Thanks for the quote about my game. In my defense I did go +1660 and my teammates were -170. 😉

Hi Bill,

Giving rise to that famous quote, “Every brilliant person has his day” or at least something like that, “RUFF” or is it “WOOF”?

RE: BWTA
Steve Robinson and Peter Boyd scored +1960 on this very contract on their way to winning the NAP last year.

I had a misadventure on a similar auction in a swiss last year. Playing a precision pair and witnessing a ping-ponging auction, I doubled 3C (dummy showed 4 clubs and declarer did not support, and I had what I thought was a good 5) and they decided to redouble. I missed an inference on declarer’s distribution (he was 4=2=4=3), got overruffed in hearts, and went -840. That was a big swing to say the least.

It is stories like these that make me wonder if I should really be looking for lead-directing doubles.

Hi Slar,

“Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” should serve as a practical guide.

Although most bridge lovers have different calibrated opinions about lead-directing doubles and such, I am in the camp of aiding partner whenever possible, even in risky situations (not necessarily the way Dame Fortune deals the hand), but rather the specific opponents on that hand and whether or not they even would consider redoubling, even if that thought even entered LHO’s mind.

At least to me, the luck of the opening lead, plays an enormous part of a partnership’s final score, whether they are on lead or vice versa, when the opponents had that honor.

And for once, whether the game is IMPs, rubber bridge or matchpoints, the enormity of its importance, does not dwindle.

And to add a macabre twist, in the very old days, a few partnerships only cheated when one was on lead and needed help, conceding in all other times, to play straight.

Nice and respectful of them, don’t you think?

Hi Slar,
Please excuse the following afterthought but:
At all forms of bridge if I was dealt:
s. Q93, h. J954, d. 873, c. 873 and the bidding went RHO 1NT (15-17) LHO 2 clubs, RHO 2 spades, LHO 2NT,RHO 3NT, All pass, I truly believe that 10 out of 10 players would all lead the 8 of diamonds. Why? You know the answer.

When they are playing Fourth Suit Forcing, I look for reasons not to double rather than for reasons to double. Particularly when I am going to be on lead.

Bob

Hi Bob, and of course again, Slar.

If partner is to be on lead (which on 4th suit forcing responses is common) it then becomes important only when partner is on lead.

However to do so should not be regarded like a new toy, e.g. nothing but constructive and fun to play with. Reason being, if I am on lead I would rather make my own choice rather than give away to a wily declarer what to expect during his declarer’s play.

Of course, as previously alluded, when that 4th suit bid is made, if partner turns out to be the leader you want him to lead that suit, but since there is no way to be almost sure, it probably tilts the scale to doubling and therefore rolling the dice.

Of course, there are other considerations, having to do with partner’s ability to judge what to, with the better player your partner is, the less need to give the show away to the opponents.

Further if one held s. KQ10xx, h Qxx, d. x c. Jxxx and had the bidding go: LHO 1 heart, RHO 2 clubs, LHO 2 diamonds, RHO 2 spades, I would double since partner is likely to have at least 5 diamonds causing me to want to warn partner not to lead a diamond since I do not want partner to hope to hit me with a major diamond honor or some such and thus seriously consider leading one, if, of course, he became the opening leader, especially against a final NT contract.

Just more food for thought for our best and brightest to consider. Important caveat: Pay rapt attention to the opponent’s bidding sequence when it is taking place, so that your passes can all be in tempo and therefore no unethical information passed within your partnership. Sometimes, and especially early on in learning, but never a valid excuse for allowing it to happen.

On your example auction, of course I know the answer. The opponents have shown both majors and partner didn’t double clubs for the lead. As Kantar says, if your partner has a chance to make a lead directing double and doesn’t, look for another suit. There’s nothing left to pick!

When my crazy auction occurred, I did not request a review of the auction because if I did so and didn’t double, I would not get a club lead if there was a logical alternative (which presumably there would be because partner was marked with decent spades on the auction). This is one of the reasons I am seriously considering adopting a more artificial bidding system if I can find a partner to go along with it. At least some of the field will have trouble fielding it.

Hi Slar,

If I may say so, I appreciate your absolute candor in, at least, discussing bridge.

However, although many ambitious players want a fast track to get there from here, taking an express, such as is probably done in business, romance, and all things involving power, doing so in bridge is IMO definitely not the right way to go.

Why? Not necessarily on strict moral grounds, but nevertheless the game of bridge is such a beautiful, artful, enterprising and practically logical game, it deserves much more than tricking the opposition in order to conquer.

In order to be properly understood, legal deception in bridge is always to be regarded in its highest esteem, but not so if it falls to be no better than hitting below the bridge belt, by tricking lesser opponents into not being fully briefed in what their opponents are doing, especially by using artificiality (bidding or defense) to merely obfuscate their inalienable right to know as much as one’s partner knows about the true meaning of any bids or defensive signals which the possibly offending side is playing. For an example, playing upside down suit-preference signals only because those signals are not required to be alerted, and for good reason since a then alert may remind his partner of something he may have forgotten.

No doubt artificiality does on percentage, tend to confuse relatively inexperienced opponents, but if that is the only reason to add it to system, then it becomes the opposite of active ethics, and needs to be disciplined accordingly and categorically thrown out the window.

IOW, straighten up and fly right and learn to respect the game as it deserves, rather than succumb to chicanery. Once a player reaches perhaps one stage past your already high achieved position, he begins to understand just what a great game we already have and often then reaches out to protect it from those who prefer to play down its ethics to best fit their desire to only win, while downgrading its ethical standards.

In no way am I intending to ride herd on your intentions, only trying to play the role of Jiminy Cricket who sat on Pinocchio’s shoulder, and served many at a younger age in explaining the goal of life, which happens to coincide with the ethical considerations in our great competition.