[rogerclee]

655321, on Mar 13 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

foo, on Mar 13 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Look what happens.  If Richard's hand had been =2353 with full opening values, xx in ♠'s, and Hhhxx in ♦'s, 2DXX would be a much scarier contract for NS to contemplate defending.

If you don't believe this, go do some simulations.

Hmm.

Well, perhaps it is just me, but if I have just passed partner's reopening double, and am expecting to beat them by several tricks, scared is not the word I would use to describe my feelings at the prospect of defending the same contract redoubled, instead of just doubled.

This agreement is an awesome way to bring back -1600 to your teammates.

[foo]

rogerclee, on Mar 13 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

655321, on Mar 13 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

foo, on Mar 13 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Look what happens.  If Richard's hand had been =2353 with full opening values, xx in ♠'s, and Hhhxx in ♦'s, 2DXX would be a much scarier contract for NS to contemplate defending.

If you don't believe this, go do some simulations.

Hmm.

Well, perhaps it is just me, but if I have just passed partner's reopening double, and am expecting to beat them by several tricks, scared is not the word I would use to describe my feelings at the prospect of defending the same contract redoubled, instead of just doubled.

This agreement is an awesome way to bring back -1600 to your teammates.

The best way to avoid bringing back bad results to teammates is to not make bad overcalls in the first place.

Anything and everything beyond that is a minor effect in comparison.

...and anyone who is always happy when the opponents XX is not playing realistic Bridge. Decent systemic XX rules exist for the exact reason of taking advantage of the situation when your penalty X or pass may not have been the best idea.