Negative double in ACBL

[[e-mail]]

In the current Bridge Bulletin, Larry Cohen recommends marking upper limit of negative double as infinity. I believe that is misinformation.

I always thought that "neg dbl through y" meant that double of an overcall of y or lower was shape-showing. Above y, it was not shape-showing, but something else. That something else need not be trump tricks. In fact, in his lectures, Cohen says high-ish doubles should be card-showing.

He thinks card-showing doubles are negative doubles.

Trouble is, the ACBL convention card has a separate box for Card-showing.

Carl

[Barry Margolin]

Post by ***@verizon.net
In the current Bridge Bulletin, Larry Cohen recommends marking upper limit of
negative double as infinity. I believe that is misinformation.
I always thought that "neg dbl through y" meant that double of an overcall of
y or lower was shape-showing. Above y, it was not shape-showing, but
something else. That something else need not be trump tricks. In fact, in
his lectures, Cohen says high-ish doubles should be card-showing.
He thinks card-showing doubles are negative doubles.

I think he's basically saying that a double that isn't intended as
penalty-oriented, and partner is usually expected to take it out unless
they have a bunch of the opponent's suit, is negative.

BWS has 4 categories of doubles, but ACBL doesn't have this level of
detail.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Trouble is, the ACBL convention card has a separate box for Card-showing.

But it's just a checkbox, there's no level associated.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Carl

[[e-mail]]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by ***@verizon.net
In the current Bridge Bulletin, Larry Cohen recommends marking upper limit of
negative double as infinity. I believe that is misinformation.
I always thought that "neg dbl through y" meant that double of an overcall of
y or lower was shape-showing. Above y, it was not shape-showing, but
something else. That something else need not be trump tricks. In fact, in
his lectures, Cohen says high-ish doubles should be card-showing.
He thinks card-showing doubles are negative doubles.

I think he's basically saying that a double that isn't intended as
penalty-oriented, and partner is usually expected to take it out unless
they have a bunch of the opponent's suit, is negative.
BWS has 4 categories of doubles, but ACBL doesn't have this level of
detail.

Actually, it does. The ACBL article by Richard Colker, which introduced the revised alert rule, had the same 4 levels.

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by ***@verizon.net
Trouble is, the ACBL convention card has a separate box for Card-showing.

But it's just a checkbox, there's no level associated.

But surely it means that "card-showing" and "negative" are different.

Carl

[Steve Willner]

Post by ***@verizon.net
He thinks card-showing doubles are negative doubles.

No matter what label you give it, when you are dealt a hand too strong
to pass but with no tolerable bid, double is all that's left. I suppose
there's some distinction in whether, with a borderline hand, you are
more likely to double if long or short in opponent's suit, but at high
levels, that must be a small consideration.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by ***@verizon.net
He thinks card-showing doubles are negative doubles.

No matter what label you give it, when you are dealt a hand too strong
to pass but with no tolerable bid, double is all that's left. I suppose
there's some distinction in whether, with a borderline hand, you are
more likely to double if long or short in opponent's suit, but at high
levels, that must be a small consideration.

So do you believe that "negative doubles through 3S" means double of 3S suggests hearts but double of 4C shows clubs? I doubt it very much.

The label matters very much in terms of disclosure.

What do you think the difference is between negative doubles and card-showing doubles? What does ACBL think is the difference?

Carl

[john kruiniger]

Post by ***@verizon.net
So do you believe that "negative doubles through 3S" means double of 3S suggests hearts but double of 4C shows clubs? I doubt it very much.

That's precisely what I think it means. Well not double of 4C 'showing
clubs' necessarily, but at least double of 4C expressing a desire to
defend 4CX. I.e. the natural meaning of the double.

JK

[[e-mail]]

Post by john kruiniger

Post by ***@verizon.net
So do you believe that "negative doubles through 3S" means double of 3S suggests hearts but double of 4C shows clubs? I doubt it very much.

That's precisely what I think it means. Well not double of 4C 'showing
clubs' necessarily, but at least double of 4C expressing a desire to
defend 4CX. I.e. the natural meaning of the double.
JK

What do you call over 4C if you have 11 hcp but only 2 clubs?

Does no one think that opponents are entitled to know which doubles show shape and which do not?

Carl

[john kruiniger]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by john kruiniger
That's precisely what I think it means. Well not double of 4C 'showing
clubs' necessarily, but at least double of 4C expressing a desire to
defend 4CX. I.e. the natural meaning of the double.
JK

What do you call over 4C if you have 11 hcp but only 2 clubs?

Well I try to bid a suit if I've got one; but that's not really the
point.

I guess the crux is what partner is going to do if I X 4C.

If partner is most likely to leave it in, then clearly he understands
it as a 'penalty double' and it requires no alert or explanation on the
convention card.

If partner understands the X as some sort of instruction to do bid
something else, then this is opposite (or 'negative') to the natural
meaning of X, and thus requires explanation.

Even if the understanding were that opener should leave the double in if
he [opener] has length in clubs, otherwise bid something, then that
too requires explanation.

JK

[dake50]

how puckishly anal can anyone get? DEFINE this u say. General character, I say.