[jillybean]

I started out playing negative doubles through 2S and this has expanded over the years/partnerships.

I'm interest to know, in 2025, what level will you be playing negative doubles?

[awm]

Our card says 4♥ but in general it’s sort of a sliding scale where the higher doubles are less specific about shape until they become just “values.”

[akwoo]

awm, on 2025-January-04, 15:54, said:

Our card says 4♥ but in general it’s sort of a sliding scale where the higher doubles are less specific about shape until they become just “values.”

My card says 7♥ but my agreement is roughly the same.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-January-04, 17:10, said:

My card says 7♥ but my agreement is roughly the same.

Negative X Thru 7♥

I was coming back to ask Adam what is marked on his ACBL CC

[mike777]

 akwoo, on 2025-January-04, 17:10, said:

My card says 7♥ but my agreement is roughly the same.

Agree

[awm]

Here’s the reason my card says 4♥:

If the auction starts 1♣~4♥-X, I would virtually always bid 4♠ by opener holding a weak notrump with four spades. So the double is primarily trying to find a fit in spades. Defending is possible of course (and it would not be unusual to pass the double on a balanced hand lacking four spades)).

While 1♣-4♠-X is not “penalty” so much as “cards”, I would normally pass this double with any weak notrump regardless of whether I held four hearts or not. With extra shape I can bid on of course, but I would often bid 4nt “two places to play” rather than just bid 5♥ on four. So this double feels different to me in that the implication of four in the other major is much less and the frequency of opener passing is much higher.

[jillybean]

Thanks, Adam.

For those who bid other, what do you have on your CC?

[mikeh]

In my main partnership, our CC somewhat tongue in cheek says negative and responsive through 7S. It’s not yet come up, lol. But the point is that all of our doubles, in those circumstances, are card showing, rather than pure penalty. That’s why I upticked both of awm’s posts.

[pescetom]

I fully agree with awm about the two doubles.

This is also one of the relatively few times I envy the ACBL card format. Ours (like the WBF) has an entire column for this (nestling between Opening and Description), which I find confusing, overkill and a waste of space (especially when viewed in the phone app).

As an aside, I don't remember an actual dispute about such a double, with or without the card.

[jdiana]

pescetom, on 2025-January-05, 10:19, said:

I fully agree with awm about the two doubles.

This is also one of the relatively few times I envy the ACBL card format. Ours has an entire column for this (nestling between Opening and Description) with a tick box for each level, which I find confusing, overkill and a waste of space (especially when viewed in the phone app).

That's interesting. Have you seen this discussion? https://bridgewinner...cards-required/

Can you provide a link to your convention card format? Just curious about what it looks like.

[pescetom]

jdiana, on 2025-January-05, 10:34, said:

That's interesting. Have you seen this discussion? https://bridgewinner...cards-required/

I hadn't, thanks. Will go through it this evening.


Here is an example of FIGB convention card and system notes (in this case a simple standard system for an Individual competition). The "negative doubles thru" equivalent is the column "Sputnik fino a" on the second page where openings and developments are described.

[jillybean]

It looks like a detailed card. Unfortunately I can't read it, and can't find reference to Sputnik.
Sputnik doubles were of course popularized by Alvin Roth and Tobias Stone back in 1957 when negative doubles were indeed,'out of this world'.

mikeh, on 2025-January-05, 09:21, said:

In my main partnership, our CC somewhat tongue in cheek says negative and responsive through 7S. It’s not yet come up, lol. But the point is that all of our doubles, in those circumstances, are card showing, rather than pure penalty. That’s why I upticked both of awm’s posts.

Do you get many comments ?

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-January-05, 12:56, said:

It looks like a detailed card. Unfortunately I can't read it, and can't find reference to Sputnik.
Sputnik doubles were of course popularized by Alvin Roth and Tobias Stone back in 1957 when negative doubles were indeed,'out of this world'.


Do you get many comments ?

The Roth-Stone double was far from what is now thought of as negative. It was "too much to pass, but not meeting the high R-S standard for a free bid."

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-January-05, 12:56, said:

It looks like a detailed card. Unfortunately I can't read it, and can't find reference to Sputnik.
Sputnik doubles were of course popularized by Alvin Roth and Tobias Stone back in 1957 when negative doubles were indeed,'out of this world'.

To read it you need to understand Italian Although it does privilege suit symbols which help. The Sputnik reference is written vertically descending on second page in the fifth column heading. The term Sputnik was very popular in Italy last century although I haven't heard it recently.

I do quite like the format of the FIGB card. It retains most of the detail of the WBF card but is more immediate, while maintaining more flexibility than ACBL or EBU. As mentioned, I would happily get rid of the "sputnik finora" (Negative thru) column and also the "artificiale" (Artificial) column come to that (one could always write "Art" in the column for minimum number of cards). The first page is rarely full and the second always, it might be better to move the section "DICHIARAZIONI PER LO SLAM" (slam bidding agreements).

But ultimately I am pragmatic and it is not about formats. I will smile approvingly at a page handwritten and in free format (but precise) just before the tournament. I cannot say in public what I think about pairs who turn up to a regional teams tournament with no card, but thousands of hours of partnership experience and discussion.