[MrAce]

---

I am working on something.
Which hand types this DBL by opener should show in your opinion?

[FelicityR]

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but how I'd look at this is to eliminate the meanings of the other bids that South had at his/her disposal.

Pass = weak, minimum opener, no 4 card major; 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ = competitive, shape as opposed to points; 3NT strong, to play, good ♣ stopper; 4♣, strong, pick a major; 4♦, strong, good suit, forcing; 4♥/4♠ to play. That is how I'd interpret the bids in this sequence.

So that perhaps leaves Double as strong, stronger than a 15-17 1NT opener but without a 4 card major, without a re-biddable ♦ suit, and without a ♣ stopper.

Too simplistic maybe for today's modern game, but just how I'd look at this if I were at the table myself.

[relknes]

I would say "Extras, with no clear direction."
Partner can bid a 5+ major, bid 3N with a good stopper, correct back to diamonds, or even pass for penalty with the right cards. If I knew where we belonged, I would bid it... doubling passes the decision back to partner.

As far as what partner knows about my hand... the diamonds are real, I have 3 cards in at least one major, and I don't have clubs well stopped.

[helene_t]

3325 18-count with a stopper. Or similar.

[Tramticket]

It partly depends on system of course. I assume that the first double promises 4+ in each major? And the first double might be 4-5-2-2 or 5-4-2-2 shape for example?

In this case it makes sense for double to say: "which is your better major?". Probably a non-minimum hand.

[MrAce]

 Tramticket, on 2018-June-04, 01:30, said:

It partly depends on system of course. I assume that the first double promises 4+ in each major? And the first double might be 4-5-2-2 or 5-4-2-2 shape for example?

In this case it makes sense for double to say: "which is your better major?". Probably a non-minimum hand.

First dbl promising both majors is almost unplayable, so no one that i know plays it promising 4-4 majors.

[cherdano]

I think this has to include all strong balanced hands without a stopper - why would we bid 4H with 3442 when it turns out that partner doesn't have four hearts but does have a club stopper?

Also some semi-balanced hands - 2362 or similar - without a club stop. I think with 4-5 type hands you just have to bid 3M or 4M, otherwise double gets even more overloaded.

Of course, you also have to double with 4441 and 16 hcp.

[Winstonm]

 MrAce, on 2018-June-03, 16:32, said:

---

I am working on something.
Which hand types this DBL by opener should show in your opinion?

This really depends on how you structure the negative double. Can it be 1-suited? Does it guarantee both majors. What are minimum values?

Once that is decided, the question becomes, what is the purpose of opener's double: are you looking to compete, invite game, or force to game? Is there a way to combine these purposes so that the double suffices? What is the trade-off for choosing that usage, what bids you lose, if any? And probably most importantly, what can't you bid any other way?

For example, suppose you allow a 1-suited negative double with say, 9 hcps, and partner has xx, AQxxx, Kxx, xxx, and you hold something like, AKxx, xxx, AQJx, xx.

Perhaps the best usage is a desire to bid spades but a tolerance for hearts, as with both majors or with only hearts opener could bid 3H, while 4C is still open for strong hands.

[mikeh]

As others have noted, how one uses this call depends on the meanings assigned to other calls.

For me, and I think this is a fairly mainstream approach, the double does not promise both majors. Responder will often and indeed usually have both majors, but need not.

It shows, tho cannot guarantee, the ability to successfully compete to the 2-level opposite a minimum opening hand. It may well be stronger. It may include a long major, with no length in the other, but in that case responder is too weak to bid 2M and, imo, should have sufficient diamonds to be able to pull opener's call in the short major. Thus were I to double then bid spades over partner's heart calls, I would have 6+ spades and would not be afraid of playing diamonds if partner has short spades. If I had hearts, and partner bid spades, then I probably simply pull to diamonds, since pulling to hearts risks playing 2 levels higher in diamonds, and I have by definition a weak hand (else I bid 2H over 2C).

Since responder does not promise that we can play at the 3-level, having opener bid 3M on minimum hands is unplayable and, more importantly, usually unnecessary. Pass does not bar partner and partner is expected to reopen with the values to compete at the 3-level, often by doubling but sometimes by bidding.

So opener's 3M is invitational: he may stretch a little, so the low end is slightly lower than a jump would be had RHO passed, and the top end is also a little lower.

Opener's 3♦ shows 6+ and a full opener but need not promise significant extras. It should suggest a good suit since it is close to a transfer to 3N should responder hold a club stopper and any diamond card.

3N by opener is a big bid. I'd think it based on either 2 club stoppers and extra values, and no 4 card major, or a very good diamond suit (prototypically AKQxxx or better) and a club stop and some stuff in the majors.

So double is what's left.

Almost by elimination it suggests extra values, and no clear direction. Maybe good but not great diamonds and a club card, so that partner can pull to 3D with a weak hand or bid 3N with a diamond filler and a club card. Also caters to responder bidding 3M to show 5+ (opener won't have the values to make the double AND have a 4 card major).

IOW, double, as is often the case in competitive auctions, asks partner to 'do something intelligent' and, to assist partner to figure out that that is, will show extras while denying those strength-showing and defined actions.

We do not have:

- a minimum (Pass)
- extras with a major (bid a major or 4C)
-running or near running diamonds and a club stop (bid 3N)
-running or near running diamonds, no club stop but some side stuff (bid 3D or rarely 4D)

and so on.

[gszes]

I really like MIKEH system but I wonder if the definition of x might also be expanded to include minimum hands with 44 in the majors. Kxxx Axxx AQx xx. This type of hand is quite common and if we ignore the virtually certain 44 (or better) major suit fit we run the risk of 3c getting passed out when our side might have a very good chance of making 3M (or even more). We will indeed get too high sometimes but
it should rarely be a disaster. If responder cannot move above the 3 level they may simply pick their best major at the 3 level. This extra bit of competitiveness might work much more effectively at MP where the battle for all part scores is ravenous. How does one handle a hand like AQ KQx QJxxx Axx if responder were to bid 3M over our x? I think a delayed 3n should show doubt about 3N as our final contract since we failed to bid it immediately and we are asking responder to try and salvage something. We might indeed get too high with a good hand this way but we have explored for all of our options and gathered as much information as possible before deciding what to do. If we are vulnerable (at MP especially) a partnership might decide to avoid x with a minimum hand as going down 2 (even undoubled) might become a disaster for no good reason (no such concerns not vulnerable).

[rhm]

I think no rebid by opener over 3♣ up to 3NT would be forcing.
So double must cover almost all hands where opener wants to force, but can not be certain about strain and level and does not want to bid 4♣ at this point.
In other words DBL is the default bid with all strong hands.
That's the way it should be since DBL is openers cheapest bid besides pass.
However, since responder does not promise both majors, responder should assume a minimum opening hand with both majors and short clubs.
So if responder bids a major over the DBL it is not forcing either, but any subsequent bid by opener below game after the DBL is forcing.
If opener first doubles and then bids 3NT he shows doubt about the final contract.
He could be 18-19 balanced with a poor club holding.

Rainer Herrmann

[benlessard]

Agree with Mikeh post but Im adding a little twist. In my reg partnerships we agree that with equal lenght we pick the black (garb stayman, better minor leb, scrambling, michaels,unu 2Nt etc)

So 3S directly showed extras & only one major but 3H can be 3451 no extras, while X and pulling 3D to 3H can be 4351/4441 (but not 3451) it doesnt promise extras but you need decent defense in case partner convert.

You lose the advantage that X of 3C and 3H direct always promise extras (but 3H with 3451 shapes is somewhat a nice hand anyway) but you are not passing with 4351/3451. We also play negative freebid but i dont think it matter, other than we know responder will not have 6M in this spot.

[MrAce]

 rhm, on 2018-June-06, 14:34, said:

I think no rebid by opener over 3♣ up to 3NT would be forcing.
So double must cover almost all hands where opener wants to force, but can not be certain about strain and level and does not want to bid 4♣ at this point.

Rainer Herrmann

Rainer what persuaded me to ask this question is, at matchpoints particularly, I had this auction twice recently holding 4432 14 hcp and 12 hcp, I had a struggle. I knew my side had a fit in at least 1 of the major suits, I also knew leaving to opponents would score bad for us due to vulnerability. Perhaps it was coincidental but leaving would score bad for us. So I just bid 3♥. Played a 4-3 fit when we had 4-4 available in the other. Twice!

I really wanted to DBL 3♣ but I knew pd would take it as extras, and when I asked she said she would take it showing extras.

Of course 1 or 2 hands does not mean anything, but I started to question the odds of holding "forcing" hand types in this auction compared to hand types that just wants to compete in the correct major, particularly at MP .
What do you think?

[FelicityR]

 MrAce, on 2018-June-06, 15:30, said:

Rainer what persuaded me to ask this question is, at matchpoints particularly, I had this auction twice recently holding 4432 14 hcp and 12 hcp, I had a struggle. I knew my side had a fit in at least 1 of the major suits, I also knew leaving to opponents would score bad for us due to vulnerability. Perhaps it was coincidental but leaving would score bad for us. So I just bid 3♥. Played a 4-3 fit when we had 4-4 available in the other. Twice!

I really wanted to DBL 3♣ but I knew pd would take it as extras, and when I asked she said she would take it showing extras.

Of course 1 or 2 hands does not mean anything, but I started to question the odds of holding "forcing" hand types in this auction compared to hand types that just wants to compete in the correct major, particularly at MP .
What do you think?

I can really see your logic here, Mr Ace. So the double here is semi-responsive in effect, asking partner to pick a major instead of you, because you can then bid 4♣ after the Double to show extras if necessary. Very subtle. And I readily admit that my own interpretation in the earlier post was too simplistic - as I readily admit.

[cherdano]

 MrAce, on 2018-June-06, 15:30, said:

Rainer what persuaded me to ask this question is, at matchpoints particularly, I had this auction twice recently holding 4432 14 hcp and 12 hcp, I had a struggle. I knew my side had a fit in at least 1 of the major suits, I also knew leaving to opponents would score bad for us due to vulnerability. Perhaps it was coincidental but leaving would score bad for us. So I just bid 3♥. Played a 4-3 fit when we had 4-4 available in the other. Twice!

I really wanted to DBL 3♣ but I knew pd would take it as extras, and when I asked she said she would take it showing extras.

Of course 1 or 2 hands does not mean anything, but I started to question the odds of holding "forcing" hand types in this auction compared to hand types that just wants to compete in the correct major, particularly at MP .
What do you think?

Several points.

For one thing, I am just not convinced that passing with a 4432 weak NT will score badly for us. Partner might be 4243, and there is no reason to believe that we should compete at the 3-level. If partner has more of a takeout shape, he can take another bid.

Second, the overload of the negative double makes the style you are proposing much more tricky to play than you seem to realise. Let's say you do play the style advocated by Mikeh that partner can have a 6-card major too weak to bid 2M for his double. (Personally, I think that's not a good idea on this auction, but it is probably "standard".) Then partner's 3♠ over your 3♥ bid has to show the weak hand with 6 spades. Which means that if partner has 4243, he has to bid 4♦ - ooops! Or he might have to pass with 4342.

In short, I don't think it's playable for 3H to show both a minimum 4432 and a 2452 not good enough to bid 4♥.

[mikeh]

Timo, I am confused, not for the first or last time.

In your examples, you were concerned that partner would play you for extras if you doubled with your 4432, so instead bid 3H.

What the heck were you going to bid with extras and, say, 2=4=5=2? Unless your hand was so good that it amounted to a gf opposite a 2-level negative double, are you not required to bid 3H? So how the heck can partner tell what to do? Your 3H could be a minimum or significant extras. I think this to be unplayable.

More to the point, why on earth would opener feel that this was his decision to make over 3C? Does your pass operate to bar partner?

In my experience, we do not always belong in 3M with a minimum opening hand opposite a minimum to medium negative double merely because we hold a 4-4 major suit fit. Sometimes we go down more than 110, even without a double, and sometimes we turn a plus into a minus, and (especially if opener dons the cape and bids his 4432 12 count the same way he'd bid a 2452 14 count), we get too high or, conversely, not high enough, depending on which wrong guess responder makes. Remember that the negative double is, if on a minimum, an attempt to play in a fit at the 2-level, not a promise that we can play that same fit, on the same values, at the 3-level.

Why not pass? Responder can usually afford to reopen on hands where, in fact, we belong in our suit at the 3-level. If you play with partners who rarely reopen, teach them that you are not masterminding, and encourage them to act. By bidding 3H you are doing the opposite: you are sending the message that you are the decision-maker and that this is not a partnership in a real sense.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2018-June-06, 18:17, said:

What the heck were you going to bid with extras and, say, 2=4=5=2? Unless your hand was so good that it amounted to a gf opposite a 2-level negative double, are you not required to bid 3H?

No i would definitely not bid 3♥ with extras. I would never want to leave behind the chance to play 3♣ doubled with a balanced or semi balanced hand and extras, even with 4-4 major fit. I'd DBL. The hands that i bid 3M normally are 3451 4351 2461 4261 and competitive and pd can correct if necessary.

OTOH, I totally agree with you on the fact that I should have passed with the hand types I held. I bid it because a- I knew the opponents b- I knew the pd.

You may wonder and ask "if so then why did you ask this in expert forum?"

Simply because I recognized that this is a position that I am not familiar with. Seriously, you may be surprised but i think by coincidence this position I had twice only in my life and that was recent. . And I was perhaps biased with 2 hands coming recently and they both coincidentally favored bidding, so I decided to ask whether there is something I am missing. Rainer's, Arend's and your reply kinda made me recognize there was nothing I was missing about the hand types (4432) and that "need to bid something" by me was totally conditional and perhaps not a forum material.

NOTE : Edited some typos and minor stuff.

[BFone]

 MrAce, on 2018-June-03, 16:32, said:

---

I am working on something.
Which hand types this DBL by opener should show in your opinion?

Due to private agreement with partner on using our own convention card: our Next Generation SAYC for Match Point v.2.8a, we play the first DBL by North as negative DBL with 8+HCP [or 14+SP(our own hand evaluation method)] with at least 4-3 Major suits (ideally 4-4). At the second DBL by South/Opener, again per our private agreement, Opener showed specifically 4 cards Spade with potential 2-4 cards Heart and 11+HCP, so that it allows the 3H bid by Opener to show limit 11-14HCP with specifically 4/5 cards Heart suit and possible 2-3 cards of Spade suit and Pass as a Forcing Pass if their 3C bid is pre-emptive, or as Semi-Forcing Pass if their 3C response was constructive. Slam bidding is deliberately forfeited for MP applications.

If for KO events, the 3H bid might be modified via further discussion.

The above is just our specific way to use the DBL made by Opener. If the Opener RHO jumps to 4C instead of 3C, Opener's DBL is entirely different. Such DBL is again our own arrangement to declare we want to out bid their 4C with 4M, but pass is neutral, not a forcing pass.

This is an interesting bidding sequence.


BFone

[rhm]

 cherdano, on 2018-June-06, 16:58, said:

Several points.

For one thing, I am just not convinced that passing with a 4432 weak NT will score badly for us. Partner might be 4243, and there is no reason to believe that we should compete at the 3-level. If partner has more of a takeout shape, he can take another bid.

Opener could also hold a minimum hand with 4441 or even 4450. If they have 9 clubs between them you are unlikely to do well at either Matchpoints or IMPs.
I think there is no alternative to doubling 3♣.
So while Opener doubles 3♣ when holding a strong hand, a responsive DBL does not guarantee such a hand.

Quote

Second, the overload of the negative double makes the style you are proposing much more tricky to play than you seem to realise. Let's say you do play the style advocated by Mikeh that partner can have a 6-card major too weak to bid 2M for his double. (Personally, I think that's not a good idea on this auction, but it is probably "standard".) Then partner's 3♠ over your 3♥ bid has to show the weak hand with 6 spades. Which means that if partner has 4243, he has to bid 4♦ - ooops! Or he might have to pass with 4342.
In short, I don't think it's playable for 3H to show both a minimum 4432 and a 2452 not good enough to bid 4♥.

I like to play negative free (NFB) bids at the two level for many reasons. The advantages and disadvantages of this concept are generally poorly understood.
With hands below game forcing strength you have to show a good 5 card or longer major immediately.
Playing NFB, a new suit 3♠ in your sequence 1♦-(2♣)-DBL-(3♣)-3♥ would show a game forcing hand by responder and at least 5 cards. As I said above opener should make a responsive DBL with both majors and this is what responder assumes.
If responder has not the weak variety negative dbl, responder jumps in his 5 card major over a responsive DBL or bids 4♣ with slam aspirations.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

While it may be standard, its a poor idea to load single suited hearts into a negative double, although you can frequently get away with single suited spades. I have only seen NFB's work well in an extremely conservative game, or after a precision 1♦ opener.

Losing a natural 2♦ call isn't a huge deal and transfers work quite nicely.

Double by opener has to be flexible and the primary purpose has to be not trying to penalize with a big balanced hand. I would say its also partially dependent vulnerability and scoring. For instance NV vs NV at MPs I do not mind bidding competing with 4=4=3=2 and a minimum hand.