Believe partner, not the opponents

Here's an ordinary hand: ♠J765 ♥A3 ♦T864 ♣J93. It's an IMP pairs and no-one is vulnerable. You are playing vanilla 2/1. Partner is the dealer and starts proceedings with 1♣. After a pass, you bid 1♠. LHO doubles this and partner redoubles.  This is a support redouble so it says nothing about strength, simply that partner has exactly three spades. A support double mostly shows a balanced hand, but with the redouble, it's a little less clear since the opponents have claimed the other two suits.

The bidding continues with 1NT on your right over which you, naturally, pass, as does LHO.  Partner now doubles. What do you think is going on?

First, of all, you have to decide whether this is penalty or takeout. If it's takeout, what exactly would it be taking out into? LHO has both red suits apparently. Partner could be asking you to take a preference between the black suits, I suppose.

But, if you've been reading my stuff on penalty triggers, you will be in no doubt. Redouble is a penalty trigger. All subsequent doubles are for penalty. Added to that, RHO just made a competitive notrump bid and that's a trigger, too.

However, let's say that you've been reading lately that there's a kind of double called "intended-as-penalty." Partner expects you to leave it in unless you have an unbalanced hand. Would 5-5 in the pointed suits be sufficiently unbalanced? Maybe. It is IMPs. But the opponents are not vulnerable so, even in our worst nightmare, they might make an overtrick for 380.

There's another consideration. Partner opened 1♣ so either he has an unbalanced hand with 16+ and clubs, or a balanced hand with 18-19. Either way, I think we have a pretty good idea what to lead: a club!

You decide to show a weak, distributional hand, by bidding 2♦ and we end up in 2♠ making 170 for an average board. It's a shame though because we could have had 800 in 1NTX, 420 in 4♠, 430 in 3NT, or 920 in 6♣.

Here's the whole hand:

The moral of the story? Believe partner, not the opponents.

The forcing pass

This is a subject that covers many situations and much has been written on forcing passes after a game bid (or after a game-forcing bid). Fascinating as that subject is, it's been well covered elsewhere (particularly Robson & Segal's excellent book: Partnership Bidding at Bridge: The Contested Auction). And this blog from a couple of years ago: No wonder it takes so long to learn this game--the denouement, covers the situation where one of us has taken an action showing a "sound raise" (aka limit raise or better).

The other situation where the forcing pass comes up at low levels is after an opening 1-bid has been doubled and redoubled. Given a disciplined redouble, which "implies no fit" and thus, in my opinion, denies three (or more) cards in support for partner's major unless it is a very flat hand, our side is in a force. Not to game but, by convention, through the two-level.

In other words, the opponents may not play a contract at the two-level or below unless it is doubled. Of course, we can continue bidding to the three level (or game) if we think that is better. But in the following auction, pass is 100% forcing. But pass does seem in this situation to be not very descriptive.

So, what would West's various bids mean? 2♣ would show a minimum opener with presumably six (or perhaps five) clubs and would tend to deny much defense against a spade contract. 2♦ or 2♥ would still be a reverse, although since partner has announced 10+ hcp, we might not be as strong as otherwise. More likely, the 1♠ bid has made life awkward for our expected rebid (1NT?) and so we bid 2♦/2♥ instead.

2♠ would tend to show some sort of distributional monster that wants to force to game. The given hand seems like a case in point. 3♣ would be descriptive but non-forcing. I'm not really sure if there are any other bids (other than 3NT) that make much sense here.

What this hand should not do is double. Double here says, I have a minimum hand (although at favorable vulnerability, we might have a maximum hand too) but spades is my second suit. Something like ♠KJ96 ♥Q3 ♦QT5 ♣KQ83. Hopefully, we will be plus 200 when we probably have no game. With significantly more than 10 hcp, partner can of course pull the double to a game contract, knowing that spades are stopped, and that we need 600 rather than 200 or 500.

With any other hand, that's to say nothing particular to say, pass is just fine (it definitely doesn't in any way limit the strength of your hand because it is 100% forcing). Pass would however, tend to limit the distribution of your hand.

For more on my thoughts about redouble, see The blue card.

Using double or redouble to ask about partner's hand

Here's the type of auction for which many pairs do not have a good understanding of how best to compete:

The situation arises when West's bid is ambiguous (for example, it doesn't specify a suit, or shows only one suit of two). Click each bid to see its meaning. Is partner showing clubs? The majors? Could it be some sort of rescue request?

In my partnerships, this redouble has a very simple and clear meaning: "I have decent values and I'd like you to further describe your hand at your next turn." Without the redouble, South might bid a major and you (West) might feel that your hand wasn't good enough to bid 3♦. But partner is saying: I really want to know what your hand is.

This hand came up at a sectional tournament, playing against two good matchpoint players. I was East. South passed and West now bid 2♦. Two passes followed and now South decided to bid 3♣. This went pass-pass and I finished proceedings with double. We scored 500 (could have been 800) for a clear top. It turned out that North made a somewhat over-enthusiastic Stayman bid and South, expecting his partner to have a bit more, decided to bid his clubs with only an 11-count. Here is the whole hand:

It was good that we have the rule that all doubles after a redouble are for penalty, so there was no doubt what the final double meant.

The double can be used for the same thing. Here's an example using the same hand, just a slightly different treatment for the West hand:

Again, just to be clear, East's double says nothing about clubs—it asks partner to state which of the three hands he actually has: 2♥ would show both majors (pass or correct), 2♦ would show diamonds and pass would show clubs.

This seems like a simple, effective, agreement. Yet in my experience it is quite rare. Maybe even unique. Without it a distributional but weak responder can easily preempt the other side out of a good contract. Suppose in the actual hand (first example), North had simply transferred to spades with a 2♥ call. East doesn't double because his double would show good hearts. South bids 2♠. Is West really going to come in with 3♦? I don't think so.

Fun in the Smoky Mountains

Kim, CJ and I spent a very enjoyable week in Tennessee, mostly at the Mid-Atlantic Regional held in Gatlinburg, on the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The main attraction was playing in the bracketed knockouts at the invitation of our friends Bruce Downing and Mark Conner. I had been once before nine years ago, Kim had never been, but Bruce and Mark are regulars at the tournament.

One of the things you can do at this tournament is play five sessions a day. In truth the "dinner-bell" Compact KO is only half a session, and the midnight KOs are whatever you can manage to stay in for. But Kim and CJ indeed played all five sessions that day! And CJ managed to add significantly to his masterpoint total by playing in I/N events -- although he was the only player in the whole tournament under 20, I think.

If winning matches and masterpoints in the company of friends was our only goal then we succeeded handsomely: we won 7 of 8 matches and earned almost 48 masterpoints. Still, we came away feeling that something wasn’t quite right. Our total master points came to just under 10,000. But our competition was, in most cases, significantly outgunned. Each team surely had to have at least one gold life master, or four who are very close. Yet, the matches were not as competitive as we are used to at home even in flight B events. Nobody seemed to be able to bid slams and they were fairly ignorant of alerting procedures, how to deal with unauthorized information and general bridge etiquette. In the match we lost (the finals of the first event), we had bid a very good slam. The opponents were not in the auction. The opening lead went straight to their partner's ace in one suit followed by a switch to another suit, ruffed (my RHO had seven but had not bid the suit). Other than that, the slam was odds-on to make. But they didn't bid it at the other table of course. There were other bad boards for us too as we all made mistakes. The first event where we played in the sixth bracket of 21, offered significantly tougher competition than the second event (fifth bracket of 12). In the latter event, we felt a little bit bad for raining on their parade. In the semi-finals we found ourselves up by 70 imps at the half and our opponents decided to withdraw [how had they managed to beat two other teams?]

Possible explanations for this disparity of skills are (1) the tough competition in New England; (2) the fact that we usually play flight A events at home rather than collecting points in B flights; (3) simple randomness at work (a sample of two events, eight teams is hardly statistically significant); (4) a space-time warp. Or perhaps it's simply that, as Harold Feldheim supposedly has said, "as you get better, you won't notice it. Instead, you will think that other players are worse."

One of my favorite hands came in the final (winning) match. Kim has been a little skeptical about the efficacy of fit-showing jumps. It’s true they don’t come up very often but when they do…

All white, my hand was something like ♠Qx ♥xxx ♦AQTxx ♣AJx. Dealer on my right bid 1♠ and I made a questionable overcall of 2♦. LHO bid 2♠ and Kim surprised me with 4♣, showing a diamond fit, a good club suit and a willingness to be at the four level. Thinking that her clubs might easily prove better than my ragged diamonds [not to mention Kim’s excellent declarer play], I raised to 5♣, which she wrapped up for 400 while our teammates were in 3♠ making four (11 imps). My judgment of strain proved fortuitous as my RHO had a void in hearts which would likely have been led against a diamond contract.

How do you get to be up 70 at the half? Let me quote from teammate Bruce Downing...




This board was a killer:

West opened 1D and I overcalled 1H. 1S from East and West (balked of the planned 2H reverse) ended the auction with 3NT. East passed slowly as well she might. It turns out not to matter which heart I lead. I can't stop her from getting 2 heart tricks. However we held it to 3 for a pedestrian imp result of 3NT making their way. Not so calm at the other table!!!

Kim also opened 1D but apparently the North hand does not meet the standards of their opponents for an overcall. North passed with my cards. 1S from Robin. Pass from South and 2H Reverse from Kim. Now double from North (lead directing? penalty? bizarre?) Whatever North's reasons for doubling 2H, the unfortunate woman had no idea with whom she was dealing. The next to bid would be Robin Hillyard who has spent many years refining theories of doubles. Having mastered the red card, he was ready to move on to the blue card. Redouble is Robin's bid. He likes his chances across from a red suit reverse. Pass from South (what can she do?) Pass from Kim (nice trust for partner) and it is back to North who has nowhere to go either. The contract is 2H**. Kim gave up only 3 tricks in the play, obviously playing her 4-2 fit brilliantly, and 2H made with 2 redoubled overtricks rang up +1040 for our side. Good times!

In truth, I probably shouldn't have redoubled with six spades. But when you get ahead in a match you can take a few liberties to see how things will work it. The hand always makes 9 tricks in hearts, 10 tricks in spades or notrump and 12 tricks in diamonds. So we beat par by only 120 (3 imps) but in practice it worked out as 12 imps.

We also did a lot of touristy stuff. We spent a day at Dollywood and I rode five (!) roller-coasters with CJ including the old scary Thunderhead (wooden coaster) and the sleek new Wild Eagle. There's also a kind of zip line on wheels and track called the Smoky Mountain Alpine Coaster which we enjoyed. The weather was good, the dogwoods were out in abundance. Good times indeed.

The blue card

I realize that I've been surprisingly reticent on the subject of redoubles in this blog, especially given my obsession with doubles. I've mentioned redouble just a few times, particularly in the context of DSIP and the various triggers and in my recent blog on staying with happiness. The "blue card" is such a rarity at the bridge table, that whenever it appears there's a little sense of shock that runs around the table. If your side is the redoubler you expect to get an above average board at least. If your side was the doubler, then you're not so hopeful. But, despite the fact that it seldom comes up, it is essential to have good understandings about what it means in order to take advantage of the situation.

My musings were prompted by a question came up in an email conversation as to the meaning of this redouble: 1♠ pass 2♣ X XX?

Clearly, it's not a "support" redouble since opener couldn't have raised partner's response to the two-level. It seems to me that it denies a good raise of clubs (Qxx or better), denies the ability (or desire) to rebid spades, and suggests extras (we could have passed with a minimum hand that has nothing to say). It further suggests that opener isn't enthusiastic, at least not yet, about bidding notrump. So what's left? Some sort of hand with extras, either unbalanced or semi-balanced but unsuitable for a 1NT opener. I would think that it suggests four hearts (that being the guaranteed suit of the doubler) and probably 5=4=2=2 or 5=4=3=1 shape, possibly 5=4=1=3 with three small clubs. Opener might have a void in clubs of course in which case the hand is probably 5=4=4=0.

Once we have redoubled, any subsequent direct pass by our side is forcing and any double is for penalties. Depending on the vulnerability, our goal should be either to punish the opponents for their misjudged interference or to bid game ourselves.

So, what's the meaning of redouble in general? I believe that the following list covers the common situations:

• shows a good hand (extras) with no fit;
• shows a bad hand with no fit (SOS);
• asks partner to name his implied but unnamed suit (this may not be "standard" but to me is so obvious that I can't understand why it wouldn't be);
• shows three card "support" when raising partner's suit to the two level is a possibility (assuming you've agreed to play it);
• shows/denies an honor in partner's suit (Rosenkranz if you have agreed it);

Unfortunately, many of these situations have grey areas. For instance, what do you call with ♠Q92 ♥Q54 ♦KQJ3 ♣J72 when partner opens 1♥ and RHO doubles? Many would probably redouble but this could easily backfire if we later come in at a high level or if we pull partner's penalty double "to show our support." One strategy which I favor with this sort of hand is to pass initially and then bid hearts at whatever level is necessary (or make our own penalty double if they get too high first). Partner will infer we have this sort of hand.

However, I posted this problem on BridgeWinners and many votes (65%) were given for redouble, even though I said that the "Redouble implies no fit" box was checked. I can understand redouble on this really flat awful 11 count in the sense that we don't have a good fit. Others avoid this whole problem by using a transfer system in this situation.

Passing first may not work well with a more distributional hand, though, say ♠2 ♥Q54 ♦KQJ93 ♣K872. Here, a Truscott/Jordan 2NT or, better, a fit-showing jump to 3♦ would be more more descriptive (even though partner will expect another trump with either of these bids). Redouble and pass will probably work very badly if the opponents quickly jump to 4♠. We might be cold for slam in a red suit and they might even end up making 4♠ doubled. The BridgeWinners community again voted mostly (48%) for redouble here too, though. I have to admit that this surprises me quite a lot.

What surprises me is redoubling with three-card support, especially in the second hand. Perhaps Karen Walker has it right when she says that the "implies" box really means temporarily imply no fit (her emphasis).

There's one other somewhat controversial treatment that I like to play. If partner opens and RHO makes a takeout double, redouble shows no fit, but also doesn't promise any particular number of points. If partner has opened 1♣ and you have 1 or fewer clubs, then redouble. It's an advance SOS call in case LHO is planning to pass. Partner will take it out to a better spot (at the one level), assuming that they don't. Of course, if we do have decent values (10+ hcp) then we will now contribute to harassing the opponents or until we find a good contract of our own. If partner opens 1♠ and we have 1 or fewer, we may already be in our best spot, so here XX would tend to show good values. Hearts and diamonds are treated somewhere in between. This hasn't come up much, I admit. But on the few occasions when it has, we have ended up getting a decent result.

Finally, a hand that came up just today. You hold: ♠8754 ♥A92 ♦3 ♣KJ952 with everyone vulnerable. LHO passes, partner bids 1♥ and the next player doubles. Again, you're a bit stuck for a bid. I think 3♣ is almost perfect here, assuming that you have agreed to play fit-showing jumps. It says you're willing to play 3♥, four if partner has extras. It says you have good clubs. Partner's going to expect better hearts and/or better clubs but I think it's the least lie so to speak. Had this been bid at the table, we would have scored exactly 50% on the board. As it was, this hand redoubled and the next player bid 2♦. Partner passed and now our hand came in with 2♥. This was followed by two passes and then 3♦. Partner closed it out by doubling. We ended up with +200  for a 79% board (it was fortunate that the declarer was the one with the ♦A else it would be -670). We got a little lucky here. In my opinion, redouble should be used with relatively flat hands with at least 10hcp and no more than a doubleton in partner's major suit.

How many transfers?

Is there a maximum number of times a player can transfer on one hand?  My partner and I earned an unexpectedly good score on a board from last week's STAC games where I assumed that the number of transfers was limited. I quite arbitrarily applied a three strikes rule.

I picked up the following, at unfavorable vulnerability and second seat: ♠J4 ♥AKT63 ♦A92 ♣765.  Dealer passed.  We play a 12-14 notrump and, although we don't typically open 1NT with a five card major, for some reason I did this time.  LHO bid 2♣ and partner bid 2♥, a transfer.  RHO now doubled and I passed.  Lefty passed and partner redoubled.  I did recognize this as a re-transfer, although I was probably going to pass it if it came to it.

Incidentally, I discovered long ago, that it doesn't pay to re-transfer with a redouble unless you have at least invitational strength - just in case partner decides to pass the redouble out.  Better to just bid your suit with a weak hand.

In any event, RHO bid 3♣ and I passed again.  Now, partner bid 3♥.  Should I have known this was another transfer?  Perhaps.  I thought partner had finally decided to support my hearts and this was to play.  Partner's "thank you, partner" had just a smidgeon of an edge to it, I thought.  The defense was not optimal and my partner's declarer play was brilliant so he brought home this unlikely contract.  His hand, by the way, was ♠AKT763 ♥52 ♦T753 ♣4.  One pair did beat us by taking ten tricks in a spade partial, but our result was an excellent 10 out of 11.

Partnership Bridge: Redouble or pass?

Another thought-provoking article by the Granovetters in the May 2010 Bridge Bulletin. By chance, it is an excellent exemplar for my earlier blog Redoubling with three trumps.  Here's the hand in question (only we are vulnerable): ♠Q74 ♥QT86 ♦82 ♣AKQ3.  Partner deals and opens 1♠ and RHO doubles.  Now, what are our options?  2♠? no – too good.  3♠? no – ditto.  4♠? no – it gets us to the right spot but partner will think we have a weaker, more distributional hand.  2NT? not enough trumps.  Redouble?  no! – we have three trumps so, given the vulnerability, this doesn't look like a situation where we are enthusiastic about penalizing the opponents.  Pass?  Yes.  What can go wrong?  Nothing. Especially when we hold the boss suit.  Whatever they do next, we will bid 3♠ (or 4♠ if we think our hand is good enough) at our next turn.  If they bid 4♥ or 4♣ first, we can change tack and double.  Partner will know that we have a balanced hand with limit-raise strength and exactly three spades.

If by some miracle, they pass it out (they almost certainly won't) we will score 560 if we make 9 tricks or 760 if we can make game (even non-vulnerable, 1♠X+3 outscores 4♠).  Note, however, that on this hand it is just possible that the double will be passed out, as doubler's partner has ♠KJ985 ♥942 ♦T ♣T954.

Let's assume that LHO bids 2♣.  Partner rebids 2♦ and RHO raises to 3♣.  Now, having passed earlier, we enter the auction with 3♠, showing a three-card limit raise.  Partner will know exactly what to do.  He will pass.  Yes, on this particular occasion we give up on a penalty of 800, but 140 is still a reasonable plus score, at least at matchpoints.  On a really good day our LHO will now double 3♠, giving us 730.

What happened at the table, according to the article, was that our hand redoubled.  The bidding continued as above.  Over 3♣, our hand doubled.  Partner who had opened with a fine, if minimum, distributional hand ♠AT632 ♥K ♦AJ9764 ♣2, pulled our penalty double to 3♦ (a questionable action, as Pam points out in the article, since he's already shown a weakish distributional hand when he rebid 2♦) and we bid 3NT, never having shown our excellent spade support.  As it turned out 3NT cannot make from our side of the table, nor can 4♠ as it happens, each contract failing by a trick.  This is primarily due to a foul distribution of the missing spades (5-0).  But, generally speaking, when we have such good support and 13 hcp, we would normally expect to be in 4♠.  The fact that it doesn't make on this layout is neither here nor there.

I was surprised that neither Matthew nor Pam criticized the redouble.  If you've read my previous blog (referenced above) you'll know that I feel that redouble should guarantee no fit! Qxx opposite a major suit opener is a fit!  Partner can never know whether to penalize the opponents if he thinks that we might have three of his suit.

Redoubling with three trumps

Why is that books and teachers tell us to redouble with a good hand and three of partner's major suit after RHO doubles?  What is the justification for this bit of nonsense?

The redouble should "imply no fit" and that means fewer than three major suit trumps.  How will partner be able to make a confident penalty double if he has a lurking suspicion that you might have three of his trumps?

Let's take an example. You hold ♠K84 ♥K7 ♦QT42 ♣QJ54, partner opens one heart and RHO doubles.  This is a clear redouble.  If partner has a decent spade holding (or if LHO bids a minor) we will double whatever they bid.  If LHO bids 1♠ and it comes back around, we can bid 1NT.

But what if we hold this similar but significantly different hand: ♠K84 ♥K97 ♦QT42 ♣QJ4?  If partner opens 1♥ and RHO doubles, we should pass.  Yes, pass!  We would normally bid a forcing 1NT and then jump in hearts.  So, in other words, we're willing to bid up to 3♥ without hearing of any extras that partner might hold.  If we pass now, and 3♥ is still available, we will bid it when it's next our turn.  Only if the bidding is already at the level of 3♠, will we be inconvenienced. In that case, we will double or bid NT according to the vulnerability.  Partner will know that we have exactly three hearts because we didn't redouble earlier and yet obviously have a good hand.  He will be very well placed to know what to do.

But I hear you saying "how will partner know we have a good hand when it's his second turn to bid?"  He won't.  But we'll enlighten him at our next turn.

Isn't it better for him to know your strength right away?  No.  It's much more important to tell partner about fit (or lack thereof) right away.  Strength can be shown later.

If you redouble holding two or three trumps, partner will know your strength right away but he still won't know what to do when your LHO jumps to 3♠.  He can't really double (penalty) with ♠Q5 ♥AQJ642 ♦K8 ♣AT5 because his spades aren't great and you might have three trumps.  But how can he bid 4♥ when you might have zero, one or two hearts?

So, does it seem odd to be passing with 10hcp opposite partner's opening?  Maybe, but the auction isn't over.  In the extremely rare event that they all pass, your partner will be playing 1♥X. That's not game, you say?  Indeed it isn't.  But let's see what our score will be if we can actually make 10 tricks?  Vulnerable, it will be 760 (like the sound of that?) and non-vulnerable, it will be 460 (not quite so good at IMPs but a very fine score at matchpoints).  But that isn't going to happen.  Someone is going to bid again, usually LHO.  If he passes, it means that the trumps are breaking 5-0 and this time you probably were never going to make ten tricks anyway.  But if you make your contract (perhaps with an overtrick) you're going to be well ahead.

BTW, since our redouble message now is only "no fit", we can actually do it with fewer than 10 points (if we compete later, we have at least 10).  But suppose we pick up this hand:  ♠KT84 ♥J752 ♦QT42 ♣4 and hear it go 1♣ double, aren't we likely to be better off in a different suit?  If LHO passes (he might because he might have long clubs), partner can bid another suit.  Our redouble has just performed double-duty as an S-O-S redouble.  If partner has decent clubs and no other suit, he can sit for it.  We probably shouldn't take this to extremes and do it with a complete Yarborough in case partner sits but can't make 1♣.  OTOH, if partner opens 1♠, and our hand is ♠4 ♥J752 ♦QT42 ♣KT84, we may already be in our best spot and LHO is very unlikely to pass it out anyway.