[JonnyQuest]

Your partner opens 1♣ or 1♦, RHO Doubles.
You have an opening hand, something like ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣JTx

1♠ is of course forcing, BUT, is it the wrong response with a strong hand?

Must you ALWAYS begin with XX with 10+ and does the failure to do so deny 10+??

Which is Standard?

Thanks!!

[helene_t]

I would bid 1♠. The auction can get murky if I start with a redouble, for example if LHO bids 2♥ and partner passes.

Redouble doesn't have much upside other than that it might get partner to declare a spade contract.

I would redouble if p opened 1♦ and I had a game forcing hand with long clubs (because I play both 2♣ and 3♣ as nonforcing after the double, GF hands with clubs have to redouble). I might also redouble with a had with a diamond raise that is in between 2♦ and 2NT (assuming 2NT is our forcing diamonds raise), and with a hand that is happy to defend everything opps might bid. The latter is what textbooks always talk about in the chapter about redoubles, but it never comes up in practice.

[wank]

i think the non-redouble denies 10+ thing is a relatively old-fashioned idea that was only ever popular in america. the decision about whether to bid your suit or not should be based upon your ability to handle subsequent bidding, your defensiveness and in particular the length and strength of your own suit and support for partner's suit. here as you probably don't want to defend hearts doubled at a low level, and your suit is fine, it's best to bid 1s imo.

[mycroft]

I would redouble after 1♣-X, and probably not after 1♦-X. They don't always find hearts, partner might have 3=4=3=3 or 3=4=2=4 anyway. But I can't feel comfortable after 1♦-X hitting anything *but* spades, and I don't really have a sane bid if they find a round suit.

I believe that the XX implies "I want to defend", and only after that "I have 10 high".

[ArtK78]

Wank is correct about old-fashioned practice in the US - there was a time when the failure to redouble denied as many as 10 HCP. It was true when I learned the game in the early 70s, but the trend at that time, which has carried forward to today and completely replaced the prior practice, is that there are many hands of more than 10 HCP where redouble is just not the right call.

Still, it seems reasonable to redouble on any balanced hand of 10 HCP or more that is willing to penalize the opps in at least 2 of the unbid suits.

[akwoo]

JonnyQuest, on 2013-June-19, 06:00, said:

Your partner opens 1♣ or 1♦, RHO Doubles.
You have an opening hand, something like ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣JTx

1♠ is of course forcing, BUT, is it the wrong response with a strong hand?

Must you ALWAYS begin with XX with 10+ and does the failure to do so deny 10+??

Which is Standard?

Thanks!!

I disagree with the premise of 1♠ forcing!

I think the disadvantage of being forced into XX with a hand like this is slight compared with the advantage of being able to bid 1♠ either on xxxxx x xxxx xxx (maybe with a Q somewhere) or on a psyche. (There was a time when some players considered a 1♠ psyche almost routine in this auction.)

(I do have to say there are hands where the loss of 1♠ forcing is a much bigger deal, say AQxxxx x Kxx xxx, though arguably those can be covered by using non-forcing but strongly invitational intermediate jump shifts.)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Meckwell plays transfers over the DBL ( 1C - ( X ) - XX = 4+♦, etc ) .

Using transfers here allows a number of advantages:
i) you can show more hand types
(for example you don't have the problem of having to play 1d-x-2c as either weak or forcing when not playing transfers - playing transfers you can do both)
ii) you show your hand before being preempted
iii) you can transfer to a suit as lead directing and then support yr partners suit (can be useful for defense)
iv) you can show many different sorts of raises.
v) it makes bidding for the opps more difficult .

[Hanoi5]

I prefer redouble with balanced hands 10+: business.

[PhilKing]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-June-19, 17:52, said:

Meckwell plays transfers over the DBL ( 1C - ( X ) - XX = 4+♦, etc ) .

Using transfers here allows a number of advantages:
i) you can show more hand types
(for example you don't have the problem of having to play 1d-x-2c as either weak or forcing when not playing transfers - playing transfers you can do both)
ii) you show your hand before being preempted
iii) you can transfer to a suit as lead directing and then support yr partners suit (can be useful for defense)
iv) you can show many different sorts of raises.
v) it makes bidding for the opps more difficult .

I might be being a bit thick but I thought Meckwell play strong club. Playing redouble as 4+ diamonds is credited to Bocchi. It is one of his few theoretical blunders (giving the most room to a hand type with a low utility) but whatever.

Transfers make the bidding easier for the oppo, since they get several extra ways of entering the bidding. That is the cost of transferring in any potentially competitive sequence.

[lowerline]

JonnyQuest, on 2013-June-19, 06:00, said:

Your partner opens 1♣ or 1♦, RHO Doubles.
You have an opening hand, something like ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣JTx

1♠ is of course forcing, BUT, is it the wrong response with a strong hand?

Must you ALWAYS begin with XX with 10+ and does the failure to do so deny 10+??

Which is Standard?

Thanks!!

I redouble when I can double for penalty in at least 2 unbid suits and when I have at least a doubleton in the 3rd unbid suit. I pass with any other strong balanced hand without a fit and double later (then more cooperative then penalty). I tend to bid when I have a fit or a really unbalanced hand. New suits are still forcing in my book.

With the example given, I'd redouble after a 1♣ opening, but I'd bid spades after a 1♦ opening.

Steven

[TWO4BRIDGE]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-20, 02:33, said:

I might be being a bit thick but I thought Meckwell play strong club.

True... I should have used the example of a 1D open . I'm not sure what Responder's bids for the strong club after a DBL :
1C! - ( X ) - ??

[ArtK78]

I play transfer advances over takeout doubles between 1NT (showing clubs) and 2 of our suit. That adds some flexibility while not conceding the one level to the opponents.

[wodahs]

It's true that using transfers gives the opps more bidding room, but if the opps use that room, you also gain some bids.

Say the opps double the transfer here, to show the transfer suit: 1♦ (X) 1♥[s] (X[h]). Opener gains Pass, Redouble, and a cuebid 2♥, as additional bids to show whatever.

[aguahombre]

For us, transfer responses (they are not advances) apply after 1MX, but not after 1mX.

The double of 1m takes up no room from our normal auction, so we might as well use the added call (redouble) to help us with awkward hands. It is a waste of space to redouble with non-descript 10+ on the off chance we might get a profitable 1-level penalty, and then try to sort out strain later.

1C (X) XX is used to show a hand which cannot Jordan 2NT...balanced 11+ but only 4 clubs.
1D (X) XX is used to show club length with 11+, allowing 1D (X) 2C to be weak as in old fashioned kitchen table Bridge.

Other than the above, our 1-bids are responses as always, and 2m is a mama-papa 4-card raise.

[Free]

We play an entire level of transfers after Dbl and gave up the penalty RDbl, but 1♣-(Dbl)-RDbl shows 5+♦. The main advantage is that you can easily differentiate between several types of support (especially strength).

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2013-June-27, 07:51, said:

We play an entire level of transfers after Dbl and gave up the penalty RDbl, but 1♣-(Dbl)-RDbl shows 5+♦. The main advantage is that you can easily differentiate between several types of support (especially strength).

Yep, that scheme for 1mX works as well. It also lets the double work for you rather than delay you. You might still exact a penalty later, with these transfer schemes...just not at the 1-level; and that is not a big deal.

[mike777]

wow transfers at the one level are really catching on here in the forums.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2013-June-27, 23:55, said:

wow transfers at the one level are really catching on here in the forums.

Yeh, well. They aren't just for forum people to feel in vogue. That direct seat double which is often over-used opens up the opportunity to turn it around for our benefit...all because we have the redouble as a starting point which we wouldn't have after a PASS.

When we open 1M and it is doubled, the ugly forcing NT goes away, and we can even play in 1NT which couldn't happen otherwise. All the various raise patterns are immediately available and yet we can also show a long minor with any of the strengths.

[P_Marlowe]

JonnyQuest, on 2013-June-19, 06:00, said:

Your partner opens 1♣ or 1♦, RHO Doubles.
You have an opening hand, something like ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣JTx

1♠ is of course forcing, BUT, is it the wrong response with a strong hand?

Must you ALWAYS begin with XX with 10+ and does the failure to do so deny 10+??

Which is Standard?

Thanks!!

XX should show a desire to go for blood.
If you dont want to go for blood, dont make the XX.
A good idea is also to avoid XX, if you have primary fit for partner, because if
you have a fit, they have a fit, and if they have a fit, going for blood at a low
level seldom is worth the effort.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

JonnyQuest, on 2013-June-19, 06:00, said:

Your partner opens 1♣ or 1♦, RHO Doubles.
You have an opening hand, something like ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣JTx

1♠ is of course forcing, BUT, is it the wrong response with a strong hand?

Must you ALWAYS begin with XX with 10+ and does the failure to do so deny 10+??

Which is Standard?

Thanks!!

XX should show a desire to go for blood.
If you dont want to go for blood, dont make the XX.
A good idea is also to avoid XX, if you have primary fit for partner, because if
you have a fit, they have a fit, and if they have a fit, going for blood at a low
level seldom is worth the effort.

With kind regards
Marlowe