[gnasher]

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26840

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here. The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"
- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.
- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.
- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣.. The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.
I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

Quote

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.
1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.
1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).
1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts
and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Feb 13 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

Here is a more recent thread, containing a complete set of entrenched positions.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26840

I really don't understand why anyone thinks there's something to argue about here. The question should not be "What does 2♦ show?", but "What did double show?"
- If you play the double as showing hearts but saying nothing about diamonds, 2♦ promises extras, because responder may have to give preference to 3♣.
- If you play the double as promising or suggesting both hearts and diamonds, 2♦ doesn't show extras, because it's just a raise of partner's suit.
- It is also possible to play the double as promising hearts plus either diamonds or a willingness to play in 3♣.. The purpose of that agreement is to allow opener to bid 2♦ on a minimum.
I notice that Frances seems to have posted approximately this view several times before, and no one has refuted it.

Regarding the specific question of what this means in SAYC, the SAYC Booklet reads:

Quote

The negative double is used through 2♠, promising four cards (at least) in an unbid major. Bidding a major at the two level or higher shows 11 or more points and a five-card or longer suit.
1♣ — (1♦) — Double = 4–4 or better in the majors.
1♦ — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five).
1♦ — (1♠) — Double = four hearts and 6+ points or five hearts
and 5–10 points.

The text implies that a negative double says nothing about the unbid minor. That, in turn, implies that 2♦ shows reversing values in SAYC. I wonder, though, whether the choice of examples is intended to sidestep this question.

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Feb 13 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

Theop is not playing sayc. She is playing 2/1 - "normalish".

Yes, sorry. I'm not sure why I thought we were taliking about SAYC.

[kenrexford]

If 2♦ is a reverse, then 3♦ sure ain't right.

[helene_t]

3♣ can't be very wrong with this hand, and it is what I would do if I had no agreement and didn't treat the game as a teaching experience.

But if 2♦ shows a minimum, we would have to jump to 3♦ or cuebid with a real reverse and that seems awkward to me.

[ASkolnick]

I play negative doubles always as "2 places to play including spades" except when I play precision.

Not sure why is 2♥ a bad bid? This should show strength in the minors by the following principles.

If you have spades, you can always bid x number of spades, at the appropriate level?

You can certainly play, 1C-1H-x-P-2S as forcing for one round since partner has one of the following:

Normal, spades or drop dead in diamonds. So I would say that 2 Hearts should be a good hand with both minors. Partner can then bid accordingly at the 2 level or raise the minor that he has. If he does not have a minor, he can rebid his spades or NT.

[rogerclee]

ASkolnick, on Feb 13 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

So I would say that 2 Hearts should be a good hand with both minors. Partner can then bid accordingly at the 2 level or raise the minor that he has. If he does not have a minor, he can rebid his spades or NT.

LOL

[jdonn]

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

[orlam]

Phil, on Feb 13 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

We discussed this auction several months ago and the consensus was that 2♦ was not a reverse.

Really?

[Hanoi5]

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 13 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

If my partner has a more pedestrian hand I think he would be disappointed by a reverse.

Could you explain the basis of that comment please?

Sure,

I don't think the hand is good enough for a reverse. I think partner will say in the post mortem, that hand wasn't good enough for a reverse. I would answer, you're right, it isn't good enough for a reverse.

[Winstonm]

orlam, on Feb 13 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

Why wouldn't you reverse over a 1♠ response, Winston?

I don't think the hand is good enough. I understand it has only 4 losers, but when your strength is in the minors the loser-count is based on an an 11-trick suit contract so partner needs two cover cards (and in this case those must be aces or else they aren't worth much in a suit contract).

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Feb 13 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

Suppose that you have Kx xx AQxx KJxxx, and the bidding goes

  1♣ 1♥ 1♠ pass

(where 1♠ shows five). Would you bid 2♦ saying "this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (3x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's"?

And if not, why is it different?

[Winstonm]

Quote

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in? This gets to the heart of the question of preparedness in bidding, the reason argued to open 1D when 45 in the minors.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

... because that is the real problem?

How much sense is in the question whether to bid 2 ♦ or 3 ♦ when you know that x shows both unbid suits? Then 2 ♦ obviously shows a much weaker hand.

And how much sense is in the question when you know that the double just shows 4 spades? Then 2 ♦ obviously is a reverse.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Quote

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

Stops in the opponent's bid suit don't factor into in?

Nope. What else do you suggest when you are 3334 without a stop? I actually think Qx is a great holding to rebid 1NT, the lack of a raise or (if they let me play it there) spade rebid implies length with partner, so we definitely want to declare from my side.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Feb 13 2009, 04:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

Why do we have to get into a debate about what a negative double shows every time it's mentioned in a problem? This is like some stupid water cooler debate about what "is" means.

... because that is the real problem?

How much sense is in the question whether to bid 2 ♦ or 3 ♦ when you know that x shows both unbid suits? Then 2 ♦ obviously shows a much weaker hand.

And how much sense is in the question when you know that the double just shows 4 spades? Then 2 ♦ obviously is a reverse.

When there is a 1♥ opening, we (at least on a good day) don't get into long discussions about 4+ or 5+ or canape or precision or opening bid styles or everything else that factors into a 1♥ opening bid. Even without precise 100% agreement, we pretty much all know what a 1♥ opener shows.

The same for the negative double here. It shows 4 spades. If you play it shows 0-3 spades, or 4+ spades, or it promises diamonds also, then I'm very happy for you. But in that case such a person is not contributing much usefulness to the problem.

[Hanoi5]

gnasher, on Feb 13 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Feb 13 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I play that x 'tends' to show 4♠'s 'cause a negative double (which this is) is used when you have:

a. HCP's but not a suit to name (in this case 6+ but not 5♠'s or 10+ but not 5♦'s or something including both)

b. A suit to name but not the HCP's to do it (5 diamonds with only 8 HCP, for example)

So 2♦ would be like saying this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (4x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's. While 3♦ is this is my second suit, I don't have spades or a balanced hand with a heart stopper and I have lots of HCP's.

Oh, and I open 1♣ with 44 in the minors (except 4/1=4=4), which might also matter here.

Suppose that you have Kx xx AQxx KJxxx, and the bidding goes

  1♣ 1♥ 1♠ pass

(where 1♠ shows five). Would you bid 2♦ saying "this is my other suit 'cause I don't have spades (3x's) and I don't have a heart stopper with a balanced hand and I have very few HCP's"?

And if not, why is it different?

I bid 2 clubs on that hand. 1♠ doesn't promise diamonds while x sort of does.

[sireenb]

2♦ reverse...

I have just read all the other comments and I still think it should be a reverse. With a weak hand 4-5 in the minors I would bid 2C and there is always 1S with 3 cards to show a weak hand

[the hog]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2009, 05:09 AM, said:

The same for the negative double here. It shows 4 spades. If you play it shows 0-3 spades, or 4+ spades, or it promises diamonds also, then I'm very happy for you. But in that case such a person is not contributing much usefulness to the problem.

Josh, that is absolute bullshit! There are a lot of players who play that the X does not show S, and "Yes" we have had this discussion before, and "yes" some posters here play this and like the idea. If you play that X shows 4S then I am sad for you, but if you like that, thats fine. Degustibus non est disputandum.

As Roland says, the meaning of the X is really the crux of the problem. If the op had said x = 4S, then I would totally agree with your comment.