[Trinidad]

In this case, it is actually a huge advantage to play with an unfamiliar partner. With an unfamiliar partner you play "All bids are natural, unless we discuss otherwise or it really doesn't make any sense". There hasn't been much time for discussion, so we can remember what was discussed and I am sure that this situation wasn't one of them. Therefore the XX is natural and a suggestion to play 2♣XX.

In a regular partnership, with a lot of agreements (explicit or from experience), partner will start wondering what you might mean with the redouble. If you have discussed this situation, he (or you) will have forgotten and if you haven't, he will start looking for an equivalent type auction. He might find something and add that meaning to your redouble. And you will never be sure what it is.

Rik

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Dec 5 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

what would you think partner would misunderstand it as?

The most likely alternative meaning is extra values without a clearcut bid, but I'm sure that there are other meanings that would be regarded as standard by some people. That doesn't make the redouble particularly dangerous, of course - if partner takes it out you can just get on with bidding your hand.

Redouble does have one risk, though: partner might think it shows rather more in clubs than what we have. I wouldn't want him to play me for ♣AQ109x.

[dburn]

In this sort of position I tend to play:

Pass = either no desire to play in 2♣ redoubled but no descriptive bid available, or a strong desire to play in 2♣ redoubled;

Redouble = a suggestion that we play in 2♣ redoubled;

Bid = no desire to attempt 2♣ redoubled, showing some additional feature of my hand.

So, I could redouble with this hand but would pass with ♣AQ109x. Partner, of course, redoubles if he wants to play there facing that, or bids naturally otherwise.

With an unfamiliar partner I can't do any of this, nor will I know whether or not I should pass if he redoubles, since I won't know what he intends by that. Since I don't seem to have anything clear to bid, I will pass for the moment and bid 2NT if he does redouble.

[OleBerg]

dburn, on Dec 5 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

In this sort of position I tend to play:

Pass = either no desire to play in 2♣ redoubled but no descriptive bid available, or a strong desire to play in 2♣ redoubled;

Redouble = a suggestion that we play in 2♣ redoubled;

Bid = no desire to attempt 2♣ redoubled, showing some additional feature of my hand.

So, I could redouble with this hand but would pass with ♣AQ109x. Partner, of course, redoubles if he wants to play there facing that, or bids naturally otherwise.

With an unfamiliar partner I can't do any of this, nor will I know whether or not I should pass if he redoubles, since I won't know what he intends by that. Since I don't seem to have anything clear to bid, I will pass for the moment and bid 2NT if he does redouble.

I play that when they double our Stayman. Sensible to apply it here.

[dake50]

X = don't lead C => XX = DO lead clubs! Similar to Rosenkrantz. Yes?

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Dec 5 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Redouble does have one risk, though: partner might think it shows rather more in clubs than what we have. I wouldn't want him to play me for ♣AQ109x.

Yes, I agree with this and that is why I was tentative about redoubling when I saw this hand being posted.

When I try to think about it logically though, the "non lead directing double" which presumably could be made on 3 small is so utterly retarded because it's telling us that clubs probably break and also telling us that the opening bidder has few values in clubs. Where do the values rate to be if not with the opening bidder, obv with us right?

So it just seems like we should be exploiting this retarded bid by redoubling with 4 reasonable clubs since partner is such a strong favorite to have pretty strong clubs as well.

Of course if it was a normal lead directing X I would want partner to play us for AQT9x or whatever. But it just seems like logically their double is so dumb, and logically for us to have the same requirements to redouble it is also really dumb.

On top of that, it also seems given the retarded nature of their double it is a gigantic mistake to not play a penalty redouble of it. They're almost literally asking for it lol. But I like to redouble lead directing bids in general, so I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about doubling lead inhibiting doubles...

[cherdanno]

Doubles of bad bids are penalty. So redoubles of bad doubles are business!