shrug

[karlson]

♠Ax ♥Jx ♦AJxxxxx ♣Kx

 

w/w imps

partner deals

 

4♥-x-p-4♠

p-p-?

[gnasher]

5♥. Two ways to win.

 

Should this hand have redoubled on the round before, to involve partner in the decision-making?

[kfay]

Pass

[pooltuna]

♠Ax ♥Jx ♦AJxxxxx ♣Kx

 

w/w imps

partner deals

 

4♥-x-p-4♠

p-p-?

I am inclined to pass and try to beat it with this much defense.

[bluecalm]

Should this hand have redoubled on the round before, to involve partner in the decision-making?

 

I like this treatment and I think the answer is yes.

[aguahombre]

5♥.  Two ways to win.

 

Should this hand have redoubled on the round before, to involve partner in the decision-making?

I vote yes. Partner might double and lead his stiff diamond, or bid 5H with short spade and an 8th heart, or whatever. More than 2 ways to win after redouble.

 

Having failed to bring partner to the party, I guess 5♥, too.

[rogerclee]

Does redouble set up a force?

[whereagles]

Dbl. No guarantee to make 5♥ and I think they won't make this.

[Fluffy]

I think pass is trully awful bid, all we need is partner having ♥Ak for 10.5 tricks to average those odds in 4 spades undoubled we need like 5 downs?

 

I think 5♥ is obvious not sure what I am missing.

[aguahombre]

Does redouble set up a force?

i don't think so. It just invites pard to double with some semblance of extra defense, or to bid 5H with some extra offense. What the redoubler has is his problem.

[kfay]

Yeah I reconsidered pass after I said it, I'm now on board with 5♥.

 

My bad!!!

[mikeh]

Does redouble set up a force?

My initial reaction was that it ought to be forcing, but then I looked deeper (I think) into the problem.

 

One reason for fp's is generally that we allow the person under immediate pressure 4 choices: double, bid, pass, or pass intending to pull. Using standard treatment, the latter is the strongest.

 

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.

 

So I think that redouble should offer 3 choices: double with extra defence, in context; bid with extra offence, and pass with a middle of the road preempt.

 

While I suspect that there will be very few hands on passing out their contract represents a par result, I can easily picture hands on which we simply don't know whether bidding or doubling is best. Either may be (relatively speaking) a disaster and then passing, tho never optimal, may be the wisest choice.

 

I don't see it that way here: I bid 5♥. Not only might we make it, or find it to be a good save, but maybe, just maybe, the opps will take the push. Then I'll be sure I know what to do (even tho I may be wrong).

[aguahombre]

nice, total analysis, mike

[gnasher]

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.

[hanp]

If we redouble, partner's pass would not be forcing imo. However, if for example LHO passes and RHO bids 4S, then our pass would be forcing.

[Trinidad]

5♥.  Two ways to win.

And (important in IMPs) when it does lose, it loses less than what it would win if it wins.

 

Losing (nothing makes): -100 v -100 = -200 = -5 IMPs.

Winning (one makes): 450 v -100 = +350 = +8 IMPs

Hitting Jackpot (both make): +450 v +420 = 850 = 13 IMPs

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

5♥.  Two ways to win.

And (important in IMPs) when it does lose, it loses less than what it would win if it wins.

 

Losing (nothing makes): -100 v -100 = -200 = -5 IMPs.

Winning (one makes): 450 v -100 = +350 = +8 IMPs

Hitting Jackpot (both make): +450 v +420 = 850 = 13 IMPs

 

Rik

11 IMPs if they take the push to a losing contract as well

[flytoox]

I will vote for 5H, not sure it will make, it even could be a save.

 

I think 5H has two ways to win. It may be cold, it may be a good save.

[Free]

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.

[kfay]

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.

[Free]

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]

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]

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

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saxhjxdajxxxxxckx&w=sqtxxhdkqxcaqtxxx&e=sxxxxhaxxxdtxxcxx&s=skjxhkqt9xxxdcjxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

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.