[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

---

You choose to open 1♥. Agree?

The rest of the problem assumes 1♥

1♥-(2♣)-3♣-(6♣);

1a) Is pass forcing here?
1b) What if the vul were changed?
2) What do you do?

Let's assume you pass:

1♥-(2♣)-3♣-(6♣);
P-(P)-Dbl-(Rdbl);
?

3a) What do you do without the rdbl?
3b) What do you do with the rdbl?

More to come later.

[nickf]

1a) I dont think so, but I assume 3C was forcing to 3H only.
1b) same

2) I'll bid 6H

3a) Pass on the basis I dont believe we have established ownership of the hand
3b) same


nickf
sydney

[cherdano]

1) No
2) Pass
3) Pass

[maggieb]

1) The "we don't play forcing passes" cool crowd will be quick to say no, but I think there is substantial merit to playing this pass is forcing. That said, it is NF without a specific agreement.

2) Pass, who knows what's going on.
3a) Pass of course.
3b) Run, I think this is very clear!!! Unless my RHO is a beginner or is playing a very deep game, I know what he has: lots of black cards, with any black finesse onside if needed. Should he have redoubled with this hand? Maybe not, but in my experience, the redoubler always has a running suit and a big trump fit in this kind of situation.

[Fluffy]

cuebid stablishes forcing pass, it simplifies things for me, partner should be balanced or strong because he has many more raising options for competitive hands.

if I passed (I ain't so sure about it), I would stick to my previous decision for sure.

I need too much fitting cards from partner for the slam to be good, but there is also some merit on bidding it since you can push opponents (or now I see the redouble, maybe find a good defence).

[FrancesHinden]

I can't construct any layout of the other three hands where RHO is correct to redouble, and we are correct to run.

[nige1]

kfay, on Dec 7 2008, 02:17 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

You choose to open 1♥.  Agree?
The rest of the problem assumes 1♥
1♥-(2♣)-3♣-(6♣);
1a) Is pass forcing here?
1b) What if the vul were changed?
2) What do you do?
Let's assume you pass:
1♥-(2♣)-3♣-(6♣);
P-(P)-Dbl-(Rdbl);
?
3a) What do you do without the rdbl?
3b) What do you do with the rdbl?
More to come later.

---

I would

• Open 1♥.
  
• Regard 3♣ as creating a forcing pass.
  
• Bid 6♦ over 6♣.
  
• Pass now over the XX -- perhaps the right thing to do; but, anyway, for me 6♦ and 6♥ would be (pass and pull) grand-slam tries.

[kfay]

Doesn't seem to be generating much interest.....


Anyways you decide to pull this redouble so you bid 6♦. LHO doubles, P corrects to 6♥, and RHO doubles that.

the lead is the ♣K and you see:

---

How do you choose to play this?

[han]

I had the north hand and 3C seemed to be a useless bid. Either you show the shortness with 4C or you thik that the hand is not good enough and you bid 4H. What do others think?

What if partner bids 4H and the opponents bid to 6C, would you sacrifice?

[kfay]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 7 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

I can't construct any layout of the other three hands where RHO is correct to redouble, and we are correct to run.

So you're saying that it's impossible that 6♣ is going to make?

Or are you saying that it's impossible that 6♥ is going to go for 1100 or less?

I'm sure that both of these conclusions are totally false.

Most likely you're saying that if partner has his double then this is very likely going down. But what if partner thinks this is a forcing pass situation? Is this really so firm an agreement? As Han pointed out maybe 3♣ wasn't ideal and it's clear from partner's double that he did think this was a forcing pass situation (although why he didn't bid 6♥ then is unclear to me).

The more I think about it the more I wonder if having pass nonforcing is really all that playable. These situations seem to crop up relatively frequently, although generally in auctions that began preemptively. And a vast majority of those times the opps are sacrificing. Maybe we should just pay off when they're actually dealt some freak?

[Fluffy]

I play RHO for the 2 void.s

[FrancesHinden]

kfay, on Dec 8 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 7 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

I can't construct any layout of the other three hands where RHO is correct to redouble, and we are correct to run.

So you're saying that it's impossible that 6♣ is going to make?

Or are you saying that it's impossible that 6♥ is going to go for 1100 or less?

Neither. I'm saying that it's impossible that:
i) RHO believes that 6Cx is making, and that
ii) RHO is happy for us to run because of the penalty he is getting

Generally, if you redouble in this type of auction it should be because
- you aren't certain if you are making and/or
- you are certain that opponents are going for a large penalty if they pull and/or
- you want to involve partner if they pull

I don't believe any of these is the case here. We can tell from our hand that RHO has limited defence to our red suit contract. You called the redouble 'fatuous' in the thread title...

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Dec 7 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

I had the north hand and 3C seemed to be a useless bid. Either you show the shortness with 4C or you thik that the hand is not good enough and you bid 4H. What do others think?

What if partner bids 4H and the opponents bid to 6C, would you sacrifice?

Or you bid 4D fit bid (I don't fancy a fit bid in spades nearly as much).

I would go with 4C, second choice 4D. I also don't see much merit in 3C.

[Fluffy]

I think North's hand lacks strenght for 4♣ (splinter should be slammish, defending after a splinter is not very funny). For me it would be close between 4♦ and 4♥.

[nige1]

kfay, on Dec 7 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ J10xxx ♥ K9xx ♦ KQ8x ♣   ♠ x ♥ AJ10xxx ♦ A10xxx ♣ x

Anyways you decide to pull this redouble so you bid 6♦.  LHO doubles, P corrects to 6♥, and RHO doubles that. the lead is the ♣K How do you choose to play this?

If you judge that RHO may be, say, 6016 or 6106 or even 7006, then you ruff the ♣ lead, cash ♥A, draw trumps, and exit in ♠. If nothing good happens, continue with ♦A.

[kfay]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

kfay, on Dec 8 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 7 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

I can't construct any layout of the other three hands where RHO is correct to redouble, and we are correct to run.

So you're saying that it's impossible that 6♣ is going to make?

Or are you saying that it's impossible that 6♥ is going to go for 1100 or less?

Neither. I'm saying that it's impossible that:
i) RHO believes that 6Cx is making, and that
ii) RHO is happy for us to run because of the penalty he is getting

Generally, if you redouble in this type of auction it should be because
- you aren't certain if you are making and/or
- you are certain that opponents are going for a large penalty if they pull and/or
- you want to involve partner if they pull

I don't believe any of these is the case here. We can tell from our hand that RHO has limited defence to our red suit contract. You called the redouble 'fatuous' in the thread title...

Ok I understand your point now.

If we're focusing solely on RHO then I agree that it's wrong to redouble if the opponents (us) might have some cheap sacrifice available over a making slam.

As for a psychic redouble looking to collect a big penalty when we run (versus possibly a smallish penalty when we don't and we're right), I agree with you there too.

But looking at our hand I think it's totally obvious that RHO cannot be foaming at the mouth thinking about whacking off 6♥. As Maggie pointed out, I this it's quite clear that he's got some huge black 2-suiter and that he genuinely believes that 6♣ is going to make and, when neither my partner nor I bid 6♥, that we weren't going to run to slam.

Hence the thread title... I was going to sit for the double but now this redouble gives me pause to rethink that decision. Bridge players definitely aren't robots and in a crazy auction like this I'm sure tons of people would love to redouble and be right. When it goes double-INSTA redouble (which wasn't mentioned in the OP, I know, so I'm sorry to use it as a point of argument) I find it hard to believe that the tactical considerations you mentioned crossed the mind of righty.

In the context of the hand presented in this problem, I think that running is 100% clear. But then again, maybe looking at my partner's bidding versus his actual hand has changed your mind in the instance of playing at this particular table.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2008, 08:27 AM, said:

han, on Dec 7 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

I had the north hand and 3C seemed to be a useless bid. Either you show the shortness with 4C or you thik that the hand is not good enough and you bid 4H. What do others think?

What if partner bids 4H and the opponents bid to 6C, would you sacrifice?

Or you bid 4D fit bid (I don't fancy a fit bid in spades nearly as much).

I like that a lot!

[Fluffy]

han, on Dec 8 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2008, 08:27 AM, said:

han, on Dec 7 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

I had the north hand and 3C seemed to be a useless bid. Either you show the shortness with 4C or you thik that the hand is not good enough and you bid 4H. What do others think?

What if partner bids 4H and the opponents bid to 6C, would you sacrifice?

Or you bid 4D fit bid (I don't fancy a fit bid in spades nearly as much).

I like that a lot!

Partner will like it as well on the given hand hehe. But Alas!, it probably won't let you wait to hear the redouble wich might be the key for winning 6♥