[Echognome]

Here is the first of a couple of problem from last weekend. You are playing Swiss Pairs for all of the boards.

Scoring: MP

P - (P) - 1♦* - (X)
XX - (P) - 2♦ - (X)
P - (3♣) - P - (P)
?

---

*11-15hcp, 4+♦, unbalanced hand

If anything, East hesitated a bit over both doubles. Partner did pull your XX to warn of a minimum hand opposite, but it is Game All, so partner is not too likely to have total garbage. Do you make any further moves?

[joker_gib]

I don't know if i'd have redbl with that hand (maybe 1♥ is better) but now, I will give my ♦ fit cause partner don't know it yet, so 3♦

Alain

[inquiry]

If I am swinging through the trees I might double, after all we might beat it on diamond forces, if I can get dummy to ruff with club honors twice (especially if partners one club is an honor), we will beat this. But, on the other hand, they can also easily make, so I will follow the joker lead and bid 3♦.

I predict Dbl has 5♠, 4♥ and three or four clubs. And parter has 6 or 7 ♦'s, 3♦ wil make. 3♣ might make.

[ochinko]

To repeat diamonds not forced partner must have 6 of them. We might well have all the diamond honors, but we won't make many diamond tricks if clubs are trump. I bid 3♦, and let the Law protect me. Can't pass here, and double seems reckless.

Btw, thanks for splitting different problems in different threads. Hope others will follow your example.

Petko

[Fluffy]

Redouble has put myself on auto forcing, 3♦.That's why I wouldn't had redoubled.

[MickyB]

Pard has shown a weakish offensive hand by pulling the XX, seems right to compete to 3♦ (and hope pard hasn't made an *ahem* light opening bid!)

[whereagles]

3♦ seems fair. Why is this a problem?

[han]

Was redouble a transfer (are transfers so standard these days that it's not worth mentioning) or was I just fooling around?

[bearmum]

I would not have XX -- (would have bid 1♥) ---but now I feel I HAVE to bid 3♦

[Kalvan14]

3♦, but it is a close call. If I need a swing or a top, I'll double

[luke warm]

i'd have bid 1♠ over the x, just for the hell of it.. i'd bid 3♦ over 3♣

[Double !]

3 diamonds

Many years ago I decided that ignoring the opps takeout doubles and just bidding as though they had passed worked better for me unless the partnership had done a lot of work on follow-up sequences (is opener's double for takeout, co-operative, or "I gotta a trump stack"?). The frequency of big sets that were achieved just didn't seem to compensate for the disruption to our normal bidding that sticking in a redouble seemed to cause. About the only time I like to redbl is when I have an invitational hand with 3-card support for opener's major, but I can live without it. Personally, using the redbl as a transfer looks more interesting to me than showing 10+ points (obsolete).

DHL

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Nov 29 2005, 02:25 AM, said:

i'd have bid 1♠ over the x, just for the hell of it.. i'd bid 3♦ over 3♣

Well, both psychs (1♠ and XX) are I guess too common to work well...

[han]

Partner has opened and we have 9 HCP's, why on earth would one psych here and bid anything but 1H?

[Gerben42]

3♦

[Echognome]

At the table I chose to bid 3♦. LHO bid 3♠ and partner doubled. This went down 2 for a matchpoint top. I believe we make 3♦ and that 3♣ is down 1. Partner was nervous that the hesitation was based on the takeout doubler having diamonds. That wasn't the case. However, his shape was 4-5-2-2 I believe, although I'd have to check the hand records.

[cherdano]

Matt, pleaaaase tell us that XX was a transfer ) (Or confess your sins...)

[Echognome]

I'm afraid XX was 9+. Remember that this was a new partnership so agreements wouldn't have been as complicated as transfers here.

Also note that this was MPs, so for now I was content to just show 9+. I have a hand that's prime for defense and partner was vulnerable. So... I stand by my XX.

I am certain I could confess to much worse bridge sins elsewhere...