3NT Redoubled

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxxhxxxdaxxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♦-(pass)-2♣!-(pass)

2♦-(pass)-2♥!!-(DBL)

Pass!!!-(3♣)-3♦-(pass)

3♠-(pass)-3NT-(pass)

pass-(DBL)-RDBL-(pass)

??

 

1♦=4+card♦ (opening 5542)

2♣!=GF ♣ or inv minor ♦

2♦=any 12-14

2♥!!=GF (could have bid 2NT with slam interest in ♦ OR 3♦ non-forcing (limit) ♦ raise) (2♠ and 3♣ would have been natural and GF)

Pass!!!=no ♥ control

3♦=Not agreed (should be GF with ♦-fit and no slam interest OR 3c♦ raise?)

 

Do you agree with 3♠? Two suits are shown by opps and therefor 2♥ would show and not ask ♥-stop?

How do you generaly play RDBL of 3NT: "I'm sure that we will make this" or "Do you have some partial stop?" or "run!"?

Pass or run with the given hand?

[gordontd]

Was 2♥ artificial?

[kgr]

Was 2♥ artificial?

Yes, GF relay (we call it Bourke relay, but not sure if that is correct)

[Fluffy]

I can't understand what LHO has for his double, bu my hand is great for 3NT, I have ♦A and 2 side tricks wich should be worth 7 tricks already, I aint running.

[Free]

pass

[gnasher]

I play redouble as expressing confidence that the contract will make.

 

I'd pass, because I have a normal hand for my actions so far, with no particular reason either to run or to think that it's making. Those empty suits make me nervous, though.

 

Fluffy, how did you get to seven tricks?

[kgr]

Do you have an agreement with you regular partner about REDBL (of 3NT). Is it expressing doubt or confidence in making 3NT?

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakxxhxxxdaxxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♦-(pass)-2♣!-(pass)

2♦-(pass)-2♥!!-(DBL)

Pass!!!-(3♣)-3♦-(pass)

3♠-(pass)-3NT-(pass)

pass-(DBL)-RDBL-(pass)

??

 

1♦=4+card♦ (opening 5542)

2♣!=GF ♣ or inv minor ♦

2♦=any 12-14

2♥!!=GF (could have bid 2NT with slam interest in ♦ OR 3♦ non-forcing (limit) ♦ raise) (2♠ and 3♣ would have been natural and GF)

Pass!!!=no ♥ control

3♦=Not agreed (should be GF with ♦-fit and no slam interest OR 3c♦ raise?)

 

Do you agree with 3♠? Two suits are shown by opps and therefor 2♥ would show and not ask ♥-stop?

How do you generaly play RDBL of 3NT: "I'm sure that we will make this" or "Do you have some partial stop?" or "run!"?

Pass or run with the given hand?

no obvious problem with 3♠ since I think 3♦ was 100% forcing in your system. As far as the XX goes partner could have run just as easily as you could so I assume it is to play.

[pooltuna]

I play redouble as expressing confidence that the contract will make.

 

I'd pass, because I have a normal hand for my actions so far, with no particular reason either to run or to think that it's making. Those empty suits make me nervous, though.

 

Fluffy, how did you get to seven tricks?

Wait a minute! Are you allowed to use a call to mean what it is meant to mean? :)

[kgr]

I play redouble as expressing confidence that the contract will make.

 

I'd pass, because I have a normal hand for my actions so far, with no particular reason either to run or to think that it's making.  Those empty suits make me nervous, though.

 

Fluffy, how did you get to seven tricks?

Wait a minute! Are you allowed to use a call to mean what it is meant to mean? :)

It is allowed by the laws, but it doesn't really fit in our system :)

[PhantomSac]

I play redouble as expressing confidence that the contract will make.

 

I'd pass, because I have a normal hand for my actions so far, with no particular reason either to run or to think that it's making. Those empty suits make me nervous, though.

 

Fluffy, how did you get to seven tricks?

Nice to hear you say that, all these doubt showing redoubles kinda tilt me. What does it even mean to make a doubt showing redouble, when is partner supposed to run etc. Maybe I just don't know how to wield it but it seems like if they double us we always have doubt, no need to redouble.

 

On the other hand on the rare occasions when we think we're a lock and want to increase our score and minimze the chance of partner running, that seems like a good time to redouble.

[jjbrr]

Easy pass.

 

Edit: jlall is much more articulate than I am. I was counting on him to express my thoughts for me, which he did nicely.

[kgr]

My partner wanted me to pass with a half stop in ♥ and to run without a stop.

This wasn't clear for me and I passed. (We hadn't agreed this; and in fact I thought that pass over 1st ♥ DBL already denied a stop)

We got a ♠ lead (??) and partner took this with ♠A and played a ♣ taken by West who played ♥J .... for -3. (6 ♥'s and ♣A).

I don't know partner's exact hand, but he says that 3NT would have made if I had ♥J. (not sure if this is true with a ♥-lead).

[jjbrr]

My partner wanted me to pass with a half stop in ♥ and to run without a stop.

This wasn't clear for me and I passed. (We hadn't agreed this; and in fact I thought that pass over 1st ♥ DBL already denied a stop)

We got a ♠ lead (??) and partner took this with ♠A and played a ♣ taken by West who played ♥J .... for -3. (6 ♥'s and ♣A).

I don't know partner's exact hand, but he says that 3NT would have made if I had ♥J. (not sure if this is true with a ♥-lead).

Jlall said this nicely as well: blog entry

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, how did you get to seven tricks?

5 diamonds and ♠AK normally althou 3 spades and 4 diamonds is also possible.

 

just trie dto show that ♠AK is much better on this kind of deal than ♠KQJ

[karlson]

I think that the doubt showing redoubles actually do work quite well, but obviously you need some understanding of what they imply. Here, I would never make one with this hand because a} I have exactly what I've shown (12-14 with 4 diamonds and good spades) and b} I have no particular reason to think that there's even another place to play if we run. I don't know partner's whole hand, but it sounds like he had a diamond fit, and a questionable heart stopper. That seems like a normal redouble to me, and this hand would run now with so little help in the rounded suits.

 

Rethinking about what partner had, it sounds like he had not much in spades, at most ♥K, maybe ♦KQ, and maybe ♣KJ. That's the worst GF ever, so he should just run. If he meant his bidding to be invitational (seems likely), then I blame the system misunderstanding.

[gnasher]

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?

[OleBerg]

I play Rdbl. as doubt-showing, mostly because my partner and I are never confident that we will make our contracts.

 

I cannot remember a hand where it has gained, but neither can I remember a hand, where we would have liked to redouble.

[Fluffy]

I've seen players making confident doubles when they knew 3NT was gonna make, most of the time players run.

[shyams]

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.

 

Otherwise, playing with a regular partner, I would play redoubles are real / business (except obvious SOS redoubles)

[CSGibson]

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]

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]

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]

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.