A Matter of Bidding


A K 3
6 5 3
K J 10 2
K J 2
Q J 9 7 5 10 8 6 4
2 J 8 4
8 A 9 5 4
8 7 6 5 4 3 10 9
2 Vulnerability: N-S
A K Q 10 9 7
Q 7 6 3 Opening lead: 8 of diamonds
A Q Contract: 6 diamonds, 6 hearts, 6 no

There's nothing much to the play of the hand here. In a heart contract, either the defense finds the diamond lead and continuation, or it doesn't, but in either case, there's nothing much to discuss about the play after that, nor does even the opening lead matter in diamonds or no trump. However, there were several bidding sequences that warrant a few comments, starting with this one:
NorthEastSouthWest
1 NT Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 3 Pass
3 Pass 4 NT Pass
5 Dbl All pass

Redouble. The above sequence brought up one of my pet topics over the past few years, and that is the danger and opportunity when you're slambound and get doubled at the five level. If you let an opponent dissuade you from slam by doubling a five-level bid, inducing the fear that you're going to get a horrendous break, you're getting faked out -- often, far more often than not. If you had any inkling of slam, and here there was a Blackwood bid, which I think qualifies, then you must redouble. Your score will be better than that of the slam bidders if 12 tricks are available, and of course better if only eleven are (though of course not better if you pick up only 11 when 12 are there). A redouble of 5 diamonds would have netted the declaring side 1400 (400 for trick score, 400 for the overtrick, 500 for game and 100 for making a redoubled contract), which beats a 6 diamond bid.
Now, there's no guarantee here. People have been known to go down 2 in slam, and if they can go down 2 in a twelve-trick contract, then they can go down one in an eleven-trick even though they envisioned slam. But let's say that if your vision is sound, those situations must be rare, and you'll be missing a lot if you let that golden opportunity pass you by. Here East offered the declaring such a golden opportunity. By meekly passing, this side got a trick score of 200, overtrick 200, game bonus 500 and 50 for making a doubled contract for 950.
A double of five hearts would have allowed the declaring side to redouble for a trick score of 600, game bonus of 500, making a redoubled contract 100 for 1200 without an overtrick, which can be inhibited, of course, and 1600 for a twelfth trick, which about half of those in 6 hearts picked up for 1430 points.
NorthEastSouthWest
1 NT Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 3 Pass
4 Pass 4 NT Pass
5 Pass 5 NT Pass
6 Pass 7 All pass
I couldn't count how many times I've recently seen people in a 7 bid, missing an ace or a 6 bid missing two even after a Blackwood bid! Sometimes the responses are incomprehensible, sometimes they're valid and you wonder why the Blackwood bidder read something different. Here there seems to be an ambiguity, which South should have recognized (if they are playing Roman Key Card). After the show of diamond support which would seem to establish diamonds as trump, South went to Blackwood, in which case North properly answered 5 hearts, counting the K of diamonds as an ace. But South evidently had his mind on hearts for trump, as witnessed by his return to hearts with his final bid, and holding the K of hearts himself, evidently read his partner for two aces. To return to the near self-supporting heart suit is reasonable enough for the advantage of major suit, with a probability that both will make. But he should have entertained the suspicion that his partner was bidding the diamond king after they seemed to settle on diamonds for trump. Indeed, bidding diamonds in the first place is a gratuitous detour if South intends to name hearts trump, and proved his undoing. It's a bid much more suited to 5-5 in the red suits, not 6-4. But if you bid it and find a fit, then it would be wise to mean it and go with the balanced fit.
NorthEastSouthWest
1 Pass 1 2 NT
Dbl 3 4 * Pass
4 Pass 4 NT* Pass
5 * Pass 6 Pass
Pass Dbl All pass * Alerted

A missed Lightner double? It would seem so. I have discussed the Lightner double elsewhere. Some will tell you it calls for dummy's first bid suit, while others will say it calls for an "unusual" lead but to avoid ambiguity. I have advocated confining yourself to the primary meaning (to avoid ambiguity), which is to lead dummy's first bid suit, until you get real good. Period. East can't guarantee the defeat of the contract with a diamond lead since he could hardly know the diamond distribution, and to that extent, the double, if a Lightner, was flawed. Nevertheless, West has plenty of reasons to treat it as Lightner and hit diamonds. By either interpretation of the double, spades are prohibited. Since it was the defense's bid suit, it wouldn't be an unusual lead, though that's what West led. But even aside from the double, singletons are attractive leads against little slam (in a suit). The opposition might well be missing an ace, and it might be where you have a singelton. So I would say it's hands down to prefer the singleton diamond over the Q of spades, which doesn't figure to do much of anything.
NorthEastSouthWest
1 NT Pass 2 * 2
3 3 4 NT Pass
5 Pass 7 7
Dbl All pass

Here we have a twofer. First the strong side goes to 7 while missing an ace. Nor is there any ambiguity here as in the earlier case. The respondent bid 5 diamonds, which works for one ace in standard Blackwood as well as Roman Key Card. [Hold on a moment: Some pairs play 1403 Roman Key Card, meaning 5 diamonds promises no aces or three! Which is to say that if North had the A of diamonds in place of the deuce, he'd have three "aces" in South's view. And South has two. Now only one more twist remains: North has to think they are playing 0314 to bid 5 diamonds with one ace. Well, I can't think of any other explanation for a 7 bid missing an ace.] True, the mix-up worked out in their favor, but that doesn't augur well for the future. Which brings us to the 7 spade sac -- on a grand total of 7 hcp's!
Oh, but we had favorable vulnerability! Yeah, right. I see the vulnerability. And I guess it works if they can make their bid. But somehow it just seems wrongheaded to place so much trust in their ability to bid and play well. I'll settle for average if it's a laydown grand slam, well, probably a little below average, to be sure. But grand slams are hard to come by and when available sometimes require fine play, and I'll take my average or below average rather than to rock the boat with a top or bottom.
The upshot was minus 1700, when the opps can't even make their bid, can't even hold it to down one on a heart lead when the E-W score could have been plus a hundred or two hundred. That do be expensive.

It might be of interest to younger players that it was only 10 or 12 years ago that the ACBL changed the scoring for non-vul doubled penalties for just the reason exemplified here. The penalty then was a hundred for the first undertrick and 200 for each subsequent one, or 200 per trick minus 100. It was too cheap for weaker hands with favorable vulnerability to wade in and take a sac. They're in a vul little slam? You only need five tricks in a higher ranking suit, down 7, or six in a higher ranking. They're in a vul grand? Well, lookee here. You only need two tricks for down 11 and minus 2100.
It kind of took the fun out of bidding grand slams at that vulnerability. And so now it becomes a little more expensive to wade in with a favorable vul sac -- and very expensive when those guys can't even make their bid! One can only strongly advise people not to get to feeling a favorable vul sac makes them proof against disaster. Not true. Not true with certainty, not true with probability.