[Echognome]

This is a nice example hand of trump elopement with the corresponding defense to it.

[awm]

Well, it's certainly a pretty position. But I'm not really convinced that the full hand couldn't have been:

Scoring: IMP

---

In fact I think most of my partners would've tried bidding over 1♥ with three card support and four high card points (something like 1♠ followed by a preference or 1NT followed by a preference to suggest doubleton support or a subminimum raise). The final penalty double is also much more appealing holding shortness in partner's suit (i.e. opener's heart cards are much more likely to score).

Note that on this hand, a club shift will allow the contract to make as declarer discards two remaining hearts and a diamond on the clubs, then leads a spade to the ten (losing one heart, one spade, and one diamond). On the other hand, simply cashing the hearts will get a two trick set as declarer has only one dummy entry (the ♦A) and cannot repeat the spade finesse when partner splits honors.

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Aug 31 2005, 02:45 AM, said:

Here is the full hand.

Roland, do you think that East's double was reasonable with QJT9 in trumps and 3 cards in the opened suit ?

It seems to me that:

- 3 cards in the opened suit strongly reduce the expectation of defensive tricks provided by opener (e.g. if opener has "2 defensive tricks" in hearts, one of them is likely to be ruffed because delarer or dummy are more likely to be short)

- the double gives away the trump position: it loses more when it helps declarer to plan early the play against the bad split rather than what it gains when we do set the contract 1 trick.

[Echognome]

I completely agree that the double was bad. We're doubling a contract that takes perfect defense to set one trick non-vulnerable at IMPs and at the same time giving away our trump stack. Perhaps with QJ10xx of spades?

I don't think that S.J. Simon would approve.

However, it is a nice hand in terms of declarer play and defense.

[Chamaco]

Echognome, on Aug 31 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

However, it is a nice hand in terms of declarer play and defense.

Sure, but my point is that:
if I have to assume that the double by East is close to reasonable, I will place him with at most 1 or 2 cards in hearts, and after he plays small on the lead of the Ace, I tend to place him with a singleton, thereby counting 3 heart tricks.

[Echognome]

I can understand that because in my system partner would tend to bid 1♠ if he had 3 card support in hearts to fall back on. However, remember that this is the beginner/intermediate forum, so it is fair to assume that partner is just denying 6 hcp. However, I agree with you that partner's double is unsound with 3 card hearts support. The 4♠ bid could easily have been made with a void heart.

[Chamaco]

Quote

I can understand that because in my system partner would tend to bid 1♠ if he had 3 card support in hearts to fall back on. However, remember that this is the beginner/intermediate forum, so it is fair to assume that partner is just denying 6 hcp. 

Sure, I am not criticizing the original pass with 3 card support and a bust, which in "standard" is the only possibility (although I agree with you it's nice to be able to raise semi-preemptively, but that's outside of the scope of the thread).

Quote

However, I agree with you that partner's double is unsound with 3 card hearts support.  The 4♠ bid could easily have been made with a void heart.

That's exactly my point.
If I have to assume pard made a reasonable double, I expect him to have *not only long trumps* but also to be *short in my opened suit* (most likley a singleton after he plays small at the 1st trick).
This is because shortness in opener suit preserves the defensive potential (if he held support for my suit, it is more likely that some of my honors are ruffed, reducing the number of our tricks) , and IMO a defensive shape is the only factor that can barely justify doubling when holding a hand so poor in hcp that had to pass a 1-level opening.

This inference is IMO big-time much stronger than the constrasting reasoning "Declarer would not have jumpbid 3S holding Jxx in hearts".

So the assumption that the double was reasonable led me to a wrong reconstruction of the shape of the hidden hands, hence to the wrong defensive plan.

Of course if I have to assume my pard doubles just with length in trumps, then anything goes.

[Gerben42]

I know a lot of players don't pass 1♥ with the actual East hand. I think that's wrong. Although you have 3-card support you have no ruffing value, no 1st or 2nd round controls, and not enough high cards to respond.

Partner might not be able to get to your hand AT ALL. If you support ♥ he will be in 3 or 4♥ on many hands where dummy will not be reached and he'll go down. Partner did not open 2♣, thereby stating that you can pass on bad hands. This is a bad hand. Pass.

[Walddk]

I think East's pass of 1♥ is perfectly normal. After all 1♥ is not forcing in any system I know. I also think his double is reasonable. He is looking at two certain trump tricks, a solid suit that can't be picked up for less than two losers.

9 of opener's high card points were in hearts, and they only produced one trick. A little unlucky I would say. But even then the contract could have been defeated.

Which defence do you think West would have found if East had passed 4♠? Right, ♥AK without much thought. A capable declarer would now make the contract once he discovers that spades are 0-4. Exactly as it happened here.

I think it's unfair to criticize East for getting the defence wrong. West had the chance, but he continued with an "automatic" second high heart in a split second. Maybe he should have taken stock and tried to figure out which layout is more likely.

I honestly think that a good defender would have found the answer after East's double rather than if he had passed.

Roland

[coyot]

Agree. My defense would be to cash my heart tricks and hope that partner has good trumps for doubling. I will not bother planning defense for any case where partner has 3 hearts, because I know that he would NOT double with any such holding... (even doubleton heart might be dangerous...

It took me about 3 years to learn to pass unless I really have the values that my bid promises. I have absolutely no problem with passing a hand that is void in partner's suit and contains 5 bad points - or contains 3card support and 4-5 bad points.

I would never discover the right line to defend the above hand correctly, because partner's double definitely painted a VERY different picture for me.

[Gerben42]

Quote

After all 1♥ is not forcing in any system I know.

Soon coming to a Vugraph theatre near you: the Bermuda Bowl starring Fulvio Fantoni & Claudio Nunes

What this hand shows that it is good to stop and think about what's going on and that automatic plays can hurt.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Aug 31 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

Quote

After all 1♥ is not forcing in any system I know.

Soon coming to a Vugraph theatre near you: the Bermuda Bowl starring Fulvio Fantoni & Claudio Nunes

Quite right, but I never claimed to know their system. I do know, however, that a 1♠ response to 1♥ shows 0-9 hcp, so 1♥ must indeed be forcing. 14+ hcp I think it is.

But rest assured that the East-West pair in question (intermediate players) did not play Fantunes.

Roland

[cherdano]

Is it just me who thinks that a 3♠ bid in the passout seat shows a stronger hand? And that the double was just bad? (That it could have gone down is no excuse. His partner may have made the same opening bid without the ♦K.)

[Btw, why can I conclude that RHO would not jump to 3♠ with ♥Jxx, when he does so freely with ♦Qxx?]

I agree with Ben that partner must be 4=2=0=6 and made a lightner double before discovering his singleton diamond.

Arend

[han]

Arend, you are not the only one. I think that it is almost impossible to construct hands such that both south and east bid correctly, and as it turns out, both bid at least questionably. 2S should show a minimal opening bid with 6 good spades, and this hand seems appropriate. I couldn't imagine that east would double with 3 hearts (which counts as negative defense).

All in all a tough problem, many a squeeze would be easier!

As for agreeing with Ben, there are only 13 clubs in a deck of cards, we make no exceptions for you either.

BTW, you haven't posted enough lately Arend.

[Double !]

2S in the balancing seat would suggest a sound opening bid with (likely) a reasonable 6-card suit: an intermediate jump-overcall. So, IMO, that type of hand (are there enough hcp remaining after looking at W & N's hands) can be ruled out. I also thought the south had 7 spades, but I doubted that south had a stiff heart because that would give P 3 hearts, 4 spades, and still not enough to respond. IMO, it is very risky to double with length in P's suit as some of P's values might not cash (especially considering what some people are opening with these days). So, giving P & declarer each 2 hearts, i kept having difficulties (late at night) finding distributions that added up to 13 and didn't allow declarer to pitch sufficient losers with a club switch. Oh, well, the QJT9 was no surprise.