continuations over redouble

[raist]

ok the actual sequence is not so important, what i'm really interested in is the theoretical underpinnings.

 

your hand is

 

J9x K9x KQJ9xx x

playing 2/1, you choose to open 1D (i disagree with the opening, but to each his own)

now bidding goes 1D-(dbl)-rdbl-(2C) back to you. a few points to note:

 

1. generally, rdbl shows a good 9/10+, usually with desire to penalize

2. rdbl is generally forcing to... either a penalty of opponent's contract, or 2N(?)

 

now. what i'm proposing is that

 

the rdbl is forcing to 2N UNLESS opener shows weakness.

 

and here, i think the proper way to show weakness is to rebid 2D immediately over 2C

passing 2C would be forcing, and thus should promise full opening values at least

bidding over 2C shows no desire to penalize, suggesting a weak hand type (usually a submimimum type hand that you chose to open based largely on distribution)

 

if you pull partner's penalty double of 2C, it also shows no desire to penalize, but for a different reason. perhaps your hand is offensive/strong and you think that making your own game/slam is more profitable than penalizing the opps.

 

my questions are:

 

1. is my reasoning sound?

2. someone suggests that bidding over 2C directly actually shows stronger than passing

3. the same someone suggests that pulling the penalty double should be the way to show weakness

4. if i am right, the direct 2D rebid should then no longer be forcing

 

 

any comments/thoughts?

[raist]

to put things into perspective, the issue is (A) strong offensive hand vs (B ) submin hands (usually weakish hands opened based on shape)

there are basically two ways to show either hand, and both ways seem to be equally possible. that is:

 

1. 1X-(dbl)-rdbl-(1Y); now pass first, and bid later

2. 1X-(dbl)-rdbl-(1Y); now bid immediately

 

which sequence should show A and which sequence should show B?

 

sequence 1 retains possibility to penalize, sequence 2 does not.

hand type B almost surely prefers not to penalize, whereas hand type A, even though offensive, could still want to penalize (penalizing opps is usually quite profitable)

so by that reason alone, it seems that sequence 2 should show hand type B

 

however, another sequence could have happened, partner could have been unable/unwilling to penalize 1Y, and bids something of his own.

 

in this event, it is important that partner knows whether you are submin or full opening+

and if you pass first, partner doesn't know which (because you had no chance to takeout his penalty to show the weak hand you intended to show). your rebid over his rebid is uninformative because you could have made the same rebid with a strong hand as with a weak hand

but if you bid first to show weakness, that certainty is already transmitted to partner

 

this is yet another reason sequence 2 should show hand type B

[bluecalm]

Standard is that bidding directly over rdbl is the weakest action.

If it's forcing to 2NT or not is not covered by standard (I believe) but I don't see good reason why it should be.

 

Passing and bidding later with weak unbalanced hand is bad because they can jump and you wish you had bid round before. IF you have strong hand the risk is much smaller (because a)they are less likely to jump high b)having stronger hand it's easier to handle bidding at high levels).

 

This is basic stuff. I will be surprised if someone here question it. so yeah, you are basically right with your assumptions.

[kenberg]

I recall that in one of his books, Reese comments on this. A partner of his bid immediately "to show weakness" and Reeese observed "According to my old-fashioned notions the way to show weakness is to pass".

 

Still, I think most people are on your side of the argument here. I also doubt I would open that hand 1♦ but if I did I would rebid 2♦ as sort of a pre-pull of partner's double. Here is something that is less clear to me: With shapely hands lacking defense I might, at some point of the auction, pull a penalty double made by my partner. But I make it a rule, and I cannot recall any exceptions, that once I have done this if he opts at a later time for another penalty double I leave it in. I am inclined to think that this pre-pull counts as a pull, so if partner doubles something later, that's where the contract stays.

 

As to "forcing through 2NT" I usually play, instead, that the opponents cannot play a 2 level contract un-doubled. Now I guess my pre-pull would cancel that.

 

Something to think about and to discuss with partner, I can see.

[gwnn]

I think this is a totally playable agreement and personally I don't know a clearly better one (but I don't see this as clearly best either). The only question is how far is xx forcing? So it's very good if you have an answer to that question. Obviously you want actions by opener be rather weak, anything else is out of the question.

[hanp]

2D for sure.

[bid_em_up]

These 3-3-7-1 patterns are so hard to bid, I don't blame you for not being certain what to do.

[hanp]

Ouch, missed it!

 

I blame the long posts, how can one have a good bridge discussion when you have to skip most of what's written?

[gwnn]

it was a 3361 when I was replying

 

or was it?

 

:unsure: