[pclayton]

1♣ by you, 1♥ on left, negative double by pard (= 4 spades).

You hold: ♠x ♥Axx ♦AKxx ♣KQJxx

Your call?

[655321]

2♦
Reverse since partner's double was equivalent to a 1♠ bid.

[Echognome]

I wasn't going to have an easy bid over a 1♠ response from partner anyway. I'll go for the 2♦ reverse anyway. I don't like having a stiff spade, but my hand is pretty pure.

[helene_t]

I like to play 2♦ as a reverse here but as I recall from previous discusions about this issue, this is controversial.

[gwnn]

I suppose pard promises just a hair more than 1♠ would have, so that hair makes me rebid 2♦

[jdonn]

wtp 2♦. I will rebid 1NT on all balanced hands, which makes life very easy.

[the hog]

Ah well, there you have it....again! Had your partner bid a sensible 1S instead of futzing around with a double, (which may or may not show Ds as well), you would have an easy 2D bid which would show your values. On this hand I will bid 2D again, but am not sure whether it shows reversing values or not.

[finally17]

2!D, not sure why it's not a reverse, would be interested in reading the thread if anyone knows where it's located.

[pclayton]

I guess I slept in the day we discussed this because I really don't remember it.

I went over this sequence today with a student and I couldn't remember what the normal following was. I always though it wasn't a reverse, and maybe I should have posted the hand without the ♣K to see if I get the same answers.

[655321]

If partner's double is general takeout, for the other suits, 2♦ is not a reverse because you are just bidding a suit you have been asked to bid.

If partner's double just shows one suit (spades here, more typically a negative double of a 1♠ overcall) and says nothing about diamonds, then 2♦ is a reverse, just as if partner had bid the suit he promised with the double.

[cherdano]

I think this one is clear, 2♦ is a reverse. 1♣ (1♠) X (P) 2♦ is a little more debatable but I would still treat is as a reverse.
(And as often I have no idea what The_Hog is talking about, I don't understand what the difference is between using X as 4+ spades or using 1♠ as 4+ spades.)

[the hog]

cherdano, on Feb 13 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

I think this one is clear, 2♦ is a reverse. 1♣ (1♠) X (P) 2♦ is a little more debatable but I would still treat is as a reverse.
(And as often I have no idea what The_Hog is talking about, I don't understand what the difference is between using X as 4+ spades or using 1♠ as 4+ spades.)

Sorry Cherdano, I forgot you were linguistically challenged. In future if I address your posts, (which is highly unlikely), I shall keep to words of 2 syllables. Or perhaps you understand grunts?

[fifee]

For me, this negative double says nothing about ♦s, only that I have 4 ♠s and 6 or more points - or I might have a shapely 4 or 5 with 4 ♠s and a ♣ fit.

Depends upon agreements, 2!D could be a reverse.

What will you do with the same hand without the ♦ King? Rebid 2♣?

Some at bbo are opening 1♦ with a minimum 1345 and rebidding 2♣ which lies about shape and makes it harder to find the right minor suit slam at times. This would alleviate our problem with this hand though, we count this as a reverse now.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

And for me, 2D is not a reverse.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

With these agreements 2♦ is a reverse for me.

However I much prefer the agreements that the Hog suggests with 1♠ showing 4+ spades and double denying four or more spades. With this agreement essentially double shows the other minor. Therefore 2♦ is not a reverse but a raise.

When I played the 'standard' negative double it always seemed wrong to me that we have two bids to show spades and no bid to show diamonds at the one-level. Using double to show diamonds corrects that problem.

[whereagles]

Agree that 2♦ is not a reverse. 2♦ should show a min hand with 5-4 because responder implicitly showed diamonds. A good example would be the original hand an ace weaker, say,

♠x ♥xxx ♦AKxx ♣KQJxx

So I'd try 3♦ now. The inferences are even stronger if dbl were to DENY four spades (as played by some pairs).

[han]

I would certainly play 2D in this auction as a reverse.

I agree with The_Hog that those who don't understand negative doubles should not play them.

[FrancesHinden]

Cascade, on Feb 13 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

In one partnership I play the 'standard' way where double shows 4 spades. 2D is clearly a reverse, because for us the double has not promised diamonds: it is the exact equivalent of a 1S reponse to 1C (with the added information that it has exactly four spades).

Quote

However I much prefer the agreements that the Hog suggests with 1♠ showing 4+ spades and double denying four or more spades.  With this agreement essentially double shows the other minor.  Therefore 2♦ is not a reverse but a raise.

In another partnership I play something along these lines. We have swapped the bids, so that double shows 4+ spades and 1S denies spades. But 1S ("double" for most people) does not show the other minor. It shows "values to act but no good bid" to quote the system notes. As we play a 4-card diamond suit together with short (2+ clubs), the following hands would all qualify:

Kxx
xxx
KQxx
Jxx

Kxx
xxx
KQx
Jxxx

Kxx
xxxx
KQx
Jxx

Kxx
xxxx
KQxx
Jx

Kx
xxx
KQxx
Jxxx

Thus, we play that opener makes his natural rebid:
1NT with 12-14 balanced
2NT with 18-19 balanced and a heart stop
2D or 2S with reversing values (there's no spade fit, but 2S is descriptive)
2C with a minimum unbalanced hand (including with spades)
3C with an unbalanced hand and extra values
2H to force (likely to be a very good hand with clubs)

[helene_t]

han, on Feb 13 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I agree with The_Hog that those who don't understand negative doubles should not play them.

I missed that but then again, I'm linguistically challenged as well.

Anyway, I disagree. Negative doubles are indispensable so everyone "should" play them (well of course it's their own choice), especially those partnerships who do not have firm agreements about the continuations since they are the ones who can learn the most from the misunderstandings. Of course there is a risk that the misunderstandings will be resolved by agreeing on some unplayable home-grown thing, but even that may still be better than not playing negative (sr: Sputnik) doubles.