dburn

That's not the normal policy. Instead, you should play small to the ten if the queen holds.

I think the point Frances was trying to make was that the 1NT bidder, assured of invitational values opposite, would already have doubled 2♠ "for takeout" before the bidding reached this "fairly ordinary" stage. Of course, your example is not "fairly ordinary" at all; it assumes that your side has at least a combined 27 hcp with at least six spades, and that an opponent has enough to wander into the auction with 2♠. This will, I conjecture, not occur more often than one time in a few hundred million. I am an old has-been (as Jlall has pointed out), and your lifetime is likely to be longer than mine, but not that much longer in terms of the expected occurrence of this "fairly ordinary" situation. Having said that, I confess that having played both approaches - [1] if pass is forcing, double is penalty; [2] if pass is forcing, double is takeout - method [1] has met with no bad results, while method [2] has met with nothing but bad results. The claimed "advantage" for method [2] in auctions starting with a double of 1NT turns out to be no advantage at all: the only time both of you combine to double for penalty is when neither of you has any trump tricks, while you have God knows what unexplored fits in other suits. But then, I am that bridge player described to a T by P G Wodehouse when he wrote: Out in the silent Rockies, Tracking the teddy bears, There's a man whose brow is furrowed, Whose hairs are silver hairs. Folks in that far-off region Know him as Jaundiced Jim, And now I'll tell you his story - How do I know it? I'm him.

I used to get the same bad results as Frances until I started playing with Callaghan, who explained it to me in words that even I could understand. "You should always open the bidding in fourth position", he said, "because if your opponents could make something, they would have opened the bidding in first or third position." Determined to teach him a lesson, I opened a Precision 1♦ in fourth position on something like ♠Axx ♥KQx ♦J9xx ♣J8x, vulnerable against not at matchpoints. He responded 1NT and made an overtrick. Since then, the only potentially bad hand I can recall for the methods occurred when I opened a 4=1=4=4 eleven count in fourth position, and the next hand overcalled 4♥ (of course, he had been lurking with eight solid hearts on the first round). "At last", I thought, "Callaghan will see the error of his ways", but of course at every other table the bidding had been 4♥ - pass - pass - double, leaving our side to choose whether to concede 690 or 800.

I'm sure you have more expertise in this area than I, but you wouldn't double 2S with AKxx xx Axx Axxx ? If West, a passed hand, bids 2♠ at his second turn, a likely explanation is that he has six spades and four hearts (else he would have opened 2♠). I might then hope to draw dummy's trumps and wait for partner to take some heart tricks. But all too often, declarer has a habit of turning up with such as ♠QJ109xx and ♥QJ10x. That's seven tricks facing ♥9, even if dummy doesn't turn up with the king of declarer's minor-suit doubleton. In the meantime, we can make 3NT in comfort - and we can often do that even when we beat 2♠. No, I wouldn't double 2♠ with ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣Axx. But if you would, you could easily be right.

Would begin with two rounds of trumps, and need to know whether they are 3-2 before continuing. If they are, plan to cash a diamond, then run the jack of hearts pitching a diamond, then try to drop the queen of diamonds in two or three rounds before falling back on the spade finesse. But if trumps are 4-1 the fourth round will squeeze the West hand, and I will need to consider other possibilities. I also need to know, of course, whether the jack of hearts will be covered (or will hold the trick).

In some partnerships I play here that redouble shows about this kind of club holding (perhaps a fourth club would be advisable). Pass shows either a strong inclination to play 3♣ redoubled or no desire whatever to play 3♣ redoubled but no descriptive call to make for the moment (three of a suit, including diamonds, shows five). Responder will redouble unless he doesn't want to play 3♣ redoubled even if opener does. In that case he will proceed as if opener had bid 3♦. This seems to combine the "make 'em pay" approach with the "don't let them mess up your normal auction" approach fairly well. It has had a good success rate on the occasions it has occurred at the table.

Well, perhaps it shows ♠532 ♥J32 ♦4 ♣K109873 and suggests that we might be more likely to make 3♣ than 3♥, as well we might unless the opening bidder has a singleton or void in clubs (and even then...). It's OK to bid your side's best contract every now and again. The trick is to be able to pass when you have just done this.

These are not 2:1 odds. A good player would always lead the J from QJ, never the Q. And this is based on the proposition that noone would ever lead the singleton Queen, or consequentially Q from QJ. So if you see the Queen you 'know' it is from what? If the answer is that we never see the queen, then I'll start the fashion and play it. If someone leads the queen of trumps against a small slam, I will always play him for QJ. That still makes it a big losing proposition for him/her to lead a singleton queen, as most of the time I have the jack, not his partner. So what? The singleton queen of trumps is a safe lead against a slam unless partner has the ace and declarer the king. If you are going to lead from QJ, there is no reason to prefer one card over the other - you should randomize your choice as you would if you were following suit. If you start "always" playing for someone to have done something, you will shortly become one of those people whom no one can convince of anything. Don't be a foo. Be a bar.

When I wrote "a couple of spade tricks" I was over-simplifying. If your spades are AK32, you should not even begin to contemplate so much as thinking about doubling for penalty (even if double is for penalty in your methods). With KJ32, though, you should double. AQ10 is close, but don't blame me if the dummy turns up with jack and one. It's not as if the guy might have psyched 2♠. If he has, good luck to him. If not, you must not double with fast spade tricks, only with slow ones.

What he said. (It is possible to agree otherwise as a partnership - in one partnership I play pass as forcing and double as take-out - but that is a matter for specific agreement) Does this agreement extend to positions in which the 2♠ overcaller is not a passed hand? I am aware that modern bidding theory has long ago left me behind, but even in my dotage I am curious to understand why. As to the actual question, I would double with the North cards only if I had a couple of spade tricks (whether or not I had four of them). I would pass otherwise, whether or not I had four spades (it seems silly to have to double just because my spade holding is Q532). I don't think double in this kind of position relates to the number of spades North has.

Whereas I agree with almost everything jdonn says in his post, I think that he and others may be committing an error that often occurs when rulings are given: that of confusing "subsequent" and "consequent" damage. I would not have doubled with the actual South hand (nor would I have bid 2NT or anything else). But what South did achieved what he hoped it would: it pushed his opponents to 3♠ when they would otherwise have played comfortably in 2♠. I can almost hear Larry Cohen cheering wildly from the bleachers (whatever they are). Nothing about the auction should have convinced North to double 3♠; that was a truly absurd action with no foundation in reality. Of course, he would not have been given the opportunity to display his abysmal lack of judgement had South not doubled 2♠, but that is not South's fault, nor does he "deserve" what happened subsequently (but not consequently). If 200% of the blame is to be apportioned, then North should incur it all. Come to think of it, even if only 200% of the blame is to be apportioned, North should be debited with 250% of it.

Not sure what this is doing in the Beginner and Intermediate forum, especially given that far simpler combinations are regularly messed up by certain people in the Advanced and Expert forum. This is a particularly difficult combination to analyse, and rather than give the answer (which would run to several paragraphs and not be suitable for beginners) I will ask a series of intermediate questions which will, I hope, clarify some of the issues for non-experts. First, suppose that you play low from North and East plays the king. When you cash the queen, East plays the nine. Should you play to the ten next or the ace? Second, suppose that you play low from North, East plays the jack, and West takes the queen with the king. You lead the eight to the ace next to confirm that the jack was a singleton, but it wasn't - East plays the six. Should you play to the seven next or the ten?

If West began with 6=1=2=4 shape, there is no way to make the contract (provided that his clubs are headed by J10). East will play ♣Q when given his trump trick, and no squeeze can operate. If West began with 6=1=4=2 (or 6=1=5=1) shape, the contract can be made in a number of ways (the club spots are not necessary for success). One of the more elegant of these is to give East his trump trick, win his diamond return with the ace, and run trumps to reach: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq3hdkck&s=sh6d62c65]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] The defenders cannot hold this position no matter what they have retained. If, however, West began with 6=1=3=3 shape, declarer cannot succeed by attempting a squeeze - only the line of ruffing out the clubs will work. It seems that, as with jdonn's earlier play problem in 2♥, declarer must form a view as to the distribution before embarking on a particular line of play. It should be said that if trumps are 3-2, declarer never jeopardizes his chance for an overtrick by drawing trumps from trick two onwards, whereas if trumps are 4-1, he may well jeopardize his contract by not doing so (it would be very stupid, for example, to play ♣A and a club to the king if West began with 6=1=5=1).

Would pitch a discouraging club and a suit-preference jack of diamonds, in that order. Best not to pitch two cards from the same suit; idiot partner may then try to give you a ruff in that suit.

No, it's not. You don't arrive at a split score either at matchpoints or at IMPs by saying "4♥ making is +620, 4♥ down one is -100, so we'll take the average and call the score +260". Instead, at matchpoints you award the contestant half the matchpoints that +620 would have scored, plus half the matchpoints that -100 would have scored. At IMPs, you compare both +620 and -100 with the score achieved at the other table, and average the two comparisons. Say the score at the other table was NS +170; then North-South at this table receive half of plus 10 IMPs for +620 and half of minus 7 IMPs for -100. This makes them plus 1.5 IMPs, which in some jurisdictions is rounded up to plus 2 IMPs, not the plus 3 IMPs they would have obtained for a score of +260.

Would probably sell to 2S at IMPS, and close to passing vulnerable at BAM if the opponents will double any contract they can beat a trick. Strongly prefer double to 3H at third turn - either of 3D by partner or 2S doubled by the opponents could easily be a better contract than 3H.

Presumably the auction is now over, so we will shortly discover what RHO thought 3♥ meant. If you want to know what declarer thought it meant when he bid 3NT over it, so that you can make some deductions about declarer's hand, I'm afraid that you are not legally entitled to that information. The question you asked seems not so much inappropriate as completely pointless.

I should imagine you are misreading, since West does not have the spade six. Thanks The six hearts - just good enough to win against 4135? I am not sure what I am being asked here. To reduce the problem to simple terms, we fix the East-West hands as: [hv=d=w&v=b&w=skhak10543dk2cak54&e=sj10432hq2d6543c32]266|100|Scoring: BAM[/hv] North has doubled 1♥ for takeout, then raised South's 1♠ response to 2♠. West declares 3♥ on the lead of a trump. We assume that North has the ace and queen of spades, the ace of diamonds, and a singleton trump in a 4=1=5=3, 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=3=5 shape. We also assume that South has two clubs higher than North's second lowest club. Given these conditions, West can make 3♥ against any defense, provided that West can guess North's distribution. No line of play, however, caters for every one of the three distributions given above. In all cases, West can succeed by winning the first heart with dummy's queen. This is the only line that succeeds against 4=1=4=4 under the conditions given. Now: Against 4=1=5=3, which we will call distribution 1, West has two possible winning lines. [1A] She can cash two clubs and ruff the third, then play a spade to the king and North's ace. North attempts to exit with ♠Q (any other play is obviously fatal), but West discards her remaining club. Now North must concede a ninth trick either to West's ♦K or East's ♠J (dummy does not need ♠10 in this variation). [1B] She can play a spade to the king at trick two. North plays a club, overtaken by South, but declarer cashes ♣AK, ruffs a club, and passes ♠J to North who must concede a ninth trick on her return (dummy does need ♠10 in this variation). One of jdonn's suggested lines, that of winning ♥Q and running hearts with the aid of a second-round finesse to squeeze North, fails if distribution 1 exists (call this line 1J). Another, that of winning the first trick with ♥10 and playing a spade, succeeds provided that he transposes into [1B] above and does not attempt to squeeze North by running hearts. Against 4=1=4=4, which we will call distribution 2, West has essentially only one winning line: [2A] She must play a spade to the king and North's ace, then win a club exit, cash a second club, and ruff a third. Then, she ruffs a spade and exits with a club to North. North exits with ♠Q, ruffed by declarer, who exits with a diamond and waits to make three more trump tricks. Neither of jdonn's suggested lines above succeeds against distribution 2. If, however, South has only one club higher than North's second lowest club, jdonn can succeed by winning the first heart with the ten and playing a spade, then ducking North's attempted club exit unless South overtakes it. Later, the run of the trumps will strip-squeeze North into conceding a trick to ♦K one way or another. Against 4=1=3=5, which we will call distribution 3, West can succeed after winning ♥Q only by [3A] at once drawing trumps with the aid of a finesse. This is line [1J] above. After winning trick 1 with ♥10, declarer can succeed by playing a spade at once, or after crossing to ♥Q and following line [1J]. In essence, with no significant spot cards declarer must choose at an early stage which line to follow. If the club spots are such that declarer considers it more likely than not that South cannot overtake both of North's two lowest clubs, then line [1J] is perhaps preferable to line [2A], but it is very close. Finally, to answer Halo's actual question, the six of hearts is of no relevance whatsoever.

I don't know what 10 Canadian cents is in real money, but if in Canada declarer would not lead the queen of hearts from AQJ10xxxx in this position (remember that West has opened 1NT), I would very much like to play rubber bridge there sometime.

I should imagine you are misreading, since West does not have the spade six.

Winning with the queen and playing a spade fails against 4=1=3=5 (North simply exits with the queen of spades, and you cannot reach dummy). Winning with the ten and playing a spade is a considerable improvement: it works against both 4=1=4=4 and 4=1=3=5 if you duck a high club return from North or win a low club return, provided that South cannot later obtain the lead in clubs. It fails against 4=1=5=3 if you intend to duck a club, win the next club, cross to ♥Q, ruff a spade and run hearts; instead, you must cash the other top club, cross to the queen of hearts and pass the jack of spades to North. If North is 4=1=5=3 without the queen of spades, you cannot make the contract (and the trump lead was the only one to beat you).

If North's clubs are (say) Q1098 or any four-card holding other than QJ109, she will not play a club on winning the ace of spades. Instead, she will play either the queen of spades or a low spade to South's queen, and you will be unable to make the contract. I agree that the hand is an interesting one, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

As far as I can make out, the line jdonn suggests fails against any 4=1=4=4 North hand unless the clubs are specifically QJ109. It also fails against 4=2=4=3 - embarrassingly so when North's hearts are Jx, since there are nine top tricks against that distribution simply by ruffing a club in dummy. It fails against 4=1=5=3 if the intention is to duck the first round of clubs, leaving North on lead (the details are left as an exercise for the reader). It can succeed against that distribution if North's clubs are precisely QJ10, but not the way jdonn intends to play. It works only against 4=1=3=5, which was of course the actual distribution, but I am not sure that this justifies calling it "the best line". Certainly, there is no guarantee that North's shape is precisely 4=1=4=4. 4=1=5=3 and 4=1=3=5 are eminently possible; each is individually more likely than 4=1=4=4 and together they are much more likely. But the Generalised Principle of Restricted Choice applies (see thread on AKQ9xx facing xx): one assumes that South bid 1S because she had to (with 3=4=3=3 shape), not because she chose to (with three spades and a four-card minor). That is why I committed myself to playing as I did. Of course, it didn't work. Life is like that.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=s432h432d432c5432&w=saq76hk8dkq65cj109]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You, West, open 1NT which is passed round to South who bids 4♥. All pass and you lead ♣J. Declarer wins with the ace and leads ♥Q. This is awkward, because clearly he would do this from both QJ109765 and AQJ109765, so you must guess what to do. Now suppose that East has ♥A as a major penalty card (he dropped it face up in the table in following to the first trick). You play low, of course, and the contract fails by a trick. The opponents call the director. How should he rule?

This problem actually arose at two tables in our 4-table match. The auction at the other table was not quite the same (2NT - 3H - 4S - 4NT - 5D - 6S) but similar. At one table the opening leader is Peter Lee (who has won a number of major English events). At the other table the opening leader is a Lancashire player called Paul Williams. Peter Lee is certainly no bunny - I believe he is the only person to have won the title of British national champion at both bridge and chess. If I were to go against my stated policy of following the normal line, he is one of the players against whom I'd do it; the lead of the singleton jack of trumps is not a risk I think he would take very often. I'm afraid I don't know Paul Williams, so I would not vary my play against him. But life is too short. I will finesse on the second round against anyone, and if they got me, they got me. It won't be the first time, nor will it be the last.