I guess it depends on partnership agreements, but when partner doubles the final three NT contract, couldn’t this indicate that it would be OK to lead partner’s suit? If a diamond is led, which one?

Thanks in advance, as always.

Hi Jane A,

You are correct in assuming the old rule of an eventual penalty double requiring the lead of the bidders (now defenders) suit so that the contract will be sure to go set.

However, the new thinking is that partner will be likely to lead that suit anyway, so that the penalty double now means to look at your hand and attempt to visualize what I may be nudging you to do. Many would now expect that partner’s hand may be: S. QJxxx, h. x, d. xx c. AKQJx.

On the surface this thinking appears logical, but let me caution you and whoever else is reading, those who have dreamed up wonderful conventions do not, as a rule, have many (if any) scalps on the wall, sometimes over think and, although making sense to many, do not necessarily have the winning touch.

If I led a diamond, which could be right if catching partner with perhaps s. AJxxx, h. J, KQ9xx, Qx but since I, the opening leader have more diamonds than clubs the betting would be that partner has more clubs than diamonds.

Now, if only that is true, it will be a successful penalty double, but what is an opening leader (whether fella or gal) to do? I guess it is better to just hope that partner will lead a spade when the overcaller has s. KQJ10x, h. xx, d. xxx, c. Axx while you hold s. x, h. xxxx, d. QJ10, c. J109xx.

If one is accustomed to almost always lead partner’s suit in these situations should you still lead a club, or should he not overcall 1 spade holding s. QJ109x h. xx, Ax, KQxx for fear of you getting off to the wrong lead vs NT.

Only players who play results will not appreciate the above and not search out for themselves what they want partner to do when one decides to double after first overcalling.

From such combination theorist and thinking for themselves humans, come the world class bridge players.

Hi Bobby,in the Springold final Bd19 second segment was of interest in terms of what is the right contract from the EW perspective..it all hinges on whether South opens or not it seems..N 86 AK6 K432 AJ92 E AQ73 QJ1084 K1075 void S J10 75 862 AJ9865 W K9542 932 Q107 Q3.In the open room South did not open and North did and East overcalls 1H and got to 4H and NS got to 5CX-3 500.4H would seem to make.In the closed room,South opens 3C and East doubles North’s 3NT and West bids 4S X-1 200. A swing of 12 imps to the eventual winners.It seems that the 5-3 heart fit plays better than the 5-4spade fit,how often is that the case in your experience?Maybe this hand goes to show that pre-empts make things harder as usual..regards~Patrick.

Sorry, West’s clubs n diamonds are reversed,it should be K9542 932 Q3 Q107.

Hi Bobby,.

On the lead hand, what inference (if any) should the opening leader draw from partner’s failure to use Michaels?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Patrick,

I’m also assuming North had Kxxx in clubs instead of AJ9x since South had the AJ9x of clubs.

Sometimes there is little rhyme nor reason for an 8 card fit to play better than a 9 card one, and it is also the case here when while playing spades as trump, 3 rounds of hearts will defeat 4 spades, as long as South has the jack of diamonds to take the setting trick. Even if a trump is not led, the defense can switch to a trump when in with the ace of diamonds and accomplish the same, but possibly not if the jack of diamonds is with North. That illusive diamond knave is no where to be seen.

To generalize, it is often crucial to play in a partnership’s longest trump suit, but sometimes the vagaries of a specific hand dictate otherwise.

I’ve often said that bridge (even at the highest level) is very hard to predict and not close to an exact science, but instead an art, not subject to mathematical genius. This hand does not really fall into that category, but all we can do as players is follow known caveats and head toward the longest trump suit for salvation.

Hi Iain,

Your question is indeed on point. Obviously as an opening leader it would be necessary to know one’s own conventions (and partner’s habits) in order to solve partner’s reason for doubling.

You are rightly suggesting that if the defense was playing Michaels he would have bid 2 hearts at his first bid if he had either 5 clubs or diamonds for his initial bid. My preference is to play specific suits for a major suit cue bid (the other major and clubs) so I would lead a diamond defying a probability that partner would likely have length in clubs instead of diamonds.

Your question is what good bridge is all about, using the gathered evidence to solve the riddle.

Thanks always for your input, but keep in mind that sometimes even very sharp players forget to consider first the perfect bridge bid right in front or his nose and/or, of course, his partner may not consider the evidence, like you did.

Bridge, at all levels, usually pays off to those who make fewer mistakes, something like baseball is often won by the team who makes fewer errors in the field.

Hi Bobby,my apologies for mixing up the diamonds n clubs in the North hand as well!Yes the illusive JD is in North’s hand.Of note to the play if East is in 4H,one of the commentators pointed to the importance of the ten of clubs in West’s holding of Q10x,guess on a club lead East may feel the force..thanks for your patience in view of my mixing up the clubs and diamonds not once but twice!:o)

Hi Mr. Wolff

In response to the 5-4 vs 5-3 question, it seems that playing the 5-4 fit as trumps will give declarer a chance for 2 discards using the 5-3 suit, if it breaks, of course. I had always found that playing the 4-4 fit as trumps instead of the 5-4 was better, giving me one discard. But this was 25 years ago. I came back tot he table after 2 decades, and nowadays, with 100% computer hands, I have much more often found 4-4 trump fits facing 5-0 and 4-1 trumps. At least I have that impression. I don’t know if it is an experience other players have.

Hi Peter,

Yes, sometimes the 4-4 fit is better than a 5-4 fit, but not always, especially when there are bad breaks.

Computer hands are supposed to follow the predicted distribution better than random dealt hands, but the proof can only be determined with a huge sample over a significant amount of time.

Perhaps, Peter we can ask Jim2 what he thinks. since he is afflicted with TOCM tm which is short for The Theory of Card Migration, a bridge disease, the symptoms of which make all necessary finesses and suit splits exactly like the victim doesn’t want them to be.

In any event, I have no idea what is really happening with either random shuffling or computer duplication, but in about 20 years I’ll give everyone a report, with the proviso that the listener better bring his own air conditioning unit to hear the answer.

I prefer 7-6 fits.

I figure I’ll always have one defender with a trump void, so why not have two.

Hi Jim2,

If anyone deserves at least an occasional 7-6 fit it is you. By being a victim of TOCM tm you have constantly had to prepare for the absolute worst adverse distribution possible.

It would then follow when neither opponent could have a trump that no surprise ruff (on opening lead) could ever occur. Count your blessings, even if it is only for one hand.