[firmit]

Have experienced a few new meanings to the negative double, but I am not getting a real good answer for why it is becoming so popular.

Bidding goes:
1♣-(1♥)-X this shows exactly 4 spades. Correct?
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 5+ spades

Recently, I have seen a new meaning for the negative double:
1♣-(1♥)-X <4 spades, 4+ other minor, no 4 card support
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 4+ spades

What is the advantage? What is this increasing popularity? Is this something to consider?

1♣-(1♠)-X however, has the original meaning, showing 4+hearts

[Free]

I prefer doubling without ♠s, and bidding them when I can with 4+♠. The advantage of 4 vs 5+♠ is quite small.

It's quite logical that 1♣-1♠-X shows ♥, because ♥ is an unbiddable suit.

[inquiry]

firmit, on Feb 11 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

Have experienced a few new meanings to the negative double, but I am not getting a real good answer for why it is becoming so popular.

Bidding goes:
1♣-(1♥)-X this shows exactly 4 spades. Correct?
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 5+ spades

Recently, I have seen a new meaning for the negative double:
1♣-(1♥)-X <4 spades, 4+ other minor, no 4 card support
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ showing 4+ spades

What is the advantage?

The advantage is you can compete in the other minor more effectively. After 1♣-(1♥)-X, if negative double shows ♠, how do you let your partner know that you have ♦'s and a tolerance for ♣ with values just to compete when you are short in ♠'s? A double risk a jump in ♠ from partner. Against that, when you have such a hand with 4♠ you can bid 1♠ just as if they had not overcalled.

The downside to competing with 1♠ to show 4 or more ♠ and enough values to compete is that you will not KNOW for certain if partner has 5♠ or more which makes raising a little less sound with three. Also when responder is weak, and you have a spade fit, you will "wrong-side" the contract more often since most of the time you will want the overcaller on opening lead.

What is this increasing popularity?

It allows you to compete on more hand types than you can if the double promises 4♠ (see above).

Is this something to consider?

I think so. I play both methods, but prefer the double to show the other minor and short spades

1♣-(1♠)-X however, has the original meaning, showing 4+hearts

Yes, and the reason is clear. After 1♠ overcall you can not "easily" (lets say safely) overcall 2♥ on a four card suit and modest values (like you could 1♠). So here, the double should promise heart support.

[EricK]

The advanatge is that more hands become biddable.

Presumably if there hadn't been an intervening bid of 1♥ you'd have been happy to mention your ♠ with 4 of them - the intervention needn't make any difference.

But what if you were going to bid ♦? Now the interference has done just what it says - interfered with your preferred bid. It makes sense to use the double to show that.

After the 1♠ interference you need some way to show your ♥ if you have them and double is a good way to do that. Unfortunately you have no way to show ♦ on this auction, but you can't have everything!

[glen]

About "new meaning", this is not new. In the late 80s my partner had me play this as part of the Polish ♣ system he knew from Poland - I then retaliated with Support doubles, so we had 1♣-1♥-1♠(4+)-2♥-Double(shows 3♠s, and we can sort out hand type later, which can be fun in a Polish ♣ system).

The new (i.e. newer) version is this:

1♣-1♥-Double shows 4+♠s
1♣-1♥-1♠ shows fewer than 4♠s with values and no other good bid.

One advantage of this is that it places the ♥ overcaller on lead into opener.

Note that if playing this newer style (where legal etc.) it helps to define 1♣-1♥-Double-Pass-1♠ as showing exactly three ♠s by opener - hands with 4♠s make raises at 2♠ and higher.

[pclayton]

I play this in all my partnerships. You can always bid the hands with 4 spades, but some 3=2=3=5 or 3=2=5=3 (with length in the other minor) becomes a problem.

The Italians play something neat here, and it sees to be gaining popularity. I know that 2♠ shows 6+ spades, and a few other wrinkles. Perhaps someone else can elaborate?

[fred]

pclayton, on Feb 11 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

I play this in all my partnerships. You can always bid the hands with 4 spades, but some 3=2=3=5 or 3=2=5=3 (with length in the other minor) becomes a problem.

The Italians play something neat here, and it sees to be gaining popularity. I know that 2♠ shows 6+ spades, and a few other wrinkles. Perhaps someone else can elaborate?

Some Americans are playing what they refer to as "Italian methods" here. What they mean by that is described below, but I have no idea which Italians (if any) actually use these methods:

DBL=4 or 5 spades
1S=Less than 4 spades (and typically length in the other minor)
2H=6+ spades (and just about any strength hand)
2S=artificial "cuebid" in support of partner's minor (limit raise or better for example)

Ignoring the Italian thing, I think the decision as to whether to play DBL as showing exactly 4 spades or as denying as many as 4 spades should be a function of your notrump range.

Playing weak notrumps it is critically important that responder take some call when he has a hand that is strong enough that it might produce a game opposite a strong notrump. If he has a hand with 8 or 9 points that lacks 4 spades and has a heart holding inappropriate for bidding 1NT, he will often be stuck (unless playing that DBL denies spade length).

So playing weak notrumps it is important to play that DBL denies 4 spades and that (as a necessary evil) 1S could be based on a 4-card suit.

Playing strong notrumps it is different because you can Pass with the problem hand and (usually) not worry about it. In my experience using strong notrumps having 1S=5+ available has been very valuable (especially when 4th hand jumps to 3H or 4H and opener has to decide whether or not to raise spades).

So in my opinion, when playing strong notrumps, it is better to play DBL shows exactly 4 spades and 1S promises 5+ spades. I don't lose any sleep about having "fewer ways to compete" as I don't mind doing things like:

- raising to 2 of partner's minor with only 3 card support
- making a competitive 2/1 that is somewhat lighter than traditional standards
- passing with values and some length in the opponents' suit

I would rather choose one of these alternatives with the "problem hand" than give up the ability to differentiate between 4 and 5 spades at the 1-level.

One big disadvantage in using DBL to deny spade length is that, when a 4-4 spade fit exists, you will often end up playing it from the wrong side of the table.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[BebopKid]

I will admit that I am not an expert, but I prefer that overcall with a 5+-card suit.

This forces me to be 4-4 in unbid suits for a negative double.

The advanced players from my local club also take this view, which is why I adopted it.

[firmit]

Using negative doubles
1♣-(1♦)-X normally shows 4-4 in both major, or at least 4-3
1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+

I see no disadvantage of using
1♣-(1♦)-X to deny a 4 card major and
1♣-(1♥)-X for <4 spades, when
1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+, and
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ merely shows a natural spade bid, which one would have bid if opps did not overcall.

As officeglen said, with support dbl's as a retaliatory action, or more precisly, as a tool to show show 3-card support when opps overcall, this could be interresting to try - if only to see how it fits into my system.

[fred]

firmit, on Feb 12 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

Using negative doubles
1♣-(1♦)-X normally shows 4-4 in both major, or at least 4-3
1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+

I see no disadvantage of using
1♣-(1♦)-X to deny a 4 card major and
1♣-(1♥)-X for <4 spades, when
1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+, and
1♣-(1♥)-1♠ merely shows a natural spade bid, which one would have bid if opps did not overcall.

As officeglen said, with support dbl's as a retaliatory action, or more precisly, as a tool to show show 3-card support when opps overcall, this could be interresting to try - if only to see how it fits into my system.

A different "Italian" treatment applies in this auction:

1C-1D-?

DBL=4+ hearts
1H=4+spades
1S=like a negative DBL, but with no 4-card major

I don't know any more details about how this works, but my instincts suggest that it is very smart.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

I'm not sure I understand the hand over 1♣-(1♦) that's "like a negative double but no 4-card major." I mean, you have to have length somewhere right? Usually if you don't have a four-card major you either have enough clubs to raise partner, or you have some semblance of a diamond stopper, or you just have enough diamonds that you can pass and figure 1♦ won't be a great contract for opponents (and that the bidding won't probably end there). I can't really recall the last time I had a hand in this auction where I wanted to bid but didn't have a 4cM or a hand suitable for either 1NT or 2♣. Perhaps things are different if your style involves opening 1♣ with all balanced hands in a certain range (so 1♣ could be a 2-card suit with some frequency).

I've played the method where over 1♦-(1♥), double shows 4+ spades and 1♠ is a takeout double without spades for some time. This is better than the "other way" for right-siding reasons (opener normally becomes declarer in the final contract, whether spades or elsewhere, placing overcaller on lead). This method works well in a strong club context, where raising diamonds is dubious on patterns like 3-2-4-4 (since opener can have any balanced hand in range, including a hand with two diamonds and longer clubs). Playing more natural methods most of these "negative double but not spades" hands can usually raise opener's diamonds without difficulty though, and I agree with Fred that the distinction between 4♠ and 5♠ usually works out better.

[paulg]

awm, on Feb 12 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

I'm not sure I understand the hand over 1♣-(1♦) that's "like a negative double but no 4-card major." I mean, you have to have length somewhere right? Usually if you don't have a four-card major you either have enough clubs to raise partner, or you have some semblance of a diamond stopper, or you just have enough diamonds that you can pass and figure 1♦ won't be a great contract for opponents (and that the bidding won't probably end there). I can't really recall the last time I had a hand in this auction where I wanted to bid but didn't have a 4cM or a hand suitable for either 1NT or 2♣. Perhaps things are different if your style involves opening 1♣ with all balanced hands in a certain range (so 1♣ could be a 2-card suit with some frequency).

It is being more common (though not yet popular) in Europe to see balanced hands with four diamonds and two clubs opened 1♣. In this system the use of 1♠ to show a negative double is useful, since it really means I have values, probably with clubs and no diamond stopper.

Bocchi-Duboin's convention card (PDF) has the most detail in this area.

[mikeh]

I have been using, for some time, a double of 1♥ overcalls as a ♠ transfer: 4+ in length. 1♠ is a transfer to 1N and 1N is a transfer to 2♣.

If we opened 1♣, then 1N is a sound raise to 2♣... this is theoretically flawed, and probably would be better as a weak raise to 2♣, so that we are not going to head for notrump very often, but this would be inconsistent with our general transfer theme in other situations so, for now, we stay with this.

If we opened 1♦, then 1N is a transfer to ♣s, ostensibly weak 2 values and length (at least) but unlimited upwards: responder takes another call later with values. This allows us to get some of the advantages of negative free bids without all of the disadvantages. 2♣ is a good (constructive) raise to 2♦ and 2♦ is a weak raise.

So far it seems to work... I played it for several years in the later 90's and it worked well and I have just resurrected it in a new partnership: we'll see how it goes. It does allow us to better compete in the minors, when opener has a good idea of the degree of support he can expect, and it right-sides the ♠ contracts: opener can accept the transfer with 3 card support, with no better call, at the 1-level..... a jump to 2♠ merely shows a hand that would have raised 1♠ to 2♠.. and we play support doubles by opener if 4th seat interferes.

It doesn't cover all the problem areas: with (say) Kxx xxx KQxx Jxx and a 1♥ overcall of our (potentially 2 card with 4=4=3=2 shape) 1♣ opening, we have a problem.. altho we might well decide to bid 1♠ as a transfer to 1N and hope either that partner has a stopper or that we win a lot of tricks after they run the ♥ suit. But using the double to deny 4♠ or using double to show 4+ and 1♠ as a catchall doesn't work perfectly either.

[SteelWheel]

Agree with much of what has been said here about the reasons to play this treatment. Fred's comments were particularly insightful. I also generally prefer to play that bidding 1♠ = 4+ ♠s in the auction we're discussing.

A more practical reason to play this treatment: These days, the "Law" is such an ingrained part of the approach of most players--advancer will always raise to 2♥, whenever he holds 3 card support. Whenever the intervening side does so, the opening side can use support doubles, and thus determine the degree of their fit (well, responder knows, anyway..he can let opener know by subsequent action).

I don't think this approach is "new". I believe that Kaplan preferred this treatment. And as an oftimes Precision-er myself, I can say that many Precision partnerships use this same approach, so as to avoid the plague of the nebulous diamond, and to try to immediately establish some "real" suit as belonging to our side.

[skjaeran]

Fred:
A different "Italian" treatment applies in this auction:

1♣-1♦-?

DBL=4+ ♥
1♥=4+♠
1♠=like a negative DBL, but with no 4-card major

I don't know any more details about how this works, but my instincts suggest that it is very smart.

With my regular partner we play:

1♣-1♦-?
DBL=4+ ♥, not 4 ♠ (cld be 5-6+)
1♥=4+ ♠
1♠=4 ♠ and 4+ ♥
1NT=6-10 no 4cM, might be bid without D-stopper.

This works well for us, even if we on occasion are forced to wrong side NT.
Our 1♣ opening is 2+ (NAT or 11-14/18-19 BAL), so we can't raise ♣'s on fewer than 5 here.

[firmit]

skaeran, on Feb 14 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

With my regular partner we play:

1♣-1♦-?
DBL=4+ ♥, not 4 ♠ (cld be 5-6+)
1♥=4+ ♠
1♠=4 ♠ and 4+ ♥
1NT=6-10 no 4cM, might be bid without D-stopper.

This works well for us, even if we on occasion are forced to wrong side NT.
Our 1♣ opening is 2+ (NAT or 11-14/18-19 BAL), so we can't raise ♣'s on fewer than 5 here.

Given my system is based upon (3)4+ clubs, I may bid 2/3C with 4 support, the 1NT respond would deny <4 hearts, <4 clubs and <4 spades; 3343, 3352, 2253...

How about (which I found in the link of a previous post)
1C-1D
- DBL 5+ hearts
- 1H 5+ spades
- 1S 4 hearts, or 4-4 major
- 1NT 4 spades, major with diamond control.

I now get to differentiate 4 and 5 of each major - with <4 of majors, I may support with clubs, pass with diamonds - or if agreed force with strong hand with 2D. This will give partner the option of passing 1NT even with 4-4 fit - may be usefull in matchpoints, right?

If one bidding 1NT with 4c spades, one may switch the meaning of DBL and 1S meaning:
- DBL 3 meanings: 4 hearts - OR 4-4 major OR a natural 1NT bid
- 1H 5+ spades
- 1S 5+ hearts
- 1NT 4 spades

(after DBL: expecting partner to bid 1H with 4-5H 12-14, 2H with 4+hearts 15-17, 3H with 18-19 hp if not 2NT - letting me bid NT at cheapest level )

Edit: 3rd meaning on dbl! Why not 4-4? I see no immediate problem in differentiating the three meanings in my next bid.

Comments?