Welcome to Elsinore

Defending against a doubled 1NT is somehow always more nerve-racking than defending against any other (doubled) contract, especially when the chances of success and failure seem evenly balanced. Why is this? Maybe it is because one undertrick can make the difference between a top and a bottom  - although this is relatively unlikely and no more rare than with many other contracts at pairs. Maybe it is the psychological effect of conceding a score ending in 80.

Just briefly digressing to mention a very effective tactic from my university days; I recall a particular player who advocated doubling 1NT on many relatively weak hands with long broken minor suit holdings such as seven cards headed by the ace and little outside. This "convention" often led to very entertaining results since the partner of the 1NT bidder might have a good hand in terms of point count, leave the double in and then find the contract going off (perhaps the doubler's partner had a "suitable holding" such as king doubleton in the doubler's long suit), while a game or a solid part-score was available in another denomination.

The convention sometimes "worked" even when it "went wrong" - on more than one occasion did the doubled contract make with two over-tricks (+380 or +580), only to find that this scored less than the value of the game bid at other tables (+400 or +600). 

Sadly this convention has gone out of fashion.

See if you can avoid conceding a number ending in 80 on this hand.

As West, you hold ♠AQ ♥A52 ♦KJ97 ♣Q762 and hear your right hand opponent open 1NT (12-14), third in hand following two passes.

The opponents are not-vulnerable while you are - a situation tailor-made for the weak no-trump.

Personally I would pass this hand. I have no clear source of defensive tricks, an unappealing choice of opening leads and the spade holding looks like a liability. Not only has this hand got -180 written all over it, but for the double to work well, the contract will need to go at least two off (+100 is very unlikely to be a great score). If partner has a hand good/shapely enough for that to happen, he may reopen, or more likely the responder to 1NT may remove the contract from 1NT - giving you a second bite at the cherry when the bidding comes back to you.

At the table the contract was doubled with this "unweeded garden of things rank and gross in nature" and there was no further bidding. West then thought about what to lead - a clear warning that double was perhaps somewhat risky, and an indication to declarer about the nature of his hand. The ♦7 was selected, and dummy was tabled:

	♠975
	♥10864
	♦862
	♣AJ8
♠AQ
♥A52
♦KJ97
♣Q762

 

Declarer played the ♦8 from dummy and that held the trick - East playing the five and declarer contributing the three. A heart was now led from dummy: four, seven, knave ....

Already we know that declarer stated with six points in diamonds. The heart situation is not clear: declarer might hold QJ93 or maybe a more vulnerable holding such as KJ3. It didn't seem absolutely vital at this stage to win the ♥A - not least because West still didn't know what to lead to the next trick, so he played small.

Declarer now led ♣9 to dummy's knave, which again held the trick, East contributing the three, and then followed by a spade: five, three, six.....

This is your last chance to redeem yourself, what do you play after winning with ♠Q?

Of course, this is a trick question: you must not under any circumstances win with the ♠Q  - you must play the ♠A. There is just no room for declarer to have ♠K in addition to the ♣K, ♦AQ and ♥QJ! Win with the queen and the suit is iretrievably blocked.

At the table, however ♠Q did win the trick and the lead problem came back with a vengeance. Perhaps as he played ♠A, East realised that not all was well in the state of Denmark (apologies to any foreign readers - especially Scandinavian readers- of this blog for these obscure references).

At trick six, West led another club, declarer winning in dummy to play a diamond to the ten and knave, East again following. However to all intents and purposes the defence was now all over, for the remaining cards were:

	♠9
	♥1086
	♦6
	♣8
♠None		♠KJ10
♥A5		♥Q9
♦K9		♦None
♣Q7		♣10
	♠4
	♥K3
	♦AQ
	♣K

West could get off lead with another club, but declarer could simply win and play ♦AQ. Although West could take his diamond and club winner, declarer had to make a heart at the end, and seven tricks in all via two hearts, two diamonds and three clubs.

In the post-mortem both East and West blamed themselves for letting the contract make. West could  have won the first heart with the ace - but repeated spade plays by declarer might well have then caused the heart endplay to operate against East. It was definitely not right for West to have won the first spade with the queen - but, for all that, I blame East. When a small spade was led from the table, he should have played the knave - not the eight and certainly not the three. The play of the knave would have enabled West to read the situation - placing East with both the king and ten in the suit. Five rounds of spades and a diamond through would have restricted declarer to six tricks - still not a brilliant score for  East/West who could have made eight tricks in a spade contract fairly easily, but certainly better than the dreaded -180.

Truth is that this was always going to be a good hand for North-South after opening a weak no trump. And therein lies the rub.

Don't spit

Partnering my nemesis of the previous evening, I was pleased with the divergence between our result and that achieved by our teammates at the other table on the following deal.

Picking up an unremarkable, ♠Q865 ♥AJ ♦K103 ♣10532, as West, my partner and I played no role in the auction:

North	South
	Pass
1♦	1♥
1♠	1NT
Pass

With a choice of unattractive leads, I opted for the ♣5 and dummy was faced. I could now see:

	♠K1092
	♥52
	♦AJ765
	♣K4
♠Q865
♥AJ
♦K103
♣10532

Declarer played low from the table and partner played ♣J, won by declarer with the queen. The ♦9 was led towards the table at trick two, and I had to decide what to play.

Were I to play small, declarer would almost certainly run the nine to partner's presumed queen. My K10 would then be exposed to a simple finesse on the next round, allowing her to make four diamond tricks with great ease.

I could of course cover the nine with the ten, relying on partner to hold ♦8, but there is a better solution: rise with the king. At worst, this gives declarer an awkward guess on the next round - if she  started life with nine-eight, she would have to decide whether I had split my diamond honours from KQx, or whether the finesse against the ten was working all the way along. However playing the king also has the great merit of disrupting communications between the hands.

Declarer should probably have ducked but she won with ♦A and thinking perhaps that I had KQ bare of diamonds, led a second diamond towards her eight and my ten.

Continuing with a second club, I was pleased to see partner take dummy's queen with the ace, and return a low heart. This was good defence: there was no need to cash our clubs yet and provide declarer with information regarding distribution of our hands.

I won declarer's ♥10 with the ♥J and had a further choice to make. Declarer had started life with ♣Q and most likely one heart honour. I could just cash my heart ace and our two club tricks, for it seemed that declarer had started life with only three. Partner would win the fourth club and then what? She could cash the diamond queen, of course, but it wasn't clear whether we we would have any more tricks, for declarer surely had ♠A. However I wondered whether, if declarer was missing the ♠J, I might lay a little trap for her, so I exited with ♠Q.

Perhaps declarer should have seen through this ruse and played for split spade honours - but since we had not revealed much about the heart position nor our honours nor our distribution, she was still scrabbling for tricks, and going up with ♠K from table could result in the suit being blocked, if my partner held Jxx, for example. Meanwhile there was the Scylla tempting her to make four spade tricks if I had started with QJx in the suit - after all, who leads an unsupported queen?

It all developed as the gods had foretold. Declarer won with the spade ace in hand and took the finesse of the ten on the way back, partner gratefully winning with the knave and playing an awkward ♥9 through.

Declarer got this one right and played low, and I won perforce with my ♥A. We now cashed our remaining club, heart and diamond winners, but it left North - South with just four tricks.

Declarer gave me one of the filthiest looks I have received for some time and spat " How did you know that your partner had the ♠J?". 

The full deal:

Plus 150 at our table added handily to the +120 which our team-mates achieved at the other table, where the contract and opening lead were the same, but West did not rise with the ♦K when the ♦9 was led towards the table.