Just Checking

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1D - ( DBL ) - ??

 

If a RDBL shows 10+ hcp ( and says nothing about Opener's suit ) ,

then is a freebid of say, 1H or 1S show fewer hcp and hence , would be non-forcing ?

[whereagles]

Classically a 1/1 is forcing, but a 2/1 is not.

 

Also, inv+ support is shown not by redoubling but by bidding 2NT (Truscott convention).

[ggwhiz]

Bergen has a good example in one of his books where the redouble instead of bidding naturally is just plain wrong.

 

Something like 1-5-5-2 shape when your partner opens 1♣ - double to you.

 

Anything from a 10 count to a rock crusher or a 6-5 shape may never get their hand off their chest after a redouble and some annoying number of spades by them.

 

So I'm firmly with whereagles on this one.

[P_Marlowe]

No, 1H / 1S are forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArtK78]

There was a time back as late as the time I started playing bridge that the failure to redouble indicated that third hand did not have 10+HCP. In that case, everything other than redouble was nonforcing.

 

Not too long after I started playing did the mainstream bridge world get away from that idea. Redouble still said 10+HCP, but was now typically a balanced hand - often without a fit for partner's opening suit. A simple new suit bid is forcing at the one level, and a bid at the 2 level or higher was not forcing (and weak). Now, it may be more common that any new suit bid - even at the two level - is unlimited and forcing as long as it was not a jump (i.e., 1♦ - (x) - 2♣ is forcing). Otherwise, how would one bid a strong hand with a lower ranking suit? If one cannot make a 2/1 bid in a new suit then one is forced to redouble first. That can overload the meaning of the redouble and prevent responder from describing his hand.

[Vampyr]

There was a time back as late as the time I started playing bridge that the failure to redouble indicated that third hand did not have 10+HCP. In that case, everything other than redouble was nonforcing.

 

Everything? When I first became familiar with modern bidding methods 25+ years ago! Truscott/Jordan was mainstream. Also new bids were forcing, at least if they were 1/1.So though this development may well have happened a few years after you started playing bridge, it's not as recent as you make it sound.

 

The answer to the rest of your post: transfers.

[MrAce]

Everything? When I first became familiar with modern bidding methods 25+ years ago! Truscott/Jordan was mainstream. Also new bids were forcing, at least if they were 1/1.So though this development may well have happened a few years after you started playing bridge, it's not as recent as you make it sound.

 

The answer to the rest of your post: transfers.

 

And what makes you think Art did not start 35 years ago?

[Vampyr]

And what makes you think Art did not start 35 years ago?

 

Please do not quote me or respond to my posts.

[MrAce]

Please do not quote me or respond to my posts.

 

Sorry, I did not know this was your private forum where only chosen ones can reply or quote your nonsense.

[ArtK78]

And what makes you think Art did not start 35 years ago?

As a matter of fact, I started playing 42 years ago.

[helene_t]

With a strong hand with clubs you might well have to bid your suit at the 3-level if you start with rdbl. This, therefore, has to be gf. So 2♣ is not weak. It is something like 7-11.

 

Note that 2♥/♠ is weak even if you play strong jump shift without interference.

 

Without special agreements I would assume that although 1♥/♠ is forcing and only promises four, rdbl does not deny a 4-card major (it should deny a 5-card major). You may chose to redouble if your 4-card major is too poor to tolerate a 3-card raise, or if you are seriously interested in defending a low-level contract. Hence, rdbl followed by a dbl of opps' major shows four cards in their suit and is penalty oriented. This agreement is not universal, though. Han once wrote that in his partnership, rdbl denies a 4-card major and a subsequent dbl at the 1-level (by redoubler) is take-out.

[WesleyC]

Having 1M here as forcing is important because if you're forced to redouble on shapely hands and hands with a fit you can end up in a pickle. This is mostly because modern opponents have stopped being afraid of the redouble and WILL preempt you. For example, holding a hand like [KQTxx x xxxx xxx] LHO will jump to 2S through a redouble, which leaves your side without a t/o double and guessing for a contract at the 3 level.

 

I think is also better to play that the redouble specifically denies a fit (although you can make an exception on some very strong flat hands). In order to make this work easily, consider incorporating transfers from 1NT upwards.

[ArtK78]

For those who use transfer advances over doubles, you must be playing that they are 100% forcing if the solution to your problem is to transfer.

 

I do not know if that is universal. Suppose partner opened 1♠ holding:

 

Axxxx xx x AQJxx

 

And the auction starts: 1♠ - (x) - 2♣* - (P) - ?

 

*transfer to diamonds

 

Are you allowed to pass? Clearly, if the hand that bid 2♣ could have a game forcing hand, the answer is no. But not everyone would make a transfer response on that strong of a hand.

[whereagles]

For those who use transfer advances over doubles, you must be playing that they are 100% forcing if the solution to your problem is to transfer.

 

I do not know if that is universal. Suppose partner opened 1♠ holding:

 

Axxxx xx x AQJxx

 

And the auction starts: 1♠ - (x) - 2♣* - (P) - ?

 

*transfer to diamonds

 

Are you allowed to pass? Clearly, if the hand that bid 2♣ could have a game forcing hand, the answer is no. But not everyone would make a transfer response on that strong of a hand.

 

It's not transfer advances, it's transfer responses. Advances refer to bids by overcaller's partner.

 

Ok, sorry for nitpicking :) In answer to your query, I think most play transfers as forcing, so you can't pass. I played those for a while sometime ago.. with the hand you showed the bid is a catch-all 2♠. With Axxxx xx K Axxxx one could accept the transfer (accept showed at least xx or top honor singleton).

 

 

[mikestar13]

Some bridge history: the "every 10+ point hand must redouble" idiocy fell out of favor in Britain before it did in America. Compare what Reese wrote in novice books vs. what Goren wrote at the same time. Of course expert consensus develops earlier that it filters down to teaching texts, but at approximately the same speed in both countries--so for a period of time, 1 of a suit response after a takeout double was forcing in an average club game or low level tournament while it was still non-forcing in American games of the same level.

 

This probably explains the different time scales being argued about above. I do not have nor will I express any opinion about any non-bridge-related facet of the argument.

[PhantomSac]

This probably explains the different time scales being argued about above. I do not have nor will I express any opinion about any non-bridge-related facet of the argument.

 

Vampyr is originally from USA iirc. It's pretty clear that the explanation for the difference is that Artk started playing 17 years before Vampyr became familiar with modern methods. This makes sense, ArtK said when he learned bridge people always XXed with 10+, and then shortly after that, they stopped doing so. ~17 years later Vampyr became familiar with modern methods and people did not always XX with 10+. Story checks out.

 

The only problem was Vampyr saying that ArtK implied that this was a recent thing, when he never said nor implied such a thing, as Timo pointed out he probably had just played longer than Vampyr.

 

Vampyr, if you don't like to see Timo's posts then put him on ignore. You have a habit of forever bringing up past altercations/times people were mean to you and acting like you hate their posts so much but not putting them on ignore. That is what the ignore button is for, as long as you post on here people can respond, you can choose whether or not you want to see the responses but it is not reasonable to ask certain people to not respond or quote your posts on an internet forum that you do not own.

[Vampyr]

 

The only problem was Vampyr saying that ArtK implied that this was a recent thing, when he never said nor implied such a thing, as Timo pointed out he probably had just played longer than Vampyr.

 

Yes, when he said "as late as I started playing bridge" I thought he implied it was kind of recent, since the methods of 40+ years ago would be expected to be very different from today's methods. I mean, Terence Reese was writing about bidding then.

 

Vampyr, if you don't like to see Timo's posts then put him on ignore. You have a habit of forever bringing up past altercations/times people were mean to you and acting like you hate their posts so much but not putting them on ignore. That is what the ignore button is for, as long as you post on here people can respond, you can choose whether or not you want to see the responses but it is not reasonable to ask certain people to not respond or quote your posts on an internet forum that you do not own.

 

The problem is that if a person quotes me, they might misrepresent what I say and I might have to clarify. And if I do, I might accidentally set off the crazies again, because I don't know anyone in real life who obscenely insults others, and I have no idea what makes them tick. So I would rather not engage in a discussion at all.

 

The poster in question has said that my posts are predictable, so I don't know why he hasn't put me on ignore.

[nige1]

There was a time back as late as the time I started playing bridge that the failure to redouble indicated that third hand did not have 10+HCP. In that case, everything other than redouble was nonforcing.

With some regular partners I continue to play

• New suit = NAT. NF..
• 1N = NAT. NF.
• Pass = NAT. Rubbish or 10+ HCP, 3-card support. With the latter, you must bid again.
• Redouble = ART. 10+ HCP. Short in partner's suit. Creates forcing pass.
• Raises = PRE.
• 2N = ART. 4+ support. Limit raise or better.
• Suit-jump = FIT. Jump.

In practice, it works fine :)

[fromageGB]

While I play transfer responses after our major open has been overcalled with a suit, I see no reason to disrupt and abandon our perfectly good major responses if they double. I just ignore it.

 

With a minor open again I see no reason why you should distort your bidding and am happy to ignore the double again. This means redouble is specifically inviting a subsequent double, and a 1-bid is forcing while a 2-bid is not.

 

However, playing transfer walsh, system is still on; we have methods to handle 4th seat bidding, and redouble shows diamonds.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, if you don't like to see Timo's posts then put him on ignore.

It would be nice to see a global summary from admin - who has the most people ignoring them, and where do I rank in this list? Perhaps I should ask for replies from those ignoring me ... B-)

[mikeh]

While I play transfer responses after our major open has been overcalled with a suit, I see no reason to disrupt and abandon our perfectly good major responses if they double. I just ignore it.

 

 

I think you are truly making a mistake here. You are ignoring a basic premise of bidding, which, to be fair, seems to get little mention in books about bidding or in the lessons taught to (usually) less than experienced players.

 

One of the constraints in bidding theory is that there are only so many choices available at any one turn to make a call, yet there are an almost infinite variety of hands to be shown. The problem is sometimes referred to as bidding space, and is one reason pre-empts are so effective...they deprive the other side (and our side as well) of bidding space.

 

Well, when RHO doubles my partner's 1♠ opening, the opposite has happened: the opponents have actually increased our bidding space! They have given us a low-level call that was otherwise unavailable to us: the redouble. In addition, they have expanded the usages to which we can put other calls, in part because pass is now more flexible (we can almost always say pass and expect to get another chance to bid, which wasn't the case absent the double).

 

In addition, particularly in methods in which a 2/1 response is strong, the frequency of holding a 2/1 response has declined significantly once we allocate opening values to the first two bidders....give them each 13 (of course both could have less but both could have more, so 13 can be a useful guide for this assessment) and the chances are that we have fewer than 12.

 

This means that once they double, reserving a 2/1 new suit for a strong natural use becomes an unattractive use of bidding space.

 

Finally, assume we hold something like Qxx xx Jxxx Jxxx and partner opens 1♠ and RHO doubles. We can't pre-empt (not enough trump for the methods used by most), and a simple raise is an overbid, since (if we don't change methods over the double) we might have Qxx xx KQxx Jxxx and partner may have the values to try for game.

 

Yet passing is giving up, and even if you played a forcing 1N, it lacks preemptive value and is close to giving up.

 

There are lots of good methods out there.

 

My preference, and experience suggests it works well, is to play transfers starting with redouble, which shows (over 1♠) a balanced notrump type of hand with 2 spades and 8+ hcp, unlimited upwards. 1N shows clubs...anywhere from a sort of weak 2 hand to gf or beyond, to be clarified later. And so on, with the transfer into our major as a 'real' raise...and a direct raise as a warning that 'I have crap...bid on at your own risk'.

 

You can extend this sort of stuff to the 3-level as well if you like (I used to play transfer fit-showing bids :D with 2 ways to raise to the 3-level, one mixed and the other preemptive).

 

Whatever method you adopt, and as I say there seem to be number of good ones available, should be designed to take advantage of the bidding space, and the information, provided to you by the double. It is simply bad bridge to claim that it is ok to ignore the double.

[mikeh]

It would be nice to see a global summary from admin - who has the most people ignoring them, and where do I rank in this list? Perhaps I should ask for replies from those ignoring me ... B-)

But.....what if I have admin on ignore? :P

[mycroft]

The problem, as with all such systems, is that people I *don't* ignore will respond to the ignored post-that-quotes-me, and so I get the worst of both worlds (especially here where only the last level of quoting survives unless you go to serious trouble to not, so I don't know *that* the ignored person is replying to something I've said, never mind to *what*).

 

I will leave the rest of my opinions here, and the science, and my history (which is not unique by any means), unsaid, and just summarize with " 'just ignore them' doesn't work."

 

To the OP, I play what seems to be "standard from ancient times", where 1-bids are forcing, 2-bids are not, 2NT is LR+, and XX shows strength and a desire to defend. I find that much more comfortable going forward than the system in the OP, so my answer to that is "no idea. don't play that".

[biggerclub]

1D - ( DBL ) - ??

 

If a RDBL shows 10+ hcp ( and says nothing about Opener's suit ) ,

then is a freebid of say, 1H or 1S show fewer hcp and hence , would be non-forcing ?

 

I learnt most of my bridge from books. In this case Mike Lawrence . . . somewhere. I am not sure which book. A new suit is forcing at the 1 level. XX shows 10+ with, presumptively,a desire to defend; therefore, shortness in opener's suit is very likely. XX followed by pulling partner's double shows a hand that is both (very) strong and shapely. But still likely to be short in Opener's suit.

 

As someone mentioned before, a 2 level bid is not forcing but is constructive. Its main purpose is lead direction. But AQxxx and out is not good enough . . .

 

Finally, all of this discussion needs to be modified if you are doing something interesting like limited openings (strong club) or 4 card majors.

[BillPatch]

....

As someone mentioned before, a 2 level bid is not forcing but is constructive. Its main purpose is lead direction. But AQxxx and out is not good enough . . . .

I disagree with most of the above quote. A 2 level bid is not forcing and non-constructive. Its main purpose is to suggest a final contract. AQxxx and out is probably too good for other contracts, but might be acceptable as a tactical bid for its lead direction.