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