[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]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-17, 15:58, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-17, 16:25, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2014-November-17, 18:12, said:

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

Please do not quote me or respond to my posts.

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-17, 18:36, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2014-November-17, 18:12, said:

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]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-18, 11:59, said:

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]

mikestar13, on 2014-November-18, 16:35, said:

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]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-18, 17:08, said:

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.

Quote

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]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-17, 15:58, said:

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]

PhantomSac, on 2014-November-18, 17:08, said:

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 ...