Tramticket

This is certainly a far greater risk than opponents making a penalty double of 2♠. As you say, we don't know whether it is a good thing to push them out of no trumps into their likely eight-card heart fit. Generally the hearts will need to play two tricks better than no trumps to make this a losing choice. Our hand is balanced and the evidence of the bidding so far suggests that other hands may be fairly balanced - so it seems a good gamble that hearts will not play two tricks better than no trumps. The worrying case is if they can make exactly eight tricks in no trumps and nine tricks in hearts (only a one-trick differential)...

Yes - even if it is possible that south only has a five-card suit, the bidding suggests extreme shape and a likely void in at least one of the hands. My "many will start with A♥" is a bit silly. Lead choices are likely to be a diamond or a club and there is a lot to be said for an attacking lead on the auction.

It needs a club lead to defeat 6♠. Many will start with the A♥ - particularly if match-points. Having said that, I wouldn't have bid 6♠.

Is it clear? There are two piece of evidence: - The explanation "could be 2" is compatible with a 1♣ opening and suggests that this was the call that he intended to make. - East appeared to believe that he had actually made a 1♣ call and only became aware that it wasn't 1♣ when his screen-mate queried this. This suggests a mechanical error rather than change in intent (despite 1♣ and pass being in different sections of the bidding box).

This will be my final posting and attempt to help you on the LoTT. You have selectively produced a hand to support your case, which is always a poor approach - it would be easy enough to produce counter-examples. The hand that you have produced does have defects of course - surely east will use a transfer response holding a five-card major over a 1NT overcall? But let's go with your example (for the moment) and show that even here the LoTT is working! In Mr Ace's excellent post above, he explained that the LoTT predicts that an eight-card trump fit compared with a no trump contract should mean that 15 tricks are theoretically available. Mr Ace gave a table comparing how the 15 tricks would divide: - 7 vs 8 = which means they make 1 NT and you make 2M. (-90 vs +110) - 6 vs 9 = which means they go down 1 while you make 2M+1 (+50 vs +140) or +100 vs +140 if you double their 1 NT. - 5 vs 10= which means they go down 2 while you make 2M+2 (+100 {+300 if you dbl them} vs +170 or +420 if you actually bid the game) - 8 vs 7 = they make +1 vs your down 1 (-120 vs -50/100 if doubled) - 9 vs 6 = they make +2 vs your down 2 (-150 or -400 vs -100 or -300 if doubled) Where does your example hand fit on the chart? Look at the bottom row. If we take your assessment that 2♠ will fail by two tricks (and this is far from certain - defence is much tougher than declarer play and defenders tend to under-perform compared with the theoretical optimum) then the LoTT tricks suggests that 9 tricks are available in NT - exactly as suggested in the above posts. North/South will concede 100 in 2♠ if un-doubled compared with conceding 150 or 400 in no trumps (depending whether East/West bid to 3NT). Of course, if West passes the take-out double they will be able to collect 300. This penalty pass relies on West electing to pass a two-level take-out double with only four trumps including two honours, sitting under North who has shown a five or six-card spade suit. This is a brave judgement, but maybe it is just about possible when West has a well constructed maximum for the bid. All in all you have had to construct a hand where East is close a maximum pass (10 count) over the 1NT overcall, has the shape for a take out double, finds partner with a maximum and four spades with two good honours ... Match-point pairs is a game where you need to take the decisions that will be successful most frequently. As I have shown above, the LOTT works - even on the most unfavourable layouts. But look again at the table - it suggests competing on each row. It really will be the long-run winner to bid 2♠.

What are the opponents' methods? Is 2♥ weak? I guess that I am passing here - I don't think that pass is forcing for us. Bidding 5♦ is speculative as you take away partner's option to double. Yes, 2♠ was a bit of an overstatement.

The standard convention on BBF bridge diagrams is to show vulnerability in the bidding table - the column heading is red if vulnerable, white if non-vulnerable. Here, both sides are non-vulnerable.

I think that you also missed that it is matchpoints.

The book has been around for over 25 years and really is worth a read :) Good luck with this strategy. Most players don't double enough part-score contracts at pairs and you probably should double on those occasions when you hold a ten-count (and presumably a spade shortage). But even if you defeat 2♠ by the two tricks required to yield your +300, the LoTT tricks suggests that +400 would likely be available to you 3NT (again, refer to Mr Ace's table). But I suggest that you will usually be disappointed in your expectation of +300. Partners will often bid 1NT in the protective seat with a rather skimpy stop and even a robust stop will be sitting under declarer. I expect that your partner will often be unable to sit your take-out double and instead bid his suit at the three level. I will expect to be the long-run percentage winner by biding 2♠.

If we want declarer to play trumps from the top, then why not duck the first trick? Declarer will place us with the AQJ♣, based on the opening lead and will not expect us to hold K♥ as well. He might prefer to play trumps from hand, rather than trying to cross to dummy and risk a ruff.

:D Interesting whether this should make a difference? What is he thinking about? - Is he close to inviting? - Or is he unbalanced? And considering taking out into 3♣/♦? (I'm assuming that most players will transfer with a five-card heart suit). If he is close to inviting, it can't do any harm to push them up a level. (I find it hard to believe that they will double our eight-card fit at the two level). If he considered playing in 3m and rejected that option, I am happy to push them in that direction. I want to nudge them out of 1NT.

There is a fundamental misconception here. I agree that nothing has happened to make your hand stronger, but something has happened to change your objectives. Case 1 The auction 1♠, (Pass), 2♠ is an uncontested auction. In an uncontested auction your objectives are: - Bid as a partnership to the optimum strain and level, to a contract that you expect to make most of the time. - You value your assets based on their playing strength in the context of the bidding so far. The valuation will tend to be based on high card strength adjusted for distribution. - Communicate accurately your strength and shape to allow your partner to make useful judgments. Case 2 The auction 1♠, (Pass), Pass, (1NT); Pass, (Pass), 2♠ is a competitive auction. In competition your objectives are: - Bid to a contract that will score better than the opponents' contract. - Prevent the opponents' from bidding to a contract that will score better than your contract. - Use the Law of Total Tricks (LoTT) as a further method to judge the relative value of the hand in competition, particularly for part-score hands. - Communicate your suit length to partner to allow partner to make effective LoTT decisions. Please re-read Mr Ace's excellent LoTT analysis of the decision process on this deal. It doesn't rely on you bidding to your best making contract. Often, it will be sufficient to bid to a non-making contact and concede less than you would concede if the opponents made their contract.

Its match-points, so I don't worry about whether I am pushing them into a marginal game. (Opps have chosen to pass 1NT, so they must think that game is marginal at best). Both pairs are non-vulnerable and this is the time to compete aggressively for the part-scores at match-points. Let's try and force them to make a three-level contract instead of a one-level contract. For me this is a Law (of Total Tricks) decision. Note that we have a known eight-card spade fit and west bid 1NT in protecting seat and presumably has a few spades. East can't have passed with a strong hand and a stack of trumps - so there is little risk of being doubled in 2♠.

Are you who able to provide more information? Or give links? Who? Where? When? Etc.

Yes, sorry about providing the reveal too quickly. The hand was played 24 times in a reasonably strong field and 11 pairs were allowed to play in 4♥. I was surprised by this - but I think you have answered mthis. Other North's took a more optimistic view and bid their hand through a different route (a strength showing 2NT or a splinter maybe?). In this case we are less likely to compete to the four or five-level!

I agree with this and would add that a simple vacant places argument would suggest that partner's minor is likely to be clubs. Do we have any method to find out partner's minor? (Other than a "pass or correct" 4♣?). What are the continuations if we bid 4♠? Will partner show the second suit or cue-bid? This auction seems messy and I think that I prefer Leaping Michaels over a weak two.

[hv=pc=n&s=shaq6daqj4cakq643&w=s9764hkj32dt9cj82&n=sktht74d76532ct95&e=saqj8532h985dk8c7&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp4sdp5dp6dppp]399|300[/hv] A heart lead is needed on this occasion.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj5hkjt743d9872c7&w=st2hq982d53cjt854&n=sak97ha65dtcak963&e=sq8643hdakqj64cq2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2hp4h]399|300[/hv] On this occasion, both 4♠ and 5♦ will go for big penalties. We conceded 800 in 5♦ - could have been worse!

Partner has shown what strength? Presumably at least 5-5 in hearts and a minor? I am not familiar with this method - does 3NT ask for the minor? Having said this, we only have three points in partner's suits and I rather suspect that partner has wasted values in clubs. 4♥ seems to be enough.

[hv=pc=n&e=saqj8532h985dk8c7&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp4sdp5dp6dppp]133|200[/hv] IMPs Your Lead?

[hv=pc=n&e=sq8643hdakqj64cq2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2hp4h]133|200[/hv] IMPs Your bid?

I agree with this. But can you really know that obtaining a ruff is only saving an over-trick? Does it need to show a certain trick as well as the chance to develop a trick - e.g. by ruffing? Isn't it useful to get the ruff, even if you are not quite sure where the second trick will come from? The rewards for beating a slam are very significant, whereas the cost of conceding a doubled slam instead of an un-doubled slam are relatively smaller. So can't we afford to speculate a bit? [the assumption is IMPs of course]. You might reason that the opponents have not looked for a grand slam and they therefore have a missing key-card or are missing the overall strength to suggest 13 tricks. If you take my example hand, East has not bid 5NT asking for kings and he might bid 5NT to confirm to partner that all key-cards are present in case partner has a source of tricks and wants to bid 7. It is possible of course that he didn't bid 5NT, because the slam bid was already a pushy bid and he thought that 12 tricks was the limit of the hand. In any case, it seems reasonable to double and collect the ruff and hope there is another trick? Yes ... but do you need to hold it? Supplementary Question: Do you double with: [hv=pc=n&s=sht86dqj8cjt98752&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2hp4np5sp6hpp]133|200[/hv]

Thank you Mike. This reply is indeed helpful. I sat north and had been considering my options, since it seemed likely that I would be on lead. I had "selected" a spade as the most likely to succeed, even better - partner did double the 5♠ bid. It was only later that I was thinking about other implications such as a negative inference from a failure to double and whether it is always right to double (helping opps into a safer 6NT contract). The board was a push - team-mates bid 6♥, through a different route and their opponents made a Lightner double.

3♣ would have been Ghestem for us - showing both majors. 4♣ would have been possible. We were ahead in the match, so maybe she didn't want to risk the bid?

I have been thinking about lead-directing doubles and have a few questions for you: Question 1: [hv=pc=n&n=st76542h7d742c632&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2hp4n(RKCB)p5s(2%20key%20cards%20%2B%20Q)p6hppp]133|200[/hv] You pick up zero points as usual and there doesn't seem much to go on. Unless partner can maybe ruff a spade? ... (a) What do you lead? (b) Is your choice influenced by the fact that partner did not make a lead-directing double? Questions 2: [hv=pc=n&s=sht86dqj8cajt9875&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2hp4np5sp(Or%20double%3F)6hppp(Or%20double%3F)]133|200[/hv] Opponents bid to slam. Do you make a lead-directing double? (a) Do you double 5♠ to ask for a spade lead? [is it safe to make a lead-directing double with a void?] (b) Do you double 6♥ as a Lightner double, expecting partner to select a spade lead? © Or do you not double - because you expect (hope?/prey?) that partner will find a spade lead anyway and/or you don't want the opponents to pull to 6NT? Question 3: [hv=pc=n&w=sakq3ha9543dt65ck&e=sj98hkqj2dak93cq4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2hp4np5sd]266|200[/hv] The opponents unexpectedly double your Blackwood response. Should you choose to play in 6NT? (a) West should bid 6NT. (b) East should convert 6♥ to 6NT. © You should play in 6♥ anyway. (d) You have the mechanism to stop at 5NT Question 4: [hv=pc=n&w=sakq3ha9543dt65ck&e=sj98hkqj2dak93cq4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1dp1hp2hp4np5sp6hppd]266|200[/hv] The opponents unexpectedly double 6♥. Should you choose to play in 6NT? (a) West should bid 6NT. (b) East should bid 6NT. © You should play in 6♥ anyway. Question 5: I believe that Zia has been known to psych a lead-directing double. Have you ever done this or encountered this?