[Cascade]

 ArtK78, on 2014-March-15, 08:13, said:

Disagree. The agreement is that the redouble is 100% forcing. The laws of bridge allow you to pass. You need not disclose the laws of bridge.

The laws of bridge require you to disclose not only your explicit agreement but also your partnership experience. If your experience includes the event of having passed this 'forcing' bid then you must disclose. You also have to disclose implicit agreements which may mean that you have to disclose that you have passed similar auctions (perhaps even with other partners).

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-15, 10:51, said:

Anyway how many times have the opponents asked whether pass was 100% forcing? I think that your <1% is a huge underestimate! and you should disclose.

What would you say, by the way, if you told the opponents that the bid was forcing, and they asked, "do you ever pass it?" and then asked, "when?"

I've been asked if it's forcing many many times over the years. They can certainly ask "have you ever passed it ?" in which case they'll get a true answer.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-15, 13:52, said:

I've been asked if it's forcing many many times over the years. They can certainly ask "have you ever passed it ?" in which case they'll get a true answer.

But they will not get a true answer otherwise? This strikes me as a shocking attitude towards disclosure.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2014-March-15, 15:17, said:

But they will not get a true answer otherwise? This strikes me as a shocking attitude towards disclosure.

You seem to be deliberately obtuse here, the bid is 100% forcing, I've passed lots of forcing bids over the years (and one this week, although not a 1Nx the last time I played, it got me 95.31% nationally in the simul), if we have to disclose every forcing bid we've ever passed this gets silly, we are allowed to use judgment.

[rmnka447]

Over the last year or so, my favorite partner and I have changed to a new runout scheme over a penalty double of our weak NT (11+-14) openers.


Originally, we had played that redouble required 2 ♣ by the 1 NT opener. Over the redouble, responder could pass with 5+ ♣ or bid another 5+ card suit.

If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX, responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble.

If responder was wasn't willing to play 1 NTxx and didn't have a 5+ card suit, he could start to run by bidding his cheapest 4 card suit. Bidding proceeded up the line until a fit was found.


Our other KO team members, who also play (11+/12-14) weak NTs, convinced us to move to their runout system. After a penalty double of 1 NT, redouble, 2 ♣, 2 ♦, and 2 ♥ are all transfers (redouble -> transfer to 2 ♣). They promise 5+ cards in the transferred to suit.

2 ♠ is natural and to play.

Without a 5 card suit or with a hand willing to play 1 NTx or 1 NTxx, responder passes.

After a pass by responder, opener can pass 1 NTx with a hand where he's willing to play it there. Otherwise, opener can bid a 5 card minor or redouble to request responder to start bidding suits (presumably 4 cards) up the line. After the redouble, responder can pass to play 1 NTxx or start bidding suits up the line.


The newer method has the advantage of concealing opener's hand and putting the doubler on opening lead when responder has a 5+ card suit. It also makes it easier for opener to run to his 5 card minor suit when holding one.

[helene_t]

I used to think that transfers were unsound because they give opps much more options. They can pass and bid next time (for example showing a weaker hand than direct action), they can double the tranfer (showing length in that suit in a safe way) or they can cuebid the suit transfered to (showing a weak distributional takeout, or some two-suiter, or whaterever they like). They can play a direct 2NT as Lebensohl and a delayed as scrambling. Or w/e.

But I am not sure if it matters that much in practice - few pairs have worked out a detailed defense against the runout transfers.

We had a nice auction:

(1NT)-x-(2♥*)-x
(2♠)-4♥

Having a 4-6 reds 15-count and partner having a balanced 6-count with five hearts, we found a game which nobody else found. But this was just a single incident, playing maybe 300 sesions at a club where almost everyone plays weak NT and runout transfers.

So I think it matters very little what you play as long as you know how to bid a weak hand with a 5-card suit, and as long as opps artificial doubles of your strong NT don't mess up your constructive auctions.

Quote

If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX, responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble.

Does this mean that pass only contains the hands that are willing to sit for 1NT redoubled? That sounds inefficient. Playing redouble as business and pass as a puppet to 2♣ gives you the exact same options but put a bit more pressure on opps. The point of playing pass as a puppet to redouble is that responder doesn't have to pass the redouble - he can also bid a suit which will show different 2-suited hands.

[gwnn]

deleted - redundant

[gwnn]

mikeh, you seem really fond of labelling people who oppose your view of undesirable qualities. In this case, people who criticise pass forces a redouble are either ignorant or naive (my wording - feel free to disagree with it). In this line of thought, what is Fred Gitelman guilty of in your opinion?
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__174857

Could it be that he also has legitimate bridge reasons to disagree with you or is he also guilty of one of the sins you listed?

[Zelandakh]

 rmnka447, on 2014-March-20, 03:05, said:

Our other KO team members, who also play (11+/12-14) weak NTs, convinced us to move to their runout system. After a penalty double of 1 NT, redouble, 2 ♣, 2 ♦, and 2 ♥ are all transfers (redouble -> transfer to 2 ♣). They promise 5+ cards in the transferred to suit.

This method, usually known by the name Exit Transfers, is one I personally think is pretty bad despite its apparent popularity amongst UK club players. I would encourage you to look at the methods posted above by mikeh and myself and consider switching back to your old (one-suited) redouble but using the forcing pass more effectively than your previous scheme.