I was pleased with some Doubles that I ventured this week.  But as is often the case, they might have misfired.

On Board 16 I had a strong NT opening hand, but my right-hand opponent opened the bidding.

The bidding shown occurred at my table, with me sitting North.  On the first round, I chose to Double rather than overcall 1NT, because my Spade stop was not great.  When West bid 3S I decided to Double having, as I saw it, four certain tricks (one Spade, one Heart and two Diamonds) and hoping that partner could contribute the setting trick.  As it happened, South did have a trick, the AC, but declarer had a singleton Diamond.  But fortuitously the combined N/S trump holding was just good enough to generate two tricks, so the contract was one off.  But it was a close thing: three declarers made nine tricks with Spades as trumps.

I was lucky that we could defeat the contract.  I forced South to bid, so essentially East and South had both shown no values in the bidding.  If East had held the AC, or if East and South had both held doubleton Spades, then the contract would have made.

I often say that people should Double more often.  But I’m not sure that this is correct advice.  Looking at this hand, from the point of view of N/S, 3S-1 scored 54%, 3SX-1 scored 82%, 3S= scored 29% and 3SX= would have scored 0%.  By Doubling it seems that I gained 28% for a possible loss of 29%.  So, on this hand it could be argued that the Double made little difference.  What was important was that my partner and I defending with sufficient accuracy to defeat the contract.

Looking back to the bidding, it can be questioned whether West should have bid 3S with a silent partner.  As already discussed, 3S might easily have made, but also, looking at the app, 3H by N/S should be one off.   The decisions on this sort of hand are very close!  Maybe being vulnerable with his left-hand opponent bidding strongly, it was better for West to Pass 3H?

I also made a Double that turned out well on Board 18, but I think I was even luckier than I was on Board 16.

The first bidding sequence occurred at my table, with me still sitting North.  When the 2H bid was Passed around to me, I chose to Double, thinking of the principle that you shouldn’t let the opponents play at the two-level unchallenged (and I had opening values).  The problem with this, is that my Diamond suit was very weak, yet I was committed to the possibility of allowing my partnership to play in 3D.  The app says that N/S cannot even make 1D.  I was saved by East bidding 3S.  West had shown only a four-card Spade suit and East had an eight-loser hand, so a minimum opening bid, so there was really no justification for the 3S bid.  Moreover, East had some strength in Diamonds.  A Double of 3D would have given E/W a score of 100% and would have been an appropriate punishment for my poor Double.  As is sometimes the case in bridge, I got lucky.  3S was two off and we scored 86%.  It was a particularly poor Double because we were vulnerable.

The second suggested bidding sequence shows what might have happened had West bid 2C in response to East’s 1H opening bid.  Using the Rule of 14, West’s hand is just strong enough to bid 2C.  In that case North would have been less likely to Double 2H.

As shown in the third suggested bidding sequence, maybe 1NT was a likely final contract.  Playing Acol, East’s hand should be opened 1NT, which the other three players would be likely to Pass.  The E/W pairs who played in 1NT generally scored well, scoring on average 64.4%, although the app suggests that 1NT should be defeated.  My Players of the Week are the one N/S pair who defeated 1NT on this hand, Alex Brett & Yasemin Brett.

I think my conclusion from these two hands is that I am wrong to keep on saying that people don’t Double enough.  It is too simple a maxim.  There are times when it is wise to Double, and maybe many players tend to miss some of those occasions.  But that doesn’t mean that you should Double without a very serious look at the cards in your hand and the vulnerability.

There were two boards this week that illustrated well-known bidding principles to do with pre-empting.

Board 16 illustrated the principle that you shouldn’t pre-empt with a four-card major side suit.

If, as dealer, West opens 3D, then this is likely to be the final contract.  This was the case at seven tables and West made either nine tricks, scoring 37%, or ten tricks, scoring 62%.  There should always be ten tricks, the only losers being two Diamonds and a Heart.

But West has a five-card Spade suit!  Such being the case, West should Pass as dealer.  (With this hand in the third or fourth seat it might be possible to pre-empt, but not if partner has not had a chance to bid!)  If West Passes, then North, playing Acol, will open 1NT.  The bidding thereafter would no doubt vary from table to table.  I have tried to imagine what might happen.

If E/W play Multi Landy, then East must Pass 1NT, as any overcall would show a five-card major suit or a six-card suit.  South, playing transfers, will bid 2D.  Maybe West would Double this, showing a shortage of Hearts (the suit “bid” by South) and a desire to compete.  North will bid 2H.  By completing the transfer despite the Double, this shows a decent Heart suit.  West will bid 3C.  With a seven-loser hand South is likely to bid 3H or even 4H.  If South bids a mere 3H then West will bid 4D.  Whether or not North bids 4H, East should now bid 4S.  West’s Diamond bid denies support for Clubs and therefore, in view of her earlier take-out Double, she must have Spades.  If, as seems certain, West has a two-suited hand with Diamonds and Spades, then East should expect 4S to have a good chance of making.  The two top Clubs will be tricks and there should be a good chance of a successful cross-ruff.

Two of my Players of the Week are the one pair who bid 4S, Cynthia Allen and Susan Read.

Board 18 illustrated the principle that you shouldn’t bid a second time once you have pre-empted.

East has an obvious 4D opening bid.  South would like to Double this for penalties, but for most partnerships this would be a take-out Double, so South Passes.  North will try 4H.  Now East must Pass!  West has heard the 4D opening bid, and if appropriate can bid 5D.  4H may make.  At the club, North played in 4H six times, making twice.  So, two-thirds of the time, East got an excellent result (87%) by Passing 4H.  If East chose to bid 5D, then of course South took the opportunity to make a penalty Double.  The app says that E/W can make eight tricks with Diamonds as trumps.  This would give E/W a score of -500 in 5DX, given the vulnerability.  It is true that this is better than the -620 that E/W would score if North plays in and makes 4H.  But with 4H being defeated by one trick at four out of six tables, the average E/W score against 4H was -160.  Bridge is a game of percentages.  Playing the percentages, East’s best action was to Pass 4H.

Clearly it was challenging for North to make 4H.  Probably the lead will be the JC.  West can take two Club tricks and the defence must also take the AS.  Suppose West leads a trump to the third trick, having cashed two Clubs.  Declarer will win this trick in hand and still has to dispose of his three possible Club losers.  Two can be discarded on the AD and KD, and one ruffed in dummy, but the entries might be a problem.  If declarer tries to cash the top Diamonds before drawing trumps, then West will ruff the second Diamond.  If declarer draws trumps, finishing in dummy and then cashes the top Diamonds, then he will still have one Club loser to dispose of and will have no trumps remaining in dummy.  If instead declarer ruffs a Club in dummy before drawing trumps, then he will finish in hand and have no immediate entry to dummy to reach the Diamonds.

The conclusion to this is that declarer has to make use of the Spade suit.  From declarer’s point of view this looks daunting, but as the cards lie, North can safely play a Spade towards dummy at any time, because of the favourable layout of the Spade suit and because East will have no more Clubs to play.

Suppose instead that East retains the JC, leading, say a trump at trick one.  Now declarer’s task is a bit harder.  If he draws trumps and leads a Spade towards dummy then he will lose the AS and three Clubs.  It follows that in the event of a trump lead, declarer should himself lead Clubs before drawing trumps.  Then the play can proceed more or less as described previously and declarer will lose only two Clubs and the AS.

My Players of the Week include the two North players who made 4H, Stanley Goldsmith and Keith Gold.

On Board 3 my partner and I both, arguably, might have bid more strongly, but I think the fault lay mostly with me – I was sitting North.

The first bidding sequence shows how my partner and I bid the hand.  With 13 Hcp I suppose I could try to excuse my 2C rebid, but with a strong seven-card Club suit and a five-loser hand, I really should have made a stronger rebid.  If I had rebid 3C may partner would have bid 3NT.

If I wanted to blame my partner for our poor final contract, I might have suggested that he should have bid a second time.  With 10 Hcp the South hand is just about strong enough for a 2NT responder’s rebid.  But this would be me clutching at straws.  After North’s 2C rebid, the best call with the South hand must be Pass, especially at pairs scoring.

Of course, East might have – should have, I would say – intervened in the auction, in which case something like the fourth of fifth suggested bidding sequence might have taken place.  If East overcalls 1S, then South can Double to show his four-card Heart suit, or bid NT to show his Spade stopper.  I suppose with 10 Hcp and a Spade stopper, South might bid 2NT, but the overall weakness of the hand probably makes 1NT adequate.  In either case North, with six or seven Club tricks in sight, should bid 3NT.

Of course, if East overcalls 1S, West should bid 3S, especially given the vulnerability.  I think if West bids 3S then N/S might finish up in 5C.  But otherwise, they should finish in 3NT, which with nine certain tricks, must be the best contract.

My Players of the Week are the one N/S pair who reached 3NT, Edward O’Byrne and Jurek Czuprynski.

Board 26 presented a challenge for N/S players.  The app says that both 6H and 6D can be made, but the N/S hands are a misfit, making the bidding and play difficult.

When bidding a useful idea is that when you realise you and your partner have a misfit, you should Pass.  But if you think that your two hands have good controls, then you should consider a NT contract.  On this hand, North has 18 Hcp and South opens the bidding.  Straightaway North should be thinking of trying to reach a slam.  She bids 1H, hoping that South will have Heart support, but South rebids 2C.  It must be better to rebid 2C rather than to rebid the strong Diamond suit.  The 2C rebid shows that South has at least five Diamonds (unless South has a minimum opening bid with 4441 distribution and a singleton Heart) and, crucially on this hand, it suggests that North’s KC will help to give N/S a Club stop in a NT contract.  Also, it gives North the option of bidding 2S as Fourth Suit Forcing.  North would have rebid 2S in any case, as her hand is certainly strong enough to make a responder’s reverse, but the Fourth Suit Forcing bid is useful because it allows South to further describe her hand.  She bids 3D, showing the sixth Diamond.  Looking at the North hand, I would now want to play in 6NT.  The 4NT bid, which is RKCB, is asking for key cards assuming that Diamonds are the agreed trump suit.   The 5H response shows two key cards.  These might be the AH and KD, in which case there could be too many losers in Clubs.  But on the assumption that South, for her 2C bid, has either the AC or the QC, the 6NT bid is pretty safe.

Given the misfit, North will have to be careful with the entries when playing 6NT, but the contract is a good one.  As it happens, on a Club lead 6NT should be defeated.  The North hand will win the KC, unblock the AD and lead a Heart.  In with the AH, if West leads any card other than the KS then it will be possible for declarer to reach the South hand to cash the Diamond suit and 6NT will make.  But if West leads the KS then there will be no entry to the South hand.  Declarer will have to give West a trick with the JS and 6NT will be defeated by one trick.

6H should make, but the play is, I think, difficult.  Playing in 6H, North has to get rid of her four Spade losers.  Two can be discarded on dummy’s Diamonds suit and two can be ruffed in dummy.  This line works because E/W’s Diamonds break 3-3.

Four N/S pairs reached a slam on this deal.  Two were in 6H, one pair making and one pair one off.  Two were in 6NT, again one pair making and one pair one off.  My Players of the Week include the two successful declarers, Jurek Czuprynski (again!), who made 6H and Richard Gay, who made 6NT and also Pauline Shelley, who sat West when 6NT was defeated.

Board 12 showed the principle of protection in operation – or not, depending at which table you were sitting.

Playing Acol, North opens 1S.  East has an opening bid but without a five-card suit cannot overcall.  Nor is a Double attractive, as if partner bids Clubs, what would East call next?  So East Passes and, as they say, awaits developments.  With 2 Hcp South Passes.  So, what should West call?  With 9 Hcp it seems natural to Pass.  But South’s Pass is suspicious.  It is likely that East has some strength but doesn’t have a hand suitable for a positive call over 1S.  West should protect partner’s hand by overcalling 2D.  It is true that North might have a very strong hand, say with up to 19 Hcp.  But in that case, it is unlikely that 2DX will be the final contract.  It is more likely that North will make another bid, such as a Spade rebid.  If North Doubles, South will probably come to life.  And if East has the sort of hand that in fact East held, then it is vital that 1S shouldn’t be the final contract.

A ready-reckoner for bidding in the protective seat, i.e. after and opening bid followed by two Passes, is that you should “borrow a king”, which is to say that you should add 3 Hcp to the value of your hand to gauge whether or not to enter the auction.  On this hand West therefore supposes that her hand is worth 12 Hcp and, at favourable vulnerability with a decent five-card suit, should venture an overcall.

If West bids 2D then the most likely final contract is 3D.  North does have a strong hand (but not 19 Hcp), but also East has four Diamonds and the strength to open the bidding and will raise Diamonds.  With the AS well-placed 3D is an easy make.  The E/W pairs who played in 3D scored 70%.  The N/S pairs who played in 1S scored on average 78%.

E/W had three opportunities to bid slams this week, on Boards 6, 10 and 11.  On Board 6 no pair bid the slam (and no one made twelve tricks).  On Board 10 four pairs out of thirteen bid a slam and three made their contracts.  On Board 11 only one pair out of fifteen bid the slam and they were also successful in making twelve tricks.

The two hands that I feature this week both demonstrate that, when a slam is possible, the opposition can make it difficult to reach by intervening in the auction.

My feeling is that it was possible to both bid and make a slam on Board 6, but perhaps not if N/S bid their hands to the full.

It is worth reflecting on the possible scores.  5CX-3 would give N/S a score of -800, which might compare to -640 if E/W were to play in 5D+2.  Of course, E/W could score as much as +1390 if they were to make 6D+1.  The main advantage for N/S bidding 5C is that it might prevent E/W from reaching one of their makeable slams.  The main disadvantage is that it is likely to result in a poor score, assuming that at the other tables few if any E/W pairs will bid and make a slam.  Playing duplicate bridge, you have to estimate what might happen at other tables.  As my commentaries have often remarked, at CEBC at least, it is usually safest to assume that at other tables, slams won’t be bid.

If we assume that N/S bid more conservatively, then I think E/W might find the Diamond slam, as shown in the second bidding sequence.  When East hears that partner has a decent Diamond suit, a slam must seem like a possibility.  If the 5S bid, showing two key cards and the QD, does not reference the AC, then 6D must be likely to make.  Even if West is missing either the AD or the KD, then there is likely to be a good chance that 6D will make.

On Board 11 E/W could make all thirteen tricks in Spades or NT, though the thirteenth trick did depend on the position of the KS.  When I played the hand, E/W played in 4S after my partner had pre-empted in Clubs.  The declarer, Laura Corradi, played the hand very well, ruffing out the QD to provide a discard for her losing Heart, and therefore made all thirteen tricks.  Two other declarers, Robin Vicary and Giles Ridger, also made thirteen tricks.  This gives me three Players of the Week.  (Robin made 3NT+4.  Without being able to ruff out the Diamonds, I’m not sure how to make the thirteenth trick.)

As with Board 6, N/S could make the auction difficult for E/W by bidding their hands to the full.  If, as shown in the first bidding sequence, N/S bid up to 4C, then it seems to me that it would be necessary for West to take an optimistic view in order for E/W to reach a slam.  If it can be assumed that East’s 3S bid guarantees at least five Spades, then with excellent controls, West can just about justify making a RKCB enquiry, leading to a 6S contract.  And I think that 3S would show at least five Spades.  With only four Spades I think it would be correct for East to Double (even without a four-card Heart suit).  But maybe this is partly a question of partnership understanding.

The second bidding sequence shows how it would be relatively easy to reach 6S if N/S have the courtesy to keep silent in the auction.

My last two Players of the Week are Ben Thomas and Sam Oestreicher, who bid and made 6S on this deal.

My partner and I had poor results on some of the boards this week.  One was on Board 24, where I made mistake by Doubling my right-hand opponent’s pre-empt.

The first bidding sequence shows what happened at my table.  When he put down his dummy, East said, “I wasn’t sure what to respond to partner’s opening bid, but the Double solved my problem”.   Hmph!  I had led a Club, which allowed declarer to discard three losers straight away.  Needless to say, we scored 0%.

My hand was too weak to make a take-out Double.  By doing so, I was committing my partnership to a contract at the four-level, unless we could play in 3S or 3NT, and with a minimum opening hand (and with only three cards in the unbid major), I was wrong to do so.  I also think that West’s hand was too weak for his pre-empt, but on this occasion, it worked out well for him!  It is true that E/W were non-vulnerable, but also West was the dealer.  First-in-hand I think you be slightly stronger to open 3H, even non-vulnerable, with say at worst a seven-loser hand.

If the West Passes as dealer, then the auction is likely to be difficult for East to negotiate.  In the second bidding sequence, I have tried to imagine what might happen.  The key bid is West’s final raise to 4S.  West should reason that partner has shown a very strong hand by twice making a take-out Double and by then jumping to 3S.  West’s hand might provide as many as three Club ruffs.  Also, with three Spades opposite partner’s Spade suit, N/S shouldn’t have too many trumps.  This should be enough for West to bid 4S.

At twelve out of twenty tables East played in Spades but only eight declarers made ten tricks.  The key to the play is that declarer has to ruff Club winners in dummy in order to get entries in dummy to take the finesses in Spades and Diamonds.  There are then only three losers, one Heart and two Diamonds.

We had another poor result on Board 11.