On May 13, 11:08 pm, Bill Jacobs <bill.jac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Bill,
>
> > I'd be curious to know if you can find exceptions to my own paradigm,
> > which was:
>
> > (1) a redouble is SOS if and only if a takeout double has been
> > converted into a penalty double by advancer.
>
> > (2) a redouble is SOS of the "doubt showing" variety if they have
> > made a penalty double of our freely bid game in a competitive
> > auction.
>
> > I suppose that #1 should be modified to "as long as opener has not
> > opened with a preempt," to take away the 4s p p dbl; p p rdbl
> > scenario.
>
> > All other redoubles would then be strength showing or business. I
> > assume that we are not including parking lot redoubles in this
> > discussion (where 2h-x-xx says 'make the next higher bid and pass
> > whatever i do next), since those redoubles do not seem to be in the
> > purview of the opening poster.
>
> I think your principles are pretty sound, but not sure why you are
limiting
> the SOS to situations where a takeout double is converted via a penalty
> pass. Why not include straight penalty doubles?
>
> For example:
>
> 1D (X) 1H (X)
>
> Your opponents play that the second double is penalties of 1H. Now
opener
> with 4-0-5-4 shape wants out of 1HX. OK to make an SOS redouble? I'm
sure
> you agree, but a partner who conscientiously learns your paradigm and
> abides with it is going to be torn apart when this auction comes up.
> That's why I think it's positively dangerous to try to make up an
algorithm
> in situations when it cannot be made watertight. Better to apply logic.
>
> Also I feel that doubt-showing redoubles should only apply to 3NT. A
> doubt-showing redouble of a freely-bid 4S seems pretty unlikely to me.
>
> Cheers ... Bill
Bill,
the sequence you pose first,
1x dbl 1y dbl
rdbl
intrigued me enough to (1) see if Lawrence dealt with it in his book
on Doubles (he doesn't), and then (2) email Lawrence to ask him what
he thinks that redouble should mean.
His reply was that if the double of 1y is not penalty, then redouble
should be sup****t. If the double of 1y is penalty, then redouble
should mean something but he isn't sure what that something should be.
I have therefore taken the liberty of suggesting this sequence to
Rubens as an MSC problem under the problem "D" format, namely; how
many cards in 'y' should this redouble show, assuming the double of
'y' is business: 0, 1, 2, or 3.
Time will tell if Rubens (and Cohen) think highly enough of the
sequence to pose it as an MSC problem.
Henrysun909
|
