[pclayton]

han, on Feb 13 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

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.

I'd stretch that to all bridge, not just reverses.

Yet we soldier on. Imagine that.

[mike777]

As usual the forum seems to infer a reverse always promises extra strength. This is just not true. page 386.

Yes 2d is a reverse but the more important question is does it promise extra strength. The Bridge Encyclopedia says this is open to debate. page 306.

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

As usual the forum seems to infer a reverse always promises extra strength. This is just not true.

Yes 2d is a reverse but the more important question is does it promise extra strength. The Bridge Encyclopedia says this is open to debate.

Well, yes, but in this thread in particular the word 'reverse' is OBVIOUSLY being used to mean 'reverse-implying-extra-strength'

If you use the term to mean 'a non-jump bid is a higher ranking suit than the first suit bid' (or whatever) then it's a bit of a waste of time to ask if it's a reverse or not, it's like saying "is 1S - 3S a jump bid or not"

[jdonn]

I had no idea this was a controversy! It used to be negative doubles pretty much showed the unbid suits, including minors, in which case it was not a reverse because you were just supporting partner. Now that negative doubles tend to show specific length in an unbid major and say nothing at all about the unbid minor, this should clearly be a reverse. How can there even be debate when partner hasn't shown diamonds?

[mikeh]

I'm with Josh. Now that negative doubles have evolved into their current common usage: a discussion about spades and NOTHING else (beyond the approximate number of hcp needed to warrant bidding at all), 2♦ has to be a reverse, and even a moment's thought would show why.

If you don't play this as a reverse, in the sense of showing strength, ask how this differs, in bridge logic, from the auction 1♣ (P) 1♠ (P) ?

The answer has to be, in terms of the advisability of opener's rebid meanings, that it doesn't.

Assume that responder has a minimum, with shape such as 4=3=3=3. That is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Now assume that opener's 2♦ shows no extras and is the preferred rebid on -2=2=4=5 hands.

We have just created a constructive sequence in which we cannot play our best suit at our best level Nice theory, guys!

I remember, vaguely, playing in the Vancouver Bridge Club (quite a strong club back then) in the early 1970s, when my partner and I thought, erroneously, that we were pretty good. We then played negative doubles of 1♥ as showing spades, with no reference to the other minor, and were told, very strongly, by one the older regulars (he seemed very old then, but was probably younger than I am now) that negative doubles showed BOTH unbid suits.

For him, and anyone stuck in that timewarp, 2♦ is nothing extra. To modern players, it shows strength.

[han]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

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.

Hmm, maybe it was I that misunderstood Hoggie's post.