Board 47

Board 47 (Click to download pbn file)
Our side vulnerable

♠ Q J 4 ♥ A K 7 5 4 2 ♦ -- ♣ K 9 8 5

I open one heart in first seat. Partner responds one spade, and RHO doubles. Without the double I would bid two spades. I think two hearts should virtually deny three-card spade support and two clubs should deny support if you have a minimum opening. This hand isn't quite good enough to bid two clubs and support spades later, though it's close. This is a minority view but not as uncommon as some of my minority views, and it is one I feel quite strongly about. But RHO's double renders the point moot, since I can now redouble to show three spades.

I redouble, LHO bids two diamonds, and partner passes. Partner surely has at most two hearts and probably has only four spades. With five, even with a minimum response, he would generally compete to two spades. RHO bids three notrump. It sounds as if RHO might have doubled with a hand too good to overcall two diamonds and that the two-diamond bid convinced him his diamonds were running. Perhaps he has something like

♠ A x ♥ Q J x ♦ A K x x x x x ♣ A.

I pass, as does everyone else.

If declarer does have seven diamonds, that gives partner at most two, which in turn gives him at least five clubs. It occurs to me now that I might have passed too quickly over three notrump.  If partner has as little as

♠ K x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ Q J x x x,

we could be making five clubs. And, to make matters worse, we're not beating three notrump. Too late to worry about that now.  I need to hope we can beat three notrump somehow.  We can't beat it if declarer has the hand I pictured, so I have to assume he's gambling on something. If so, my guess is he's gambling on a club stopper. Neither of us bid clubs, so he may be hoping his partner can offer some help in that suit. He might have, for example,

♠ A K ♥ Q J x ♦ A K x x x x x ♣ Q.

I don't need to commit myself yet. I can lead the heart king and take a look at dummy first. I do, and this is what I see:

	NORTH ♠ 9 7 5 ♥ 10 3 ♦ K J 6 3 ♣ J 7 6 3
WEST ♠ Q J 4 ♥ A K 7 5 4 2 ♦ -- ♣ K 9 8 5

West	North	East	South
1 ♥	Pass	1 ♠	Double
Redouble	2 ♦	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)

So one thing declarer was gambling on was the diamond king. I hope that's not all. Partner plays the heart eight; declarer plays the six. Partner would appear to have only four clubs, which is relief, but it means one of my assumptions is wrong. Perhaps he has five spades and chose not to bid two spades over two diamonds because he had no high cards in his suit. It still looks as if my best chance to beat this is to find declarer with a singleton queen of clubs. I switch to the club king. Partner plays the four, and declarer pitches the deuce of diamonds. I see. Partner is 4-2-2-5 after all. We take five clubs and two hearts for down three:

	NORTH ♠ 9 7 5 ♥ 10 3 ♦ K J 6 3 ♣ J 7 6 3
WEST ♠ Q J 4 ♥ A K 7 5 4 2 ♦ -- ♣ K 9 8 5		EAST ♠ 10 6 3 2 ♥ J 8 ♦ 5 4 ♣ A Q 10 4 2
	SOUTH ♠ A K 8 ♥ Q 9 6 ♦ A Q 10 9 8 7 2 ♣ --

As it happens, we do make five clubs, but they have a down one save in five diamonds, so beating this three tricks is actually two imps better than par.  I'm uncomfortable about this deal.  We might have lost a double-game swing.  Maybe I was supposed to bid four clubs over three notrump.  But it's scary to stick your neck out on an inference that could be completely wrong.  If East didn't have long diamonds at all but simply had a balanced 21-count, partner would never understand.

The auction is the same at the other table. West also infers his partner's club length, but, rather than hedge his bets by leading a high heart, he leads the club five at trick one. He achieves the same down three I did, but it seems unfair. He deserves to have found declarer with a singleton queen of clubs.

Me: +150
Jack: +150

Score on Board 47: 0 IMPs
Total: +115 IMPS