Coelacanth

Thanks for the replies everyone. On the first hand, partner had something like ♠QJT ♥Qxxx ♦Jxx ♣Qxx. I bid 5♠ and made it exactly, losing only the 2 pointed-suit Aces, for +450. It looks like we get 3 or 4 tricks against 5♦X, for a likely +500. We get the AKA in my hand, and no spades. It's not clear if partner's ♥Q or ♣Q will make a trick; I think one will but not both. It depends on declarer's line. On the 2nd hand, I passed 3♠ and passed again when parner reopened with a double. I should have mentioned that we do not play 2/1. Partner had something like ♠x ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣KQxxxx. My LHO had ♦Qxxx, so it's not clear if 5♦ will make. 4♥ might make on the 4-3 as LHO has ♥Kxx. 3NT will almost surely make, but neither one of us can bid it after this start. Or can we?

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sk9875432haktd7ca]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] I decided to open the above hand 1♠. (Is there a case to be made for 4♠ or even 2♣?) The auction proceeded 2♦ on my left, 2♠ from partner, 3♦ and I bid 4♠. It went pass, pass, and RHO tried 5♦. Considering the vulnerability and form of scoring, do you bid 5♠, double, or pass which is presumably forcing? Or bid something else (5♥ anyone?) Here's another declare/defend decision around spades. [hv=d=s&v=e&s=sk9875432haktd7ca]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] I haven't encountered this particular sequence before, but my initial assumption that playing a double here as pure penalty is "standard". Anyone play anything different? Anyway you have lots of options here including a forcing pass, double, 3NT, maybe a cuebid, maybe 4♦ or 4♥. If you pass, it runs around to your partner who doubles. How penaltyish is this double, and now what do you do?

Those are some excellent inferences. I don't think this particular South was up to the entry-creating play of the ♥K from KJx. You are correct that South is 3343 and has led from ♦8xxx. North does indeed have the ♣KJxx.

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=sktxht98xxdq2caqx&e=sa9xxha2dakxxc632]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You reach 3NT after a transfer sequence with the opponents silent. (1NT-2D-2H-3NT) South leads a small ♦. I won't tell you what I did at the table (I was declarer) but let's say you win the ♦ in your hand (North plays the 9) and play ♥A and another ♥. South wins the♥J and shifts to the ♣10. Now what? If you didn't win the ♦ and play hearts, what other line did you try?

Thanks to everyone for their input to this thread! It seems I misremembered the original hand slightly. South's ♠ spot was not high, and it was established (to the TD's satisfaction, at least) that South knew it was not high at the time he claimed. The ruling thus came down to that fine line between careless and irrational; ie would it be irrational, or merely careless, for South to fail to ruff the spade high in the dummy. The TD ruled, given South's experience, that it would be irrational, and awarded South the balance of the tricks. The TD did emphasize, however, that this was extremely close and advised south to be more careful when claiming. He also advised EW of their right to appeal. The context was the first session of a two-session pair game. EW were not qualifying for the final no matter what the ruling, and NS were always qualifying, so the only impact the ruling had was a fractional difference to NS's carryover. FWIW, awarding one trick to the defense would have resulted in 3♥ by S -2, for -200 NS and zero matchpoints. The TD's ruling of 3♥ -1 resulted in NS scoring 2 MPs on a 12 top. (ACBL matchpoints, of course) So, much ado about not very much.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sht4dj3c&w=sh9876dc&e=s3hdq4c3&s=s5hakjdc]399|300|Scoring: MP Spots approximate[/hv] South is declarer in a ♥ contract. East has won the previous trick and leads the ♦Q. South claims, making no statement other than something like "I have all the high trumps". West objects, saying "I have more trump than you. I get a trick at the end". South, somewhat flummoxed by this unexpected objection, concedes a trick to the defense. This is the last board of the round. West leaves the table. Before the next round is called, South articulates the fact that he can ruff his losing spade with the high trump in dummy, West will be forced to underruff, and declarer need lose no more tricks. West is located and the director is duly summoned. How do you rule?

Hey, this is a great point. I guess my thoughts were clouded by the knowledge that both the key missing cards are favorably placed. 6NT requires no diamond lead OR finding the ♥Q OR ♣K onside (and knowing which of the latter two to play for). Seems like playing 6 rounds of spades should give you some count information to help you find the ♥Q; I know it did for me. 6NT in the south might be preferable, as West may prefer to lead what looks like a "safe" ♥ from ♥xxxx rather than a ♦. I don't recall the exact diamond spots but he might have had something like ♦Qxx or ♦KJxx. If the opponents have only bid the black suits (other than control bids) the lead problem might be difficult. On our auction, in which ♥ were bid and raised naturally and ♦ were never mentioned, we were always getting a ♦ lead.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakjt8xhajtdaxcxx&s=sqhk9xxdxxcaqjtxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] My partner and I struggled to come up with a good auction for these hands. We ended up in a good spot (6NT), but I think that was more by luck than anything. Assuming the South hand opens 1♣, can anyone suggest a rational auction to 6NT ( a ) playing whatever gadgets you prefer? ( b ) playing a fairly vanilla Standard American? Double-dummy, 7NT is on, as East has ♣Kxx and ♥Qx. We picked up a few imps for 6NT= opposite 6C +1 at the other table.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakj8hqt9dq9xxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Rightly or wrongly you open this hand 1♦ in first chair. Opponents are silent. Partner responds 1♥. You have some choices at this point but I bid what I thought was a normal (?) 1♠. Partner bids 2NT. You have not discussed this sequence specifically but you can probably expect 11-12 balanced with fewer than 4 spades, not more than 4 hearts, and some semblance of a club stopper. And now? See hidden text below for my choice and the next decision I had to make.

I think this is right. Partner has clearly ducked one of the minor suit aces hoping to maintain an entry to his long spades. Absent any UI, this is what I'm going to play as the only reasonable chance to set the hand. Unfortunately, I don't know if this would be "obvious" to me without the UI concern. If partner tanked before passing out 1NT, I think (looking at my hand and dummy) that suggests long spades in a weak hand and I may be constrained from finding the spade switch. If the UI is from partner's hesitation prior to ducking his ace, all that tells me is that he has that particular ace. I'm not going to set up any tricks for declarer by leading to that ace. I need to play a heart or a spade, and I don't see where knowing that partner has ♦A or♣A helps me to decide which.

I probably should have mentioned that NS do not play standard weak twos, so south's hand is entirely consistent with his auction. (Up to the point where he considered bidding 3♥, to Helene's point). I certainly agree that no adjustment is in order here. As peachy pointed out, many players think it's entirely normal to make a takeout double of 1 of a minor opposite a passed partner holding 11 working HCP and a singleton heart. Here we have a situation where it would never have occurred to East that she'd done anything out of the ordinary. It also never occurred to NS that she might have the hand that she held. I think the issue is an educational one. ACBL should do more to publicize the "light, offshape" check box on the convention card. Some textbook somewhere must be promoting the idea that any hand of any shape with 10+ HCP should make a takeout double if their opponents open at the one level. On another hand during this same session, this south player lost an overtrick by misguessing the spade suit after his LHO doubled his 1♥ opening holding 2=3=2=6. (On this occasion, the doubler had extra values, so the decision to double was more legit, but it's frustrating to be nailed by an offshape double twice in one session.) Back to the original hand. Result stands. West, holding ♥A9xx, would likely have doubled 3♥, scoring 300 rather than 140, so no damage. I was mainly interested in peoples' thoughts on the phenomenon of light, offshape, undisclosed takeout doubles. Thanks for the responses.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s54hkq8543dt86ct9]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] This hand chose to pass as dealer, and the auction proceeded P - (P) - 1♦ - (X) 2♥! - (P) - P - (X) P - (2♠) - All pass ! Weak jump shift (no kidding) 2♠ duly made 9 tricks, 140 for EW When the dummy hit, S summoned the director. East had made a takeout double of 1♦ holding ♠AQ86 ♥J ♦J732 ♣A743 South claims that had he known that E could be so weak and so short in ♥ for her sequence, he would have bid 3♥, which is 2 off, -100 for NS. Upon questioning after the hand, E thought her initial double to be completely normal. When asked whether their takeout doubles of minor-suit openings promise support for both majors, W opined "normally they would, yes" but considered his partner's hand to be not out of the ordinary for such an action. Questions: (1) Is this style of double unusual enough to require an alert (in the ACBL)? (2) If the answer to (1) is "yes", is there any case for adjustment based on MI?

I will either have 4-4 in the majors or a secondary diamond fit with enough values to bid at the 3-level if partner picks the "wrong" major.

Thanks to everyone for the interesting replies. I may have mis-remembered the auction on the first hand; partner may have bid 3♥ at his 2nd turn, not 3♦. The decision of what to bid over 3♠ is similar. Partner leapt to 6♠, which made 7 when the opponents failed to take their club trick on opening lead. My hand (I was the 3♠ bidder) was ♠QJxxx ♥QJxxx ♦Q ♣xx Is the negative double normal here, or do people have something to show a more shapely hand? On the second hand we got lucky. Over 3♥, my partner bid 6♣. He was expecting me to pull to 6♦ if I was, say, 3442. I thought he was showing 4-6 or 4-7 in the blacks. After the hand, he thought 3♣ had been a mistake, with such weak spades and obviously no interest in playing in hearts. It's not clear what else he could have done, given that we don't play any form of minor-suit Stayman. (We are discussing adding it.) 6♣ was the right spot, as my hand was ♠KQ ♥AKxx ♦xxx ♣AKQx.

I'm pleased to say my partner got these right. [hv=d=s&v=n&s=saktxhdakjt98xxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♦-(2♣)-X-(2♥) 3♦-(P)-3♠-(P) Do you agree with your auction thus far? Partner's double was negative. What now? == [hv=d=s&v=n&s=saktxhdakjt98xxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner opens 2NT, 20-21. Maybe you have some kind of minor-suit Stayman you can use here. (We don't) Maybe you prefer to look for your major suit fit first. Let's say you bid 3♣, regular Stayman. Of course partner bids 3♥. Silent opponents. Now what?

Well, right, but he thought I was making a penalty double of 3♥, which obviously should be a better hand than a negative double.

So 3NT was the winning call. As opener, after the auction 1♠-(3♥)-X-(P)- (let's say you're playing the double as negative) what would you rebid with ♠KQTxxx ♥AJx ♦JTx ♣x ? Do you trust partner to have the minors stopped and bid 3NT? My partner bid 4♠, not unreasonably, and went down as the spades are 6-0. 5♦ is also down one; trumps are 3-2 but the defenders get ♠A, a club and a long club or spade at the end. Clubs are blocked so the defenders can only take 3 clubs and the ♠A against 3NT.

I agree. In fact, I forgot we were playing negative doubles thru 3♦ and made one anyway.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhkxdakqxxcjxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner, in first chair, opens 1♠. RHO bids 3♥; LHO waffles a bit and says he thinks it is pre-emptive. (He happens to be right in this case) Your agreement is that negative doubles apply thru 3♦. Now what?

Thanks to all for the replies. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq82h862dj9caqt54&s=sakj9hakqj4da873c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Our auction, as I mentioned, was 1♣*-(1NT**)-X-(P) P-(2♣)-X-All Pass * Precision (strong, artificial, forcing) ** Minors 2♣X was booked for 500 vs best defense (so 3♣X would have been 800) but was set only one trick for an unsatisfying 200. Looking at the two hands you probably want to be in 6♥. Trumps are 5-0, however. It makes six double-dummy only because the long trump hand also has 4 spades, allowing you to safely ruff a diamond in dummy. The actual result at the other table was 4♥ making 5. Looking at the north hand, do you agree with the decision to play for penalties? Would you have still doubled if the opponents had run to diamonds?

Well, if you and your partner have an agreement as to what that would mean, let's discuss. I was more interested in the judgment aspects. You have shown a very strong hand but have disclosed nothing about your shape. The opponents interfere and partner suggests defending. (1)If you're the partner of the big hand on this auction, what kind of cards would lead you to suggest defending? Would you bid this way with a weak hand that doesn't think it can make anything but with lots of putative trumps (say, xx, xx, Jxxx, Txxxx)? Would you suggest defending with a balanced hand of, say, 6-8 HCP? Are you promising or denying values outside the opponents' suits? Are you denying a fit with any trump suit partner might have (here, the majors since the opponents are showing the minors)? (2)If you're holding the big hand, what kind of cards would lead you to overrule partner's suggestion? Does the void in one of the opponents' possible trump suits worry you? If one of your small diamonds was a small spade, would you be more likely to try to declare the hand? What if a diamond was a small heart? What if your diamonds and spades were reversed, so you "know" partner's double is based on clubs only? (3)Obviously (I think?), being NV vs Vul makes you more likely to want to defend. What if the vulnerability were different? What if you were playing matchpoints or BAM?

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sakj9hakqjxda873c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]Let's say you open this not-unpromising collection 2♣. Your LHO overcalls 2NT for the minors. Let's say that you and your partner have agreed that you will treat this with whatever Unusual vs. Unusual treatment you normally use, which includes the fact that partner's double suggests penalizing at least one of the opponents' suits. (I keep saying "let's say" because this is a hypothetical auction. At the actual table, this hand opened a Precision 1♣ and LHO overcalled 1NT for the minors. The judgment issues involved are similar and I didn't want this to be a systems discussion.) Anyway, partner doubles without any apparent difficulty, RHO passes, and let's say you pass to await developments. LHO now runs to 3♣, and again partner doubles. RHO passes and it's up to you. The auction has been 2♣-(2NT)-X-(P) P-(3♣)-X-(P) You can pass, in which case you are defending 3♣ doubled, or you can find some other forward-going bid. Keeping in mind the vulnerability and form of scoring, what's your choice?

Good point. Dummy did indeed promise at least one 4-card major. I was declarer at this table; my opponent led ♣10 and I was quickly -200. My teammate at the other table led a spade and was quickly -600. The whole hand was[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sxxxxhqxxxdk9caxx&w=sjxhjtxxdajxxxckx&e=sakqhkxdq8xxxcjxx&s=stxxxha98dtcqt98x]399|300|Scoring: IMP ♣10 ducked to the J, ♦ finesse losing, ♣A, ♣[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s10xxxha98d10cq1098x]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You hold this hand at IMPs hear your vulnerable opponents bid (your side silent) RHO - LHO 1NT - 2C 2D - 2NT 3NT - pass Your lead, and what other leads do you consider? Just a sanity check for me, thanks.

I meant to state in my original post that we do not have a second negative available. After reading this discussion, I think I will discuss adding one! After our sequence 2♣-2♦; 2♥-3♣; 4♣, my partner retreated to 4H, which I passed. My reasoning was that I needed hearts not worse than 5-1 (partner could have a singleton) AND either king-fifth or longer of clubs with partner (with no defensive club ruff at trick one) or the spade king onside. (Partner really can't have the ♦A after failing to bid 4♦ over 4♣). Alas, partner had the required clubs and the spade was onside, so after the opponents cashed their diamond at trick one, I quickly scored up 480. I expected an average-minus, but this was actually an above average score, as NOBODY in the room (8 tables) reached the slam and there was more than one 230 on the scoresheet.