Event 3 - Match 5 - Board 7

Board 7
Both sides vulnerable

♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3

I pass in first seat. RHO opens one club in fourth seat. There is little point in a one heart overcall. I pass. LHO bids one spade, and RHO rebids one notrump (15-17). I pass, and LHO raises to three, ending the auction. I lead the four of hearts.

	NORTH Sam ♠ Q J 10 3 2 ♥ Q 8 6 ♦ K 2 ♣ K 10 9
WEST Phillip ♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Sam	Jack	Stephen
Pass	Pass	Pass	1 ♣
Pass	1 ♠	Pass	1 NT
Pass	3 NT	(All pass)

Declarer plays the six from dummy, partner plays the ten, and declarer wins with the ace. If partner has king-ten third of hearts, we have a shot to beat this. When I get in with the spade king, I play another heart. If declarer misguesses and plays the queen, he will go down.

Another way to beat this is to run diamonds. If partner has ace-jack fifth or ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds, I can shift to a diamond when I'm in with the spade king. True, if partner has ace-jack fifth, declarer can block the suit by playing low from dummy. But he's unlikely to do that.

How will I know which suit to play? One way to solve this problem is with Smith echo. Partner can play high (or low if you prefer) on declarer's first lead to encourage a heart continuation and can do the opposite to suggest a shift. We don't play Smith echo, however, which, in general, is fine with me. Though on this particular deal, I have to admit it might be helpful.

Opposite a reliable partner, Smith echo would not be necessary. It would already be clear to continue hearts. With a diamond tenace over dummy and ten third or doubleton of hearts, partner knows good and well he wants a diamond shift when I get in, so he would simply play low at trick one. That might blow a trick, but it's hard to see how it can blow the contract. So, if partner could be trusted, it would be wrong to continue hearts only if partner's heart ten were a singleton.

Since Jack is not up to offering that kind of help, I just have to go with the odds. At the moment, the percentage play is to continue hearts. Better to play partner for one card (the heart king) than for two (the ace-jack of diamonds). But the odds may change as I get more information. In particular, if I find out declarer has three hearts, I know a heart continuation is pointless. Even if partner has the king (and somehow worked out not to play it at trick one) and even if declarer puts up the queen, I have no re-entry.

Declarer plays the deuce of clubs--eight--king--five. This is why I said above that Smith echo might be helpful. I can't tell whether the five is high or low, so this time it would not have helped even if we were playing it.

Declarer leads the ten of spades--five--six. Partner is surely giving correct count here. So declarer must have ace doubleton of spades. That means he is unlikely to have a doubleton heart. He might rebid one notrump with a 2-2-4-5 pattern, but that is the only way for him to have two hearts. (Personally, I might have a 2-2-3-6 pattern as well, especially if the club suit is below par for a three club bid. But Jack claims he would not bid one notrump with six clubs.)

On the other hand, there are two patterns for opener where partner has five diamonds: 2-3-3-5, and 2-4-3-4. Since each of these patterns is a priori more likely than 2-2-4-5, partner is more than twice as likely to have five diamonds as he is to have three hearts. So, even though it is playing partner for two high cards instead of one, a diamond shift is now the percentage play. And that's before taking into account the possibility of partner's having ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds. The only reason I haven't taken the spade king and played a diamond already is that declarer's line of play is bugging me. Why is he taking a spade finesse with ace doubleton? I'm the dangerous hand. He doesn't care if partner wins the spade king. So why risk blocking the spade suit? Or losing to a stiff king in my hand? Why not just play ace and another spade?

Take the hand I've almost decided to play him for, for example:

♠ A x ♥ A K x ♦ x x x ♣ A x x x x

Does declarer's line of play make any sense? What's he going to do if the queen of spades holds? Unless the king is doubleton onside, he can no longer run the spades. He must hope for a three-two club break.

The same thing is true if declarer has the diamond ace instead of the heart king:

♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x

Again, ace and a spade looks pretty routine. What does taking the spade finesse even gain?

That last question is the key. If I can answer that, I should be able to call declarer's hand. What taking the spade finesse gains is it avoids giving up the lead, provided two spade tricks is all you need. So there are two things that must be true about declarer's hand: (1) It is dangerous to give up the lead even to RHO. (2) He must have exactly seven tricks outside the spade suit.

For (1) to be true, declarer must be missing both the diamond ace and the heart king. Then it is dangerous to lose the lead even to partner, since I might be able to gain the lead in one of the red suits in order to lead the other. If declarer is indeed missing both red honors, I should win and switch to the jack of hearts. If declarer covers, he is down. If he guesses to duck, I can switch to a diamond, hoping partner has the jack as well or that declarer misguesses and plays the king.

Condition (2) is the toughie. I don't see how to satisfy that condition without giving declarer six clubs:

♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ J x x ♣ A Q x x x x

With this hand, a spade finesse makes sense. If declarer plays ace and a spade, he could go down even if the spade king is on his right. The spade finesse guarantess the contract if the spade king is onside and retains chances if it isn't. I'm not saying it's the right play. That's declarer's problem, not mine. It is at least a reasonable play, which is all I care about when drawing inferences as defender. The spade finesse is not a reasonable play with either of the previous two hands.

The only problem is, this hand violates Jack's constraints. He says he can't have six clubs. Since it's the only hand I can think of where a spade finesse makes sense, I guess I have to admit defeat. Either I'm missing something or declarer is misplaying the hand. I don't know what declarer has, so I have to fall back on simply making the percentage play.

I shift to the four of diamonds--king--ace--five. So far so good. Partner plays the three of diamonds--ten--queen--deuce. I still have time to switch to a heart if I change my mind and decide declarer was 2-2-3-6 after all. But I'm sure partner would have led a high diamond, not a low one, if he didn't have the jack. I play the nine of diamonds to partner's jack, and partner cashes two more diamonds. Down two.

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

Even after seeing declarer's hand, I don't know what he was up to. He has two reasonable lines: (A) Play ace and a spade or (B) play a club to nine, intending to play on spades if the clubs don't come home. (B) is better double-dummy, but (A) may gain by being less transparent. (If the club finesse loses, East's heart return gives the show away. If West has the spade king, he cannot go wrong when he gains the lead.) The line South chose makes no sense to me.

I said before that declarer would be unlikely to duck the diamond if I shifted. But maybe I was hasty in saying that. Shifting from the queen or jack of diamonds is attractive, since it might work by force. Shifting from ace of diamonds is considerably less attractive, especially when for all I know hearts are running. On top of that, ducking in dummy is actually the percentage play (by a factor of two to one) any time I have only three diamonds. In retropect, I think a good declarer might well get the diamonds right.

Whether our teammate got the diamonds right or whether West didn't find the shift I can't say. But, one way or another, three notrump made at the other table. So we pick up 13 imps.

Table 1: +200
Table 2: +600

Result on Board 7: +13 imps
Total: +17 imps

A Tangent

I know this is supposed to be a bridge blog. But I hope you won't mind if I take time out to discuss an interesting end position in a game of a Words with Friends I played recently.

I should say at the start that I'm new to this game and not particularly good at it, though I do find it fascinating. As in most games, the interest comes from balancing competing objectives. You want to make high-scoring plays. But you don't want to leave opportunities open to your opponent. You also don't want to leave yourself with an awkward combination of letters such that you will have a hard time finding a good play at your next turn. I am not yet confident in my judgment in evaluating these trade-offs. But I am confident that the key to becoming a good player is to develop that judgment. That seems to be more important than having a large vocabulary. I have memorized all the two-letter words. But I seem to have a considerably smaller repertoire of three-letter words than many of my opponents do. Just looking over a few active games, I see words like NOH, OKA, and KIR, and I can assure you that I was not the one who played them. Not knowing such words, however, does not seem to be as much of a disadvantage as one might think.

The highlight of any Words with Friends  game for me is the end position. Now, when you know what tiles your opponent has, you can plan everything out. It's almost like analyzing an endplay in bridge, except that there are more variations to worry about. Take, for example, the following end position in a game I recently played against Robb Gordon:

See what I mean about vocabulary? Robb just played NOUS. Who nous that was a legitimate English word?

I am down 51 points. There is one tile left in the bag. I cannot win unless I get a bingo. The good news is I do have a seven-letter word: MATURED. The bad news is there is no place on the board to put it. (TOYE is apparently not a word. I tried it. Although TOYO, which I tried earlier in the game, is a word. You can test words out by playing a two-letter word you know is invalid, like OO. If the game tells you OO is not word but remains silent about TOYO, you can conclude TOYO is a valid word. I was at first unsure whether such experimentation was ethical or not. But, after asking around, I discovered the consensus is that it's perfectly OK.)

Since I can't play a bingo now, it would be a mistake to play more than one tile. With only one tile left in the bag, I would not be able to play a bingo on my next turn. Perhaps, I thought, I should simply pass. If Robb's play enables me to play MATURED and go out on my next turn, maybe that's enough to win.

What will Robb play if I pass? There are eight tiles remaining: AOORRUS and a blank. If Robb has the blank, I'm in big trouble. If he has AOORRS and a blank, for example, he can play ARROYOS on C13 (making TOYO and AWES) for 55 points. If he has AORRSU and a blank, he can play UPROARS on B13 (making TOYS) for 51 points. And if he has AOORSU and a blank, he can play AMOROUS in the same spot for 50 points. It appears I am going to have to hope that the tile left in the bag is the blank. In that case, Robb has AOORRSU. What will he play then? The highest scoring word I see is OURS on C8 (making ZAGS) for 25 points. If he does that, I can play MATURED on B6 (turning OURS into TOURS) for 89 points, enough to win. That looks like my only chance. So I pass.

After passing, it occurs to me Robb would never play OURS. He can see it leaves the double double wide open. Even if he hasn't bothered to work out what letters I have, he knows it's a risky play. ROARS in the same spot is safer, and it happens to score the same 25 points. If he plays ROARS, I will lose. Then it hit me that I had made an error. Since I had to assume the blank was left in the bag anyway, I didn't need to pass. I could afford to play my U on C2, making NU for 6 points. I would then draw the blank and could still play MATURED if Robb played OURS. The difference is, now I could also win if he played ROARS. In fact, I win bigger. I could play MORTARED on B3 for 95 points. Sigh. What a moron!

As it happens, it didn't matter. Robb did have the blank and played AMOROUS as anticipated. But perhaps if I had made the correct play, the Scrabble gods would have rewarded me by putting that blank back in the bag where it belonged.

Event 3 - Match 5 - Board 6

Board 6
Opponents vulnerable

♠ A 3 ♥ J 10 9 7 ♦ 10 3 ♣ Q 8 5 4 3

Pass on my right. I pass. LHO opens one notrump (12-14), which partner doubles. RHO bids two diamonds. Since I'm the one with diamond shortness, it's incumbent on me to act. I think one should treat this auction as if partner had opened one notrump and RHO had overcalled. Thus, playing my usual methods, a double by me would show exactly two diamonds, support for the unbid suits, and enough high cards to justify competing. Even though I lack spade support, I would double anyway, intending to correct two spades to three clubs. I haven't convinced partner of the merits of this approach, however, so I bid two hearts. It would be nice to have a fifth heart, but, with no negative double available, I have to make do. Everyone passes, and LHO leads the deuce of diamonds.

	NORTH Jack ♠ 10 6 5 4 2 ♥ Q 3 ♦ A J 5 ♣ A K 7
	SOUTH Phillip ♠ A 3 ♥ J 10 9 7 ♦ 10 3 ♣ Q 8 5 4 3

West	North	East	South
Sam	Jack	Stephen	Phillip
		Pass	Pass
1 NT	Double	2 ♦	2 ♥
(All pass)

I don't care for the double. I know conventional wisdom is that you should double a weak notrump a tad lighter than you double a strong notrump. But I've never understood why. You need the same number of tricks to beat a weak notrump as to beat a strong notrump.

I play low, East plays the queen, and I play the three. I realize too late I should have played the ten, since West knows I have that card. It probably doesn't matter, but it's poor technique. I need to wake up.

I expect a spade shift. If I had the spade king instead of the ace, failing to shift to a spade might enable me to pitch a spade loser on a diamond. But East shifts to the jack of clubs. Why did he do this? It's possible this is a singleton. But it's also possible that shifting to dummy's long suit just didn't appeal. I play the three, West plays the deuce.

I win in dummy with the ace and lead the queen of hearts--four--seven--ace. There is no particular reason for West to falsecard, so East probably has the heart king. That leaves him with at most one more high card point. And he probably has it. If West had king-queen-jack of spades, he might have led a spade, so I suspect East has the spade jack.

West shifts to the ten of clubs. If I'm right that the jack of clubs was a singleton, I should play low on this trick so that East, if he chooses to ruff, ruffs a loser instead of a winner. But if clubs were breaking all along, playing low will block the suit. Does that matter? Say I play low and East, to my annoyance, follows. I win the club queen in my hand and play a heart. East wins and returns a spade, killing the entry to my hand. Clubs are blocked, but I still have eight tricks: two heart tricks, two diamonds, a spade, and three clubs. It must be better to play low if clubs are four-one, and it costs only overtricks if clubs split. So I play low.

East ruffs with the heart five and shifts to the seven of spades. I play the ace, and West plays the eight. If the carding is honest, spades are three-three, which means East is 3-4-5-1. I've lost the club ruff to the hand with four hearts, so I can now afford to be tapped. I play a diamond to the jack and cash the ace, pitching my spade. West plays nine, king; East plays four, six. I play the three of hearts--king--nine--deuce. We are down to this position. I can afford to lose one more trick:

	NORTH Jack ♠ 10 6 5 4 ♥ -- ♦ -- ♣ K
WEST Sam ♠ K Q ♥ x ♦ -- ♣ 9 6		EAST Stephen ♠ J 9 ♥ x ♦ 8 7 ♣ --
	SOUTH Phillip ♠ -- ♥ J 10 ♦ -- ♣ Q 8 5

East plays the eight of diamonds. I ruff with the heart ten, and West discards the spade queen. Aha! He was stepping-stone squeezed. If he pitches a club, I can discard dummy's club king. If he underruffs, he's squeezed on the next trick. I cash the heart jack, play a club to the king, and toss West in with the spade king to score my queen of clubs.

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

I guess I should be glad we weren't playing negative doubles. We would have foolishly reached our five-three fit instead of our four-two fit and presumably would have gone down one.

Of course, I should have gone down in this contract as well. The defense got off to the wrong start by going after club ruffs instead of tapping me in spades. Even after East took his ruff, however, they could still beat me. West needed to drop a spade honor under my ace, so he can hold the spade eight instead of king in the end position. He was pretty much double-dummy at the point he had to make his decision, so I'm surprised he didn't see that. This isn't the kind of mistake Jack typically makes.

Looking at all four hands, I'm annoyed to see I missed an inference during the play. If I was right to assume East had the heart king, I had a virtual lock that he had a singleton club. He would cover the heart queen with the king if he had a second club, so he could lead it, retaining his partner's heart ace as an entry for his ruff. It turns out I didn't need that inference, but I might have.

Why did I miss this? Generally, when you miss an inference, it's because you aren't actively making predictions during the play. If you make a prediction and are wrong, a bell goes off. If you aren't making predictions, nothing strikes you as unusual, so you have no reason to stop and think. Note I did this at trick two. I predicted a spade shift. When I got a club shift instead, I had reason to suspect that the club jack was singleton. But I couldn't be sure.

I got lazy, however, when I led the heart queen. I should have predicted that the queen would be covered on my right. When that didn't happen, I should then have suspected that both heart honors were on my left. Now, when West wins with the ace, suggesting that's not the case, a bell would go off. Drawing the inference that East could not have a second club is easy. It's getting the bell to go off in the first place that's the hard part.

Our counterparts at the other table played one notrump and made three, cutting our lead to four imps.

Table 1: +110
Table 2: -150

Result on Board 6: -1 imp
Total: +4 imps

Event 3 - Match 5 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

♠ K Q 2 ♥ K 9 6 5 ♦ 8 6 4 ♣ 10 6 2

Partner opens one diamond in first seat, and RHO overcalls with one heart. I bid one notrump, LHO bids two clubs, and partner bids two diamonds. After my one notrump response, partner will bid two diamonds on almost any unbalanced minimum with five or more diamonds. A pass would suggest a balanced hand (and a minimum strong notrump, since our one notrump opening is weak).

RHO doubles, which is alerted as "competitive." I know these competitive doubles are fashionable, but I don't get them. If you have six hearts, you bid two hearts. If you have club support, you raise. If you have neither (and don't have enough in high cards to invite game in notrump), why would you want to act at all? Some players feel compelled to do something whenever they have more high cards than they need for their previous actions. If nothing else appeals, they like to use double to convey that message. But I've never understood what this is supposed to accomplish. Personally, I have little interest in hearing that partner has extra high cards. Whenever partner makes one of these doubles (assuming I've agreed to play this way to humor him), I find myself in one of two positions: (1) I have some extra distributional feature to show; but I was going to show it anyway, so partner's double made no difference. (2) I don't have an extra distributional feature to show, in which case I probably want to defend this contract undoubled. Unfortuately, that option is no longer available. Either I must defend it doubled when I think it's pretty much a toss up whether we beat it or not, or I must bid, fully expecting to go minus.

But this double is LHO's problem, not mine. I pass. LHO bids three clubs, which is passed back to me.

By the Law of Total Tricks, I want to compete if both sides have nine trumps, and I want to sell if both sides have eight. If one side has nine trumps and the other has eight, I'm indifferent to whether I compete or not. Unfortunately, that doesn't help on this auction, since I don't know the trump length for either side. Partner could have five or six diamonds, and LHO could have six or seven clubs opposite RHO's probable doubleton. The Law doesn't help; I must fall back on old-fashioned judgment.

My third diamond is a plus for offense. My 4-3-3-3 pattern is minus for offense, as is my lack of a diamond honor. My heart king is better on defense than on offense. In fact, it is in some danger of being ruffed out at trick two in a diamond contract. In addition, if partner does have six diamonds and a singleton club (the only time selling out is a serious error), he might have bid three diamonds on his own, provided his diamonds are good enough. All in all, selling out seems like the wisest course. I pass, and partner leads the four of spades.

	NORTH Stephen ♠ J 10 8 5 ♥ A J 10 8 4 ♦ K 10 5 ♣ 3
		EAST Phillip ♠ K Q 2 ♥ K 9 6 5 ♦ 8 6 4 ♣ 10 6 2

West	North	East	South
Jack	Stephen	Phillip	Sam
1 ♦	1 ♥	1 NT	2 ♣
2 ♦	Double1	Pass	3 ♣
(All pass)
1Competitive

North seem to have a different concept of a competitive double than most. This looks to me more like a one-suit take-out double for spades. Even if that were my agreement, I wouldn't choose it with this hand. With a singleton club and king-ten third of diamonds, I would be happy to defend any time partner doesn't want to bid on his own initiative.

Declarer has as most two hearts and at most two diamonds. He probably would have bid two spades with four. So my best guess is he is 3-2-2-6. No. That gives partner 3-2-5-3 and a strong notrump. It looks as if I need to credit declarer with seven clubs. He could be 2-2-2-7 (giving partner 4-2-5-2) or 3-2-1-7 (giving partner 3-2-6-2).

Declarer plays the spade ten. I could falsecard with the king. But declarer should get the spades wrong even without the falsecard. Both restricted choice and the fact that partner opened the bidding makes the missing spade honor more apt to be in partner's hand. So the falsecard will only make partner's job harder. I play the queen, and declarer wins with the ace.

Declarer plays the spade six--three--jack--king. See? I told you he'd get it wrong anyway. Partner appears to have led third best in spades, so declarer is 2-2-2-7.

We have one spade, one heart, and one diamond trick. We need two trump tricks to beat this. Returning a spade to prepare for an uppercut will not help if partner has only two clubs. Perhaps, if partner has ace-nine of clubs, we can get a trump promotion. If partner has the queen of hearts, I can play a heart. If declarer errs and takes the ace, then, when partner takes the club ace, he can cash the diamond ace, lead a heart to my king, and get a trump promotion.

Is there a risk in trying this? If declarer has the heart queen, a heart shift gives up a trick. But it doesn't cost the contract unless we have two natural trump tricks. So the shift doesn't cost unless partner has ace-queen or ace-jack of clubs and no heart queen. That's quite a parlay. Then again, all declarer has to do to counter this defense is to duck the heart ace. Failing to do so is a pretty bad play. Perhaps that's even less likely than the parlay.

Actually, on second thought, ducking the heart ace isn't 100%. If partner has a singleton queen of hearts instead of a doubleton queen and if I have an entry with the queen or jack of diamonds, declarer must win the trick to avoid a heart ruff. The parlay is enough of a long shot that I'm going for the swindle. I shift to the five of hearts--three--queen--ace. Yay!

Declarer leads the three of clubs from dummy--deuce--seven--ace. Seven? He hooked me for the ten of clubs? I guess he was worried I had ten fourth. From his point of view, if partner has another heart to play, he's going to wind up playing me for the club ten anyway. So hooking now in case I have ten fourth makes a certain amount of sense.

Partner cashes the diamond ace--five--four--seven. He then plays the jack of diamonds--king--six--deuce. Partner is apparently playing declarer to be 2-2-3-6 and wants to kill the diamond entry to dummy's heart winner. But, if that's the case, this is the wrong defense. Declarer could ruff out my spade exit, draw trumps, and lead a heart to my king. I will have nothing left but hearts, so I must give him his heart trick. If partner thought I had a doubleton diamond, he should play the queen of diamonds instead of ace and another to leave me with a diamond exit. (Of course, I can't have a doubleton diamond. I would have led a diamond rather than a heart at trick three if I did. But such inferences are beyond Jack.)

Declarer leads the four of hearts from dummy. I could win with the nine. But perhaps if I win with the king, declarer will think partner has the nine and will get careless. Is there a name for this maneuver? It has a vague resemblance to a crocodile coup in that I'm playing a higher card than necessary. Maybe we can call it a crock coup. I play the king--deuce--seven. Now the six of hearts. Declarer ruffs with the five. The five? Unbelievable! Declarer did get careless, but it didn't matter. Why couldn't partner have held the six of clubs instead of me? Declarer draws trumps and claims. Making three.

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

Our teammates also made three clubs, so the board is a push.

Let's back up a minute and reconsider my problem after the double of two diamonds. What should a redouble by me mean? I suspect many would play that the redouble shows a desire to penalize the opponents. In other words, it is a warning to partner not to bid again. This parallels the treatment of redouble in other auctions, for example, one diamond--double--redouble. But I don't think this treatment makes sense here. For one, thing, advancer's pass after one diamond--double--redouble is not for penalties (and, even if it were, he would rarely hold a suitable hand). But his pass of a redouble on this auction would be for penalties. And if you hold the hand where such a redouble is appropriate--a misfit with good defense against the opponents' suits--it is quite possible that your LHO was intending to pass the double and will be delighted to defend two diamonds redoubled. Accordingly, I think it makes more sense to play that redouble invites partner to bid. Specifically, I think it should be a support redouble.

Support redoubles typically apply only by opener after a one-over-one response. But I believe they should be extended to apply by either hand at the two-level under the following conditions: (1) You are not in a force; (2) you have limited your hand; (3) partner might have either five or six cards in the suit being doubled and you might or might not have three-card support. Under those conditions, your combined trump length is your primary concern, so I propose that a redouble show three-card support for partner's suit and invite partner to compete with a six-card suit if the double is pulled.

The auction above meets these requirements. Another, more common, situation occurs after a Jacoby transfer and a balancing double:

1 NT	Pass	2 ♦	Pass
2 ♥	Pass	Pass	Double
?

In this auction, I believe you should redouble automatically with three hearts, since partner has a wide range. In the previous auction, redouble is discretionary, since partner has made a limit bid. If you have no interest in competing even if partner has six diamonds, you need not redouble.

Table 1: -110
Table 2: +110

Result on Board 5: 0 imps
Total: +5 imps

Event 3 - Match 5 - Board 4

Board 4
Both sides vulnerable

♠ K Q 8 7 4 ♥ K J ♦ A J 7 5 3 ♣ 9

Three passes to me. I open one spade, partner bids one notrump, I bid two diamonds, and partner bids two spades. My rule of thumb is I bid one less on this auction than I would after one spade--two spades. If I would bid game after a single raise, then I invite. If I would invite after a single raise (as on this hand), then I pass. Accordingly, I pass. LHO passes as well and leads the king of clubs (denying the ace).

	NORTH Jack ♠ 10 3 ♥ A 7 6 4 3 ♦ K Q 6 ♣ 7 5 4
	SOUTH Phillip ♠ K Q 8 7 4 ♥ K J ♦ A J 7 5 3 ♣ 9

West	North	East	South
Sam	Jack	Stephen	Phillip
Pass	Pass	Pass	1 ♠
Pass	1 NT	Pass	2 ♦
Pass	2 ♠	(All pass)

East plays the six of clubs. Assuming he's encouraging with the highest spot he can afford, West has the eight. West continues with the three of clubs. East presumably has the deuce--both because West seems to be leading his lowest club and because West would not know the six was encouraging otherwise. So West has king-queen-?-eight-three and East has ace-?-six-deuce. I'm not sure about the location of the jack or ten, but we would have heard from West if he had six semi-solid clubs, so he can't have both of them. Clubs must be either five-four or four-five.

If I ruff this, I'm in danger of being tapped out. Can I plan on using one of dummy's trumps to keep control? How's this for a plan: I ruff the club and lead the king of spades. If it holds, I abandon trumps and run winners, conceding four trump tricks. If the defense wins and leads a club. I discard. If they play a fourth round of clubs, I ruff in dummy, come to my hand and cash the spade queen. If both opponents follow, then they have two trumps left. I lead winners and let them score two ruffs, losing five tricks: two clubs, the spade ace, and two ruffs.

This works as long as trumps aren't five-one. Can I do better? What if I cross to dummy in hearts and lead a spade toward my hand. As long has no one has a singleton heart and a doubleton trump (unlikely on the auction), I don't see how that can be any worse than leading spades from my hand. And it might be better. If East has ace fifth of spades and ducks, for example, I can win and start playing red suits, conceding four trump tricks. I'm not sure what my plan should be if East hops with the spade ace and play clubs. But I don't need to worry about that until it happens. I'm no worse off than if I had led the spade king from my hand. And that's all that matters at this point.

I play the jack of hearts--deuce--ace--five. Now the three of spades--six--queen--deuce. It appears I'm home. The opponents have four trumps, and that's all they can score. At least I think that's true. Let me make sure. What happens if East has all the missing spades? I lead diamonds until East ruffs. Say he ruffs the second one. He then plays a club, and I ruff. I have two trumps left, and East has three. I lead another diamond. East ruffs. We are down to this position:

	NORTH Jack ♠ 10 ♥ 7 6 4 3 ♦ -- ♣ --
WEST Sam ♠ -- ♥ x x ♦ x ♣ Q x		EAST Stephen ♠ A J ♥ x x ♦ -- ♣ x
	SOUTH Phillip ♠ K 8 ♥ K ♦ A 7 ♣ --

East can now cash the spade ace and lead a club, tapping me out. But that's OK provided he's out of clubs. When he ruffs in with his last trump, he must lead a heart. So if trumps are five-one, I need East to have started with only four clubs.

What if trumps aren't five-one? Then I have no problems. If East cashes the spade ace at any point, he draws one of his partner's trumps. And if he doesn't, I can ruff the fourth round of clubs in dummy to avoid being tapped out.

I lead a diamond to the king. West plays the deuce; East, the four. So the opponents don't give routine count. Nice to know for the future. I play the queen of diamonds and a diamond to my ace. West ruffs the third round with the spade five and leads the queen of clubs. East plays the deuce, and I ruff with the spade seven. I lead the jack of diamonds. West ruffs with the jack of spades. I pitch a heart from dummy, and East pitches the heart nine. Dummy is out of clubs, so, rather than offer me a ruff-sluff, West leads the ten of hearts to the queen and my king. I am down to this position:

	NORTH Jack ♠ 10 ♥ 7 6 ♦ -- ♣ --
	SOUTH Phillip ♠ K 8 ♥ -- ♦ 7 ♣ --

The ace and nine of spades are still out. I was prepared to lose a trick to each of them. But if East has the spade nine, I can exploit dummy's remaining trump to make an overtrick. I ruff the last diamond with the spade ten. East overruffs with the ace. If West was 4-2-2-5, East can lead a heart for a trump promotion. Otherwise, I'm scoring my eight of spades. East leads the club jack. I ruff and cash the spade king. Making three.

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

With the favorable breaks, I could have made five spades. In fact, they did make five at the other table. I don't know if the defense failed to tap declarer or if declarer simply took a more a dangerous line. In any event, we lose two imps.

Two imps is nothing to sneeze at in a short match. But I still think I was right to play safely. We stopped at the two level with 23 high-card points between us. They could easily get overboard at the other table, so I shouldn't do anything to jeopardize my plus score.

Table 1: +140
Table 2: -200

Result on Board 4: -2 imps
Total: +5 imps

Event 3 - Match 5 - Board 3

Board 3
Opponents vulnerable

♠ A Q 8 4 ♥ A J 5 3 ♦ -- ♣ K Q 8 6 5

I open one club, LHO bids one diamond, partner passes, and RHO bids two clubs, promising diamond support. I think the double of any artificial raise should mean the same thing as the double of a natural raise. So a double here should show a take-out double of diamonds. But I'm not sure what partner thinks. He might think it just shows good clubs. Since I'm strong enough to cue-bid two diamonds, it seems safer to do that rather than risk a misunderstanding.

I bid two diamonds, LHO bids five diamonds, passed back to me. I know people who would double. But doubling doesn't make sense to me. West thinks he's going to make it, partner agrees with him, and I have no surprises for either of them. Even if we're a slight favorite to beat it, we certainly aren't beating it more than one. So the IMP odds are stacked against us. I pass. Partner leads the jack of clubs.

	NORTH Stephen ♠ J 10 3 2 ♥ Q ♦ K Q J 4 ♣ 10 9 4 3
		EAST Phillip ♠ A Q 8 4 ♥ A J 5 3 ♦ -- ♣ K Q 8 6 5

West	North	East	South
Jack	Stephen	Phillip	Sam
		1 ♣	1 ♦
Pass	2 ♣1	2 ♦	5 ♦
(All pass)
1Constructive raise

We have at least one club trick. If declarer has a spade or a third club, we're beating this easily. So I might as well assume neither of those things is true. That gives declarer something like

♠ -- ♥ K x x x ♦ A x x x x x x ♣ A x

But then there's no winning defense. I need to find some layout where it matters what I do. I can hardly take any high cards away from declarer. Suppose I give him a 0-5-6-2 pattern:

♠ -- ♥ K x x x x ♦ A x x x x x ♣ A x

Now perhaps partner's third trump is enough to give declarer some difficulty. Say declarer wins the club ace and plays a heart to my ace. I cash the club king and lead a low club, forcing declarer to ruff high. Declarer must now ruff two hearts in dummy. So if partner has ten third of diamonds, he has a trump trick.

I encourage with the club six. Declarer takes the ace and plays the five of diamonds--deuce--jack. I pitch the club five. Declarer plays the four of diamonds. I can't afford a heart, since declarer would have to ruff only one heart if I pitched one. So I pitch the spade four. Declarer plays the ace, and partner follows with the three. Partner echoed, so he has a third trump. Declarer plays the six of diamonds--ten--king.

Declarer drew three rounds of trumps to avoid the trump promotion. As a result, he can ruff only one heart in dummy. So he has to be going down. If the spade isn't cashing and a second club isn't cashing, I have to be scoring my heart jack, provided I don't pitch one. I pitch the spade eight. Declarer leads the queen of hearts--ace--four--deuce. I play the spade ace, and declarer pitches a club. I lead the spade queen. Declarer ruffs, cashes the heart king, and leads the nine of hearts for a ruffing finesse. My heart jack is the setting trick.

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

I didn't have much to do on this deal. All I had to do was pitch spades instead of hearts, which I probably could have figured out without bothering to construct hands for declarer. Still, it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling to construct the one hand where what you do matters, then find declarer with that precise hand.

Partner, however, had a critical decision. He had to lead a club in order to threaten a trump promotion. Nice lead, partner. I'm not sure I would have found it. Knowing we had all three side suits bottled up, I might have led a trump. But Lowenthal's Fourth Law of Opening Leads strikes again: "The lead of a short suit is an attempt to force declarer to draw trumps."

The other table managed the identical result.

Table 1: +100
Table 2: -100

Result on Board 3: 0 imps
Total: +7 imps