[Old York]

Ron Klinger (Australia) and many other writers suggest that a negative double should always promise both unbid suits after:
1♣-(1♦)
1♦-(2♣)
1♥-(1♠)
1♠-(2♥)

After 1♣-(1♠) his example for a minimum negative double is:-
♠T5
♥Q652
♦A983
♣974
This allows opener to support Hearts or Diamonds or re-bid Clubs or NT (if showing 15-19 with spade stopper) in relative safety. Maybe this double could horrify Sayc players who are forced to open 1♣/1♦ on weak balanced hands

[Unfortunately, he does not go into great detail about other auctions like 1♣-(2♠) ...... but that is unlikely to be covered in non-expert books]

If this is only treated as "tentative" then I would be interested to see the text book suggestions for re-bids by opener. How can opener identify responders suit?

Tony
p.s. I checked the BBO-FD cards but there were no continuations

[hanp]

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

[hanp]

MarkDean, on May 11 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

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?

That's an ugly hand, I think I might bid 1NT. I would not double with xxx in hearts. If you were making a point I missed it.

[MarkDean]

hanp, on May 11 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

MarkDean, on May 11 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

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?

That's an ugly hand, I think I might bid 1NT. I would not double with xxx in hearts. If you were making a point I missed it.

I was trying to make a point, but now that I reread your post, perhaps I misunderstood the reason for your question. So, feel free to disregard.

[Old York]

hanp, on May 11 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

1/ please read earlier posts where I said that I doubt the author uses these methods in high level money games

2/ please read the post that you are quoting from, you will see your answer if you look

Should this all have been originally posted in Sayc - 2/1 or perhaps in Adv - Expert?

It seems that the vast majority of posts have little to do with B/I or non-sayc

Tony

[Lobowolf]

I think intermediate/novice players should certainly learn about negative doubles. Per BWS and American authors/authorities, and in the absence of other agreements or gadgets, 1♣ - (1♦) - X promises both majors; 1♦ - (2♣) -X does not.

This is because there's a simple alternative over 1♣-(1♦) when you only have one major -- bid it!

Bidding a 4-card major at the 2-level on moderate values, however, is not a sane option; so the double covers that hand. Are you more likely to be better positioned if you have both majors? Of course. But there is no good alternative if you only have one, so double is it.

[helene_t]

I suppose Klinger writes that 1m-(1♠)-x shows 4+ hearts and says nothing else, at least if it's his 5-card majors book.. It does not necessarily follow that
1♣-(1♠)-x-(p)
2♦
shows extras, though. I would personally prefer to teach beginners that the x is equivalent to a 1♥ response (OK, strictly this is true only if we play Walsh, and although I would also teach Walsh to beginners in an ideal World, I wouldn't in practice because elementary textbooks don't).
Anyway, if the x is equivalent to a 1♥ reverse then 2♦ is a reverse. Then it won't be too difficult to guess that the same holds for the OP.

[the hog]

hanp, on May 12 2009, 02:46 AM, said:

Does Ron Klinger actually play this? I would bet a large sum of money that Ron Klinger doubles with the hand I gave.

Also, in all the auctions you mention either two majors or two minors have been bid, this is not the case for the auction I gave nor for the auction in the original post.

Nope. Of course rdk doubles.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on May 11 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

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.

That's right. Strong NT and 5 card majors versus weak NT and 4 card majors makes quite a lot of difference to the likely hand types partner may have when contemplating a negative double and what it might sensibly mean.

[Wackojack]

After reading all the posts carefully, here is the answer:

For BI's that play 5 card majors and 15-17 no trump and just follow the text books (i.e. you dont play 2NT scrambling or 2NT lebensohl but you do insist that the double show ♥+♦) then 3♦ does not show extras. And bingo you have found the ♦ 4-4 fit unless you have been forced to bid 3♦ on a 3 card suit when you are in trouble.

For BIs that play 4 card majors and 12-14 no trump and as above follow the text books, then 3♦ will show at least 5♣s and 4♦s and so again need not show extras.

AE's of course dont follow the text books and play 2NT as scrambling or Lebensohl and double as only guaranteeing ♥s. So whatever system you play, 3♦ will show extras and at least 5♣s and 4♦s and you will be well placed to locate the best contract.

For BI's that play 2NT scrambling or 2NT Lebensohl and play double as guaranteeing ♥ only, then 3♦ should show extras but you could be in trouble because you are playing with a live grenade.

[Lobowolf]

Wackojack, on May 13 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

After reading all the posts carefully, here is the answer:

For BI's that play 5 card majors and 15-17 no trump and just follow the text books (i.e. you dont play 2NT scrambling or 2NT lebensohl but you do insist that the double show ♥+♦) then 3♦ does not show extras. And bingo you have found the ♦ 4-4 fit unless you have been forced to bid 3♦ on a 3 card suit when you are in trouble.

"The textbooks" (at least all of the ones I've seen, although those are primarily (though not exclusively) American ones) do NOT say that the double promises diamonds.

BI's who play 5-card majors and 15-17 no trump and follow the textbooks know only that their partner has promised hearts. Hopefully, they wouldn't bid TWO diamonds without extras after 1♣-1♥, let alone THREE on the given auction.

BI's without specialized agreements who have both minors should open 1♦, unless their clubs are long and/or strong enough to open and rebid clubs, in which case that's what they should go on the given auction.

[Codo]

We agree, that in different countries the double is taught differently, so whether 3 ♦ shows extras or not for a BI is more a cultural thing.

But I cannot belive that telling newbies toopen in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

To handle 1 diamond openings which may include longer clubs is far from simple. The downsides to have no better rebid then 2 clubs are obviously there but not strong enough to overcome some badly needed easy rules for the bidding.

[helene_t]

Codo, on May 14 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

But I cannot belive that  telling newbies to open in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

Probably agree although I can imagine teaching beginners that a 1♣ opening denies four diamonds, which is sensible if one plays Walsh. Playing 5cM, the rule is "longer biddable suit, higher-ranking if equal length" which is a simple rule and can also be justified technically. So yes, I would prefer teaching 1♣ with 45 minors although I don't feel strongly about it.

But even if we open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ (which has merits, for example if we have a (31)45 and reopen with a double of our singleton suit, p will bid our opening suit with 3-card support), I would still teach beginners that the double shows hearts only. It's not like it's causing much problems. We can just rebid our 5-card suit if p doubles the suit in which we have a singleton. Which doesn't happen very often. If he doubles our 3-card suit we may be able to rebid 2NT. If we are 2245 we might have opened a weak 1NT if that is what we play. In short, this isn't a problem I worry about myself, much less something I think beginners should be worried about. Teaching a weak notrump I would be much more worried about in which contested auctions a NT rebid shows extras.

Alternatively, I can imagine teaching negative freebids, in which case I wouldn't teach sputnik double specifically but just say ("all doubles show either support for all unbid suits, or a strong hand"), but I think that's too non-standard to teach, except maybe in the Netherlands where negative freebids are quite popular. In standard methods (whether we are in UK, NA or elsewhere), a sputnik double is different from other t/o doubles and will have to be taught separately anyway.

To me, saying that 3♦ doesn't show extras is just as absurd as saying that
1♣-(1♥)-1♠-(pass)
2♦*
doesn't show extras, for the same reason (namely that you might have a 1345 without a heart stopper).

The below auction is more frequent so it is more important that beginners learn to get that right:
1♣-(1♠)-x-(pass)
?
Playing 5-card majors (or Scottish/Dutch/Scandinavian style), doubler has to cater for opener having a balanced hand with four hearts, so he has to double with "any" hand that has four hearts and cannot afford to be worried about the diamond suit. Now one could teach that a minimum doubler without diamonds would have to be prepared to hear a weak 2♦ response and have enough clubs to bid
1♣-(1♠)-x-(pass)
2♦-(pass)-3♣
but there are some problems with this:
- opener would have to bid 3♦ with a reverse in diamonds
- doesn't 3♣ sound like a game try rather than a weak preference?
- In Dutch/Danish style, opener would only have promised four clubs so we could easily belong in 1NT.
- Would responder without a known fit realize that he would have to bypass 2NT because he is too weak to bid 2NT?
- In the OP situation, responder would have to take preference with 4♣ ....

Well I suppose we are not going to agree on this.

[Codo]

Helene,

I like your summary, despite the fact that I do not agree and that I do not need to be confinced whether "double shows just the other major" is a better approach or not.
When I would life just 150 km away from where I am now, I would teach newbies that 1m (1♠) x shows 4 hearts and shows nothing else, because this is standard in Poland (and most other countries). But it is not standard here, so I would stick to what is standard.

But anyway the difference is much smaller then it seems. There are not many hands, where the "double just show 4 hearts" crowd will double and the guys who claim"double has all unbid suits or can handle any rebid" won't. Maybe some particular hands where responder has 4 hearts and length in their suit but no hand to bid NT over the possible responses from partner. But even there it would not matter much, because when you have to pass, partner with shortage will surely reopen.

[helene_t]

It's always nice to read your respectful, disagreeing posts, whether we are discussing theology or negative doubles

Anyway, agree it's not a very important issue so if the local textbooks are good quality and recommend something that is generally understood by local club players (which I believe is the case in both UK and NL, I suppose the same is true in Germany) I would live with whatever those textbooks say, at least until the students have finished the textbooks and want to go on.

I am not so happy with textbooks teaching archaic methods which students will have to (or at least should) abandon later. Then it becomes a dilemma whether I want to confuse the students with my own poorly written notes contradicting the textbooks, or whether I waste time teaching them methods which they are (hopefully) never going to play after finishing the classes. But there are many such methods which are more crucial than the discussion in this thread. Strong twos for example. Etc.

[andy_h]

When I first learnt bridge as well as reading textbooks, I learnt that negative doubles when both or neither majors have been bid shows the other 2 suits (so 1H-1S-X, 1S-2H-X, 1C-1D-X and 1D-2C-X). And that when only one major has been bid, the negative double promised the unbid major and nothing about any other suits. This was because, say, the 1S overcall of 1m-1S has denied us the space to respond 1H so we have to get into the auction with hearts, and also that 1m-1H-X/1S showed 4S/5+S respectively. I never found any problems with them at all and thought that was pretty easy to understand. And when the time comes, through experience, you soon realise the 1D-2C-X auction is an exception.

[Old York]

Hand 119 by Ron Klinger
1♣-(2♠)-X-(3♠)-
4♥-ppp
1♣ opening is natural and denies weak balanced hand

---

I have only found 1 textbook example on this auction, which clearly shows that the negative double shows 4+Hearts and 6+points and does not show Diamonds or Club support, so I have egg on my face again

The hand is based on 4cM and weak no-trump, so the double in this situation is slightly safer than if the 1♣ opening was Sayc 15-17

Tony

[helene_t]

Wow, in spite of all I have been saying in this thread it wouldn't occur to me to double with the North hand. It does illustrate the point that playing a weak notrump, one has to stretch to take action over the 2♠ bid to cater for opener having a 15-17 balanced hand. But I think it's a very extreme example. It's not like the North hand would be happy to hear a 3NT bid by opener, and a 3♣ bid wouldn't be my dream either at this vulnerability. I would chicken out. If North passes, South can double 3♠ and the contract would be the same.

Thanks for your research, Tony.

[Lobowolf]

Codo, on May 14 2009, 01:53 AM, said:

But I cannot belive that  telling newbies toopen in their second longest suit because they avoid rebid problems is right anywhere in this world.

To handle 1 diamond openings which may include longer clubs is far from simple. The downsides to have no better rebid then 2 clubs are obviously there but not strong enough to overcome some badly needed easy rules for the bidding.

What's your preferred rebid for novice/intermediate players after 1C-1S when holding mediocre clubs and a 1-3-4-5 hand?

[Lobowolf]

Bridge World Standard, for what it's worth, when holding a minimum hand with 4-5 in the minors, is "use your judgment."