Defensive doubles and Rosencrantz redoubles

[Wackojack]

Noting the reference to Rosencranz redoubles in the recent post

 

I am trying to find out as much as possible about defensive doubles and Rosencranz redoubles. So far:

http://www.firesides.net/kaleido3.htm

I like the Rosencrantz redouble idea, but have reservations about defensive doubles, especially the completely different bids by advancer at red.

 

Any further info or links on defensive doubles and I would be most grateful

[kenrexford]

The idea behind a Rosenkranz (Re)Double is a sound one -- it incorporates thinking about the defense into bidding. Similar concepts are lead-directing responses to preempts and Suit/Lead after a takeout/negative double.

 

The "error" in application of Rosenkranz occurs when the X(X) shows (or denies -- Reverse R.) an Ace or King but says nothing about strength. One solution is to use another "Rosenkranz" call to direct the lead as well. For instance, you might incorporate a 2NT call or a jump cue as a "preemptive Rosenkranz," to distinguish a straight preempt; or, perhaps a cue versus 2NT as invitational with lead implications. Whatever.

[pclayton]

There's better uses than Rosencranz doubles / redoubles.

 

But they are one of those tools that you can check on a cc when you have only 15 minutes to fill one out. Usually, an agreement to play a marginal convention is better than no agreement at all.

[pbleighton]

"But they are one of those tools that you can check on a cc when you have only 15 minutes to fill one out. Usually, an agreement to play a marginal convention is better than no agreement at all."

 

Assuming you remember the marginal convention you have agreed to play :)

 

Peter