2N - the Unusual 2 No Trump. This is unlimited in strength. Partner now knows I am 5-5 (or better) in the minors with 10+ HCP. I then bid 6 of partner’s suit. If opponents intervene and partner passes I double for takeout and keep doubling.
One thing to consider, if the opponents bid to a Heart slam, you can Lightner Double to get a spade lead. But I would, of course, prefer to play in 6 of a minor
Doesn’t such a double need partnership agreement to be for takeout? I thought doubles before any positive bid by your side are always for takeout, but after that they could also be for penalties.
I think this is a good analysis. Double, 2NT, 4NT and 5NT all look possible. I don’t know that there is any right way to handle this, but I chose the slow road and started with a double. LHO bid 4H, passed around to me. I bid 4NT, 5H from Leftie, back to me so I bid 5NT. Partner bid 6C with Qxxx xxx xxx xxx, got doubled and made.
6H/S are good saves, of course, and were bid at quite a few tables.
The higher the level, the murkier it gets as to whether the double is takeout or penalties. Plus there is the danger that even if for takeout, partner might pass it for penalties and you really don’t want to defend on this hand. It is safer to keep bidding NT (other than 3NT) for takeout to the minors.
On review, I agree - and I see my last two posts contradict each other. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a takeout double is a positive bid in itself - so even if the first double is interpreted as takeout by partner, doubling again (on the sequence you describe) would then be for penalties, so switching to NT is better than doubling a second or third time.
I’m somewhat confused about the proposed 4NT bid. Is that the ace-asking 4NT? So we are hoping for a response of 5H so we can go 7C or 7D?
In competition, it shows both minors, like 2NT but at a higher level. It’s the same idea as when opponents open a 4H preempt. You bid 4NT with both minors.
haha - partner had zero expections about making this of course. Until the dummy came down.
I did describe my 5NT bid as being “just to torture partner a little more”. I put the diamonds down first, at which point partner said “Oh, I chose the wrong one”, and I could then correctly respond “no, my clubs are better”.
Partner picks up Qxxx xxx xxx xxx
Thinks “some people get to bid and make slams but me, I get shit like this”
Reminds me of the time a new partner insisted on 2H as a double negative for a 2C opener. I held approximately
void AKQJTxxx KQ KQx
I opened 2C. Partner, of course, bid 2H so I bid 4H which was passed out. Partner glared at me and said “Remember 2H was a double negative.”
I just said “Oh riiiight” then as I laid out the trump suit I said, “I hope it’s enough support.”
Played a club game this week and bid 3H over RHOs 1C opener (all vuln), raised to 4 by partner, on this layout:
Dummy
S AKQT
H KTxx
D Jx
C Qxx
Me
S Jx
H AQJ9xxx
D Qx
C Tx
Right contract, but an unfortunate duplication in the minors gives us four losers off the top. Club is duly led to RHO’s ace, followed by KC, and then another club (!?). Ruff with the 9, claim plus one. What a blunder says I to myself, but it actually only scored 50% with the whole room taking the same line.
This was RHO’s hand - would you have found the Dia switch?
S xxx
H void
D Kxxx
C AKxxxx
Easy to see with three hands exposed, but I think hard to blame RHO for continuing with clubs - for all he knew, you could have held 3 clubs, giving his partner a ruff. He must also assume from your 3H bid that it is showing a few points rather than being purely pre-emptive (as with a very weak hand long in hearts you would have bid 4H immediately, no?). So perhaps he placed you with the Ace of diamonds. Since spades and hearts are obviously not options, continuing clubs seems reasonable.
Obviously not the case at your club, but how much of a beginner’s blunder is discarding on the third round (expecting to win with the Qc) only to see LHO ruff? I mean, with a little thought it’s obvious that there is no need to risk that, but I can see inexperienced players playing too quickly and making that mistake. Or is that really the sort of thing that you should never see in a bridge club, even among ‘intermediates’ (however you define that)?
Really? That’s quite remarkable. Not trying to be insulting, but a room full of novices?
I think this error wrongly focusing on a tactic and ignoring the overall strategy.
The tactic is killing the queen of clubs winner with the possibility of an over-ruff
The strategy is getting four tricks to set the contract. The attempted tactic could never stop declarer from making the contract… the closest it could come is if partner had QJ of trump. Even then the contract can be made with inspired play. And why play that line when it’s screaming for a diamond switch.
Dead Cat - there are only 13 clubs in a deck.
If I lead a club then I’m hoping partner can overruff declarer. Superficially quite reasonable. Note that you know declarer has seven trumps in hand (from the bid) and can see four on the table so partner only has two at most so if declarer has the ace then partner’s trumps will drop. So allowing partner an overruff will gain only one trick and we need two and it’s quite probable that partner cannot overruff. Indeed, if declarer has the ace of hearts and partner the queen then declarer can put up the ace and finesse against partner’s queen. What are the odds of partner holding HAQ or HQJ? Not high.
If I lead a spade, I’m giving a free finesse. So that’s obviously out.
How about a diamond? Count the points: there are 15 on the table and declarer has shown 8-10. That’s 23-25. I have 10 myself. If we assume that most of declarer’s points are in hearts then that leaves room for partner to have the ace of diamonds from her 5-7 points (and she’s already led her doubleton Jack, so that’s one HCP). Further, declarer has shown 7 hearts and 2 clubs already. That leaves 4 cards, which are unlikely to all be spades, so declarer will be discarding any diamonds she has on those top spades. So the diamond is the right lead even if partner doesn’t have the ace as it gives declarer the opportunity to make a mistake and stops diamond discards. You know that declarer doesn’t have DAQ so partner has one or the other.
So plonk down the King of Diamonds and when it wins, follow up with another.
Room was a mixed bag for sure but honestly not that bad - probably half the field were reasonable players who think about what they are doing, capable of visualisation etc. Defence is difficult.
Thanks - basic counting failure on my part, and also neatly answers my second question. I counted the clubs in the three hands already laid out in the thread but failed to add the two clubs following suit from Busy Scissors’ LHO.
Yes, it’s one of those mistakes that no-one ever makes when they’re given a problem, but is very easy to make at the table.
It seems natural and safe to bash out another Club, killing one of declarer’s winners and potentially promoting a trump for partner, rather than lead from an unsupported King.
But unless partner has HAQ (in which case declarer has bid 3H on a suit to the Jack-nothing), it doesn’t gain a trick (if partner has HQJx, he has a trump trick anyway).
And it isn’t safe, not with Dummy’s Spades lined up waiting to provide discards. Declarer has no more black-suit losers and at most one trump loser, to beat the contract we need a Diamond trick - before the Diamonds go away on Dummy’s Spades.
There’s no need to play DK - partner is hardly going to duck the Ace and if declarer has it there’s still the hope that partner can get in with a trump and play a Diamond before declarer can get all his Diamonds away.
I’m not so sure. If you don’t play the King, partner might not play a diamond back to you.