In article
<aedd8ec1-9e9b-452c-b14b-6e4dca2509d0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
<henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 12, 8:42 am, gaze...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:
>> As many of you know, XX for SOS is dangerous online, because your
>> pd-of-the-moment might not catch it. It seems to me that it ought to
be
>> possible to come up with some (very) simple rules, that one could put
in
>> one's "profile", that even the thickest online pd couldn't screw up.
>>
>> I'm thinking it would be: XX is SOS except... (when it obviously
isn't):
>>
>> 1) 1x (X) XX - is obviously a "normal" (whatever that means)
>> sequence. What the XX shows and what opener is supposed to
do
>> is less than clear, but that's another story.
>> 2) Constructive sequences where we are bidding to make, and we
>> really do think they've stepped in it.
>>
>> So, how to codify the above and make it bulletproof?
>
>I'd much rather take the opposite approach: a redouble is SOS only
>when we define it to be SOS. Here are a couple of rules I think are
>unassailable:
I think you're missing the point - which is that this is online.
I really don't care one whit about "pet partner methods".
In fact, *I* don't understand your rules (that you so carefully laid out
for me), so I certainly can't imagine a random pickup being able to
handle it.
Further, it has been my view that redouble gains very infrequently.
Most redoubled contracts go down. Online, people frequently redouble
when they are going down in an attempt to make *you* panic and run.
So, it seems like, when you get down to it, giving up the "business"
redouble should really be no loss. So, I guess you could just play that
all XX's are SOS - with maybe an obvious exception for #1 above (but you
would resign yourself to the lost of #2).
Further, to the poster(s) who seem to to think that SOS isn't needed -
you haven't played much online.
|
