[rogerclee]

You are opposing Italy II, with Dano de Falco on your right and Benito Garozzo on your left.

IMPs, All Red

♠9 ♥QJ5432 ♦T63 ♣932

LHO Deals:

(2♣)-P-(3♥)-P
(7♠)-Dbl-(7NT)-P
(P)-Dbl-AP

3♥ is some sort of artificial strong bid for the minors (not sure about this).

You lead?

Hidden:

Spoiler

Lew Stansby, not totally unreasonably, led the spade 9. This was an unpleasant choice, letting 7NTx make for -2490. The heart Q gets the defenders the first 7 tricks for +2000. Since the other room played 6S making, this lead cost Stansby 36 IMPs!

[bb79]

Since I was kibbing the vugraph I can't answer without influence. This deal made me happy to be awake at 5am.

I hear that 3♥ bid is misalerted at the table and director will adjust the board!! Candidate for the most interesting deal of the year

[jtfanclub]

Why didn't Benito pull the 7NTX?

Spoiler

God help us all if I need a smilie

This post has been edited by jtfanclub: 2008-February-15, 07:47

[benlessard]

Without partner 2nd X the S is clear. So his 2nd X is probably because hes greedy and sure of setting the contract. But still you need to pay the lightner insurance. Those high level lightner X are too precious.

[kfay]

benlessard, on Feb 15 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

Without partner 2nd X the S is clear. So his 2nd X is probably because hes greedy and sure of setting the contract. But still you need to pay the lightner insurance. Those high level lightner X are too precious.

Totally agree. I do, personally.

I think that on this auction the X actually specifically calls for a ♥ lead for us, but I could be wrong. Hard to say on account of the auction.

[brianshark]

Did you see his previous double of 7♠? Double of 7NT is not lightner. Double means they are going down.

[brianshark]

As for the choice of lead, I have complete sympathy for the ♠ lead. Pard's most likely holding to double on is a slow ♠ trick. Therefore, the last thing I want to do is lead a ♥ honour and potentially give up my stopper in case declarer needs heart tricks to make 7N without needing to run the ♠s.

[kfay]

brianshark, on Feb 15 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

Did you see his previous double of 7♠? Double of 7NT is not lightner. Double means they are going down.

This is completely wrong.

The opponents are in a grand slam that can, according to partner, be set. Our partners are smart and stop at a more sensible level, right? Why should we be concerned with how many we set them as long as we set them since the difference for these large numbers is going to be precisely ZERO IMPS!!!!! most of the time and ALL of the time when partner has 'one slow spade trick'. You gain nothing for the double so it is nothing less that stupid (sorry, but it is) to play it this way.

Double should be used to give informatoin.

As an aside a spade lead also seems dubious in the first place since, as in a previous problem about leading against a slam with a LIGHTNER double, where is the spade trick going? Does responder really have 13 tricks in the minors? If it's a slow spade trick then the spade lead won't set it anyways if this IS the case.

I'm not saying a heart lead is 'wtp?' but I am saying that doubling here is obviously lightner. Did I see partner's double of 7♠? This question is just foolish because obviously I did!! If he doesn't double the second time I lead a spade 'hey... he doubled 7♠ didn't he? He must have the trump ace or something'. And it looks like from the OP that the ♠ lead lets them make 7.

Double is lightner, end of story. These auctions are quite common and you need this weapon against them. Just ask Justin, he had one of these a few weeks ago too (he bid the NT). If partner passes I lead a spade and we set undoubled and guess what, I'm just as happy.

This problem alone is evidence that double is lightner. How can I ever get this right if it's not? Obviously I can't.

[matmat]

didn't this score get rolled back to something on a TD decision?

[kfay]

Jlall, on Feb 15 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

I have never played with someone who was disciplined enough to double 7S with the ace of spades and then pass 7N

And as a practical matter, how can pard have a double of 7S unless he has the ace of spades? Any other ace he has he must be scared will be ruffed, or that they will run to 7N and you won't find the right lead. What are you guys placing partner with for his X of 7S?

I would lead a spade and don't think it's very close.

Frankly on this auction there's no way they're making 7NT if my P has the ♠A so let him double, I'll lead something else, and it'll be fine anyways.

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Feb 16 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

I have never played with someone who was disciplined enough to double 7S with the ace of spades and then pass 7N

And as a practical matter, how can pard have a double of 7S unless he has the ace of spades? Any other ace he has he must be scared will be ruffed, or that they will run to 7N and you won't find the right lead. What are you guys placing partner with for his X of 7S?

I would lead a spade and don't think it's very close.

Agree - I'd lead a spade in my sleep here.

[bb79]

Scoring: IMP

---

Here is the bulletin column about this hand (http://www.ywt.com.t...ulletins/b5.pdf)

Quote

To understand what was going on you need to know that Garozzo - De Falco until two days ago had agreed to play the responses to 2♣ included 3♥ to show spades, 3♠ to show hearts, and 3NT for both minors. Before the event started De Falco asked Garozzo to switch the responses, so 3♥ now was agreed to show both minors, though convention card did not reflect this. But South had forgotten.

After he bid 7♠, Garozzo explained the bid to west as six good spades. because that was the agreement (he thought) and he was not obliged to say that he knew from his own hand that this was wrong. North - who was never going to sit for 7♠, doubled or not, because he knew from the jump to 7♠ that Garozzo had forgotten his agreements, ran to 7NT, and explained to Lew Stansby that he had actually had the minors but that Garozzo might have forgotten and played him for spades (right he was - in a sense). Stansby on lead could infer that his partner was likely to have spades for double; that would explain South's jump to 7♠ after all. So he led a spade and that was -2490.

The director ruling was a Solomonic one under Law 12c(iii). He estimated the chances of 7NT and 7♠ making or going down and came up with a result of 1 imp to USA I. (In the other room, Katz Jacobs had bid 6♠ making 7)

[Fluffy]

I comented this hand to daddy, and he said that the only card he was completelly sure someone had was ♠A. Nobody would bid 7♠ without the ace of trumps. And probably without ♠AKQ also. ♠J might be in partner's hand, but anyway.


He led a low heart wich is not really good, only achieves 500.

[brianshark]

kfay, on Feb 15 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

The opponents are in a grand slam that can, according to partner, be set. Our partners are smart and stop at a more sensible level, right?  Why should we be concerned with how many we set them as long as we set them since the difference for these large numbers is going to be precisely ZERO IMPS!!!!!  most of the time and ALL of the time when partner has 'one slow spade trick'.  You gain nothing for the double so it is nothing less that stupid (sorry, but it is) to play it this way.

Double should be used to give informatoin.

The fella who doubled 7♠ was on lead against 7♠. It can't be lightner. The double of 7N was simply because he felt that too was going down.

[benlessard]

First of all partner shouldnt X 7Nt with the A of S, you might easily be void, he will pass and if you find a spade in your sleeve you can X and lead your spade. (edited ! in this case I had a S and had to X before partner )

Also having the SA and little elsewhere why the (XXXX -edited by inquiry) would he X 7S ? To put you on lead with a S void ? Having the SA partner can pass 7S and if opps bid 7Nt then now he can try for a lightner asking for a S lead.

In my view partner will never X for a 1 trick set unless hes on lead in 7Nt and know that i rarely lead out of turn ! And if partner already X 7S (expecting a 2 trick set) then he has no need to X 7Nt because i will X them almost always unless i have strong reason to believe they can make it.

Like ive said im paying the lightner insurance. Every X of slam is lightner unless the doubler X is on lead.

Do you think its possible West decided to make a gamble X hoping the opps would run to 7Nt so that he can make a lightner X to be sure to get an H lead ? From his point of view leading into 7S isnt that much fun compared to waiting for the H lead. You are pretty sure one of your A is getting ruffed and you are on lead. If west did X7S and 7Nt with that in mind its very impressive !!

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2008-February-18, 18:50

[brianshark]

benlessard, on Feb 18 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

Do you think its possible West decided to make a gamble X hoping the opps would run to 7Nt so that he can make a lightner X to be sure to get an H lead ? From his point of view leading into 7S isnt that much fun compared to waiting for the H lead. You are pretty sure one of your A is getting ruffed and you are on lead. If west did X7S and 7Nt with that in mind its very impressive !!

Hehe... no, I don't really think that's the case. It would be impressive though.

I think you're over-thinking things. I'm just taking a fairly pragmatic approach. Sometimes double just means the opponents are idiots and they are going down (or the layout sucks and they are going down). And I just think this sequence is one of those two situations.

[Karma]

wow, a lot of heated discussions on this one.

What really blows my mind is that so many world class experts can make so many novice mistakes!!!

Error 1 - Garozzo forgot their agreement for 3♥. But at least he gave what he thought was the right explanation and played it as though partner knew what he was doing.

Error 2 - bid of 7♠? surely these WC players can come up with a sequence to discover the missing control card and stop in a safe 6♠ contract.

Error 2 - double of 7♠. bad idea. It was 50% to lead the wrong ace and 7♠ is making. It is also possible and likely there is no right ace to lead. If Garazzo was void in both red suits, then the auction would go exactly as it happened at the table. The only card I can have in my hand that justifies doubling 7♠ is the ace of trumps or similar, like KQ or QJT (or all three outside aces and a trump to lead).
You are either getting a great score or a bad score and double won't help you. The risk /reward for the double is too high. Too much risk for not enough reward.

Error 3 - Bidding partner's hand. For me, this is the worst one. De Falco assumed partner made a mistake and got a bid wrong. This is so very wrong on so many levels. Even if you know partner got a bid wrong, players are required by the laws to assume partner knows what they are doing and play/bid accordingly. If De Falco had followed the laws then he will pass 7♠X, have a chance for a good result, and know he did the right thing.
Frankly, the adjusted result and penalty for this one were too generous. I can't imagine the difficulty of the director(s) in adjudicating this one.

Error 4 - Double of 7NT. After the double of 7♠, this creates a problem for partner who is on lead. Giving partner a problem is not good. Even without the double of 7♠, double of 7NT is still wrong. Put yourself in West's seat and replay what west knows.
1 - Garozzo hasn't blinked and will be as cool as a cucumber as if this exact same auction came up this morning.
2 - Garozzo has a big hand, unknown shape/distn/strength.
3 - De Falco bid/showed/explained as 6 card spade suit.
4 - not on lead against 7NT.
5 - thinks partner got the same explanations.
Thus, double of 7NT means nothing more than what brianshark wrote: "Sometimes double just means the opponents are idiots and they are going down". The double doesn't ask for any particular suit.
The opps could have 13 running tricks in the black suits. The only reason to double 7NT is with all 3 aces outside of spades.

My bottom line: Why do we have to assume the opponents know what they are doing? Partner doubled 7♠ because he has the trump Ace. There is NO OTHER card partner can have in his hand that justifies doubling 7♠. Therefore I lead a spade and win the post mortem.

[Karma]

revisited:
What if Stansby gets all the right explanations and thinks partner has received the same?
Then he knows 3♥ shows minors and 7♠ is natural. Double of 7N is Lightner for the unbid suit, ♥s.
The correct adjustment is 7NX-7.