[jdonn]

JTxx QJx J8x Axx, not vul vs. vul, matchpoints, partner deals

1♥ p 2♥ p
p DBL RDBL 3♦
p p ?

1) Did the redouble create a force for your side?
2) In any case, what do you do now?

*EDIT - diamond 8 added

[luis]

3♥ I guess since nor you or your pd have 4 diamonds.
I think I wouldn't redouble, I prefer to be 4432 with 4 cards in 2 side suits to redouble, that makes finding a penalty more likely.

Luis

[pclayton]

Redouble looks pretty hungry to me. 4333's want to defend, but this is a pile of quacks. Why not wait and see if they bid 2♠ (which I would hit). My ♥QJ don't look good for defense either.

I don't think a redouble in this context creates a force on the partnership; it only shows a maximum 2♥ (which I would argue you don't have). Pard is allowed to act in front of you with an appropriate hand with short diamonds that doesn't want to defend 3♦.

Even if we had the agreement that redouble creates a force, I think I'd break discipline and pass if the event meant anything.

[cherdano]

I pass if I am allowed to.

[P_Marlowe]

1) No, certainly not, the redbl was a cheap
way to say, I have max. values, but
depending n your opening style the partnership
may not even hold the bal. of power
2) Pass, following the Law

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joshs]

I had the diamond 8 also.

[han]

I would also pass now. I agree with Luis that a 4432 shape is much more attractive to redouble with. Not only are you more likely able to double them, you also have a better hand in case partner bids again.

[FrancesHinden]

1. No (rarely for this sort of auction)
2. Pass

I also wouldn't have redoubled.

[Salokin]

jdonn, on Apr 14 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

1) Did the redouble create a force for your side?

No i'm at least limited and just showing MAX

Quote

2) In any case, what do you do now?

Pass, i have told my story



Salokin

[mikeh]

The redouble should not logically establish a force: the partnership has settled at the 2-level already. The redouble merely announces a flexible maximum and asks partner to bid accordingly.

I would pass now, but respect those who double: double may be the best matchpoint bid.

There is a good chance the opps are on a 5-3 fit, and, if so, the LOTT suggests that there are only 16 total tricks available. If the field is +110, we need 200 to protect our score. Thus if we estimate that at least half the field will pass out 2♥ (our opps are known to be aggressive, for example) the mp odds favour double: a call that would be insane at imps.

[whereagles]

Pard probably has something like a 3-5-2-3, in which case 3♥ requires something like 13-14 working points on pard. Since that is unlikely, I'm not going to bid 3♥. I'll pass at imps, but double at matchpoints.

[joshs]

For what its worth,

a. Josh and I sat down and instead of playing our normal system, we were playing 2/1, so I wasn't quite sure what our 1M-2M range was (if its 8-10 my hand isn't worth a xx, if its 7-10 its close).

b. I strongly prefer pass and then x on this hand type, and xx (setting up a force!) on hands that can make a penalty x of 1 or 2 suits, but are short in some other suit. For instance, 4315 shape and a max would be an ideal xx. But I was uncertain what my agreements were with Josh here.

c. I doubt we weren't getting any mps, for 3D undoubled making, and they are red, so there is an upside to xing....

[jdonn]

joshs, on Apr 17 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

For what its worth,

a. Josh and I sat down and instead of playing our normal system, we were playing 2/1, so I wasn't quite sure what our 1M-2M range was (if its 8-10 my hand isn't worth a xx, if its 7-10 its close).

b. I strongly prefer pass and then x on this hand type, and xx (setting up a force!) on hands that can make a penalty x of 1 or 2 suits, but are short in some other suit. For instance, 4315 shape and a max would be an ideal xx. But I was uncertain what my agreements were with Josh here.

c. I doubt we weren't getting any mps, for 3D undoubled making, and they are red, so there is an upside to xing....

I'll throw in the mea culpa too, I misdefended and let it make. Though declarer had badly misplayed and was always cold to begin with (declarer essentially didn't hook you for the diamond jack, despite the fact that you had doubled 3♦ and both our bids and the cards already played marked me with the ace.) I am convinced that without detailed agreements, redouble should not create a force on our side. There is no reason that it has to be our hand even if responder has a redouble. I understand that this creates problems, for example opener has a good hand and doesn't want to let them play undoubled, but doesn't want to bid in case responder is doubling. I guess you can't have everything. I guess I could believe redouble creates a force if your partnership doesn't open light, but that could really lead to disasters.

[joshs]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

joshs, on Apr 17 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

For what its worth,

a. Josh and I sat down and instead of playing our normal system, we were playing 2/1, so I wasn't quite sure what our 1M-2M range was (if its 8-10 my hand isn't worth a xx, if its 7-10 its close).

b. I strongly prefer pass and then x on this hand type, and xx (setting up a force!) on hands that can make a penalty x of 1 or 2 suits, but are short in some other suit. For instance, 4315 shape and a max would be an ideal xx. But I was uncertain what my agreements were with Josh here.

c. I doubt we weren't getting any mps, for 3D undoubled making, and they are red, so there is an upside to xing....

I'll throw in the mea culpa too, I misdefended and let it make. Though declarer had badly misplayed and was always cold to begin with (declarer essentially didn't hook you for the diamond jack, despite the fact that you had doubled 3♦ and both our bids and the cards already played marked me with the ace.) I am convinced that without detailed agreements, redouble should not create a force on our side. There is no reason that it has to be our hand even if responder has a redouble. I understand that this creates problems, for example opener has a good hand and doesn't want to let them play undoubled, but doesn't want to bid in case responder is doubling. I guess you can't have everything. I guess I could believe redouble creates a force if your partnership doesn't open light, but that could really lead to disasters.

It just depends on what hand types you are xxing with. If I held:
KJTx Axx x JTxxx

I would want to:
a. make a penalty x of 2S or 3C
b. sit for a penalty x of 3D
c. compete to 3H over 3D

I just think its inappropriate to xx both with this hand and with:
KJTx Axx xxx JTx

Its far more effective to xx with the first hand (so partner gets a crack at 3D if he wants it) and pass then x with the second.

[kfgauss]

I agree with the general principle that hands that can double specific suits should xx immediately, and random flattish hands should pass then x, but it seems inappropriate here: with your flat hand, you're not certain you want to double them or compete. In such situations (ie when your strength is limited?), it seems best to swap the two. I guess which is better depends on how aggressive you are, and you do lose something doing it this way certainly. If you like the defensive prospects of the 2nd hand enough, you can xx and then x if they bid one of your suits (suggesting at least 1 more diamond than you have unfortunately).

Note that swapping the two is "natural," for what it's worth.

Andy

[joshs]

kfgauss, on Apr 17 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

I agree with the general principle that hands that can double specific suits should xx immediately, and random flattish hands should pass then x, but it seems inappropriate here: with your flat hand, you're not certain you want to double them or compete. In such situations (ie when your strength is limited?), it seems best to swap the two. I guess which is better depends on how aggressive you are, and you do lose something doing it this way certainly. If you like the defensive prospects of the 2nd hand enough, you can xx and then x if they bid one of your suits (suggesting at least 1 more diamond than you have unfortunately).

Note that swapping the two is "natural," for what it's worth.

Andy

If you swap the 2, and you have KJTx Axx x JTxxx
and the auction goes:

1H-P-2H-P
P-x-P-3C
P-3D-?

Or
1H-P-2H-P
P-x-P-2N
P-3D-?

[kfgauss]

joshs, on Apr 17 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

If you swap the 2, and you have KJTx Axx x JTxxx
and the auction goes:

1H-P-2H-P
P-x-P-3C
P-3D-?

Or
1H-P-2H-P
P-x-P-2N
P-3D-?

I admit swapping the two gives you issues on KJTx Axx x JTxxx, in that you're just no longer allowed to double 3D. I'm not so horrified by this, and would just bid 3H in your auctions.

My point is that I think it's worse to commit to doubling or competing on the flat hand KJTx Axx xxx JTx, and being able to redouble and then pass is a bigger gain on this hand than the lack of doubling 3D on the previous hand.

I of course don't really know which is more valuable, but this is my current feeling.

Andy

[edit: added "3D" to a sentence from which it had mysteriously disappeared]

[joshs]

Fair enough, at least at IMPS. Maybe the methods should be different at MPs, where passing them out in 3m when we have 22 HCP doesn't usually score very well?

[kfgauss]

I'm not sure who your "always has 13 HCP" partner is but yes, of course this method is clearer at imps. I intended it for both, but who knows.

Andy

[joshs]

kfgauss, on Apr 17 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

I'm not sure who your "always has 13 HCP" partner is but yes, of course this method is clearer at imps. I intended it for both, but who knows.

Andy

I have very "average" partners.