Talk:Negative double

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good work on improving the article - any chance of giving references for the polls? I mean can you cite the artcle rather than just give a mention of it at the bottom? Cambion 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I fleshed out the poll references: to the magazine itself for BWS84 and to the BW's web site for BWS2001. Xlmvp 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

FT2, your efforts to expand the article are highly appreciated; however, would you please take care to clean it up and remove duplicate information; in particular, see WP:LEAD—now we have an overlong introduction and table of contents in the midst of the text? Duja^► 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I see that it wasn't entirely your fault, and that it was in similar shape before. Nevertheless, my plea stands. Duja^► 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of July 5 2010 edit[edit]

The material that was added on July 5 is (in decreasing order of import) wrong, careless, poorly written and indulges in POV. No wonder the editor decided to remain anonymous. It is wrong: among other problems, it implies that in the sequence 1m-(1H)-Dbl, the double promises 4 spades. Of course it is often played this way, but many play the double to show 5 spades and bid 1S with 4. It is careless: the tables contain extraneous braces and inconsistent capitalization. It is poorly written: the editor cannot decide whether a sentence's subject is singular or plural. It contains POV: the reader has no interest in the editor's attitude toward "modern bid at any cost bidding." Enough. I think I can successfully defend my removal of the edits. TurnerHodges (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding article![edit]

Thanks. One example of what impressed me was the history, including the derivation of the term. All of the information I've seen on the web about what "negative" means is vague and confusing and, it turns out, incorrect. Mark.camp (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]