[jmcw]

Suppose you open 1NT

♠Kx
♥AKJxx
♦Qxx
♣Qxx

(Surprisingly) It goes 1N P 2♥ X

?

I XX, partner took this to mean 1 had 3♠ with a maximum, ofcourse my intention was to show good ♥

Similar "problems" have occured when a Stayman bid gets X. Does XX show good ♣ or something else?

[aguahombre]

I preach ad nauseum that a double, which takes up no room, should be used by our side to add something we didn't have without the double; and NOT to change what we already were comfortable with.

So, for my partnerships, the redouble suggests we might get a big plus playing in that suit (hearts, here). Our use of pass vs. simple acceptance is based on this same concept, but is not mainstream; however, that wasn't asked.

I would not understand giving up the possibility of punishing a frivolous act by an opponent in order to make up a meaning for the redouble which involves support for the xfer focus suit.

[BunnyGo]

Here's what I play with my partners (and I think that it--or something like it--is fairly standard):

If they double our transfer:

Pass = I have a doubleton of your suit
Complete the transfer = I have 3+ of your suit
XX = I am interested in playing this redoubled contract. If you have more than a minimum and a small doubleton of this suit, you should probably pass.

If they double our stayman bid:

Redouble = to play as above
Pass = club stopper, partner can now XX to ask you to finish the stayman bid
Bid = the natural stayman response, and denies a club stopper

One can switch the Pass and Bid meanings.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-03, 10:01, said:

I would not understand giving up the possibility of punishing a frivolous act by an opponent in order to make up a meaning for the redouble which involves support for the xfer focus suit.

My favourite partner and I use the XX to show a willingness to compete to the 3-level in the xfer focus suit.

We prefer this on grounds of frequency; we don't expect our opponents to do frivolous things very often.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-03, 10:29, said:

My favourite partner and I use the XX to show a willingness to compete to the 3-level in the xfer focus suit.

We prefer this on grounds of frequency; we don't expect our opponents to do frivolous things very often.

Understood, but you still have M+1 for supers and whatever other toys available so why not allow for the unexpected?

[glen]

It's wrong to play the XX to play, since it gives both opponents the chance to escape, which is especially wrong when the doubler is holding a two-suiter.

Better is to play pass as showing a stopper and no good fit. Now responder will XX on most hands, and opener can pass to play.

[FrancesHinden]

I just stick with the simple redouble = I suggest playing here from both sides.
Opponents do frivolous things frequently.

[kenrexford]

glen, on 2011-December-03, 12:36, said:

It's wrong to play the XX to play, since it gives both opponents the chance to escape, which is especially wrong when the doubler is holding a two-suiter.

Better is to play pass as showing a stopper and no good fit. Now responder will XX on most hands, and opener can pass to play.

I like this idea, but this could even be expanded somewhat.

XX would not necessarily mean even a stopper (which makes escaping even harder). If you pass, this forces a redouble if partner could play opposite the classic redouble. But, Opener could then bid again for a variety of defined reasons.

Redouble instead could simply show the fit when Jacoby is doubled, as usually the lead should come out of the doubler's hand. 2M could then show precisely two in the suit, which wrong-sides the play, but perhaps with transfers for other suits.

For that matter, a forced redouble could then induce occasional right-siding when Opener has the doubleton. You only lose when Advancer can redouble.

Maybe, with Jacoby:

1NT-(P)-2♦-(X)-?

Pass forces redouble if playable. Opener may have interest in redouble, or doubleton fit wanting play from partner's side.
Redouble is a three-fit transfer back.
2♥ in this situation is 5♠/2♥?

After Stayman, pass could have the same redouble style, with transfer answers to Stayman:

1NT-(P)-2♣-(X)-?

Pass "forces" redouble. Might have diamonds and pull to 2♦.
XX = no 4-card major
2♦ = four hearts
2♥ = four spades
2♠ = 3♠/2♥/5-6♦?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-03, 11:35, said:

Understood, but you still have M+1 for supers and whatever other toys available so why not allow for the unexpected?

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-04, 06:50, said:

I just stick with the simple redouble = I suggest playing here from both sides.
Opponents do frivolous things frequently.

Will reconsider.

[Free]

Chances of playing their suit are quite rare, so I prefer RDbl to show something else.

Pass = doubleton
...RDbl = retransfer (rightsiding)
...2♠ = signoff (rightsiding)
RDbl = 3+ card support, no reason to rightside
2♠ = 3+ card support, rightsiding

You might want to use pass as trap as well, because most of the time you get a RDbl anyway.

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2011-December-05, 06:46, said:

Chances of playing their suit are quite rare, so I prefer RDbl to show something else.

They might be rare, but they are rewarding enough to let them happen. It changes a match slightly when you bring +1520 or somesuch back to the score comparison.

[barmar]

I've seen plenty of people X with just Kxxxx of the suit. They'll never learn if we don't punish them.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-December-05, 12:13, said:

I've seen plenty of people X with just Kxxxx of the suit. They'll never learn. if we don't So, let's punish them.

FYP

[barmar]

I was trying to be diplomatic.

[nigel_k]

Definitely XX to play. I actually like pass to show a decent holding in their suit but not good enough to redouble so that responder can also redouble if suitable. In my experience people double artificial bids quite often when they cannot beat your contract.

Glen's idea is interesting but am not sure I want to have to remember it. And doubler's partner is the one who will usually want to run so the immediate (which will not always end the auction) creates uncertainty about our intentions for the opponent who actually has the decision.