[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

Besides talking about a theoretical psyche of a double is prety useless when trying to decide what to do at the table. No one psyches this double.

Not talking about psyche, nobody is gonna double with a yarborough, but many 10 balanced can rate for it, singleton Q on his suit can can be enough also, loses for doubled game making ain't so bad when you will get several hundreds on other hands.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Jun 6 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 6 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North?

That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about.

LOL; who cares what North is worried about. South is looking at a near yarb and pard shows doubt?

On other hands, perhaps we can't diagnose a problem, but here its evident to pull.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 6 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 6 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 6 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North?

That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about.

Yeah, I never have a friggen clue how the partner of the doubt is supposed to know when to run when he has a little something. Call me crazy, but it's when I have doubt about my contract that I would rather not play it redoubled, even when partner thinks it will make.

Well, are you really going to use the blue card to play here? Seems piggish to me.

Even if the redouble is 'vague', it generally means "I have a problem with one of the off suits, can you help"? Isn't this better than no agreement whatsoever?

If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps.

Even at IMPs, the IMP scale discounts mega disasters like redoubled down 4. Assuming that the other table plays a partial, there's about a 6 IMP difference between -1100 and -2200. So it still makes sense to play the xx as doubt showing.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 7 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 7 2007, 01:54 AM, said:

3N sucks but could work, but sitting the double out with the north hand is complete and utter suicide

This maybe means that you should always double this kind of 3NT, a bad lead or a bad switch might lead to a disaster, but then this won't happen in 4♣.

No this is not the case. Bridge is more complicated than poker. It's not "if he is going to fold 100 % of his hand range in this spot obv I should always raise."

If you "always" double north may have 9 toppers like hes supposed to and 3 suits stopped or all the suits stopped. South may have a good hand redouble to tell partner not to run. It's not like north will always have a void in a suit, a non running anchor suit, and only 8 toppers if his suit did run. Just because I advocate north running with this hand does not mean I would always run.

Besides talking about a theoretical psyche of a double is prety useless when trying to decide what to do at the table. No one psyches this double. North made a bad bid and then was stubborn and refused to run even when faced with a HUGE number.

This reminds me of a hand in the Daily Bulletin last year.

In the Open Pairs, Itabashi doubled 3N with AKQJ and out. Of course they ran, but had an easy 9 tricks after the suit was cashed.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jun 8 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps.

Using the blue card for blood is MOST useful at total points.
The non-linearity of the IMPs scale, and the discrete nature of the MP scale, make redoubling for business less useful. When every point counts, that's the time to make them regreat the fact...

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jun 8 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 6 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 6 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 6 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North?

That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about.

Yeah, I never have a friggen clue how the partner of the doubt is supposed to know when to run when he has a little something. Call me crazy, but it's when I have doubt about my contract that I would rather not play it redoubled, even when partner thinks it will make.

Well, are you really going to use the blue card to play here? Seems piggish to me.

Even if the redouble is 'vague', it generally means "I have a problem with one of the off suits, can you help"? Isn't this better than no agreement whatsoever?

If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps.

Even at IMPs, the IMP scale discounts mega disasters like redoubled down 4. Assuming that the other table plays a partial, there's about a 6 IMP difference between -1100 and -2200. So it still makes sense to play the xx as doubt showing.

In south's case anyway, even at mps redouble should be to play IMO. It's not because he is piggish and wants more points. It's because he wants to say "FOD GOD SAKE PARTNER DON'T RUN". Yes I agree by north it's different, all I'm saying is that unless partner has a yarb and knows to obviously run like this hand, it turns an expensive guess into a VERY expensive guess. It still is just a guess, random vague agreements like that don't help.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 8 2007, 08:51 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 8 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 6 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 6 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 6 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North?

That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about.

Yeah, I never have a friggen clue how the partner of the doubt is supposed to know when to run when he has a little something. Call me crazy, but it's when I have doubt about my contract that I would rather not play it redoubled, even when partner thinks it will make.

Well, are you really going to use the blue card to play here? Seems piggish to me.

Even if the redouble is 'vague', it generally means "I have a problem with one of the off suits, can you help"? Isn't this better than no agreement whatsoever?

If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps.

Even at IMPs, the IMP scale discounts mega disasters like redoubled down 4. Assuming that the other table plays a partial, there's about a 6 IMP difference between -1100 and -2200. So it still makes sense to play the xx as doubt showing.

In south's case anyway, even at mps redouble should be to play IMO. It's not because he is piggish and wants more points. It's because he wants to say "FOD GOD SAKE PARTNER DON'T RUN". Yes I agree by north it's different, all I'm saying is that unless partner has a yarb and knows to obviously run like this hand, it turns an expensive guess into a VERY expensive guess. It still is just a guess, random vague agreements like that don't help.

I agree; I only think the "doubt-showing" redouble works for the 3N bidder. He has a much better idea of whether or not his call is speculative or not.

Until South is consulted with a redouble, he's usually barred.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 8 2007, 07:45 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 8 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps.

Using the blue card for blood is MOST useful at total points.
The non-linearity of the IMPs scale, and the discrete nature of the MP scale, make redoubling for business less useful. When every point counts, that's the time to make them regreat the fact...

Francis, I'm sure you play more total points than I do, but I strongly disagree with this.

Say you are North and you are looking at nine cashing tricks in 3N on any lead and that contract just got doubled. Are you really saying you are going to turn the cube here? There's secondary factors, but when you hold a long strong suit and outside stoppers, aren't you afraid that you letting the opponents chicken out and run to 4x?

Now you might say that as East, YOU are looking at five sure tricks: void, KQJTx, Jxxx, Jxxx for instance. Are you going to double 3N? I wouldn't. I probably can't set 4 of a minor. On the other hand, so I hold something like: x, AQJx, Kxxx, Jxxx. I expect to crush 3N, and I also expect to get a juicy penalty out of 4♣ x'd. So this is the kind of hand that I would double 3N with.

If you want to play brinksmanship and go all-in with an opponent that exhibits a semi-strong hand (i.e., weakness--> doubt), than go ahead and turn the cube. Just don't be surprised if your +300 in 4x doubled is worse than your 750 or 950.

[Fluffy]

Phil, you could write a book with all the text you Quote

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on Jun 8 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

Phil, you could write a book with all the text you Quote

Yeah, this sounds familiar.

Like, pclayton said that jdonn said that pclayton said that jdonn said that cherdano said that pclayton said that Suzy and Tommy were, like, seen at the drive-in on Saturday, or so I heard.