Costly redouble

[RMB1]

Do you have any agreements about 2NT-(P)-4♥*-(X)-XX? [4♥ is a transfer to 4♠.]

 

In the US open trials, the auction got this far at both tables; three EW players thought XX was a reverse retransfer: forcing responder to declare 4♥ (and doubler to make the opening lead). The fourth player (responder at one table), thought XX could be passed (offering 4♥XX as an alternative contract) and did.

 

Amongst other things, this was a gross burn's law violation and went for 2200 and 19IMPs.

[mcphee]

It just goes to show you that no matter how many sessions you have played together that you are always going to face a session you will regret. When long time partners know each other so well they feel that partner will "get it" when they select a bid that has yet to be discussed. Many times they are, but sometimes not.

 

You can see what was going on in the players minds, Moss was thinking,"hey we have set trumps, therefore redouble must show the A, just in case partner is thinking of slam". Gitleman was thinking "partner has H and is willing to play here and may have only 1 or 2S" . Would have been nice had this come up in some no name regional when they were playing against Martha and the Muffins ahead 40 imps with 3 to go. Some good does come from these things, they now have a firm agreement about this.

[gwnn]

doesn't sound very sensible to me to offer 4♥xx, this is not the 2 level anymore.

[y66]

Either agreement seems fine to me, but not both.

[kfay]

I prefer to play:

 

4♠ = I want to play it, my hand's not that great

Pass = Not sure if I should play it, my hand's not that great.

  Responder Rdbl = Well I'm certainly not going to play it

Rdbl = I'm willing to compete to the 5-level, if they try to sacrifice. My hand is awesome, so I don't care that you have to declare.

 

With one guy I play

 

4♠ = My hand sucks, I'll declare

Rdbl = My hand sucks and you declare

Pass = Willing to compete to the 5-level, not sure who should declare

 

This is easier for him to remember, I guess, but definitely seems worse since hands where I'm willing to compete I don't mind forcing partner to play, but I don't think I should ever have to force partner to declare when my hand isn't that good, they should be consulted and be either able to accept (bid 4♠) or send it back (Rdbl = retransfer). Although, he was watching the USBC and saw this come up and asked me about our agreement (which we'd discussed within the last week) so maybe it's not easier for him to remember.

[RMB1]

What is USBC (as opposed to USBF)? [OK I see now: United States Bridge Championship.] Edited June 27, 2010 by RMB1

[dake50]

Gawdamity, partner said spades not liking hearts (Texas xfer, not Jacoby, not MM)

--else allow hearts to be shown and raised.

 

Yet 4H-XX to play?! Space Case!!

[Phil]

That sound you hear is 1,500 keyboards banging away updating their partnership notes for this sequence.

 

I think a good meta rule to have is at the 4 level or higher, whether it be Stayman, transfers or whatever. I think "heart control, maximum, and I don't care if you play it" makes sense.

 

Whatever the meaning, I think its sick to make this call in the most significant event on the calendar, without having an explicit understanding - its already in the notes, or we talked about yesterday.

 

I also think its odd to pass this xx for the same reasons.

[nigel_k]

Texas is either a signoff or strong slam interest, intending to bid again.

 

If it's the former, you can use pass as a retransfer so redouble is available as a natural suggestion to play. If it's the latter, you should take the opportunity to show a heart control, i.e. one of pass or redouble shows a control (or shows first round control if you prefer) and the other denies it.

 

Either way redouble as a retransfer doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would give most of the blame to the player who did that without a firm agreement.