All News

Living Dangerously?

Today’s hand centre’s around two issues, firstly about whether a double in a low-level auction is for penalties and then, assuming it is, whether that is the choice you would make.

 

 

You are playing Pairs.

Here you seem to have a choice of playing in one major suit or defending the other. What would you do?

In some respects, the vulnerability and the fact we are playing Pairs make the choice a little easier. We can all just write off 4% from our score when the penalty double which we, and most of the Panel makes, backfires though at Teams, the risk seems too great. Even at Pairs, when the opponents are not vulnerable, +100 may be an inadequate return when we can make a part-score in hearts.

Another factor is that the high-card points are fairly evenly divided between the two sides with our partner being a passed hand. How few points does your partner need to re-open?

You may get the impression from the majority of the Panel that double here from West is for penalties though that is not a universal view:

Peter Newell “If Double was penalties, then I would double but I would expect it to make not infrequently.  Partner likely has a weak shapely hand given they are a passed hand, but I’ll try and force declarer in hearts. Some people play it for penalties and some don’t. If I cannot double for penalties, I’ll bid 3. While game may make, I think it is odds against and occasionally they will compete to 3 which I will happily DOUBLE.”

Another fearful of our chances of defeating 2 is:

Matt Brown 3: It doesn't look like we're getting rich off 2. We may not even be beating it if (say) the J is in dummy or there is a similar entry. At favourable, the colours seem right to compete; we aren't guaranteed a heart fit but it looks like it will play well and they could of course compete to 3.

Whibley and I cannot double for penalties, instead relying on partner to make another take/out double if we want to penalise.”

At this vulnerability, we will either get very rich (+200 or better) or completely broke from 2x.

One panellist is going for the middle ground:

Michael Cornell: Pass and yes double would be for penalties. We need 6 tricks to beat 2 don’t we? I would hate to see Jx in the dummy. I see no reason to commit to the 3 level, either, opposite a probable max of 10 points.

Yet, the rest are of a strong opinion that double is for penalties and that that is what they want to do, albeit not entirely happy that they will come out on top. 

Michael Ware “Double Penalties. Only at match-points: only at these colours."

Stephen Blackstock “Double:100% penalties. Yes, this could be close to making opposite a passed partner, but there is a stark difference between Pairs and Teams here. At Teams, a penalty double would be very poor, risking a lot to gain probably only a little; at Pairs this is a good chance for a top. We also have some equity to protect in that 2 is a likely make. If 2x makes, c’est la vie!

There should be no argument that double is penalties. A second double by East would of course be take-out, but double by West is take-out only in (most) auctions where the opponents bid and raise.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: which must be for penalties. How can it be anything else? A penalty double has to be an available option after partner protects, in this case probably with a hand in the 8/11 point range and a singleton spade. If it makes, c’est la vie; it is likely to go down for a great result given the vulnerability."

It seems more than one panellist lapses into French to reflect on bad happenings!

Nigel Kearney “Double. As a passed hand, partner doesn't need much to double but even if he has a defensively poor hand such as x Jxxx Qxxx KQxx, we are a favourite to beat it and 200 should be a good score. On general principles, double should be responsive, but it's good to make an exception for this type of auction as opponents tend to bid too much and eight tricks are hard when one hand has nothing."

Pam Livingston “Double: This is for penalties.  2NT would be for the minors.  Going for the magic +200.  2 might make, though.”

So, by and large, it seems that double should be for penalties here unless you have an express agreement that it is not. At this vulnerability, at Pairs, give it a go but the defence may not prevail.

There is one more fact that only Matt Brown picked up on, that East is not guaranteed to hold 4 hearts. They may have doubled 1 in case you wanted to penalise. They will strain to do that…and that was the situation.

 

Doubling 2 was the winner with West feeling very good about life after scoring three heart tricks and with three certain tricks in the black suits to come. It will not always be that straightforward.

3 is an interesting contract. Once you get over the initial disappointment of being in a 4-3 fit, you just have ruff the third round of diamonds in hand (which follow two rounds of spades).

You can ruff your 10 in dummy and trust that the dealer was kind enough to give each opponent three trumps. After that, the club position becomes obvious as South has already owned up to 6 spades and 2 x 3 card red suits. +140 is an OK score but not as good as +200.

 

“Life” is good “in the fast lane.”

A Breeze

It looks quite “good” in this 3NT lane, too.

 

 

You have at least a double hold in every suit. A breeze? 5 is led at trick 1 to East’s 9. No worries. Which card do you play at trick 2?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items