[Hanoi5]

---

Butler. You were planning on doing the 'little stair' (prompting them to double you by bidding one level at a time). However, partner's only sign of life is this double, what do you do?

[jjbrr]

4S would have been completely nuts so I guess this shouldn't be too difficult.

[aguahombre]

Ya think partner is trying to stop you from bidding spades again?

[rogerclee]

My partner seems to think they can't make 4C. I agree.

[johnu]

You had a fine plan. Partner's double says your plan isn't going to work. Of course, maybe he wasn't paying attention and didn't notice you bid spades 3 times, vul. Obviously you should continue the plan and bid 4♠.

[aguahombre]

johnu, on 2013-August-30, 00:16, said:

You had a fine plan. Partner's double says your plan isn't going to work. Of course, maybe he wasn't paying attention and didn't notice you bid spades 3 times, vul. Obviously you should continue the plan and bid 4♠.

I do hope this is tongue in cheek.

[sfi]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-30, 00:31, said:

I do hope this is tongue in cheek.

Well spotted.

[Endymion77]

> what do you do?

I lead the ♠K, what's in dummy?

[mikeh]

Please don't tell me somebody actually pulled this double? Sorry, this isn't a problem nor is it an 'interesting' bridge hand.

[Hanoi5]

mikeh, on 2013-August-30, 09:14, said:

Please don't tell me somebody actually pulled this double? Sorry, this isn't a problem nor is it an 'interesting' bridge hand.

Nobody pulled the double. 11 tricks in spades were available even though doubler was void. Sorry this hand was not interesting for you, where would you have put it?

[aguahombre]

Hanoi5, on 2013-August-30, 09:23, said:

Nobody pulled the double. 11 tricks in spades were available even though doubler was void. Sorry this hand was not interesting for you, where would you have put it?

In the "anti dogwalking" Forum. East created the variance and must live with it. It does not sound (in retrospect) to me as if the opponents would do anything over a direct 4S, but if 11 tricks were actually available in a Spade contract there is still a possibility of 800 vs. 4C. With partner void in Spades, he must have some tricks coming on power.

[billw55]

Hanoi5, on 2013-August-30, 09:23, said:

Nobody pulled the double. 11 tricks in spades were available even though doubler was void.

If you are resulting anyway, you might as well tell us how 4♣x fared

[mikeh]

Hanoi5, on 2013-August-30, 09:23, said:

Nobody pulled the double. 11 tricks in spades were available even though doubler was void. Sorry this hand was not interesting for you, where would you have put it?

If anywhere, the Beginner/Novice.

I know, that sounds condescending, but the reality is, as shown by the comments, that this really isn't a 'problem' hand.

The fact that, apparently, the normal action led to a worse outcome than the strange action (bidding 4♠ at this point) doesn't make this 'interesting'.

An analogy would be presenting a play problem of AKJxxxx opposite xx, with no clues from the bidding or play to date, and no safety play issues and the like and no motivation to create a swing, and asking how to play the suit.

The universal answer, given those parameters, would be to cash one top honour and then, if both follow but the Queen remains outstanding, play for the drop. The fact that sometimes (often, in fact) taking the finesse would work out better doesn't make the hand interesting nor does it take it beyond the novice level.

The other day, in a home game where one of the players got very drunk, he held Axxxxxx QJ109 xx void. His partner opened 15-17 1N, he texas'd with 4♥ and my partner, a true expert player, doubled for the lead. Opener bid 4♠ and this responder bid 6♠!

He caught his partner with Kx Kx AKxxx Kxxx and hearts were 5-2 and spades 2-2, so his silly action won a zillion imps. I didn't post before because this board was not the least bit 'interesting' and he didn't have a real problem that he needed to solve.

Sometimes the normal action doesn't lead to a good result and, sometimes, that can or should cause us to rethink what is 'normal'. Not here.