Double a redouble

[Quantumcat]

At our club's once-a-month teams night the other night, an auction begins 1NT (me) (X) XX. My RHO asks me what the redouble is, I explain to her either clubs, or two suits not clubs. She turns to my partner and asks, "So, can I make a double over that?". It's frowned upon as unfriendly in my club to call the director for anything other than insufficient bids and other straightforward matters, so neither of us calls the director. Anyway, after some umming and ahing she bids 2♦ over which her partner bids 2♠ with a minimum penalty double and diamond support, and they end up in 4♠, making. If this had happened at a proper event instead of a small club teams night, what would the director do, assuming we called him over?

[iviehoff]

If called at the moment of RHO's unfortunate question, the Director would warn LHO that he may possess unauthorised information (UI) as a result of the question, and set out the implications. He would direct that play continue, and ask you to call him back at the end of the hand if you felt that you had been damaged by any abuse of UI. If called later in the auction, he would likewise direct play to continue, with the possibility of returning at the end of the hand.

 

At the end of the hand, if what you say about "minimum penalty double with diamond tolerance" is true, I expect that he would adjust the score to something like 2D making however many, as a pass over 2D is likely a logical alternative. If he had earlier warned RHO about UI and RHO had nevertheless bid in such a way, RHO might expect some further instruction on playing bridge in accordance with the rules.

[campboy]

Why does the UI suggest 2♠ over pass? It's not obvious to me that it does.

[Trinidad]

Why does the UI suggest 2♠ over pass? It's not obvious to me that it does.

Because it is reasonable to assume that a double of a redouble would show strength, whereas taking out a redouble (the table action) shows weakness.

 

The UI shows that the 2♦ bidder has values and that makes it more attractive to keep the auction alive.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Because it is reasonable to assume that a double of a redouble would show strength, whereas taking out a redouble (the table action) shows weakness.

Maybe. Taking out the redouble certainly doesn't sound weak to me, though, since redouble wasn't to play.

[iviehoff]

Maybe. Taking out the redouble certainly doesn't sound weak to me, though, since redouble wasn't to play.

Doubler's partner clearly isn't bereft of strength, because the other side are escaping the double. It's not clear to me that the message of 2D, being "let's not defend", shows any extra values, it could easily be based upon minimum values in context.

 

But I suppose it would be worth asking them if 2D is encouraging.

[RMB1]

At our club's once-a-month teams night the other night, an auction begins 1NT (me) (X) XX. My RHO asks me what the redouble is, I explain to her either clubs, or two suits not clubs. She turns to my partner and asks, "So, can I make a double over that?".

 

To me, this suggests that RHO has a take-out double of something shown by the redouble, probably takeout of clubs. This suggests values and that 2♦ is not single-suited. To that extent, the comment suggests bidding a major over playing in ♦.

[Quantumcat]

To me, this suggests that RHO has a take-out double of something shown by the redouble, probably takeout of clubs. This suggests values and that 2♦ is not single-suited. To that extent, the comment suggests bidding a major over playing in ♦.

That's exactly what she had. Five bad diamonds, three good spades and four good hearts.

[campboy]

To me, this suggests that RHO has a take-out double of something shown by the redouble, probably takeout of clubs. This suggests values and that 2♦ is not single-suited. To that extent, the comment suggests bidding a major over playing in ♦.

Yes, that makes sense. I'd got it into my head that she was likely to have a penalty double clubs, but on reflection takeout of clubs is more logical.