[DrTodd13]

Scoring: IMP

---

Here was an interesting hand. East opens a gambling 3N with no outside A or K. West bids 4♣ which North doubles. East bids 4♦, South bids 4♠, West bids 5♦ and North bids 5♠ which East doubles.

What is your interpretation of the final double? What should West lead to trick 1? If you choose to lead a top heart, you get two small spots from both East and South, now what?

[joshs]

My interpretation is that east doesn't know what he is doing. He isn't supposed to have a void on the side for 3N. He can't have any sure tricks after your raise. there is no hand he can have that could have any confidence of beating 6, let alone 5, even if you found the right lead (I do think a club opening lead would have beaten this, if he in fact has a club void like I expect).

Now if he did have a club void, that gives him 4270 shape, in which case I don't really want to shorten partner, so it seems like I should play another high heart and let declarer ruff it. I still think that declarer's might try to make the hand by pulling exactly 2 rounds of trumps and then playing clubs until partner ruffs. Partner can then trap declarer in dummy by playing a diamond, and refusing to ruff the 2 good hearts. Actually that beats it...

I am playing another high heart.

[Impact]

Rightly or wrongly I would play the double as "I have surprise defence by way of ruffing ie void" - but I know people who play it as "I would like to bid one more as I have extra length!!!" - so obviously you should have clarified as a matter of partnership agreement.

On my assumption you have almost no choice but to continue with SWITCH to C for the ruff!! if you believe partner, despite the argument that such will probably only hold the contract to 5 even if it works - and gives South 6C to go with his 5S & 1H .....

This contract is a make unless partner has something like SJTxx to go with his D - and that is a really bad double...If he holds the trumps it probably won't matter - or singleton H and void C so how many D & S exactly????

[mikeh]

If the double was pure lightner, based on a ♣ void, we are not beating this contract unless partner is 4=1=8=0, in which case there is no rush to cash the 2nd ♥, and should he be 3=2=8=0, the attempt to cash would result in a needless overtrick. So I am switching to my top ♣ and praying that South interpreted the double of 4♣ as takeout and so bid AKJx.

As for the double, I think it was a foolish bid: I seriously doubt that most players would interprete the double as showing specifically a ♣ void.

It is true that a lightner double will usually show a void in dummy's first bid suit, with the less specific 'try to find my void' arising only when dummy has not bid a suit in a natural context. But the double of 4♣ was, as I think most would play it, only coincidentally bid with ♣. Surely a north with a 4=4=4=1 big hand would double 4♣?

And even if the double was not intended as specific suit showing but just an attempt, by forbidding a pointed suit lead, to get at least a 50% chance of a first round ruff, what was there about the auction that indicated a quick reentry for the needed 2nd ruff?