All News

Did you see it?

Dallas’ Diamond Double.

An interesting double in a recent hand led to an unusual sequence of events in which the other three players were not leave the table without a little piece of egg on their faces. Was the double an act of brilliancy or not?

 N/S Vul

An interesting sequence unfolds. 2 is a Multi. You fear your partner has a Weak 2 in spades and therefore bid only 2 , to play if that is what they have. However, they own up to 20-22 balanced.

So, you transfer (3 ) with East doubling (you did notice that, I hope?) and partner passes showing systemically a doubleton heart. So, what next?

You have between 32 and 34 high card points between your two hands, normally enough for slam. However, the double throws up some other options. You have 4 reasonable diamonds and your partner would seem to have at least 2 and probably 3 given that they only have 2 hearts (unless partner held 5-4 in the black suits). Even if the doubler held KQJ98, that would produce just four tricks for the defence. Your partner has just about every other high card and your contract makes for a score of 840. With 6NT scoring 1440, you need to make 2 overtricks in 3xx to better that score, 1640.

Doing his maths and a bit of slam analysis is:

Nigel Kearney “4: Interesting problem. Slam looks likely so I'm rejecting 3XX as that would need two overtricks to do better. A count of HCP suggests that if there's a heart loser, partner must have just about everything else, e.g. AKQx AJ Qxx KJxx. 6 from my side could lose a first- round ruff plus a trump trick. 6 from partner's side looks best. If RHO has a diamond to lead and LHO has  Kxx, we can probably get my diamonds away in time.”

4 would be a second transfer back to hearts. However, others look at no further than the prospect of making a redoubled contract:

Stephen Blackstock “Redouble: Why not? Partner may choose not to sit for it with say 4225 or 3226, but that would be a major disappointment.”

Bruce Anderson “Redouble: This can hardly be SOS but indicates that I have diamonds and hearts, with sufficient high card strength to make this contract. Given that partner has only two hearts surely, he holds at least 3 diamonds to an honour, even it is only the jack. A partial fit and our combined weight of high cards will be sufficient to make 3xx.

The bidding means it is very unlikely we can make 6. So, I am going to punish East for ill-judged interference.”

Matt Brown “Redouble: I think this is clear. The only downside I can see is that partner has only 2 diamonds also (4225, 3226...) and the opponents are now able to lead a diamond through to the KQJ9xx to beat this contract. If they have only 5 diamonds, or West has a void, or their diamonds are of poorer quality, this is almost certainly cold (since we have so many points between us), and at 400 an overtrick, it's an easy choice between this and a heart slam where we have to dispose of these diamond losers.”

Pam Livingston "Redouble: shows a willingness to play in 3xx. At least there will be something exciting to talk about at lunch time!

Michael Ware "Redouble: Yup I'm in. 3xx Let's play."

Michael Cornell “Redouble: for real- I think LHO is making a silly noise with maybe KQxxx. I would expect partner to rip with xx but that must be unlikely. (2 doubletons?) If he rips to 3NT, I will bid a pessimistic 5.”

Certainly, some people’s idea of a lead directional type double is not always sound. There are big scores to be had at times with multiple overtricks.

Our Panel talked of North not standing the redouble with 2 small diamonds. However, had South redoubled, it would have been East who would have run, to 4.

    run, rabbit, run!

Would you double that? Before you rub your hands with glee and start counting voluminous undertricks, be careful. There were not, well not “voluminous” ones!

However, at the table, North did not face that problem as instead of redoubling, they wheeled out Key Card, 4NT and got a very surprising response, two Key Cards, and (obviously) no Q. The opponents held either an ace or the K. This made the double of 3 even stranger. What would you bid now over this 5 response?

North made their second strange decision in choosing 6 which fits in with Nigel Kearney’s prediction of being safer from the North hand (remember the response to Key Card was 5!), another form of transfer to hearts!

Dreamtime

 

At the table?

However, the truth was that West, who should have no diamonds and who had been quietly observing proceedings was firmly in control. West had 2 chances to beat 6 though the passing of time, a long time, a very long time, since the double of 3 occurred, had had a soporific effect on West.

 (yes, only 19hcp in that South hand but a good 19 count to upgrade, making 4 opposite for instance nothing more than Axxx.)

West had not just one diamond but four of them! However, they chose to lead their ace and then switched.. to a trump.

South drew two rounds of trumps and, very wisely, ruffed a spade high rather than play a diamond to reach dummy, and then drew trump and claimed… by running diamonds!

North should have chosen 6NT where there are 12 easy tricks but South had not been blameless, either, as they should have redoubled 3, not passed, as they wanted to play 3xx. That contract would have made for 3 overtricks!

However, 4 x would not be pleasant for the defence. It would be very reasonable for South to lead a trump. On that lead, the defence need to play two rounds of hearts, a second trump and a third round of hearts to be sure of getting their full entitlement of 6 tricks…+500. Even that would be a rather modest score with 32 hcp.

Dallas Dagg and Ella Gray love their bridge and Dallas’ unusual double (a low level or light-weight lightner double!) opened up many losing options for their opponents. They seized one with open arms and were rescued only by the passing of a lot of time and one “dreamy” opponent.

Had North passed 3x, they would have scored + 1270. The diamond slam was worth only 100 more. I hope all the redoublers would have headed slamwards after the 4 escape...and had chosen their slam well.

 

That’s the number of tricks you need to make your contract. You raised to game because your honours, apart from jacks, seemed to be in the right suits. However, partner’s clubs were not what you would have hoped for.

No time for dreaming. West has led 3 and you need 10 tricks, at least!

See you after the Long Weekend, on Tuesday.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items