[Zelandakh]

I am not fond of the first double but it is ok. I would have just jumped straight to 4♠.
Redouble is pretty bad. People remember 10+ but they forget the "without fit" part.
1♥ is reasonable but 2♥ may be better, especially if the opps let me know their style of redouble.
2♣ is probably the worst call of the auction. This shows a shapely minimum.
Presumably West was trying to show a strong 2 in spades with the jump to 3♠ rather than the preempt others were suggesting.
North's final double seems to be due to the previous bidding having backed them into a corner. For me it suggests something like 3055 without agreement. Perhaps a thrump double (stopper ask) makes sense here. If partner were to have what they should have then we have a fit somewhere and something like 4♥ will get partner to pick the right game.

Considering how badly N-S described their hands they were remarkably lucky to come out with a plus.

[jillybean]

I gave this hand to my partner and his understanding is as follows;

Does XX set FP (for the rest of the auction) ? As the RD usually just promises at least 10 hcp, I can think of some 12 opposite 10 misfits where having an FP in force could be troublesome at say the 2 level. At higher levels, when we have freely bid to get there, it may be right to have such an agreement.

What about openers rebid? I think a simple rebid shows a weak hand, and a pass shows a hand with diverse values leaving partner free to double if the vulnerability/misfit aspects of the hand dictate doing so. But I think any bid by opener other than a rebid could (?should) show a strong two-suiter (i.e. "I am not interested in getting a small penalty, partner, we have a game or slam here somewhere").

[ArtK78]

The redouble does create a forcing pass, in that the redoubler promises another call. So opener has no need to act on a strong distributional hand for fear of the auction ending. It may make sense for opener to bid on a strong distributional hand for fear of being preempted out of the auction, but that is an entirely different concern.

As for Zelandakh's comment about the redouble implying no fit, that is a "modern" development (meaning that it became popular after I started playing bridge, which is the last 40 years). When I started playing, redouble was the ONLY call on all hands of 10+HCP even with a fit. A failure to redouble denied as much as 10 HCP.

[Zelandakh]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-21, 09:02, said:

As for Zelandakh's comment about the redouble implying no fit, that is a "modern" development (meaning that it became popular after I started playing bridge, which is the last 40 years). When I started playing, redouble was the ONLY call on all hands of 10+HCP even with a fit. A failure to redouble denied as much as 10 HCP.

Truscott was first published (that I am aware of) in the 1950s. This is hardly cutting edge! Yes I am aware this was originally over a major and I do not know when people started playing something similar over a minor. It seems unlikely noone tried it in the intervening 20+ years though.

[jillybean]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-21, 09:02, said:

The redouble does create a forcing pass, in that the redoubler promises another call.

Well yeah, the XX allows opener to pass on her second bid. I was refering to the XX creating a FP for the remainder of the auction.

[wyman]

I would have smashed 1H as north. Partner apparently wants to play this hand for penalties, and we have 25+ HCP. I'll start with AKx of hearts.

[ggwhiz]

 wyman, on 2012-February-21, 09:38, said:

I would have smashed 1H as north.

Good point and more in line with my understanding of the modern XX style. Doesn't mean I'm right though.

When you have new suits forcing after the double and strong raises ie. 2nt = limit or limit plus and a free 1nt bid to show constructive hands the redouble should be reserved for a hand that wants to punish something and a double of 1♥ would steer you to doing just that or pave the way for 3nt.

[ArtK78]

AKx doesn't seem like enough to double off anyone at the one level.

That is not to say that it wouldn't work sometimes. But partner will expect more than AKx and will not bid on when he should.

[ArtK78]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-February-21, 09:19, said:

Truscott was first published (that I am aware of) in the 1950s. This is hardly cutting edge! Yes I am aware this was originally over a major and I do not know when people started playing something similar over a minor. It seems unlikely noone tried it in the intervening 20+ years though.

It may very well be true that the idea of redouble denying a fit has been around a long time. But it was not widely adopted until the 1980s or later, and then, as you state, primarily when our side has opened a major suit.

I know that when I started to play, a redouble still promised 10+ any shape and any bid other than redouble denied 10 HCP.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-21, 14:55, said:

AKx doesn't seem like enough to double off anyone at the one level.

That is not to say that it wouldn't work sometimes. But partner will expect more than AKx and will not bid on when he should.

I don't have an 11 count here. They are working off a max of 15 combined points. Partner is suggesting shortness in diamonds (hence tolerance for hearts), RHO didn't jump (which suggests hearts are breaking).

I'm on lead and can draw 3 trumps in one go, likely in their 4-3 fit. After that, we'll start on diamonds. I am looking for 800 or more here.

edit to note that partner is not forced to defend. If he has a LR in diamonds and wants to bid on, he's still free to do so.

[han]

I would not double 1H on AKx.

[ggwhiz]

 han, on 2012-February-22, 11:14, said:

I would not double 1H on AKx.

I would but it all comes down to the meaning of redouble which in my partnership is NOT some random 10 count. The double is stopper showing as much as penalty.