[plaur]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-X-1♠-p
1NT-X all pass
lead ♦3

---

Just posting my disasters and try to learn from helpfull comments. Made 8 for 380 after feeble defense.
Please comment on EW bidding and lead.

[TylerE]

First X - Utterly normal
Second X - Utterly insane. West has already told his story, this is just off the charts. Dbls of 1NT should show TRICKS not points, and West has little in that department (and the points aren't anything special either...no way I'm treating this as a 16 count.)

Lead: Doesn't really matter at this point, does it? Have some preference for a small spade here...the king is highly likely to be on my left here, partner is allowed to hold the J or T. Unlikely to blow a trick that isn't already blown through telling declarer where all the high cards on the hand are sitting.

[Jlall]

The west hand is not nearly good enough to double again, you would typically need a good 18+ to double 1N when partner has shown nothing.

[xcurt]

TylerE, on Apr 18 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

Lead: Doesn't really matter at this point, does it? Have some preference for a small spade here...the king is highly likely to be on my left here, partner is allowed to hold the J or T. Unlikely to blow a trick that isn't already blown through telling declarer where all the high cards on the hand are sitting.

This is a good argument for leading the SA, which would lead to beating the hand.

[Jlall]

oops i cannot read I quoted the wrong part

[EricK]

Shouldn't East be bidding 2♣ on the first round? Partner has asked me to bid a suit, I have a suit. The points look to be evenly split between the 2 sides, and we should be able to scramble quite a few tricks.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 East has a easy 2C response to the first T/O.
#2 The 2nd X is very agressive, you basically have a normal T/O,
and nothing add., so pass is certainly the right bid.
#3 East pasing the 2nd X is normal.

So all in all East and West share equal blame for the result, on the other
hande defending 1NTx with a combined 23HCP count is not bad, sometimes
they make it.

What to lead? I would go with a club, it is easy seeing the hands, so take
this with a grain of salt, but hearts and spades are out, so it is either a club
or a diamond.
Both leads are risky, but you need less from p the make the club lead not a
complete failure, it is the better of the two suits in questions.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

The second double was weird.
The lead was very very agressive.

Partner should have bid 2 ♣ instead of passing after 1 ♠.

[jdonn]

I think wests second double was really bad and his lead was bad though not as much as the bidding. That being said he was still really unlucky to give up an overtrick when his partner had a hand this good.

Agree with codo east ought to bid 2♣ over 1♠.

[nige1]

plaur, on Apr 18 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-X-1♠-p
1NT-X all pass
lead ♦3
Just posting my disasters and try to learn from helpfull comments. Made 8 for 380 after feeble defense.
Please comment on EW bidding and lead.

---

IMO

• West's first double is fine.
  
• In spite of expert condemnation, West's second double seems reasonable. Especially if, in plaur's style, the first double could have been five points weaker e.g.
  ♠ A x x x ♥ x ♦ Q J x x ♣ A x x x
  (Among the many aphorosms of Scottish International, John Maclaren, is his Ace extra test: Before taking a limited action that you could have taken with an Ace fewer, you should consider something more aggressive. Of course that does not necessarily mean that he would have advocated a second double on this hand).
  
• East should have bid 2♣ after the 1st double.
  
• Anticipating a possible ♦ lead, perhaps East should bid 2♣ after the 2nd double.
  
• Looking at just the East-West hands, however, you would expect to defeat 1N, most of the time.
  
• The ♦ lead was unlucky but, given just the West hand, it would have been a popular choice in a poll.
  
• If East's ♣ and ♦ holdings were swapped, neither the lead nor the contract would have attracted much adverse comment.

[Codo]

Nige, I agree that you should bid again with significant extras.

But the West hand does not hold extras. You have a singelton queen, no kings, no 5 card suit, no good lead, no intermeds like tens and nines. This hand is not an ace stronger then the usual double.

And I would never ever run with the East hand after the second double. I would like my chances in defence.

And for Paul: A last point for the play: There is no need to gift them -380. You have 4 club tricks and two aces. You should have worked this out during the run of the diamonds, so work on your carding, so that you can hold them to -180. This is no success, but no desaster at all.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Apr 20 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

[*] In spite of expert condemnation, West's second double seems reasonable. Especially if, in plaur's style, the first double could have been five points weaker e.g.
♠ A x x x ♥ x ♦ Q J x x  ♣ A x x x

Oh no, 5 points! How about
- West has a singleton queen in the suit opened by the opponents.
- After the first double west's AQxx was bid on his left.
- West doesn't have a single instance of touching honors.
- West's spot cards are 7 6 5 3 3 3 2.
- NS haven't shown a fit and east has already rejected an opportunity to act.

The second double can not be condemned enough. Do you actually think about your hand and the auction before choosing an action or do you go through your file of Scottish internationals until you find one that's quotable?

[cherdanno]

By the same logic I should double 1H in second seat with xxxx x Axxx xxxx since I could be an ace weaker!

[hanp]

As former Estonian international Gutnerk Snikfut used to say: bid one more for every stiff honor.

[vuroth]

Win!

---

[nige1]

nige1, on Apr 20 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

In spite of expert condemnation, West's second double seems reasonable. Especially if, in plaur's style, the first double could have been five points weaker e.g.
♠ A x x x ♥ x ♦ Q J x x  ♣ A x x x

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

By the same logic I should double 1H in second seat with xxxx x Axxx xxxx since I could be an ace weaker!

hanp, on Apr 20 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

As former Estonian international Gutnerk Snikfut used to say: bid one more for every stiff honor.

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 12:29 PM, said:

Oh no, 5 points! How about
- West has a singleton queen in the suit opened by the opponents.
- After the first double west's AQxx was bid on his left.
- West doesn't have a single instance of touching honors.
- West's spot cards are 7 6 5 3 3 3 2.
- NS haven't shown a fit and east has already rejected an opportunity to act.
The second double can not be condemned enough. Do you actually think about your hand and the auction before choosing an action or do you go through your file of Scottish internationals until you find one that's quotable?

I've no idea whether John Maclaren would have doubled again on this hand. Nevertheless, I'm sure his principle is sound: if you would have made the same limited bid with an Ace fewer, then consider whether your hand merits a stronger bid. Here, the second double is aggressive but I still think it is reasonable. For example it seems timid to let opponents bid and make 1N, when we can make a partscore. IMO, ♣ would be a reasonable contract, even if East had fewer points.
Before I commented, I knew that my view differed from the expert opinion expressed here. I'm not an expert but feel entitled to express a reasoned opinion. When I'm wrong, I like to find out why. I understand JDonn's arguments but am unconvinced so far. I hope to learn from my mistakes.

Codo, on Apr 20 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

I agree that you should bid again with significant extras.
But the West hand does not hold extras. You have a singelton queen, no kings, no 5 card suit, no good lead, no intermeds like tens and nines. This hand is not an ace stronger then the usual double.
And I would never ever run with the East hand after the second double. I would like my chances in defence.

IMO the second double promises the same kind of hand as the first double, just more strength. So I think East is still free to take-out and should consider doing so with his actual hand.

[cherdanno]

I don't mind John Maclaren's principle. E.g. when you have a hand that you would open with an ace less, then you should really think twice about bidding 1D-1x-2D.

However, here with Qxxx Q Qxxx AQxx we would really have a very borderline double. Additionally we have learned that opponents don't seem to have a fit, so reentering the auction will be very dangerous. Additionally, we have a hand with a lot of tenaces, that will really crumble completely when partner is weak. Bidding again is way too dangerous (especially as partner would typically bid with 6+hcp, or less with a 5-card suit).

[nige1]

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

I don't mind John Maclaren's principle. E.g. when you have a hand that you would open with an ace less, then you should really think twice about bidding 1D-1x-2D.
However, here with Qxxx Q Qxxx AQxx we would really have a very borderline double. Additionally we have learned that opponents don't seem to have a fit, so reentering the auction will be very dangerous. Additionally, we have a hand with a lot of tenaces, that will really crumble completely when partner is weak. Bidding again is way too dangerous (especially as partner would typically bid with 6+hcp, or less with a 5-card suit).

Plaur's hand was ♠AQxx ♥Q ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx -- an ace more than Cherdanno's example. A double on Cherdanno's hand may be borderline but I think more than 60% would approve in a poll. This illustrates the point I was trying to make

[jdonn]

nige1, on Apr 20 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

I don't mind John Maclaren's principle. E.g. when you have a hand that you would open with an ace less, then you should really think twice about bidding 1D-1x-2D.

However, here with Qxxx Q Qxxx AQxx we would really have a very borderline double. Additionally we have learned that opponents don't seem to have a fit, so reentering the auction will be very dangerous. Additionally, we have a hand with a lot of tenaces, that will really crumble completely when partner is weak. Bidding again is way too dangerous (especially as partner would typically bid with 6+hcp, or less with a 5-card suit).

Plaur's hand was ♠AQxx ♥Q ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx -- an ace more than Cherdanno's example. A double on Cherdanno's hand may be borderline but I think more than 60% would approve in a poll. This illustrates the point I was trying to make

Illustrates, yes. Supports, not at all.

[cherdanno]

nige1, on Apr 20 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Apr 20 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

I don't mind John Maclaren's principle. E.g. when you have a hand that you would open with an ace less, then you should really think twice about bidding 1D-1x-2D.
However, here with Qxxx Q Qxxx AQxx we would really have a very borderline double. Additionally we have learned that opponents don't seem to have a fit, so reentering the auction will be very dangerous. Additionally, we have a hand with a lot of tenaces, that will really crumble completely when partner is weak. Bidding again is way too dangerous (especially as partner would typically bid with 6+hcp, or less with a 5-card suit).

Plaur's hand was ♠AQxx ♥Q ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx -- an ace more than Cherdanno's example. A double on Cherdanno's hand may be borderline but I think more than 60% would approve in a poll. This illustrates the point I was trying to make

Believe it or not, this is not by accident! I tried to make the point that even someone following the ace-rule should come to the conclusion that the hand in the thread is a clear pass...
Anyway:
- If the international you quoted is really any good then I am sure he would pass here anyway.
- I would recommend taking generic advice ("bid 3N when it is an option") from an International less seriously than specific advice ("you need 18+ hcp to act here") from a World Class player. Especially when it is not clear whether the person you are quoting for the generic advice would even mention it in this particular circumstance.