[sakuragi]

(A)
1D (1S) X (2S)
P P 3H

(B)
1D (1S) 2H (2S)
P P 3H

[Vampyr]

(A) shows a hand too weak to bid 3♥ the first time round. Unless, of course, you are playing Negative Free Bids.

[The_Badger]

Interesting. My interpretation is that you shouldn't use a negative double in A if your hand is primarily suitable for a pre-empt. 1♦ - 1♠ - 3♥ to me is a pre-empt. 1♦ - 1♠ - Double - 2 ♠ - pass - pass - 3♥ is a strong hand and forcing.

In B 3♥ to me is competitive and semi-invitational depending on methods played.

[gszes]

A shows a hand around 9hcp with decent hearts (xx QJTxxxx Kx Kx
B shows a 12+ HCP hand but with 6+ iffy hearts Ax Axxxxx xxx KQ

When we make the original x we cannot anticipate a 2s raise. The x might merely be a way of introducing hearts by limiting power and correcting openers response if lho passes. That means the 3h bid is competitive only. This is not the same situation as 1s x 2s p p 3h where the x followed by strain (hearts) shows a very strong hand. After p opens the x acts as a power LIMITER when we introduce a new suit.
When we bid 2h directly we start with showing power and further clarify our overall holding with the 3h bid in order to allow opener to help us with a final strain choice.

[Vampyr]

 The_Badger, on 2017-May-27, 09:59, said:

Interesting. My interpretation is that you shouldn't use a negative double in A if your hand is primarily suitable for a pre-empt. 1♦ - 1♠ - 3♥ to me is a pre-empt. 1♦ - 1♠ - Double - 2 ♠ - pass - pass - 3♥ is a strong hand and forcing.

in your first auction, I think that fit is much more common than a preempt, but maybe this is not the case where you play. In your second, since you play NFB you are already aware that this is a non-standard treatment.

[helene_t]

Matter of agreement but in most of the World (Poland is an exception) the standard answer is B.

[steve2005]

 helene_t, on 2017-May-27, 12:59, said:

Matter of agreement but in most of the World (Poland is an exception) the standard answer is B.

Yes, there are multiple ways these sort of sequences can have meaning.

[wank]

B for 95% of the world

[The_Badger]

So a negative double at the one level in the sequence 1♦ - (1♠) - Double doesn't necessarily imply that you have tolerance for two suits, but possibly a long heart suit that you feel you cannot bid (without support for the other suit clubs). That's quite bizarre, in my opinion.

So what exactly is opener going to bid if the opponents raise ♠ to any level with a hand such as

♠xxx
♥void
♦AKQxx
♣AKxxx

or similar? The post by Sakuragi is in the Natural Bidding Discussion. (And yes, I recognise Sakuragi plays occasionally against JEC's team too.)

[msjennifer]

The sequences shown here are a matter of partnership style and agreements.A point to consider is what is the sequence 1D-1S-2H-P-? Is this a forcing situation or not? Depends upon the agreement.We play this sequence as passable (not forcing).We play the way 'The Badger' has described,but its all depending on your agreements.Certainly ,some opponent will ask "what's the difference in the two sequences as you play it ?" and one should have a clear answer for that.

[sfi]

 The_Badger, on 2017-May-27, 23:45, said:

So a negative double at the one level in the sequence 1♦ - (1♠) - Double doesn't necessarily imply that you have tolerance for two suits, but possibly a long heart suit that you feel you cannot bid (without support for the other suit clubs). That's quite bizarre, in my opinion.

That's totally normal the way many, and probably the majority, play negative doubles. Double shows 4+ hearts in the auction you provide (there might be some hands that have to double without 4 hearts, but responder would have a plan to manage the rest of the auction). It doesn't say anything about clubs, so if opener bids clubs, they are doing it because they have clubs, not because partner showed any.

If you play that way, and if you play 2H by responder as forcing, doubling and bidding hearts must be a non-forcing hand with long hearts. That's pretty standard and expecting something else from a random partner is likely to get you into trouble. Of course, if you and your regular partner have agreed something else, then that's also fine.

Quote

So what exactly is opener going to bid if the opponents raise ♠ to any level with a hand such as

♠xxx
♥void
♦AKQxx
♣AKxxx

or similar? The post by Sakuragi is in the Natural Bidding Discussion. (And yes, I recognise Sakuragi plays occasionally against JEC's team too.)

Clubs. This is a pretty good hand and it's extremely likely we will have a fit somewhere (especially if they jump around in spades). If partner corrects to hearts, so be it - she has heard about my suits.

[Vampyr]

 msjennifer, on 2017-May-28, 00:59, said:

The sequences shown here are a matter of partnership style and agreements.A point to consider is what is the sequence 1D-1S-2H-P-? Is this a forcing situation or not? Depends upon the agreement.We play this sequence as passable (not forcing).We play the way 'The Badger' has described,but its all depending on your agreements.Certainly ,some opponent will ask "what's the difference in the two sequences as you play it ?" and one should have a clear answer for that.

Also, I am pretty sure that whatever your jurisdiction, NFB doubles need to be alerted. Same, of course, for the NFB itself.

This should be a clue to The Badger that his agreements are non-standard.

[dave_beer]

The answer depends on whether you are playing negative free bids and/or weak jump shits in competition. You could add fit jumps to the list and make the answer even longer.

Neither weak jump shits in comp nor negative free bids
(A) shows a hand not good enough to bid 2♥ directly but takes the risk that opener will make an inconvenient rebid
(B) shows a better hand and may or may not be forcing, depending on agreements. I play it as non-forcing and have to either cue-bid 3♠ or double again to show a hand that needs additional information

Weak jump shifts in comp but not negative free bids
(A) not sure it exists but probably best played as 5-5 in ♥ and ♣ in hand too weak for direct 2♥
{B} same as (B} above

Negative free bids but not weak jump shifts in comp
(A) forcing with ♥
(B) since 2♥ wasn't forcing this is just competitive

Both weak jump shifts in comp and negative free bids
(A) forcing with ♥
(B) since 2♥ wasn't forcing this is just competitive but hand is further limited by failure to bid 3♥ the first time

[Vampyr]

 dave_beer, on 2017-May-28, 13:04, said:

Weak jump shifts in comp but not negative free bids
(A) not sure it exists but probably best played as 5-5 in ♥ and ♣ in hand too weak for direct 2♥
{B} same as (B} urther limited by failure to bid 3♥ the first time.

I'm wondering how weak this WJS would be. You need at least 6 HCP in the suit to go to the three-level with a weak hand and no known fit.

Actually, I am surprised that anyone plays WJS in or out or competition as high as 3M.

[dave_beer]

 Vampyr, on 2017-May-28, 15:53, said:

I'm wondering how weak this WJS would be. You need at least 6 HCP in the suit to go to the three-level with a weak hand and no known fit.

Actually, I am surprised that anyone plays WJS in or out or competition as high as 3M.

I might make weak jump shift with KQJxxx or QJ10xxxx and nothing else. I don't want to be shut out but 2♥ shows more defense and 4♥ shows more playing strength. I don't make negative doubles with a bad one-suited hand.

[wank]

 The_Badger, on 2017-May-27, 23:45, said:

So a negative double at the one level in the sequence 1♦ - (1♠) - Double doesn't necessarily imply that you have tolerance for two suits, but possibly a long heart suit that you feel you cannot bid (without support for the other suit clubs). That's quite bizarre, in my opinion.

So what exactly is opener going to bid if the opponents raise ♠ to any level with a hand such as

♠xxx
♥void
♦AKQxx
♣AKxxx

or similar? The post by Sakuragi is in the Natural Bidding Discussion. (And yes, I recognise Sakuragi plays occasionally against JEC's team too.)

that's a total non-question. what would you bid after 1D P 1H 4s? double shows 4+ hearts, that's all. it's not take-out. what would you suggest partner should bid with Axxxx AKxx xx Kx, 3NT and forget about the hearts because he doesn't have enough minors for a take-out double?

[xbabarx]

B

[GrahamJson]

The second sequence is straightforward I would think, showing a limited hand with a (good) six card suit, something like xx AQJxxx Kx xxx. Encouraging but not forcing.
In the second case the 3H bidder could have doubled again to show a two suiter with equal length so should have something like xx AQJxx xx KQxx. With xx AQJxx xx Qxxx I would say that you bid 2H first then double on the next round.

Of course the meanings would be different if you had specific agreements with partner.

[Joe_Old]

 GrahamJson, on 2017-May-29, 04:50, said:

The second sequence is straightforward I would think, showing a limited hand with a (good) six card suit, something like xx AQJxxx Kx xxx. Encouraging but not forcing.
In the second case the 3H bidder could have doubled again to show a two suiter with equal length so should have something like xx AQJxx xx KQxx. With xx AQJxx xx Qxxx I would say that you bid 2H first then double on the next round.

Of course the meanings would be different if you had specific agreements with partner.

I basically agree. Remember that the 3♥ bid is in the balancing seat. Your 2♥ bid already told partner that your side has the majority of the HCPs, but partner has punted the auction back to you. You have to have a way to compete, but stop short of game with limited values.

[Kaitlyn S]

Some student-level players get this wrong because they think sequence A is "double and correct", that is they relate it to the sequence 1D X P 1S P 2H. Once that it's pointed out that they would bid 2H over 1D (1S) anytime they had five hearts and invitational strength, they realize that sequence A can't be strong anymore (and by default is weaker than B.)

I'm talking about in the USA.