[wyman]

Regional swiss, last round, playing the leaders; RHO has a flight A GNT title, to give you an idea of the caliber.
--------------------
Q1: r/r imps

Ax / 7xxx / KJx / Axxx

1H-(4D)-?

Follow-up: if you choose 4H, LHO bids 4S. Check check back to you.
---------------------
Q2: r/r imps

KQTx / AT8 / ATx / QTx

p-p-1d-1n
p-3n-ap

lead is the H3, ostensibly 4th best, 2 not visible.

Dummy: xx / Jxx / Qxx / AKxxx

small from dummy to the 7 and your 8.

What do you think possible shapes are around the table, and what's your plan for 9 tricks?

[gwnn]

4H and X for me. I should only bid 5H if I think we make (they would save very rarely here and I really don't think they will make 4S) but I am not sure if we make so I double. By the way, partner can pull with an offensive hand - this is not a penalty double, it just shows ownership.

[gwnn]

I don't know about the play problem, I always get these wrong so I give up.

[nigel_k]

Agree with 4♥ then X.

The play problem is hard. Obviously you'll be ok if clubs break, otherwise you can lead spades up twice which is eight tricks and it seems like RHO will be under pressure if only you had a card to throw him in with. If LHO has the club length it would pay to duck a heart before his long club is established. But either way you could go down if LHO has the ♦J. Are you sure we don't have a diamond spot that would help if we end up playing them from hand needing RHO to win?

[ceeb]

4♥ is clear and X is obvious as well -- lots of defensive tricks, lots of losers.

Dummy play hand -- The lead appears to be from ♥KQ9xx as neither leading a 4-card side suit nor false-carding makes sense on the auction. RHO's light 3rd hand opener and LHO's silence over 1NT, and lead, all portend 6-1 ♦s, hence fair chance for 4-1 clubs. So ♣Q, ♣ duck. Win heart return, run clubs and lead a spade from dummy to my remaining

KQ10, --, A10x, --

Win the ♠K and judge whether to exit in ♠ or ♦. It shouldn't be too hard; possibly either exit will work.

[wyman]

nigel_k, on Oct 18 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

Are you sure we don't have a diamond spot that would help if we end up playing them from hand needing RHO to win?

I wish we did.

[wyman]

ceeb, on Oct 18 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

4♥ is clear and X is obvious as well -- lots of defensive tricks, lots of losers.

Dummy play hand -- The lead appears to be from ♥KQ9xx as neither leading a 4-card side suit nor false-carding makes sense on the auction. RHO's light 3rd hand opener and LHO's silence over 1NT, and lead, all portend 6-1 ♦s, hence fair chance for 4-1 clubs. So ♣Q, ♣ duck. Win heart return, run clubs and lead a spade from dummy to my remaining

KQ10, --, A10x, --

Win the ♠K and judge whether to exit in ♠ or ♦. It shouldn't be too hard; possibly either exit will work.

Neither works, as it turns out.

[pooltuna]

Q1 ) was there no alert on the 4♦ call or did 4♦s show ♠? If 4♦ was ♦ I would have Xed as we rate to be looking at 3 or 4 down. Over 4♠ I would try 5♥. A double has the advantage of alerting your partner that it is your hand 4♥ on this auction does not even create a FP option over 4♠ IMO

[wyman]

pooltuna, on Oct 18 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

Q1 ) was there no alert on the 4♦ call or did 4♦s show ♠? If 4♦ was ♦ I would have Xed as we rate to be looking at 3 or 4 down. Over 4♠ I would try 5♥. A double has the advantage of alerting your partner that it is your hand 4♥ on this auction does not even create a FP option over 4♠ IMO

For us, X is negative in this auction. 4D is diamonds.

[BunnyGo]

wyman, on Oct 18 2010, 10:40 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 18 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

Q1 ) was there no alert on the 4♦ call or did 4♦s show ♠? If 4♦ was ♦ I would have Xed as we rate to be looking at 3 or 4 down. Over 4♠ I would try 5♥. A double has the advantage of alerting your partner that it is your hand 4♥ on this auction does not even create a FP option over 4♠ IMO

For us, X is negative in this auction. 4D is diamonds.

Which double is negative, if you had doubled 4♦ or if you double 4♠?

[wyman]

BunnyGo, on Oct 18 2010, 11:04 PM, said:

wyman, on Oct 18 2010, 10:40 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 18 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

Q1 ) was there no alert on the 4♦ call or did 4♦s show ♠? If 4♦ was ♦ I would have Xed as we rate to be looking at 3 or 4 down. Over 4♠ I would try 5♥. A double has the advantage of alerting your partner that it is your hand 4♥ on this auction does not even create a FP option over 4♠ IMO

For us, X is negative in this auction. 4D is diamonds.

Which double is negative, if you had doubled 4♦ or if you double 4♠?

1H-4D-X is neg

1H-4D-4H-4S
p-p-X
is business

[wyman]

On hand 1, partner is xx/KQJxx/xx/KQJx. 4Sx is -790. Par is 5Hx-2, -500. Doesn't matter, teammates are -620 in 4H=.

On hand 2, LHO is Jxx/Kxxx/xx/J9xx

So anyway, I can make the hand by playing the SK to RHO's ace, winning
the heart return and firing back a heart, pitching a D from dummy and
a spade from hand on the 4th heart. Then I win the diamond return,
cash two clubs ending in dummy, duck a diamond to RHO, win his return
(spade or diamond), cash my winner in the other (diamond or spade),
squeezing LHO in the blacks.

I did not find this at the table.

[gwnn]

You should reconsider the "business" X. It should show ownership because you did not show game-forcing values before, therefore pass was not forcing.

Anyway I don't think partner should pull the X with his nearly balanced hand.

[wyman]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-20, 06:40, said:

You should reconsider the "business" X. It should show ownership because you did not show game-forcing values before, therefore pass was not forcing.

Anyway I don't think partner should pull the X with his nearly balanced hand.

Sorry, you are right. It shows cards, not necessarily in spades. Partner would pass here for sure.

edit: Because this was an issue before, I'm talking about a double of 4S, at my second call of this auction. A double of 4D is surely negative per our agreements.

[karlson]

Seems like ducking the club should also work. When lho wins and it goes low heart to the Q, reconsider and duck the heart. Win the next one, run clubs pitching a diamond and a spade, lead a spade up, and guess the ending -- same position as ceeb's except that we have one fewer diamond in hand, which doesn't matter.

[wyman]

 karlson, on 2010-October-20, 09:00, said:

Seems like ducking the club should also work. When lho wins and it goes low heart to the Q, reconsider and duck the heart. Win the next one, run clubs pitching a diamond and a spade, lead a spade up, and guess the ending -- same position as ceeb's except that we have one fewer diamond in hand, which doesn't matter.

Right, you just have to guess that hearts are 4-3. At T1, it looked a lot like KQxxx opp xx, especially after RHO played a middle heart. Then if diamonds were 6-1, RHO has sufficiently few points that (especially red), his hand sort of looks like a 2D opener. So now I'm guessing 5-2 diamonds. Now RHO and LHO both have 6 black cards, and it doesn't seem that crazy to *not* duck a club anymore, so I didn't. And I was punished for it.

I guess ducking the club is somewhat safe -- i.e., there are a lot of possibilities for 9 still, but man it just felt wrong at the time.

[ceeb]

 karlson, on 2010-October-20, 09:00, said:

Seems like ducking the club should also work. When lho wins and it goes low heart to the Q, reconsider and duck the heart. Win the next one, run clubs pitching a diamond and a spade, lead a spade up, and guess the ending -- same position as ceeb's except that we have one fewer diamond in hand, which doesn't matter.

All valid, but
1. I'd be a little surprised to see a ♥ continuation from LHO after the ♣ duck. Possible I guess if LHO can read a lot into RHO's discard on the 2nd ♣. But at least on the surface from LHO's point of view declarer has ♥s bottled and both of the other suits are plausible switches.
2. If LHO does try a ♠ or ♦ we can more or less claim. If a ♣, back to plan A but if my misapprehension about the ♥ lie persists even after the defenders discard on the ♣ suit, I might misguess the ending.
3. If a ♥ is continued, I agree you can and have to duck it.

This post has been edited by ceeb: 2010-October-20, 12:30

[rhm]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-20, 06:40, said:

You should reconsider the "business" X. It should show ownership because you did not show game-forcing values before, therefore pass was not forcing.

Anyway I don't think partner should pull the X with his nearly balanced hand.

I am not convinced.
The opening hand has now at best one defensive trick to contribute to the defense.
I deem it likely that 4S DBL will make after this bidding by strong opponents and if 4S DBL fails, 5H will be cheap.
When in doubt bid one more. One of the agreements I like, but few players below the expert level seem to understand, is that any double after showing a fit is only a suggestion and should frequently be overruled.

Opening light has its cost. This hand is deceptive. Even though all its points are in the long suit and it has a nominal 2 quick tricks this ace less hand is not worth 12 HCP. (10 HCP is about right). I prefer to open this hand with a weak two in hearts, unless you have a way to show a weak two-suiter with hearts and a minor, mostly because it has a very low defense potential and an opening bid should suggest more. Do not get me wrong, this is not an advertisement for Roth Stone type opening, only in proper hand evaluation. If I held xx AJTxx xx AJxx I would open 1H and happily pass 4S DBL.

Not that I expect many to understand these arguments in advanced hand evaluation.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Thank you for those nice and patronising comments.

edit: I guess I should explain in a little more detail.

I agree with "when in doubt, bid one more", but I don't think there's a reasonable doubt here. Partner could have a lot of different shapes here and I think opps were a little bit lucky that they found a 9 card fit after this start. I think bridge players (according to jlall, especially good bridge players*) tend to bid 4♠ too often over 4♥. A 6 card suit with just a little texture in practice will suffice to most people. Therefore pulling the double of 4♠ to 5♥ because we do not have a lot of defence seems a little too pessimistic to me. You should only pull the double when you have significant extra offensive potential - longer hearts or shorter spades. 2524 does not look offensive enough to me. 1525 would be fine.

just to make myself clear (at the risk of reiterating a previous post): I agree with you that the double by responder on this occasion does not show a clear preference to defend, merely extra values. However, I do not agree with you that it should be frequently pulled, certainly not so frequently as to do it on a 2524.

* http://www.bridgebas...lots-of-hearts/ is the thread, of course it's not the same sequence but it is similar to this one in that the 4S bidder does not know of any spade support from partner. it is different in that the 4H bid does not guarantee a fit 100% but in practice opps have 8 or 9 or 10 hearts almost always

[rhm]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-21, 05:43, said:

Thank you for those nice and patronising comments.

edit: I guess I should explain in a little more detail.

I agree with "when in doubt, bid one more", but I don't think there's a reasonable doubt here. Partner could have a lot of different shapes here and I think opps were a little bit lucky that they found a 9 card fit after this start. I think bridge players (according to jlall, especially good bridge players*) tend to bid 4♠ too often over 4♥. A 6 card suit with just a little texture in practice will suffice to most people. Therefore pulling the double of 4♠ to 5♥ because we do not have a lot of defence seems a little too pessimistic to me. You should only pull the double when you have significant extra offensive potential - longer hearts or shorter spades. 2524 does not look offensive enough to me. 1525 would be fine.

just to make myself clear (at the risk of reiterating a previous post): I agree with you that the double by responder on this occasion does not show a clear preference to defend, merely extra values. However, I do not agree with you that it should be frequently pulled, certainly not so frequently as to do it on a 2524.

* http://www.bridgebas...lots-of-hearts/ is the thread, of course it's not the same sequence but it is similar to this one in that the 4S bidder does not know of any spade support from partner. it is different in that the 4H bid does not guarantee a fit 100% but in practice opps have 8 or 9 or 10 hearts almost always

My arguments are different.

I agree with you that a 2=5=2=4 distribution is not attractive for going to the 5 level.
But the first question I try to answer when my partner doubles after having shown a fit and thereby giving me an option, is not whether 5♥ is likely to make, but whether the opponent's contract is likely to fail. If not bidding on is almost always right.
My guess is that I have one defensive trick (but would not be surprised if it turned out to be none). Will my partner contribute three more for his business double showing values? Unlikely. So I would clench my teeth and bid on in spite of my semi balanced distribution. I admit if worse come to worse I might trade -790 for -800, but I consider this unlikely.

By the way on the given auction, where RHO preempted with 4 ♦ over 1 ♥, you can be certain that a good LHO will not come in with a mediocre 6 card ♠ suit, unless he was prepared to raise ♦ all the time, but this is not the case here since he stood his ground over the double. His ♠ are real. I expect him to have a very long solid or semi solid suit. The ♦ preempt is really not an invitation to name another strain.

With regard to
* http://www.bridgebas...lots-of-hearts/
I double for a number of reasons:

I have a strong preempt with defensive values
Partner has already passed. I want him to reconsider with a weak hand: Bid on with ♥, pass with shortage in ♥.
If partner has some values we must protect our plus.
You have pushed opponents to the 4 level and they may have overbid.
I admit that the DBL is ambiguous, because it can also sensibly interpreted as a LIGHTNER double, when the partner of the preemptor is on lead.

The bidding problem here is different in that opponents have voluntarily bid to the 4 level.

Rainer Herrmann