[CSGibson]

shyams, on Feb 26 2010, 05:29 AM, said:

Some redoubles that I have seen (perpetrated by partner or by opps) have tended to be "spite redoubles". The redoubler is peeved with his partner's bids; and redoubles just to teach him/her a lesson.

I'm putting "spite redoubles" on our convention card.

[cherdanno]

I think doubt-showing XX works well when you have clearly defined what it means. So when opponents are clearly doubling for the lead of a specific suit, then XX says
- I have worries about that suit, but
- I also have extras, so if you have it stopped we may make overtricks, and
- we may also make whatever we may be running to.

[kgr]

cherdanno, on Feb 26 2010, 06:15 PM, said:

I think doubt-showing XX works well when you have clearly defined what it means.

Thinking about it: Is this useful. We already have the same meaning in a slow pass?
...Or we can play reverse-slow-pass, that will give less TD Calls.

[OleBerg]

CSGibson, on Feb 26 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

shyams, on Feb 26 2010, 05:29 AM, said:

Some redoubles that I have seen (perpetrated by partner or by opps) have tended to be "spite redoubles". The redoubler is peeved with his partner's bids; and redoubles just to teach him/her a lesson.

I'm putting "spite redoubles" on our convention card.

A much better convention is the "Spite NT":

When partner commits an atrocity (whose partner doesn't?), in one of the following hands, you bid NT whenever you have the something resembling the correct strength, and any distribution.

Much more fun. Only drawback is that the "Spite" might wear out.

[karlson]

gnasher, on Feb 26 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

karlson, on Feb 25 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

I think that the doubt showing redoubles actually do work quite well, but obviously you need some understanding of what they imply.

Can you tell us about a hand where you gained by playing doubt-showing redoubles?

Heh, I missed this, sorry.

I can only remember one recent hand where where I got doubled in 3n, and even that I don't remember perfectly. Maybe I don't play enough bridge. Anyway, the bidding was something like 1d-(1h)-x-2c-2h-2s-3c-3n-(x). I had a terrible hand for a GF (some rotten 12 count) but with a good club fit, and I was happy to be able to redouble instead of running unilaterally in case partner had a lot extra.

On the other hand, I have never had an accident or disaster with it (or not been able to play 3nxx when I wanted to), so I think the only thing that's safe to conclude, like with most things, is a lack of datapoints.

[FrancesHinden]

I play redouble as to play in 3NTxx and I have never felt the lack of a "doubt-showing" redouble.

I have played in 3NTxx probably more often than any other individual redoubled contract (although redoubled slams in general are more common).

[kgr]

This was the other hand

---

[cloa513]

How come you didn't respond to the 1♦ with 1♠, you do have a suit of 4♠?

[dcohio]

cloa513, on Feb 27 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

How come you didn't respond to the 1♦ with 1♠, you do have a suit of 4♠?

hard to respond to your own opening.