All News

Passing Penalty Doubles, perhaps: Part 2.

Yesterday, we gave you a situation where passing a penalty double by your partner in a competitive auction at the 4-level was not the best thing to do. We have got another situation today where it may or may not be best to pass partner’s penalty double. This time, we are playing Pairs, and this time we are one level higher.

We know that the 5-level belongs to the opposition. Does that mean we should pass here?

 

There’s a lot of bidding and passing to take in here. At adverse vulnerability, you feel you are too weak to offer a weak 2. Yet, as the auction developed, you kind of wish you had!

2 by North showed 5 spades and at least 4 cards in a minor with South in a big hurry to get to game. Why is the vulnerability always in the opponents’ favour in such auctions, or so it seems!

Being vulnerable did not seem to deter your partner as they emerged with 5. Playing Teams, you would be happy, well not deliriously happy, to pass 5. It would not be your problem as you put down no less than you promised, maybe even more!

Yet, Pairs is both a wonderful and aggravating game. What is partner showing? They could have just a really strong hand with diamonds, or are they showing a really strong hand with long diamonds and a few hearts on the side? You do not know for sure but 650 does score better than 600 (and -100 is the same when both contracts fail!). So, hoping for a few hearts opposite, you bid 5.

Now South bids 5. You wonder why they did not do that a round earlier but they chose not to. However, your 5 call did provoke 5. Partner’s double said “enough”. Well?

Well, if your partner has long diamonds and some hearts, then they do not have many black cards in their hand. Also, the fate of 5 may depend on how the few red cards held by the opposition are distributed. So, 6 it has to be. It’s called insurance.

Was it right to pull this penalty double? The answer was certainly “no” and “yes”!

When you see the four hands below, which card would you have led as North to 6, firstly without a double from South, and secondly with a double. Be honest. Would you have found the only lead to beat 6 in either case?

 

Without a double, it would seem right to lead a top spade, though the bidding does sound that one opponent may well be void of spades. If you believe that, then you may have found the club lead.

The double could well be “Lightner” style asking for an unusual lead which is often dummy’s first bid suit. Not this time, though. Again, if South was void in diamonds, why did they not bid 5 over 5? If you believe that, then just maybe it cries out for a club lead.

There was no double and there was a spade lead and East-West scored more than the paltry 100 they would have gained from 5x. A 3-1 diamond or a 3-0 heart break would have seen 5x make. South could have taken some insurance too by bidding 6.

Apart from one table where 5 made and another where 5 was undoubled down 1, standing the double of 5 would have been a rather poor result for East-West. All 4 tables who played 6, once doubled, made the contract, with, naturally, the declarer as West each time. Three Easts got to play in 5 while one North-South pair did take the 6 insurance.

 Anyone for 7? Well, if the defence cannot find the lead to beat 6, would they do any better one level higher!?

As per yesterday, it did seem best to pull that penalty double.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items