any rebid by opener (i.e. if opener rebids 3D with a minimum, responder will be prepared to play there or to correct to 4C or suggest a 3NT contract).

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on May 11 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Old York, on May 11 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields
Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest

Under standard methods ....
1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits
2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values

Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts)

I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid

Tony

Must be different on your side of the pond.

No, but it may be related to 4-card majors. I don't know how bridge is taught to beginner's in the UK, but I could understand that when partner's choice of a minor suit opening reduces the chance that he has a 4-card major, responder is under less of an obligation to show a 4-card major by doubling, so the shape requirements for the negative double becomes stronger.