[Free]

kfay, on May 27 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Free, on May 27 2010, 06:18 AM, said:

If you want to beat this, you might as well Dbl instead of pass.  I think the ♦A lead will probably beat it.

But I'm more inclined to bid 5♥ as it's the safest choice.

I was going to double until I realized I wasn't on lead. Then I decided to pass.

Then thinking about it I decided we were pretty good to make 5♥ so I decided pass was wrong.

Woops we're not on lead! Still 5♥ for me

[mikeh]

gnasher, on May 27 2010, 02:50 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 27 2010, 03:56 AM, said:

But after a preempt, opener will never have a pass and pull hand. He can't logically pass then override partner's decision to double, intending it as a slam move opposite a partner who has never expressed any interest in slam.

I don't think that's particularly relevant. The primary purpose of a forcing pass is to help us decide whether to bid a game that we hope to make, or to take a penalty that we know is available. Being able to use pass-and-pull to show a slam try is no more than a useful sideeffect.

The question here is, do we want to be able to say "I don't know what to do, but I know we should do something", or to say "I don't know what to do; maybe we should do nothing."

Regardless, I do agree that this isn't the right hand for redouble - it should show a much more balanced hand, so that partner can sensiby evaluate any side honours or length.

as opener, we will (I think) have one of 3 hands:

top of the range in terms of offence: we bid over the redouble if the opps compete

top of the range in terms of defence: we double if they compete

anything else: we pass and let partner make the final decision

I don't think it is possible, in a well-designed method, for opener to be top of the range in both offence and defence: he shouldn't open with a preempt if he holds extra values both offensively and defensively. This wouldn't hold true, perhaps, in 3rd and 4th seat but must surely be a valid approach opposite an unpassed partner.

It therefore seems to me that redouble should not be forcing: it should invite opener to do something with either of the first two hand types, but should allow us to subside opposite the 3rd. Playing in this fashion allows more use of the redouble than if redouble were to create a force (and if we argued that we can always change our mind and pass, then we aren't playing a fp).

And I disagree that the pass and pull is no more than a useful side-effect: it is, especially in game-level and higher decisions, an extremely important aspect of the fp structure.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on May 27 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

And I disagree that the pass and pull is no more than a useful side-effect: it is, especially in game-level and higher decisions, an extremely important aspect of the fp structure.

Perhaps I didn't put that very well. What I meant was that the value of having a pass-and-pull available is irrelevant to the question of whether a pass is forcing. Consider these categories of sequence:

A: We don't know whose hand it is.
B: We know it's our hand.
B1: We know it's our hand, but we also know we can't have a slam on.
B2: We know it's our hand, and we might have a slam on.

When deciding whether a pass should be forcing, the relevant test is "Is it type B rather than type A?"; the matter of whether it's a B1 or a B2 is irrelevant.

[karlson]

Just for completeness

Scoring: IMP

---

The auction I presented was actually a hypothetical. At my table east passed the double of 4♥ and we were +690.

Amazingly, though partner has a ridiculously defensive and poorly fitting hand, I'm not convinced we're going to beat 4♠ more than two tricks, though I may have missed something in the analysis. I thought double was right when I posted the hand, but I've coming around to 5♥.

And yes, I like redouble.