The Sorry State of Redoubles

In the last two years I've moved to a more active doubling approach in (relatively) weak fields - that is if I have 3+ cards in the takeout suits, and close to opening points or better, I double if the hand is not an overcall. This approach is flawed, since frequently one doesn't find much of a fit, and could result in some massacres in a very strong field. Non-expert partnerships often have no way to nail these doubles, and the doubles cause them lots of problems.

One problem the double creates for non-expert partnerships is that it changes their whole structure if they implement a standard strength-showing redouble. Say, for example, the partnership is playing 2/1, constructive 2M, Jacoby 2NT, Strong Jump Shifts. The bidding goes 1S-Pass-?, now:

1NT: forcing, can be a non-constructive raise to 2S or a game invite with 3Ss
2/1: natural, game force
2S: constructive
2NT: Jacoby
Jump shift: strong
3S: game invite with 4+ trumps

Now we throw in a double, 1S-Double-?. If playing common methods, their structure is now:

1NT: natural, and perhaps not clear what bottom range is for the bid
2/1: natural, non-forcing, unclear how good or bad a hand could be to bid this
2S: wide ranging, since 1NT forcing not available for non-constructive hands
2NT: game invite or better, but no agreement on follow-ups
Jump shift: weak
3S: preemptive, but little discussion on which hands fit this bid

The double has trashed their responding system.

They've also gained another bid, the redouble. Their agreement is that this is 11+ or 10+, but there likely has been little discussion of follow-ups. Nobody knows which passes are forcing, and responder's non-jump bids after the redouble may or may not be forcing. They don't have the judgment/experience to know when to double for penalty and when not to, and if they defend against a doubled contract their defense is often not optimal.

With the problems that the double imposes, you want to frequently throw in immediate doubles against non-expert partnerships.

Imo, it's been wrong teaching non-expert partnerships the strength-showing redouble. Just like many non-expert partnerships use the stolen bid approach to keep their 1NT structure, they should use a "Parking Lot Redouble" approach.

For details on how Parking Lot Redoubles were first intended, please see:

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Doubles/ParkingLotDoubles.html

(ignore the headline of "Parking Log" - I'll edit this out once they have it fixed, and ignore that the link is for ParkingLotDoubles, not Redoubles)

What non-expert partnerships should do is play that, over a double:

- all bids retain the same meaning as before
- pass can be made with strong hand with shortness in partner's suit (if any) and length in all other suits - it will double at the next turn to bid
- redouble, the parking lot redouble, asks partner to make the cheapest bid unless considerable extras, and then, at the next turn to bid:

- Pass, non-jump bids, game bids are to play
- Jump bids below game are natural invites
- Even if a bid is in an opponent's suit, it is natural

Parking lot redoubles are not ideal, but at least it keeps a non-expert partnership from driving over a cliff.