Help
When negative doubles were first put into use around 1957 many players set an upper limit on them of an opening hand. If the responder had an opening hand or better, they were to cue bid the overcaller's suit (which said nothing about controls in that suit). The approach seems to have fallen into total disuse. Yet, it still seems like it has a lot of merit in it. Pros? Cons? Thoughts?
Page 1 of 1
Old Idea--Upper Limit for Negative Double--Worth a New Look?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,100
- Joined: 2003-May-14
Posted 2017-October-07, 08:52
Cons:
- Now the immediate cue doesn't promise support for opener's suit. Losing the limit+ raise. So now have to give up some other bid for the raise, or not have a way to unambiguously strong raise, which is terrible.
- Cue takes up more room, especially if the overcall was at 2 level already. That room is valuable for exploring other strains when you haven't established a fit yet. And you've sometimes taken away both player's ability to cue below 3nt probing for the stopper.
Pros:
- I can't really think of any pros?? I mean opener just assumes responder is at minimum range for the double, if responder has an opening hand or stronger they can always simply bid more later, raising one of opener's suits to an appropriate level, bidding 3nt, cue bidding on the second round (rather than the first), or doubling a 2nd time if the opps have jacked the bidding higher. You say it seems to have merit, maybe you can explain why?
- Now the immediate cue doesn't promise support for opener's suit. Losing the limit+ raise. So now have to give up some other bid for the raise, or not have a way to unambiguously strong raise, which is terrible.
- Cue takes up more room, especially if the overcall was at 2 level already. That room is valuable for exploring other strains when you haven't established a fit yet. And you've sometimes taken away both player's ability to cue below 3nt probing for the stopper.
Pros:
- I can't really think of any pros?? I mean opener just assumes responder is at minimum range for the double, if responder has an opening hand or stronger they can always simply bid more later, raising one of opener's suits to an appropriate level, bidding 3nt, cue bidding on the second round (rather than the first), or doubling a 2nd time if the opps have jacked the bidding higher. You say it seems to have merit, maybe you can explain why?
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,125
- Joined: 2013-January-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Film, Literature, Herbal Medicine, Nutrition
Posted 2017-October-07, 09:25
Welcome to the forum profhsg 
As Stephen said, it's all about space in the bidding and utilising it effectively and efficiently.
1957 was, well, 1957 and things have moved on a lot bidding-wise since then. I have a feeling most players were still employing strong jump overcalls at this time, though I believe that the weak variety were becoming more mainstream in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
Take, for instance, the following auctions:-
a) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - Dbl.
b) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - 3♠
Which one would you prefer to be forced to bid again with your 1♦ opener? The unlimited negative double on the first auction does not take the bidding higher, and the doubler has other options to describe various hands after his bid.
As Stephen said, it's all about space in the bidding and utilising it effectively and efficiently.
1957 was, well, 1957 and things have moved on a lot bidding-wise since then. I have a feeling most players were still employing strong jump overcalls at this time, though I believe that the weak variety were becoming more mainstream in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
Take, for instance, the following auctions:-
a) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - Dbl.
b) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - 3♠
Which one would you prefer to be forced to bid again with your 1♦ opener? The unlimited negative double on the first auction does not take the bidding higher, and the doubler has other options to describe various hands after his bid.
#4
- Group: Members
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 2017-October-07
Posted 2017-October-07, 10:16
The_Badger, on 2017-October-07, 09:25, said:
Welcome to the forum profhsg
As Stephen said, it's all about space in the bidding and utilising it effectively and efficiently.
1957 was, well, 1957 and things have moved on a lot bidding-wise since then. I have a feeling most players were still employing strong jump overcalls at this time, though I believe that the weak variety were becoming more mainstream in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
Take, for instance, the following auctions:-
a) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - Dbl.
b) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - 3♠
Which one would you prefer to be forced to bid again with your 1♦ opener? The unlimited negative double on the first auction does not take the bidding higher, and the doubler has other options to describe various hands after his bid.
Thanks for the replies. This was truly a theoretical question for me since I too play negative doubles with unlimited strength. The theoretical merits are (a) that it does limit responder's hand which is usually a good thing for opener and (b) opener can more easily pass the double if the overcaller's bid was likely to be defeated and the partnership lacked sufficient assets to likely make game. I do see the disadvantages which you and Stephen point out and tend to agree that they outweigh the merits.
As Stephen said, it's all about space in the bidding and utilising it effectively and efficiently.
1957 was, well, 1957 and things have moved on a lot bidding-wise since then. I have a feeling most players were still employing strong jump overcalls at this time, though I believe that the weak variety were becoming more mainstream in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
Take, for instance, the following auctions:-
a) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - Dbl.
b) 1♦ - (2♠ weak) - 3♠
Which one would you prefer to be forced to bid again with your 1♦ opener? The unlimited negative double on the first auction does not take the bidding higher, and the doubler has other options to describe various hands after his bid.
Thanks for the replies. This was truly a theoretical question for me since I too play negative doubles with unlimited strength. The theoretical merits are (a) that it does limit responder's hand which is usually a good thing for opener and (b) opener can more easily pass the double if the overcaller's bid was likely to be defeated and the partnership lacked sufficient assets to likely make game. I do see the disadvantages which you and Stephen point out and tend to agree that they outweigh the merits.
Page 1 of 1