[mikestar13]

I assumed a partner who is better than BBO average, but not a regular partner with whom I've discussed a lot of sequences. 1♥ feels safer than XX, if partner is good, it's not so much that he might take it as business (not logically possible on this auction, assuming opponent are merely poor to average, not insane), but that he might infer that I am willing to hear him bid clubs, where odds are he is long but not long enough to play opposite a stiff.

In a regular partnership I would hope we had an agreement on sos redoubles: a good one is that it promises two places to play--partner chooses between the two cheapest (the majors, in this case), and redoubler corrects if needed. With that agreement I know he won't bid 2♣ without six decent ones, which will make clubs playable.

[Phil]

Its clear to run. I don't think I've ever had this discussion, but what about:

1. 1♥ is TWO places to play, including short hearts - since we will xx when it comes back.
2. xx shows more of a balanced hand. (or maybe it can be the blacks if you don't like (1).

[jdeegan]

mikestar13, on 2014-November-26, 15:56, said:

I assumed a partner who is better than BBO average, but not a regular partner with whom I've discussed a lot of sequences. 1♥ feels safer than XX, if partner is good, it's not so much that he might take it as business (not logically possible on this auction, assuming opponent are merely poor to average, not insane), but that he might infer that I am willing to hear him bid clubs, where odds are he is long but not long enough to play opposite a stiff.

In a regular partnership I would hope we had an agreement on sos redoubles: a good one is that it promises two places to play--partner chooses between the two cheapest (the majors, in this case), and redoubler corrects if needed. With that agreement I know he won't bid 2♣ without six decent ones, which will make clubs playable.

Absolutely correct analysis! My only quibble is that, imo, you shouldn't really need a partnership agreement for an auction that comes up, maybe once a year, if that. Pure bridge logic says that a redouble is SOS. Not redoubling on this hand is simply a commonsense measure to avoid a potential blood bath in 2♣ doubled.

[mikestar13]

jdeegan, on 2014-November-27, 19:35, said:

Absolutely correct analysis! My only quibble is that, imo, you shouldn't really need a partnership agreement for an auction that comes up, maybe once a year, if that. Pure bridge logic says that a redouble is SOS. Not redoubling on this hand is simply a commonsense measure to avoid a potential blood bath in 2♣ doubled.

Thanks. I would trust anyone good to recognize the redouble, it's the I only promise two suits aspect I suggest as one of the many possible meta-agreements that are worthwhile, Phil's might be another. It is worth taking 20 seconds somewhere along the line to nail this down when you at the stage of agreeing on low-frequency sequences. I really should have specified long-time partnership, like the gentleman I played Precision with in the 80's for about six years.

[jdeegan]

mikestar13, on 2014-November-27, 23:17, said:

Thanks. I would trust anyone good to recognize the redouble, it's the I only promise two suits aspect I suggest as one of the many possible meta-agreements that are worthwhile, Phil's might be another. It is worth taking 20 seconds somewhere along the line to nail this down when you at the stage of agreeing on low-frequency sequences. I really should have specified long-time partnership, like the gentleman I played Precision with in the 80's for about six years.

Imo, this is not a conversation one can profitably have in advance. Partner has to be good enough to figure it out based on his/her hand. Redouble implies a tolerance to play in all unbid suits or ♦ or else a way to escape if partner bids the wrong suit. 1♥ is 99+% a ♥ 4-bagger and a hand not suitable for a redouble.

The only good thing about this dial-a-suit goat rodeo (from my point of view) is we know roughly what the opponents have. Sometimes, the outcome of these oddball auctions is deterministic. Sometimes, it depends on luck. Sometimes, it depends on who loses their nerve first.