[eagles123]

So today I made my first redoubled slam through a mix of bidding misunderstanding and helpful defence

{comments}

---

I saw that my p was playing inverted minors so I thought 2D was inverted and 4C was a cue lol

obviously i would never have redoubled usually but this was the end of a TM and there was nothing much to play for

I know it's a big fluke but the first time I've ever made a doubled slam let alone redoubled

any other stories

Eagles

[ArtK78]

Wasn't it Alfred Sheinwold who said something to the effect that if one's bidding gets you to a lot of bad contracts you learn how to play them better? Maybe it was Marshall Miles. I know that Eddie Kantar used to write about their bidding disasters, sometimes saying that "As neither Marshall nor I have learned how to successfully play 2-0 trump fits at the game level, the contract was not a success."

That is not to say that 6♦ is the worst contract I have ever seen (although I wouldn't want to be there if they lead a spade), but there is a first time for everything. Redouble, however, is a bit rich. If the double is to be believed, you could be down a lot on a spade lead (5-0 diamonds).

Nice of them to lead a heart. Takes a lot of the drama out of the hand. Now all that you have to do is play the doubler for long diamonds and you are home free (barring 4-0 clubs or 5-0 diamonds).

Terrible double, by the way. But we have all seen (and done) worse.

Redoubling slam contracts results in some interesting numbers on the score sheet. I hope you have more +2070s and +1830s than -2800s and -3400s.

(Some editing done between my original post quoted by eagles and the final version)

[eagles123]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-17, 13:57, said:

Wasn't it Alfred Sheinwold who said something to the effect that if one's bidding gets you to a lot of bad contracts you learn how to play them better?

That is not to say that 6♦ is the worst contract I have ever seen (although I wouldn't want to be there if they lead a spade), but there is a first time for everything. Redouble, however, is a bit rich. If the double is to be believed, you could be down a lot on a spade lead (5-0 diamonds).

Nice of them to lead a heart. Takes a lot of the drama out of the hand. Now all that you have to do is play the doubler for long diamonds and you are home free (barring 4-0 clubs or 5-0 diamonds).

Terrible double, by the way. But we have all seen worse.

Oh as I said would never have XX usually but it was nothing to play for lol

[kenrexford]

Three, actually.

The first was 7NTXX, vulnerable, -13 for -7600. I accomplished this! 1NTopening, doubled, and partner leaped to 4♦, intending this as a bizarre preempt. We had this as a bizarre asking bid, asking for strength. I had a max and answered 4NT, which she took as Blackwood and answered 5♦, which I took as asking for Aces and showed two 5NT, which she took as asking for kings and showed 1 with 6♦, which I took as Kings and answered 6NT. She panicked and bid 7♦ because of a void. I figured that this was her bid, and she is timid, so I bid 7NT. After a double, we ended up in 7NTXX on general principles. I found the line to lose all 13 tricks, however, which was not easy. I needed a lot of jettison plays, obviously, but the void helped.

The second was 6NTXX. I knew we had no play, but the opponents pulled to a seven-level non-lucrative sac.

The third was 7NTXX but making. The play involved a progressive squeeze that was the easiest ever. I ran my longest suit, headed by the Ace-King-Queen. This squeezed the doubler, who pitched in my second-longest suit. I then ran that suit, squeezing the person who pitched in my third longest suit. So, the play was to play Ace-King-Queen-Jack-x in my five-card suit, then Ace-King-Queen-x in my second longest suit, then Ace-King-10 in my third longest suit, then cash the Ace in my longest suit. The opponent was amazed by the brilliance of the line, except that it was so self-executing it was ridiculous.

[eagles123]

kenrexford, on 2014-June-17, 14:06, said:

Three, actually.

The first was 7NTXX, vulnerable, -13 for -7600. I accomplished this! 1NTopening, doubled, and partner leaped to 4♦, intending this as a bizarre preempt. We had this as a bizarre asking bid, asking for strength. I had a max and answered 4NT, which she took as Blackwood and answered 5♦, which I took as asking for Aces and showed two 5NT, which she took as asking for kings and showed 1 with 6♦, which I took as Kings and answered 6NT. She panicked and bid 7♦ because of a void. I figured that this was her bid, and she is timid, so I bid 7NT. After a double, we ended up in 7NTXX on general principles. I found the line to lose all 13 tricks, however, which was not easy. I needed a lot of jettison plays, obviously, but the void helped.

The second was 6NTXX. I knew we had no play, but the opponents pulled to a seven-level non-lucrative sac.

The third was 7NTXX but making. The play involved a progressive squeeze that was the easiest ever. I ran my longest suit, headed by the Ace-King-Queen. This squeezed the doubler, who pitched in my second-longest suit. I then ran that suit, squeezing the person who pitched in my third longest suit. So, the play was to play Ace-King-Queen-Jack-x in my five-card suit, then Ace-King-Queen-x in my second longest suit, then Ace-King-10 in my third longest suit, then cash the Ace in my longest suit. The opponent was amazed by the brilliance of the line, except that it was so self-executing it was ridiculous.

I hope it was MP lol

[Fluffy]

Cashing ♥Q was really a terrible move.

[mycroft]

I gave up 7NTxx=, and congratulated my partner the doubler on the attempt. He did, in fact, have nothing, and if there was anything to play for, would likely have caused declarer to go wrong; and there was a couple of suit grands and a bunch of small slams bid, so the double cost exactly zero MPs. And we, and declarer, had a story.