Announcing Negative Doubles: BB4G (2024)

JeremyChild · July 4

We play that after an overcall, if there is exactly one unbid major, then a double guarantees exactly 4 cards in that unbid major (and nothing about other suits).

According to BB4G, I should announce:
1D - (1H) - X as Spades
1C - (1S) - X as Hearts
but not:
1H - (2C) - X, or
1S - (2D) - X
As they only guarantee 4, not 5.

I'm either misreading the last bullet point in BB4G1, or nobody is doing this.

Robin_BarkerTD · July 4

One member of the Regulation Committee is doing this.

It is difficult to write a regulation which distinguishes

'take-out but always has 4 cards in the unbid major' (which is not to be alerted/announced), from
'shows 4 cards in the unbid major, but no the other features of a take-out double' (which is announced, as a proxy),

So the L&EC more-or-less gave up. They didn't mind if no body announced 'spades' or 'hearts' in your first sequences.

JeremyChild · July 4

@Robin_BarkerTD said:
One member of the Regulation Committee is doing this.

It is difficult to write a regulation which distinguishes

'take-out but always has 4 cards in the unbid major' (which is not to be alerted/announced), from

'shows 4 cards in the unbid major, but no the other features of a take-out double' (which is announced, as a proxy),

So the L&EC more-or-less gave up. They didn't mind if no body announced 'spades' or 'hearts' in your first sequences.

Thanks, Robin.

What is the regulation aiming at? I presume there are some players using a system that this would cover.

gordonrainsford · July 5

@JeremyChild said:
We play that after an overcall, if there is exactly one unbid major, then a double guarantees exactly 4 cards in that unbid major (and nothing about other suits).

According to BB4G, I should announce:
1D - (1H) - X as Spades
1C - (1S) - X as Hearts
but not:
1H - (2C) - X, or
1S - (2D) - X
As they only guarantee 4, not 5.

I'm either misreading the last bullet point in BB4G1, or nobody is doing this.

I do this. My partner (National TD) was surprised when I first did.

Robin_BarkerTD · July 5

The proxy regulation for doubles is aimed to cover a set of a agreement where pairs who play transfer responses to a opening bid, also play transfer responses in competition, starting with the lowest available call (but keeping Pass to show nothing).
ion
So 1C (1H) X = spades, 1S = "transfer to NT", 1NT = clubs, 2C = diamonds. The negative/take-out doubles would perhaps be bidding 1S. X/1NT/2C would be announced as "spades", "clubs", "diamonds".

Robin_BarkerTD · July 5

@Robin_BarkerTD said:
One member of the Regulation Committee is doing this.

Make that Gordon and at least one other member of the Regulation Committee is doing this

JeremyChild · July 5

Thanks, Robin

davidcollier · July 5

I admit I don't announce these even though I know what the regulation says. No-one seems to bother with it and I don't want to come across as a pedant.

It's definitely impossible to write a general regulation that does the right thing. For example, I like to play 1C (1D) X as showing exactly 4 spades (so 1S promises 5 but 1H can be 4). That's very unusual and certainly needs some kind of alert or announcement. But the exact same agreement over a 1H overcall is totally normal (even taught to beginners) and is widely regarded as being a variety of negative double, not a transfer/proxy.

My opinion is that 4B2 ought to contain an explicit exception for 1m (1H) X and 1m (1S) X, when played with their usual "negative double" meanings.

gordonrainsford · July 5

What is the downside of announcing them?

JeremyChild · July 5

@gordonrainsford said:
What is the downside of announcing them?

Confusion
Unnecessary complication
Unenforcability
Allegations of cheating (you announced that earlier but not this time...)
...

Announcing Negative Doubles: BB4G (2024)

Comments