[pigpenz]

---

had this hand come up in club game
I bid 3♥ we took ten tricks
dont have values for free bid
didnt really like a negative double though I am sure GIB would make one

what are most peoples thoughts on this type of hand

[JLOGIC]

I would make a negative double for better or for worse.

[mikeh]

classic negative double.

We double, intending to bid 2♠ should partner bid 2♥, thus showing long spades and not enough to bid directly. Imperfect, but then most competitive bidding is imperfect.

[ArtK78]

It certainly seems normal to make a negative double followed by a spade bid.

This, to me, is a great negative free bid of 2♠ if you play negative free bids. A recent thread seemed to indicate that a negative free bid would be stronger than this, but this is what I think a negative free bid should look like.

[SteveMoe]

Negative double - when followed by freely bidding the OM we imply a tolerance for partner's suit. Pass-then-new-suit or WJS are available with no tolerance. (With a fit, I'd raise first and worry about ♠ later).

[pigpenz]

so if we make the negative double if partner bids 3♣
are we worth a 3♠ call then

[PhilKing]

pigpenz, on 2012-December-22, 15:52, said:

so if we make the negative double if partner bids 3♣
are we worth a 3♠ call then

Not really - to have our bid, we arguably need AKT9xx. But when the auction does not go perfectly, you have to follow through and bid 3♠ anyway, for better or worse.

[ggwhiz]

I've had a lot of good luck passing, although with similar hands but not such good trumps.

With my 3-card length in their suit partner will often re-open with double and I can jump to 3♠ or afford to bid that if lho raises, passed back to me. When it goes float, pard has a few diamonds too or a real worm. We lose our share but smallish losses at imps.

My partner will actually expect me to have a hand of this flavour on these auctions and it all stems from Mike Lawrence who calls 3 petunias in their suit the death holding.

[Codo]

I play NFB for a reason. It must be better to bid 2 ♠ with such a hand instead of X and 3 ♠....
Of course playing standard, X and 3 in a major must be better.
Maybe X and 3 ♥ should show a hand like this? Nonforcing spades with tolerance for hearts?

[rmnka447]

This is a classic negative double hand.

Negative doubles are normally used to show a hand with length in the unbid suits especially 4 cards in an unbid major, lack of much fit with partner's suit and inability to penalize the opponents.

However, a direct bid of 2 ♠ isn't possible with the hand you've cited. That would 5+ ♠s and presumably opening/game forcing values. So the normal practice has been to make a negative double and then bid your suit when you rebid. By doing so, you alert your partner that your hand wasn't good enough to make the direct free bid in the suit.

Had your hand been a bit weaker you could consider passing initially and then trying to back in with your suit later. That would be a hand say with something like ♠ KJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ Qxx ♣ xx.

One earlier poster noted that they had had good success playing negative free bids with the hand you quoted. So you would bid a direct 2 ♠ with the hand cited. The downside to that style of bidding is that with a good hand say ♠ AKQxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ Axxx, you have to make a negative double and then bid your suit to show the strength of the hand. It's OK if the opponents don't compete too aggressively. But if they immediately raise to say 4 ♦, you will have a very difficult rebid.

Both approaches have their plusses and minuses. Both are playable. So you have to decide which you prefer. The important thing is for you and your partner agree about the meaning of your bids.