[Hanoi5]

You hold:

♠KT5
♥753
♦AQ93
♣982

All white it goes:

Pa 1♣ 1♥

And you decide to pass. Make up an excuse in your mind, you placed a pass instead of double at the table, you didn't want to bid 1NT, whatever. (I guess it would make a nice poll with x and 1NT tied, I'd vote for double).

Pa 1♣ 1♥ Pa
Pa X* Pa ???

Negative double, of course. What now? Pass, 1♠, 1NT, 2♣ or 2♦? Other?

[helene_t]

Agree with initial pass although dbl is OK too. 1NT would be a LOL.

I show some life now with 3♣. Maybe 2♣ is better.

[aguahombre]

I know a lot of people find it necessary to double with 4 spades and bid one spade with 5+ here. but this hand is an advertisement for "neg dbl denies spades." It shows a hand that would have responded 1D (for whatever reason) or 1NT but can't without a heart stopper. We get to use their overcall to our advantage, rather than let it hamstring us.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on Jun 1 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

but this hand is an advertisement for "neg dbl denies spades." It shows a hand that would have responded 1D (for whatever reason) or 1NT but can't without a heart stopper. We get to use their overcall to our advantage, rather than let it hamstring us.

Except it is your partner who will be hamstrung when you bid 1♠ to show 4 or 5 and your LHO preempts.

Walsh doubles used to work a lot better before preemptive raises became common.

[Free]

All systems have their problems, I prefer Dbl to show 4+♠ and 1♠ to show some values without a bid. On this hand it would be easy, on others it wouldn't

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Jun 1 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 1 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

but this hand is an advertisement for "neg dbl denies spades."  It shows a hand that would have responded 1D (for whatever reason) or 1NT but can't without a heart stopper. We get to use their overcall to our advantage, rather than let it hamstring us.

Except it is your partner who will be hamstrung when you bid 1♠ to show 4 or 5 and your LHO preempts.

Walsh doubles used to work a lot better before preemptive raises became common.

Yep, that is the debate. I am one of those old Hardy/Walsh fuddy-duddies, and don't even use support doubles. Sometimes the frisky opponents wish we used support doubles, and sometimes they keep us out with their jumps.

[mikeh]

As others have said, this is a good hand for a special treatment (I have begun experimenting with double = 4+ spades, 1♠ is 'values to bid, nothing to show'... which fits this hand perfectly, 2♥ as long spades, weak hand, and 2♠ as limit raise or better, in partner's minor.

However, that scheme is no help here, since we don't play it

While 1N might well work out the best... if he has a minimum semi-balanced hand, we rate to make 1N or go down only 1, and all other calls may fare worse in that event..... it is too much of a distortion... I hold too much stuff and not enough in hearts... so it lies in two regards.

I opt for the pass-the-buck cue-bid. I think I am a trifle on the light side, but the pass then cue shows values and an inability to bid descriptively the first time... so at worst I am slightly overbidding... I am NOT misbidding shape. So it is only one, small 'lie'... all other calls (2♣, 3♣, any number of diamonds or spades) seem to me to entail bigger lies.

These hands are exactly why so many pairs are playing better methods.

[neilkaz]

In old fashioned "standard" you pass the first time rather than bidding 1NT since you don't have a stopper.

With that in mind, I bid 1NT the 2nd time since I do have values and have allready denied a stopper if I am showing values. However, this runs the risk that PD doesn't realize I have 9 HCP.

Now we see why pairs are adopting different methods as mentioned by some of out experts here.

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Jun 1 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 1 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

but this hand is an advertisement for "neg dbl denies spades."  It shows a hand that would have responded 1D (for whatever reason) or 1NT but can't without a heart stopper. We get to use their overcall to our advantage, rather than let it hamstring us.

Except it is your partner who will be hamstrung when you bid 1♠ to show 4 or 5 and your LHO preempts.

Walsh doubles used to work a lot better before preemptive raises became common.

But it also has upsides - if you double with 5125 showing 4-5 spades and LHO jumps to 4H, you can back in with 4 spades, showing a shapely hand with 5 spades only. Playing standard, you would have to bid 5♣, possibly missing a 5-3 spade fit.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Jun 1 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 1 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 1 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

but this hand is an advertisement for "neg dbl denies spades."  It shows a hand that would have responded 1D (for whatever reason) or 1NT but can't without a heart stopper. We get to use their overcall to our advantage, rather than let it hamstring us.

Except it is your partner who will be hamstrung when you bid 1♠ to show 4 or 5 and your LHO preempts.

Walsh doubles used to work a lot better before preemptive raises became common.

But it also has upsides - if you double with 5125 showing 4-5 spades and LHO jumps to 4H, you can back in with 4 spades, showing a shapely hand with 5 spades only. Playing standard, you would have to bid 5♣, possibly missing a 5-3 spade fit.

Sounds like a good reason to play fit jumps. I think your better argument against Phil is that if 1♠ shows 4 or 5 you are better placed when you have 6, since you can show that all at once instead of potentially having to risk a spade rebid later. Not to mention you get a whole good system of transfers with it for 1NT through 2♥.

[the hog]

I absolutely loathe the initial pass. Agree with those who like a X to show 4+S or a 1S bid to show 4+S.

Anyway, we have a problem now. 2D does nothing to show my 9 count. I guess I bid 1NT, but I really dislike it and it wrongsides a possible contract.

[655321]

Assuming that 1♠ and double both showed spades, I agree with the initial pass (but also agree with those who prefer other methods). 2♣ was possible, but it would be nice to have an honor to raise clubs on only 3.

Now, I would probably cue 2♥. We still have problems, and the cue bid is not guaranteed to solve them, so I could also live with 2♦ or 3♣. I don't really like 1NT because for me this shows a stopper but denies the values to bid 1NT last round, whereas we do have the values, and don't have the stopper.

[hanp]

In the Netherlands this is a jump to 2S: exactly 3 spades, no heart stopper and close to invitational values. Pretty much exactly this hand. I would be curious to hear how others play this delayed 2S.

[mich-b]

The previous Pass is what caused the problem , and this problem has no solution.

This is why it is wrong to pass with values after RHO overcall (unless trapping) - there is no good way to recover and show values later.
Each partnership just has to decide WHICH call they prefer with a hand like this - either a systemic call showing values without 4+♠ , or just a normal negative double, which implies 4♠s , but does not 100% guarantee them.
I know this style has met a lot of objection here , but why is playing (1♥) - DBL this way (usually 4♠s , sometimes 3) seems acceptable to everybody, but doing it here is not?

[helene_t]

hanp, on Jun 2 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

In the Netherlands this is a jump to 2S: exactly 3 spades, no heart stopper and close to invitational values. Pretty much exactly this hand. I would be curious to hear how others play this delayed 2S.

Never heard about that, that's a good idea.

[hanp]

I was joking Helene.