[glen]

In a tourney today, the bidding went Pass-Pass-1♦-Double-Redouble with this hand:

Scoring: IMP

---

After the hand was over, I called the TD to sort out the meaning of redouble.

TD said "actually - counting dummy points (with a void) and 4 of the suit - it is standard"

Is this a standard or close to standard redouble as stated by the TD?

Later, the redoubler, an advanced player, noted the meaing of redouble was "we are making 1♦". This seems a fairly natural meaning, albeit not the traditional 10+ points.

[FrancesHinden]

Who knows what 'standard' is?

A common method is to play it as showing 10 (or 9) + HCP and usually denying a fit for partner. I play this method, and I always the alert the redouble as I don't think it's "natural".

It's also possible to play redouble as meaning "I think we are making 1D", which I've certainly seen a few times before, although usually from weaker players.

[bid_em_up]

I play it as 10+ with or without fit. And personally, I would never consider this hand to be worth an XX even though I would certainly expect 1♦ to be making, I would never expect to be allowed to actually play it there and I would want to bid 1♠ immediately for a variety of reasons.

On the other side, opps may compete to 3H (or even 4H) which is cold, only to hear partner double due to my intitial XX. An XX (imo) is better suited for a hand that is either short in openers suit and you are prepared to double whatever they bid, or a (semi) balanced 10+ count where you can at least tolerate the double.

I dont agree with the TD. I tend to agree with Frances. Anyone who thinks the XX means "we are making 1♦ xx'd" will usually fall into the category of a weaker player. As such, you just have to shrug your shoulders and move on.

[barmar]

Practically no one plays a redouble of a takeout double as natural. What would be the point, since the opponents are virtually always going to take it out? This is why the redouble is used to show a good hand, usually with interest in defending and penalizing the opponents (which is why it tends to deny a fit). With a good hand and a fit, conventions like Jordan 2NT tend to be used -- this preempts advancer out of being able to respond to the double, so the doubler doesn't know if he has a fit with his partner.

[Flame]

ofcourse its not std, and a this director should take some bridge lessons if he wants to be a better director. Yet in general weak players have the right to think that something else is the std and if you want to protect yourself you must ask.

[barmar]

The problem with playing against beginners is that they don't know what their bids mean. Luckily, their mistakes usually hurt themselves more than the opponents, but occasionally you do get fixed.

In a ftf club this week, I encountered two beginner partnerships. The first one responded to his partner's opening 1♠ bid with 2♠ holding a decent 11 HCP and 4-card support. I overcalled 3♦, opener competed with 3♠ (she had 6 ♠ and a void in my suit), and he passed! They made an overtrick, but lost the board because the field was in 4♠ taking the same 10 tricks.

The other beginner opened a minor and rebid 1NT holding 20 HCP. Luckily for her, her partner rebid his 5-card suit, giving her the chance to jump to 3NT. She had absolutely no idea that the way to show this hand is to rebid 2NT. Luckily for us I resisted the urge to double this impossible auction.

These types of players don't really know their system, so it's pretty much a waste of time asking them to explain their partners' bids. They're guessing what to bid, and they're guessing what their partners' bids mean. So it's not really unfair that the opponents have to guess, too. But I think we got good scores on 4-5 of the 6 boards we played against these two pairs (even when they stumble into the right contract, they don't play it well).

[glen]

The most common trouble action by weaker players is the off-shape point-based “takeout” double. Recently on the auction of 1♦-Pass-1♥-?, a player doubled on:

Scoring: MP

---

Winning the contract, and assuming a takeout double, I misplayed the hand and called the TD to sort out the meaning of the double. This TD handled it correctly (imo). First, since this was clearly a weaker player there was no point in imposing damages, which might just deter them from playing again. Instead the TD warned them to alert the double if they will be making this on points, and not on shape. This is a good thing: now the player knows that the double as played by most is usually based on shape, and not just points, and may decide to use this information.

In this redouble case, I’d hoped the TD would address the situation in the same way. First find out what the redouble is (the TD was quite reluctant to do this, and it took several promptings from me for the TD to even ask the opponents what the meaning was). Once the TD determined the meaning, the TD would note that most play the redouble as showing points, and suggest they alert the redouble if they continue to play it as merely showing a fit. There would be no damages assigned.

As noted above, if I wanted to protect myself I needed to ask before assuming the redouble was based on values (and sorry if I click on your doubles and redoubles in obvious situations!). This is reasonable and fair given the mixture of skill levels we see in tourneys.

TDs need to know how bridge is played, and, using this knowledge, help educate the players as appropriate. I opened this thread since, imo, this TD did not handle this well.

[zasanya]

officeglen, on Aug 10 2006, 07:04 AM, said:

TDs need to know how bridge is played, and, using this knowledge, help educate the players as appropriate.  I opened this thread since, imo, this TD did not handle this well.

Very interesting but I cannot agree.TD has the important job of ensuring that the game is being played according to the rules "in letter and in spirit."This is a tedious enough job .So why burden him with the additional responsibilty of coaching?

[glen]

zasanya, on Aug 10 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

Very interesting but I cannot agree.TD has the important job of ensuring that the game is being played according to the rules "in letter and in spirit."This is a tedious enough job .So why burden him with the additional responsibilty of coaching?

"Coaching" (or informing the players of) the rules is part of the job they are burdened with. The good news is the better they do it, the less problems they have later with the same players.

[the hog]

Well this is hardly the hand I would expect for a xx. However it is quite possible you were playing a beginner whose reasoning simply is "We can make 1Dxx". The TD was, of course, quite wrong in his/her comment and should have explained what a xx normally shows.

[jillybean]

officeglen, on Aug 10 2006, 05:04 AM, said:

Instead the TD warned them to alert the double if they will be making this on points, and not on shape. 

This is of course only correct if it is the agreement of the pair rather than just a whim, bad bid, misclick of one partner.

[barmar]

jillybean2, on Aug 11 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

officeglen, on Aug 10 2006, 05:04 AM, said:

Instead the TD warned them to alert the double if they will be making this on points, and not on shape. 

This is of course only correct if it is the agreement of the pair rather than just a whim, bad bid, misclick of one partner.

Isn't that what the original post said?

Quote

Later, the redoubler, an advanced player, noted the meaing of redouble was "we are making 1♦".

I'd interpret "meaning" to mean that it's an agreed meaning.

[pigpenz]

so how many points were in this deck that your partner doubled , right hand opp redoubled and you misplayed the hand?

[glen]

pigpenz, on Aug 11 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

so how many points were in this deck that your partner doubled , right hand opp redoubled and you misplayed the hand?

There were two hands, described in separate posts - both hands do not involve partner doubling, and only one hand involves a redouble.

[neilkaz]

Flame, on Aug 10 2006, 06:05 AM, said:

ofcourse its not std, and a this director should take some bridge lessons if he wants to be a better director. Yet in general weak players have the right to think that something else is the std and if you want to protect yourself you must ask.

We agree...and I note that I have at least 30 year's worth of bridge books stating that you need 10 HCP to redouble. Some say it implies no fit, and some might stretch to 9 HCP, but no where does it take distribution into account.

I wouldn't penalize a weak opp here either, but the director should not be giving incorrect explanations as to what is "standard".

.. neilkaz ..