[haka9]

I had ♠ K73, ♥ A652, ♦ 10, ♣ J9873. Partner opened 4th hand 1 ♦ (5533) and RHO bid 1 ♠. I had two reasonable choises: 1 NT 6-10 and D: takeout. I chose D partner responding 2 ♦ with Qxxxx. That wasn't a success for us vulnerable. I didn't want to lose 8 card ♥ and found 6 card ♦. My fault?

[Cyberyeti]

haka9, on 2018-October-11, 05:49, said:

I had ♠ K73, ♥ A652, ♦ 10, ♣ J9873. Partner opened 4th hand 1 ♦ (5533) and RHO bid 1 ♠. I had two reasonable choises: 1 NT 6-10 and D: takeout. I chose D partner responding 2 ♦ with Qxxxx. That wasn't a success for us vulnerable. I didn't want to lose 8 card ♥ and found 6 card ♦. My fault?

What was partner's hand ? 3253 with no spade stop ? I would double without a thought, but I suspect partner has a hand we'd have opened a weak NT.

[The_Badger]

Rebidding a minor at the two level on Qxxxx is just awful. With the hand you had I prefer Double than 1NT as partner could have a 3 card ♦ suit opposite your singleton. Also, double suggests a slightly stronger hand than a 6-10 1NT response. I would look for at least 1 honour trick in a hand doubling in this position, preferably 1 and 1/2, and this hand meets this criteria easily. Also, any potential ♥ fit may be lost if the opponents raise to 2♠ after a 1NT bid by you.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 a neg. double, to look for a possible heart fit is normal
#2 somethimes normal actions lead to a bad spot.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

The_Badger, on 2018-October-11, 06:24, said:

Rebidding a minor at the two level on Qxxxx is just awful. With the hand you had I prefer Double than 1NT as partner could have a 3 card ♦ suit opposite your singleton. Also, double suggests a slightly stronger hand than a 6-10 1NT response. I would look for at least 1 honour trick in a hand doubling in this position, preferably 1 and 1/2, and this hand meets this criteria easily. Also, any potential ♥ fit may be lost if the opponents raise to 2♠ after a 1NT bid by you.

While I agree that partner almost surely misbid (I'd need to know his hand to be firm on that, but I have trouble constructing a hand on which 2D would be the least-bad call for him), and I agree that one should double with this responding hand, I disagree with the suggestion that 'double suggests a slightly stronger hand than the 6-10 1NT response'

Firstly, in standard bidding, 1N over an overcall does not show 6-10. Ranges may vary somewhat, and some 7 counts would be upgraded, but the standard range, at least in NA, is 8-10. IOW, it is a constructive call. With 6-7 hcp and a stopper, and unable to raise or double, one passes.

Secondly, the negative double is unlimited upwards (unless one is a passed hand), but the low end of the range is actually lower than the values suggested by a 1N bid.

[The_Badger]

mikeh, on 2018-October-11, 11:33, said:

Firstly, in standard bidding, 1N over an overcall does not show 6-10. Ranges may vary somewhat, and some 7 counts would be upgraded, but the standard range, at least in NA, is 8-10.

I agree entirely on that point, Mike. I was a tad surprised that the OP suggested 6-10 but that's what I had to work on. However, I would never negative double on a hand with the right shape but with poor honour strength topping the suits. I remember two hands, one from a Cayne game, another from a Duboin game where even 6-7 HCPs wasn't sufficient to negative double. So I've always worked on slightly higher values.

[barmar]

The_Badger, on 2018-October-11, 12:01, said:

I agree entirely on that point, Mike. I was a tad surprised that the OP suggested 6-10 but that's what I had to work on. However, I would never negative double on a hand with the right shape but with poor honour strength topping the suits. I remember two hands, one from a Cayne game, another from a Duboin game where even 6-7 HCPs wasn't sufficient to negative double. So I've always worked on slightly higher values.

I think most players take the approach that they'll negative double on almost any hand that they would have responded with had there not been an intervening bid. This is especially true if opener can bid the suit you're showing on the 1 level. In the auction in this question, it's probably OK to be a little more conservative, but passing can give partner problems -- he can't bid 1NT to show a spade stopper because it would also show a big hand, and he might not have the right shape to reopen.

[rmnka447]

Double is entirely normal with OP's hand. You want to find an 8 card ♥ fit when one exists. So even with very strong ♠ stoppers and 4 decent ♥, you should normally prefer to double versus bid NT. You may be able to bid NT later on, if necessary.

The hand is worth a solid 8 points. ♠ K behind the ♠ bidder is a plus. But who knows how valuable ♣ Jxxxx is? So on balance, 8 value seems about right and certainly enough for a negative double.

OP partner might consider whether rebidding 2 ♦ is right with Qxxxx. Normally, a good plan is to expect no more than a small xx. Opposite such a holding, the opponents are likely to get 3 or 4 ♦ tricks. If opener holds a ♠ stopper, then maybe 1 NT should be considered. But if none is held, then the bulk of opener's points must be in ♣ and ♥ and maybe a 2 ♣ bid on 3 ♣ might be considered. If responder passes, you've gotten to at least a 4-3 fit yet it leaves room for responder to preference back to ♦ or rebid 2 ♥ with 5 decent ♥.

In any case, I think the initial response was correct and the result unfortunate. It happens sometimes

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-October-11, 13:01, said:

I think most players take the approach that they'll negative double on almost any hand that they would have responded with had there not been an intervening bid.

Not quite for me... but I'm certainly more concerned about my holding in any promised major than hand strength. I would double here always.

[helene_t]

The_Badger, on 2018-October-11, 06:24, said:

Also, double suggests a slightly stronger hand than a 6-10 1NT response.

I don't think that is standard. If anything, a hand with a potential hearts fit should compete more aggressively than a NT hand which is also quite happy to defend. Playing strong NT, I would double with almost all 6-counts with 4 hearts, but I would not normally bid 1NT with just 6 points.

[msjennifer]

Sir,the H-Axxx and C-Jxxxx are fairly decent holdings in the unbid suits so this must be conveyed immediately to partner.The ONLY bid is a T/O negative double.It is your hard luck that opener chose to rebid a very moderate suit .Surely there must be some other descriptive bid available.I have presumed that your pair DOES NOT play weak No Trump.

[wank]

double isn't 'takeout'. it shows 4 hearts or 5+ with a hand too weak to bid 2♥

[mikeh]

The_Badger, on 2018-October-11, 12:01, said:

I agree entirely on that point, Mike. I was a tad surprised that the OP suggested 6-10 but that's what I had to work on. However, I would never negative double on a hand with the right shape but with poor honour strength topping the suits. I remember two hands, one from a Cayne game, another from a Duboin game where even 6-7 HCPs wasn't sufficient to negative double. So I've always worked on slightly higher values.

Everything is relative. There are many 6-7 hcp hands where it is clearly right to double, but these would invariably contain one or both of extra heart length or a diamond fit. With a minimum one needs to be able to pass a 2D rebid with ease or pull to a 6+ card heart suit.

xxx KQ10xxx xx Qx is to me a clear double, intending to bid hearts next time if circumstances allow.

xx KJxx QJxx xxx is a clear double, knowing we have safety in diamonds.

No 6 count is enough on which to bid 1N

[barmar]

wank, on 2018-October-17, 11:08, said:

double isn't 'takeout'. it shows 4 hearts or 5+ with a hand too weak to bid 2♥

It's a negative double. That's a kind of takeout double -- it shows one or two other suits (it depends on what the previous 2 bids were) and suggests that partner take it out unless he has a hand that really wants to defend.

[steve2005]

haka9, on 2018-October-11, 05:49, said:

I chose D partner responding 2 ♦ with Qxxxx. That wasn't a success for us vulnerable.

Only giving part of your partner's hand in this case creates a bias against your partner.

[wank]

barmar, on 2018-October-18, 09:43, said:

It's a negative double. That's a kind of takeout double -- it shows one or two other suits (it depends on what the previous 2 bids were) and suggests that partner take it out unless he has a hand that really wants to defend.

well, 'takeout' implies playability in more than 1 suit. double here only guarantees hearts.

[mikeh]

barmar, on 2018-October-18, 09:43, said:

It's a negative double. That's a kind of takeout double -- it shows one or two other suits (it depends on what the previous 2 bids were) and suggests that partner take it out unless he has a hand that really wants to defend.

Negative doubles don't mean the same thing as when they were developed, and indeed the meaning has evolved in several ways.

Certainly when I began to play duplicate, more than 40 years ago, there were experienced players who believed that in the auction 1D (1S) double promised hearts and clubs. I learned this when my partner and I, both about 20 years old and definitely not seen as 'strong' (more as cannon fodder), alerted, iirc, this exact sequence. When one of us said 'shows hearts' we were grilled about it showing clubs as well...which was not only news to us but something that we didn't see as making sense.

I think it is generally accepted these days that this double shows hearts, and the only other message it conveys is that the doubler expects to be able to handle (almost) any call opener is likely to unleash. It says nothing about clubs....neither owning to clubs nor denying them.

[Tramticket]

mikeh, on 2018-October-19, 17:20, said:

doubler expects to be able to handle any call opener is likely to unleash.

This is our definition. I'm not sure that it even 100% guarantees hearts - although it is difficult to construct a hand where we wouldn't hold hearts.

[barmar]

wank, on 2018-October-19, 16:52, said:

well, 'takeout' implies playability in more than 1 suit. double here only guarantees hearts.

The definition of "takeout double" in the Bridge World Dictionary is:

Quote

a double that encourages a partner to bid (as opposed to a penalty double, which suggests that he pass)

The Bridge Encyclopedia says:

Quote

The use of a low-level double in certain circumstances as a request to partner to bid an unbid suit.

And Bridge World Standard, when defining the different adjectives used to describe doubles, defines takeout as:

Quote

Announces a hand-type that suggests reaching a contract in other than the current strain.

All of these describe negative doubles, in addition to "pure" takeout doubles.

Some takeout doubles apply only in certain circumstances, or don't generally show all the unbid suits, and have been given more specific names. But they're still fall into the general category of "takeout".