Recap Of 10/24/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

October 26th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Here we are again, 2 days later, with a different cast of 7 players plus me.  Again 8 double digit swings mostly based on bidding judgment, but some leads, play and defense opportunities were present on some hands.

No one in my game plays a strong club on a regular basis – all bidding is pretty standard.  With the prevalence of strong club players at the top levels of bridge, many experts are opening balanced hands with only 10-11 points in 1st and 2nd seat.  They always open 4-3-3-3 hands with 12 HCP.  As for my bidding style, I try to use judgment – looking at hand evaluation – some 4-3-3-3 12 point hands are openers, some are not (my opinion only, not shared by all).  Here, my partner judged to pass in second seat.  He had 2 aces which are strong indicators of opening.  But, he had 2 unsupported queens of doubtful value.  I have no problem with his decision to pass, but the favorable result went to our opponents who decided to open the South hand.  As you can see, from the comments on the auctions, our opponents reached a well-judged 3NT rather than playing in their known 8 card fit in spades.  The only opening lead to give declarer a problem is 4th from longest and strongest – a small diamond from ♦KJ96.  Not a likely lead into the suit that declarer opened.  But, double dummy declarer play can still make 3NT even after the diamond lead, since the lie of the spade suit allows, with careful play, to never allow the East hand to gain the lead for a diamond through the ♦10.

Declarer still must be extremely careful to land 9 tricks after the actual club lead.  I don’t know the card-by-card timing of the defense or declarer play, but the slightest misstep by declarer could allow the defense to defeat 3NT, even after a club lead.   For instance, if declarer, somewhat naturally, wins the club and plays 3 rounds of spades, a diamond shift (from ♦Q85) will defeat 3NT.  Again, that is the suit they bid, so that defense is a bit hard to find.  But, partner’s lead of the ♣J indicates limited future there.  Dummy’s diamonds are quite weak.  Perhaps partner had strong diamonds but didn’t lead them due to the opening 1♦ bid on his right?  A club continuation would be safe, but a diamond could be (and would be) right.  3NT is very touch and go, but when the smoke cleared 9 tricks were in the bag.

My play in 4♠ was a bit boring.  Assuming spades are 3-2, I must lose a spade, a heart and a diamond, and I must lose 2 hearts unless there is an ♥Ax and I can work out which hand has the doubleton ♥A.  As the play unfolded, it appeared no one had a doubleton ace and that was the case, so I was limited to 9 tricks.  Our -100 paired with -600 for our teammates, lose 12 IMPs.

But what about the bidding?  My 4♠ bid was quite unilateral.  I did want to accept the game try, but I could bid 2♦ on the way showing a legitimate hand with some game interest, and later explore with 2NT if partner merely bids 2♠.  I reported on this exact auction from Monday’s game earlier this week where one table arrived in a hopeless 4♠ and the other table played a cold 3NT.  Here, 3NT is far from cold.  And we don’t have a diamond opening bid to dissuade a diamond opening lead if we are in 3NT.  Still, my 4♠ bid was poor and my contract was hopeless as the cards lie.

Here we go again with another ‘light’ opener.  Jerry Helms talks about the rule of 22 – quite similar to the rule of 20, except you add quick tricks to high card points and the length of your 2 longest suits.  Using that rule, I have an easy opener!  3 quick tricks plus 11 HCP plus 8 cards in my 2 longest suits equals 22.  So, I opened the hand and soon we were in 3NT.  Of course, with the spade finesse on, I can use my powerful diamonds to ruff spades and still draw trump later in the hand, allowing 12 tricks in a diamond slam.  We did not explore the diamond slam.  And, with 6 top diamonds and 3 aces, I simply took my 9 tricks, no spade finesse to risk going down in a cold contract.

At the other table, our opponents, holding our cards, did not open the North hand and soon found themselves playing a partscore in diamonds.  Should North make a stronger move after passing as dealer?  If so, what?  Should South bid on after partner’s raise to 3♦?  It turns out on this hand they should.  They found their 12 tricks playing their diamond partscore, so our teammates were -170 to go with our +600 to win 10 IMPs.  Very little going on here in the way of leads, play and defense – it all came down to bidding judgment…and the points that N-S held were the right kind of points (aces with running diamonds) to gather in their tricks.

What about my 1NT rebid with zero stoppers in both unbid suits?  I think the modern style, when you have a balanced hand out of range for a strong 1NT opening bid, is to strain to rebid 1NT to show a weak balanced hand and let partner take care of the stoppers if needed.  It doesn’t always work, but I think it is the way most players are bidding these days.

Kudos to the opening lead of the ♥Q.  Leading 3 card suits, especially with the nice texture of this one, targets hitting partner’s 5 card suit (he did!).  If East leads one of their 4 card black suits, declarer is able to take the spade finesse for the extra trick without worry.  But, on the heart lead, a losing spade finesse could be fatal so it won’t be taken.  Not that it mattered in IMPs, but I still thought it was worth noting.

Well, I considered omitting this hand from the blog.  Wow, what a hand!.  My partner judged to start with a weak 2♥ bid and I had to find a way to respond to that opening bid.  I have a great hand and certainly could have started with a forcing 3♦ which would almost certainly hear a 3♥ rebid from partner.  Then I could offer spades and, on this hand, we would have arrived in 4♠ and still lost a bushel of IMPs.  But, I thought the chance of a 2♥-3♦-3♥-3♠-4♠ auction was sufficiently low that I decided to just blast 3NT and see if I could find a way to score 9 tricks.  Partner could hold the ♦K, making 9 tricks trivial in 3NT…wishful thinking.  3NT was not a good choice as it turned out.  I won the club lead in dummy with the ♣Q and took a diamond finesse, losing to the ♦K.  It seems unlikely that declarer holds the ♥A and is messing around with diamonds, but I suppose it is possible.  At this point a heart lead and club return would have scored 6 tricks for the defense.  Anyway, North continued with a spade.  As I cashed my four spade winners, North had to find 3 discards.  They knew to keep all of their diamonds and hated to part with potential club winners, so they ended up throwing all of their hearts!  So, when I played ♦A, ♦J and another diamond, they were able to win the ♦10, but then had to lead clubs, allowing me to regain the lead, cash my remaining diamonds and score 10 tricks.  Had they kept 1 heart, the defense would still score their 6 tricks for down 2.

The other table had a rather different auction.  Fearing the danger of missing the spade suit, East passed rather than open with a weak 2♥.  After the jump shift in spades, their hand looked like a key card hand – completely solid hearts missing the ace, 2 singletons, long strong trump support.  So, they launched a key card auction and quickly arrived in 6♠ off two aces (as noted a 3014-1430 confusion).  With the ♥A over the solid heart suit and partner void, it was a simple matter of drawing trump and then ruffing out the ♥A to score 6+5+1+0, 12 tricks and -1430 for our teammates.  Paired with my +630, lose 13 IMPs.

Here is another hand that is all about bidding judgment.  Both tables started the same, but one player opted for a simple 2♥ rebid while the other blasted all the way to 4♥.  Using losing trick count (LTC), the 1♥ opening bid is looking at a routine 7 loser hand (the classic LTC for a minimum opening bid) and, therefore, this hand seems more like a minimum 2♥ rebid.  The jump to 4♥, I think, should show close to 20 points or a 5 loser hand.  The South player, thinking he had a few more tricks to offer partner than his simple 1♠ response had shown, raised to the 6♥ slam.  On the standard ♣Q lead, only 10 tricks are available to declarer, so we were +100 while our teammates were +420, win 11 IMPs.

The auction took extremely different routes at the two tables.  Playing ‘good 14-17 HCP’ that all of us play, many 8 point hands should quietly pass, or transfer and pass.  That is what the player holding my cards elected to do at the other table.  I had the extra problem of the (most likely) single suited minor to contend with (although South’s double could also have suggested both majors).  But, holding some help in both minors, I decided to transfer and then invite with 2NT.  My 8 HCP included a 5 card suit headed by the ace as well as a side king – usually those are more useful points than a bunch of isolated queens.  Partner held minimum high cards, but with stoppers in both minors and the heart suit 5 long and bolstered by the ♥109, partner accepted my invitation (and he is vulnerable, so strain to bid all games).

Against 3NT, South made the normal lead of the ♦10 (top of an interior sequence in their longest suit).  Double dummy, the only lead to hold declarer to 9 tricks is an unlikely (impossible) spade.  So, declarer, double dummy, has 10 tricks on the diamond lead and that is what he scored!  But, the play and defense wasn’t exactly double dummy.  To get 10 tricks, declarer must win the ♦J for one of his precious dummy entries so that he can start playing hearts.  Instead, he won the ♦K in hand (perhaps hoping to fool the opening leader about the location of the ♦Q?).  Now he needed to get to dummy to start attacking hearts and made a potentially fatal play of a club to the ♣K.  After a heart to the ♥ J won, he played a spade to the ♠A and led another heart.  North split their honors and the ♥A won followed by the ♥10 to the ♥K.  With no diamonds to lead, North must now play a black suit.  A club would have allowed South to cash 3 club tricks and the ♦A to set the contract, but North, with no entries, played a spade instead.  Now, on the play of the major suits, South, trying to defeat the hand, kept their clubs and pitched down to the singleton ♦A.  When declarer next played diamonds, South had to win and return a club, allowing declarer to enjoy their second club trick and second diamond to go with four hearts and two spades – 10 tricks in all.

At the other table with no interference bidding, my hand opted to play a quiet 2♠.  The extreme spade split meant that the defense had 3 trump tricks as well as a trick in every other suit, so 2♠ was defeated 1 trick.  That gave our teammates +100 to go with our +630 to win 12 IMPs.

It may not be obvious, but the club suit on this deal is extremely complex.  Given where the ♣9 is located, and the ♣J, and the ♣8, amazing things happen.  The suit is semi-frozen, meaning the side that first leads the suit gives up a trick they would otherwise gain if they were not the first side to lead the suit.  It is ‘semi’ frozen since, the way the cards are distributed, declarer can actually safely break the suit (and keep it frozen) if they guess the layout of the cards.  Declarer can (and must) lead the ♣10 (or ♣Q) to start the suit.  That way, if South plays the ♣A on the ♣10, 2 tricks are there and problems are over.  If they play the ♣A on the ♣Q, South’s entry to their diamonds is gone and the club suit remains frozen – neither North nor South can lead clubs effectively.  If South ducks the ♣10, declarer can duck and win the trick.  And if South covers with the ♣J, declarer can win the ♣K in dummy and the ♣8x remaining in dummy still leaves the suit frozen – North cannot effectively lead the ♣9 or underlead the ♣9 to gain tricks for the defense as long as declarer reads the position accurately.  All of this (about how to play the club suit) is a bit double dummy, but still I found it interesting.  And, as it turns out, necessary (after failing to win trick 1 with the ♦J) to bring home the contract with double dummy declarer play against double dummy defense.

Here, the bidding was the same, the lead was the same, and it all came down to the play of the hand.  Double dummy, the only lead to defeat 3NT is a small spade (the shorter major, but a suit with more texture).  The heart suit, however, was 5 long and headed by the king, so that offered the most promise and that is what was led at both tables.  With the heart lead, declarer, hoping clubs will produce 3 tricks, is looking at 1+3+1+3 – one trick short.  Other than stripping a hand to throw them in to lead diamonds at the end, there is no real chance of the 9th trick except for the ♠10.  Not that the opponents are going to ever lead diamonds, but I next cashed the ♦A and then went after spades.  As the cards lie, double dummy, leading spades at that point is the only way to reach 9 tricks.  Upon winning the ♠A, South, as expected, continued hearts (if a spade had been led at that point, I can only make the hand if I rise with the ♠Q and go about getting my other tricks, eventually scoring the ♠10 at trick 12 and a long club at trick 13).  On the heart return, I finessed with the ♥J and North won the ♥K.  They can safely lead hearts, but since South can never regain the lead, declarer’s ♠10 is going to eventually score a trick.  North’s actual continuation after winning the ♥K was the ♣Q.  This gave me a different route to 9 tricks.  I won with the ♣A, cashed a heart (noting the 5-2 split), and led the ♣10!  This presented North with Hobson’s choice – he could win with the ♣J for the third and final defensive trick (since the ♣9 would provide an entry to dummy to run the diamonds), or he could duck, giving up his ‘sure’ club trick, but presenting me with a 4th club trick and the game going trick (1+3+1+4).

If, after winning the ♥K, North exits with a heart instead of the ♣Q, I cash my hearts, cash my clubs, and when I lead the third club, North wins the club and has a heart to cash (while I throw my losing spade), but at trick 11, North must lead away from ♠J9x into my ♠Q10 with a good club remaining on the side to reach 9 tricks and make the contract.

At the other table, declarer won the opening heart lead (presumably cashed the ♦A) and then led 3 rounds of clubs with North winning the ♣Q.  This got the 3rd club trick in the bag, but left the 2nd spade trick on the sidelines.  North exited with a small spade – very important.  After attacking one suit (hearts) and later shifting to a second suit (spades), the size of the shift is critical.  A high card says ‘I’m not interested in this suit, so if you/partner win a trick revert to my original suit.’  A low card says ‘I’m no longer interested in my original suit, if you/partner win a trick, return this suit.’  This is fundamental defensive carding that all players should adhere to.  So, upon winning the ♠A, a spade was returned and 9 tricks are no longer possible for declarer.  The defense scores 3+1+0+1.  So, +50 for our teammates and +400 for our 3NT making, win 10 IMPs.

As a side note, 6♦ by West (impossible for West to play diamonds unless you play transfer preempts) is cold, but 6♦ by East goes down on a heart lead.  Since partner’s preempt suit is often not nearly as robust as this particular 3♦ bid, even pursuing 5♦ (vs. the 3NT chosen by me and the player with my cards at the other table) seems inferior.  What do you think?  Finding 9 tricks is often much easier than finding 11.

Many recurring themes were back again on this hand.  Fundamental is the 3NT vs. 4M – should you look for an 8 card major suit fit?  If you find one, should you play in the 10 trick major or 9 trick NT contract.  The other ‘theme’ is opening bids.  What do you “open” in 3rd seat Vul vs. not with the East hand?  “Light openings” would be an understatement to describe the modern style.  Few people, especially me, like to allow 4th seat a free rein to bid anything they want.  Whatever you open prevents them from opening the bidding (all they can do is overcall or double).  Your bid can inhibit (or help) their hand description.

At my table, they chose a simple 1♦ opening bid.  The other table tried a 2♦ opening bid.  Here you have a weak suit 5 long with a decent 4 card major on the side.  The preempt prompted a 2NT overcall and responder didn’t bother with Stayman – simply raised to 3NT on their balanced 8 HCP.  

3NT is no piece of cake after the diamond lead.  If declarer has to lose 2 club tricks, the diamonds will be established and the defense will reach 5 tricks before declarer can find 9.  As you can see, the heart suit is good for 4 tricks, but declarer can’t see that (there are only 4 heart tricks if they take a deep finesse the first time they lead towards ♥AJ87).  In any case, the diamond lead was won with the ♦A and a club was led towards the ♣K.  When East rose with the ♣A, the play was over, declarer had 2+2+2+3 without risking the heart finesse.  Since East had the doubleton ♣A, it really didn’t matter what they played – if they played the ♣10, declarer was set with 3 club tricks by winning the ♣K and ducking the club continuation to let East’s ♣A catch air.

Meanwhile, I was trying to find 10 tricks in my 4♥ contract.  I won the ♦K with the ♦A, then won the ♥K and a heart to the ♥J.  Good news/bad news – the finesse for the ♥Q won, but I’m losing a heart, plus a diamond plus the ♣A, so I, too, need to find a doubleton ♣A.  But, when diamonds proved to be 5-3, I was seeing the only chance was a singleton ♣J or ♣10 with East (since West had opened, clearly they ‘had’ to have the ♣A – I wasn’t considering the fact that it was a 3rd seat opener).  If they had ♣Ax, they would have to be 5=1=5=2 and would have opened 1♠, so I hoped for 3=1=5=4.  East did have the ♣10, but they had the ♣A to go with it.  Down 1.  Double dummy, 11 tricks were there for the taking, but I could only find 9 of them.  Our -100 paired with teammates -600 to lose 12 IMPs.  Once diamonds are established and the clubs produced 3 tricks, a heart finesse (or deep finesse) could have produced overtricks at the risk of going down, so no heart finesse was taken in 3NT, just 9 tricks to make the 3NT.

Even though 3NT and 4♥ are both cold on this deal, double dummy, neither contract rates to be a great success, but both contracts are reasonable.  Simply looking at our hands (and what the ‘bidding’ told us?), I don’t know that I have a great preference for one contract over the other.  Both contracts succeed easily with ♥Qxx onside.  In the case of ♥Qxx onside, in NT, you have 2+4+2+1 and in hearts you have 2+5+2+1 (losing a diamond and 2 clubs).  In NT, it is best to try clubs first (which Mark did).  If you are able to find 3 tricks there, no need to risk the heart finesse (2+2+2+3).  Where as, in NT, if you try the heart finesse first and it loses (prior to testing clubs), the opponents will establish diamonds and still have the ♣A to then run diamonds and defeat 3NT.  If the ♥Qxx is onside, the 4 heart tricks will still be there later.  So, in 3NT, if clubs fail, fall back on hearts.  In hearts, if you have a heart loser, fall back on clubs.  Finding WHO has the ♣Ax is certainly key, so that you start clubs from the proper hand to produce 3 club tricks (or you could guess to lead a high club hoping to find AHxx opposite a singleton ♣J or ♣10).  

The reality is 3NT worked.  What do you think of partner’s takeout double rather than a 1NT overcall of 1♦?  Or what do you think of the 2NT overcall rather than a takeout double of 2♦?  I think it is very close and can’t argue either way.  With only a doubleton, you can’t hold up to isolate the suit when it splits 5-3.  But, if partner has ♦10xx, the power of the ♦J provides a double stopper.

What do you think of North’s raise to 2♥?  Many play that that simple raise shows 4 card support with ZERO extra values.  This is not a regular partner and I didn’t ask, I simply took him as making a game invitation, saying that if I was close to the 9-11 HCP that would have allowed me to jump to 2♥, then 4♥ should have play so I bid 4♥.  I was close (8 working points) and 4♥  did have play, just not the way I played it.  Plus, I never considered 3NT and neither did partner.

But, after the hand, East who had passed as dealer heard RHO double after his partner opened 1♦ in third seat.  He remarked that he almost bid 1♥.  Not only would we then arrive in 3NT, not 4♥, but we would also have a road map for the 4 tricks available in the heart suit and not need to find who had the doubleton ♣Ax!  Always keep in mind that bidding is a double edged sword.  When bidding, you can be helping partner/messing up the opponents, or you can be giving the opponents the clues they need to both find the right contract and find the right line of play.  Bridge is a bidders game, but silence can be incredibly effective sometimes as well.

This hand contained a comedy of errors, except it wasn’t really all that funny, especially for my side.  Declarer only has 8 tricks in a heart contract, but one side contracted for 9 tricks, the other 10.  I normally make my leads face down and wait for acknowledgement before turning it face up.  Here, I managed to turn a lead out of turn face up and South who should have been declaring put their dummy down while partner is trying to lead.  Partner is confused about what is going on.  Eventually, my ♥J lead was accepted and South became dummy.  Declarer ducked, of course, winning the ♥K with the ♥A.  They then led the ♠J, won by West with the ♠A.  At this point, partner has 4 diamonds to choose from (♦10832).  If they lead the ♦10 or ♦8, we get our 5 tricks, defeating 3♥.  But, when they led a small diamond, declarer isn’t forced to finesse the ♦Q, they can play the ♦6, forcing me to win the ♦7 and saving their ♦Q for later.  When I got out with a heart, they won the ♥Q, cashed their spades and exited with a heart to my ♥9.  Having no more major suit cards, I am now endplayed in the minors to provide declarer their 9th trick, either in diamonds or clubs.  But I can’t blame partner – keep your face down lead face down.  Even better, pay attention to the auction and know whose lead it is.  

Meanwhile, our teammates ventured a game contract in hearts, played by South.  The opening lead of the ♠A won the first trick followed by a diamond shift where the ♦Q lost to the ♦K.  The ♥J was covered by the ♥Q, ♥K and ♥A.  But the defense already had 2 tricks with 2 trump tricks and 2 club tricks yet to come, down 3.  So, we were -140 and our teammates -300 to lose 10 IMPs.

Recap Of 10/22/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

October 23rd, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

A lot of action today with 8 double digit swings, mostly bidding decisions with a couple of opening leads thrown in to make the bidding differences impactful.  One of the 8 hands was a slam swing caused by a key card mixup that I won’t bother reporting, so that leaves 7 hands in today’s blog…

An automatic 1♥ opening bid was followed by a weak jump 2♠ overcall at one table and a simple 1♠ overcall at the other table.  In both cases, the bidding was already to 4♠ when the auction returned to the opening bidder.  But, since my partner didn’t move over the 2♠ bid, I thought our chances of beating 4♠ were greater than something good happening by coming in vulnerable at the 5 level with my second suit.  So, defending 4♠, we got our two red aces, declarer took the spade finesse and made 11 tricks.

At the other table, the East hand had a routine heart raise after hearing the 1♠ overcall.  So here, the opening bidder has heard from partner and decided the opponents might be stealing (or, if they are making, perhaps there is a good save available).  As the play unfolded the defense (our teammates) managed their  3 black winners, 2 diamond winners and a trump trick, down 4 for +1100 vs. our -650 to win 10 IMPs.

What about passing 5♦?  Well, if you knew 100% that it was a serious offer to play diamonds vs. a lead director in case the opponents persist to 5♠, then perhaps the diamond fit would play better than hearts.  Not knowing that, East returned to the known heart fit.

This turned out to be a great hand for playing standard/somewhat natural ‘help suit’ game tries rather than some spiral structure (the ones that I am familiar with would clearly set hearts as trump – finding the spade fit is off the table).  At my second turn to bid, I asked partner if we were playing spiral and he replied ‘standard’.  That allowed me to bid 2♠ naturally and see what partner does.

It also is a great hand for ‘6 key card ask’ when 2 suits are supported, the kings of both suits count as aces, and the queens just take your bidding even higher.  So, if we were playing 6 key card ask, and if partner was on the same page and considered my ‘help suit’ as a suit and viewed his hand as holding 2 key cards and 2 queens, the reply to 4NT key card ask would be 5NT showing 2 ‘aces’ and both queens.  With that, the far superior 6♠ slam could be reached with 12 tricks as long as spades are not 5-0 (that is, 4-4 fits can often be superior to 6-4 fits because a ruff (here a club ruff) can turn 4 spade tricks into 5 tricks to go with the 6 heart winners and the ♣A.  But I was not with a regular partner and didn’t know a bid that would say ‘is all of your ‘stuff’ in ‘my suits?’ (other than bidding the 6 key card ask which I can’t really invent for our 1 time partnership at the table).  So, I stuck with my long suit and signed off in 4♥ after partner accepted my game try.  Obviously I was always going to game, so why bother with a game try unless I make a move towards slam if partner likes my game try?  I really can’t answer that!  I can only say that I wanted to bid 6♠ but feared there would be no play if partner’s values were in the minors instead of all values in the majors.

That is, if partner held a maximum with nice 4 card fits with both of my suits, which they promised when they raised to 3♠ and if they had help in both of my suits:

♠ Qxxx  ♥ Qxxx  ♦ AQx  ♣ KJ

I don’t even want to be at the 5 level if partner had this hand even though they do have one key card.

At the other table, the auction started the same and the player with my hand simply bid key card and reached the nearly 50% slam (the ♦A is onside or it is not).  When the ♦A proved to be lying over the ♦K instead of in front of the ♦K, 11 tricks were scored at both tables allowing +650 for us and +100 for our teammates for a random 13 IMP win.  The spade slam was much better than 80% with the only failures happening when trump are 5-0 or an opening lead is ruffed.

As I side note, with N-S non-vulnerable, you can see that, in a club contract, they only lose the 3 outstanding aces and score 10 tricks.  So, even a 7♣X contract will show a profit against any making vulnerable game.  Obviously, no need to bid 7♣ if the opponents are going down in 6♥.  Of course the spots in South’s club suit are pretty miserable, but partner’s fit makes the club contract worthwhile.  N-S did not enter the bidding at either table.

Here, the auction began the same for the first 3 bids, but our North opponent simply raised 2NT to 3NT and played it there.  After a heart lead, declarer cashed their 11 tricks and gave us the last 2 tricks.  Our teammate made a reasonable bid to show their second suit (expressing concern about hearts) and when opener came back with 3♦ North thought hearts were a problem for NT and showed their ♠Jx with a 3♠ bid.  South then, unfortunately, raised to the spade game.  The hearts proved to be a bigger problem in the spade contract since the opponents could draw two rounds of trumps and then start playing hearts to score 5 tricks (3 top spades and 2 heart winners) for -200 to go with our -660, lose 13 IMPs.

I think showing your hand by bidding the second suit makes a lot of sense.  But the result should still have been 11 tricks in a NT contract or a minor suit contract and not 8 tricks in a spade contract.

Once more the bidding centered around getting to an easy 3NT contract or a difficult (impossible) 4♠ contract.  But this time, the problem wasn’t the weak spade suit, the problem was finding 10 tricks.  The bidding started the same, and then East had to choose how to advance the positive response to Drury.  At our table, West made a game try in clubs and opener accepted, bidding the game in spades.  Our West teammate simply bid 2♠ as the followup to Drury, and opener, with a sound 14 HCP, continued with a well-judged 2NT game try.  With no ruffing values and strong spade fillers, West was happy to raise to 3NT.  The defense had no chance against 3NT and declarer ended up scoring 10 tricks for +630.  At my table, declarer has to lose 3 diamonds and a club, so we were +100 to win 12 IMPs.

For many years, I have found much success trying to make a 2♦ bid over a 1♣ opening bid whenever possible.  The opponents have easy ways to handle 1♣-1♦, but often 1♣-2♦ creates an awkward bid that doesn’t quite match the values/shape that is held.  It puts more pressure on the opponents and they often arrive in the wrong contract.  This hand was no exception – against best defense there is no play for 9 tricks in NT…except partner thought it best to lead his suit (spades) instead of my suit (diamonds).  Declarer has 7 (somewhat) top tricks – take the heart finesse and knock out the ♣A and they will see 1+3+1+2.  That leaves them 2 tricks short.  But, a spade lead gets them up to 8 tricks, and then by cashing all winners, West can be thrown in with a heart to make 1 more spade lead and all of a sudden, the 7 trick hand has become a 9 trick hand.  Perhaps I should have overcalled only 1♦?  Would partner then have led my suit?  We will never know.   But, he reasonably assumed that, since he could not provide any help in diamonds, that I couldn’t have strong enough diamonds and outside strength to make a fruitful defense out of a diamond lead.

Incredible, at the other table, my hand passed(!) rather than bid 1♦ or 2♦??  And, South, with 11 HCP  and a 5 card suit (seemingly a routine 2NT response to an opening bid of a minor) decided to bid only 1NT.  With no diamond bid to guide them, West led the routine spade.  Declarer won the ♠10 and led a small heart to the ♥Q which West won with the ♥K.  West  continued a club and declarer cashed their 2 clubs, 3 hearts, and ♦A and then played another diamond, hoping to endplay West to provide another spade lead into the ♠AQ.  Instead, East was ‘endplayed’ when they took the rest of the tricks, holding declarer to 7 tricks.  So, we were -600 while our teammates were +90, lose 11 IMPs.

Clearly on a diamond lead, declarer cannot reach 9 tricks on any reasonable defense (but on a diamond lead, declarer’s 5th round diamond ‘stopper’ (♦10xxxx) or some endplay will get them to 8 tricks eventually with best play/defense).  Should partner have led my diamond suit?  I have found the ‘sneak attack’ (some unbid suit) is the most effective lead (most of the time) when one side introduces a suit and the opponents, in spite of hearing that suit bid, continue to 3NT.  This is one of those exceptions when leading partner’s suit was right.  This is what makes bridge such a great game – familiar problems, recurring problems, always trying to find the best answer, but sometimes what worked last time doesn’t work this time.  This is not an advertisement for: “don’t lead partner’s suit” – I’m just saying that many NT contracts will fail when the opponents are well prepared for a lead in partner’s suit, but they are vulnerable in a side suit that you can successfully attack.  Obviously, this hand is an advertisement for: lead partner’s suit.  But that isn’t always best.

Here, both tables reached 4♥, but after our teammates (North) inserted an unusual 2NT showing both minors, South opted to ‘take out insurance’ and save in 5♣.  If the opening lead vs. 4♥ is a diamond, South can win, shift to a club through the ♣K and 4♥ will fail when 2 clubs and 2 diamonds are lost.  An opening spade lead finds the ♠J for declarer and a later club discard holds declarer’s losses to 3 tricks.  On an opening trump lead, Declarer’s play to partially draw trump, then finesse the ♠J, then finish drawing trump and discard a losing club on the ♠K  will allow 10 tricks for declarer.  This play is strictly double dummy without the unusual 2NT bid, but this line of play should be automatic if North has made an unusual NT bid to show 10 cards in the minors.  This shows how 2-suited bids can be a double edged sword – they can help you in the bidding, but they can help declarer in the play of the hand!

What about a diamond lead against 4♥?  Most have read or heard about David Bird’s strong admonition to not lead away from kings.  Much more often than not, it gives declarer an undeserved trick that they cannot score otherwise.  Here, leading away from the ♦K is the only way to defeat 4♥.  So, as noted in the commentary closing out the previous problem – sometimes a choice of leads that worked for a similar problem fails to work on the actual problem at hand.  I would like to play all of my bridge hands against someone who always leads away from their king – I would lose on this hand and on many hands, but in the long run, I feel I would come out far ahead.

Normally you don’t want to take a sacrifice, ensuring a minus score, when the opponents could be set (giving you a plus score), but, bottom line, our teammates taking the ‘phantom’ save worked perfectly – they didn’t have to worry about finding the successful diamond lead and merely surrendered 100 points when they were down 1 in 5♣X.  After my partner received the lead of the ♣A, 10 tricks were easy.  We were +620 vs. -100, win 11 IMPs.

This hand had different paths the bidding can and did take.  Show the minors or not?  Take the save or not?  And, if you are going to tell declarer how to play the hand (by showing 5-5 or better in the minors), you better find the diamond lead or else find the save in 5♣!

Boy did I feel confident bidding the grand.  Since I knew that partner knew he couldn’t count on me for all of the aces, he had to be void in diamonds (or have the ♦A, but that didn’t seem likely).  So, if partner has a diamond void, I felt ‘sure’ we had 13 tricks.  If we can get 12 tricks missing an ace, surely there are 13 with all of the aces.  As the cards lie, there was no play for 13 tricks.  The traditional trump was led at trick 1 and the defense claimed down 1 when they saw the dummy.  When ‘only’ a small slam was bid at the other table, our teammates were -980 to go with our -50, lose 14 IMPs.

What about my 4♦ bid?  I considered 3♥ but felt that letting partner in on the knowledge of ‘good spade fit’ early in the auction would be key, and I didn’t really have a source of tricks in hearts anyway.  My cue bid said nothing about diamonds, simply that my hand was too strong to merely raise to 4♠.  Thus, I was at least making some form of slam try via my 4♦ bid.  Partner accepted (should he?) and I thought I had too much to pass 6♠ (any sympathy out there?).  ‘They say’ never bid a grand unless you can count 13 tricks and this hand is one of the reasons for that ‘rule.’  Live and learn…slowly.

Recap Of 9/26/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

September 27th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Here we are again, 2 days later, playing again with a mostly different group (while watching the fascinating bridge in Orlando and reading the incredible research by Avon on Bridgewinners).  Six double digit swings today: 3 slams, a game, a wrong game and…a hand that will go unreported (no, I was not involved in the swing).  Three of the swings came the first round

The result was all in the bidding, but who got the favorable result depending on the location of the ♣K (if offside, a big swing goes the other way).  After the 1♠ overcall at my table followed by a rebid of 2♠, one might think the club finesse would be successful (what are they bidding/rebidding on?  Nothing but the ♠AJ long?).  At the other table, an immediate 3♠ overcall propelled them to slam when 3NT was raised invitationally to 4NT and the slam invite was accepted.  Note that North corrected the slam from 6♣ to 6NT where no surprise ruff could doom the slam.  On the other hand, had the ♣K been offside, 6NT is down 4 instead of down 1 in 6♣.  But, at 50 per trick, a small price to pay to insure no ruff.

North seems to have enough in reserve to try the same invitational raise to 4NT at my table, but 3NT was passed out.  Normally all jumps in NT show extras (there is no ‘fast arrival’ that declares ‘no slam interest’ implied after a jump in NT), so it seems that this jump (3NT over 2♠) should show extras.  Complicating the understanding of who holds extras is the fact that 2♣ wasn’t game forcing, and partner did reverse, albeit after a 2/1 in competition.  Many play that no extra values are shown by a reverse after 2/1 game force (I still think it shows some extra values, but many do not).  But with the intervening spade bid, I’m not sure all have discussed this particular case – how many extras are shown by the 2♥ reverse when 2♣ was not game forcing?  In any case, -490 vs. +990, win 11 IMPs.

Here, I almost overcalled 2NT, but fearful of hearing 4♥ I decided to simply overcall 3♣ and await developments.  What developed was 4♥ from partner!  I knew we were in trouble when North doubled.  On the diamond lead (and with the spade finesse and 3-3 clubs), declarer has 7 tricks in the side suits (2+-+2+3).  It seems like it might be possible to score 2 trump tricks even with those spots.  Indeed, double dummy shows 9 tricks are possible, but when the dust settled, we were down 2.  Very little IMP difference though, since we belonged in 3NT.  Double dummy, best defense allows 10 tricks in NT.  It helps with both minor suits splitting 3-3, but assuming that suits will break 3-3 is usually not a reliable source of tricks.  It is far from clear what the best defense is, or what the best offense is in the 3NT contract.  At the table against 3NT, the opening lead was partner’s suit.  The ♠10 won the first trick in dummy and, fearful of entry problems, declarer led a club to the ♣10!  I don’t know the rest of the play, but the result was 10 tricks, -630 for our teammates to go with our -500, lose 15 IMPs.  I think 3♥ is forcing over my 3♣.  Partner will find your way to 4♥ if that is the right destination, and if they correct to 3NT after bidding ‘only’ 3♥, live with it.

To balance or not to balance?  If this hand were given to a poll to a large enough audience, I’m sure there would be votes for pass, double and even 1NT.  I chose to balance with a double and soon, rather than defending a lowly 1♥ partscore, we were defending game and, instead of a bidding problem, it became an opening lead problem.  There are two actions in bridge that are so totally demoralizing that it is hard to overcome:

1. Doubling a hopeless contract only to have them run to a contract that is cold, or even worse, tell them how to play the contract that would never make, but because of your double they can now play double dummy and make it
2. Balancing a partscore contract into a making game contract

I’m currently reading a great book by Michael Lewis: The Undoing Project (aren’t all of his books great?) and it talks about decision making as well as ‘hindsight predictions’ (after you know what happens, you can go back and find all of the data that pointed to the fact that that was what was going to happen).  ‘Predicting’ things that have already happened is a pretty exact science.  So, as I write my blog, I make a serious attempt to not be a results commentator, but just assess what it seems like the right bridge answer is to the problem at hand.  Having said that…

It seems like hands that pass a 1-bid and then liven up later in the auction have been upgraded due to some helpful ruffing values (including in a newly found fit, but here the ‘fit’ remained the heart suit).  The upgrade can’t come from HCP, since they were staring at them when they chose to pass the first time.  If dummy has ruffing values, perhaps cutting them down with a trump lead is right?  Clearly this comment is based upon results and I apologize if it is off base, but I think I will use that ‘rule’ in the future if a trump lead makes any sense at all with the hand that I hold.  Here, a trump lead makes a 2-trick difference, win 9 IMPs vs. lose 10 IMPs.  Would you find a trump lead?  Should partner have found a trump lead?  Should I have not balanced?  How bad can it be to balance when the opponents hand you 9 IMPs… but instead they scored 10 IMPs.  As you see, 1♥ was passed out at the other table and, without a trump lead, declarer produced the same 10 tricks.  So we were -620 while teammates were +170, lose 10 IMPs.

If East had bounced to 2♠ over the redouble, might that have precluded getting to game?  We will never know.

Here dealer has a 3 loser hand which often means a 2♣ opener, but 5=6 in the minors is REALLY awkward starting with 2♣.  Therefore, both tables began with 1♣.  Like the last slam, once more the opponents intervened with a spade bid – a preempt at one table and a simple 1♠ overcall at the other.  This time the preempt resulted in the slam being missed, while the simple overcall produced a slam that was bid and made.  After a normal spade opening lead, with friendly trumps splitting 2-2, 13 tricks become available if diamonds behave.  But, the 4-1 diamond split forced a ruff to establish diamonds leaving no trump in dummy to take care of the losing spade at trick 13.  So, 12 tricks were scored at both tables, -620 vs. our teammates +1370, win 13 IMPs.

Should these cards be in slam?  If trump are 3-1, life is not good but there are chances.  If the long trump hand also holds exactly 3 diamonds, the spade loser can be discarded before the long trump can ruff in, so 12 tricks will score.  Or, if West has a singleton honor, the ♦K is in dummy for an entry for a restricted choice finesse if you want to go that route.  So it isn’t impossible to land 12 tricks even with trump 3-1, but then diamonds must behave.  Should the preempt have disrupted the slam auction?  Opener’s 3♦ rebid/reverse shows a very strong hand, since partner must return to the 4 level to support the first bid suit.  Still, by my calculations, this is less than a 50% slam, so not to worry about missing it.  Most bad trump splits will send the double digit IMPs to the defenders rather than the slam bidders.

One more slam to end the day.  A similar auction to start both tables.  One table said ‘I don’t like clubs’ and the auction quickly ended in 3NT.  But the other table judged ♣Kx was enough to say ‘likes clubs’ and when diamonds were bid to show a second suit, nothing can stop the NT bidder from proceeding to slam – their AKA in the majors will take care of side suit losers and their minor suit fillers should be enough to handle those suits.  Note that, whenever missing KJx(xx) and you hold A109(x) in one hand and Qx(xx) in the other, the percentage play is to lead the Q unless you have inside information about the lie of the cards.  Both tables did lead the ♦Q after trump were drawn and when it was covered by the ♦K, it was time to claim 12 tricks.  Yes, 25% of the time the ♦KJ(xxx) will be offside and you will lose 2 tricks (when you could have lost only 1 trick by leading to the ♦A and back to the ♦Q).  But a 75% slam is a mighty fine contract and both declarers played it correctly.

So, what does it take to ‘like clubs’?  My system notes with 4 different partners is specific: ♣Axx, ♣Kxx, ♣Qxx or ♣xxxx.  Should the answer to ‘like clubs?’ be up to the players judgment as each hand arises?  One hand should not prompt system changes, but I definitely want to discuss this issue with those 4 partners.  That is, is ♣Kx with 2 more side aces enough to respond ‘like clubs’?  It turns out the key to the slam was not the ♥K (wasted, useless) but the ♦109.  When partner bids 2♠ to transfer to clubs, there are basically 3 possible hand types (with a 2 suited minor hand being a fairly distant 4th possibility).

1. Weak, intending to play 3♣.  With this hand (♣Kx), bidding 3♣ has the advantage of the NT opener declaring the hand (often good, but not always best), but other than that, the final contract will always be 3♣ regardless.
2. Invitational to 3NT.  Holding 2 aces as well as ♣Kx, it seems that, if partner wants to invite 3NT, we likely want to accept that invitation.  Otherwise, he might sign off in 3♣ when 3NT is cold?
3. Invitational to 6♣.  Again, the ♣Kx with 2 outside aces is extremely ‘slam positive’ and when partner bids diamonds, your ♦Q87 are good cards.

Here, the winning call was ‘like clubs.’  If North had been 4=6 instead of 4=7, the ♥K comes very much into play  and saves the day.  But still the critical ♦109 is what makes the slam 75% rather than 50%.  If this hand were submitted to a poll of ‘4 suit transfer partnerships’ I feel certain there would be votes both ways (like and don’t like).  I’m not sure what the right long term answer is, but I am certain on this hand that ‘♣Kx’ qualified for ‘like clubs’!  The slam was safely bid in clubs (a spade lead will defeat 6NT), so our teammates were +1370 while we were -690, win 12 IMPs.

Recap Of 9/24/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

September 25th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

The trend, lately, has been a mix of leads, defense, declarer play and bidding all involved in determining the large swings and today was no exception.  There were 5 double digit swings.

I thought this was a tough opening lead problem given the auction at my table.  I pictured declarer holding 1=5=3=4 with a possible singleton ♠K.  I pictured that with 2=5=2=4, declarer would be too weak in diamonds to offer NT as  a place to play.  So, down went the ♠A as my opening lead, presenting declarer with his impossible 8th trick.  This was a hand for passive leads – choose to lead any heart, any club or even a diamond that is not the ♦10 and you will beat 2NT.  There are only 7 tricks unless the defense gives declarer the 8th trick.  I did.  With clubs being bid on my right, the only other lead I considered was the small diamond.  Sometimes, to avoid blockage with a 3 card holding, I will lead the middle card from H10x or H9x (hard for partner to read, but necessary to avoid blockage) but here, due to the ♦9 in dummy, if I had chosen the ♦10 for an opening lead would have been just as unsuccessful as my actual ♠A, providing declarer with their 8th trick (0+5+2+1).

Meanwhile, on a different auction, our teammates arrived in 3NT.  Here, South had not heard a club bid, so they ended up making the best opening lead of a small club.  Declarer beat the ♣10 with the ♣A at trick 1, crossed to the ♥K, and then took the finesse against the ♥Q.  As declarer cashed their 5 heart tricks, South needed to find 2 discards, choosing a spade and a club(!?).  Declarer then led a club to the ♣J, ♣Q and ♣K and back came a diamond.  Declarer won the ♦A, cashed the ♣9 (the 8th trick for declarer), whereupon South discarded a diamond.  Now declarer exited with the ♠K, allowing South to cash their ♠AQ and ♦K, but at trick 13, they had the ♠10 left to lead to dummy’s ♠J, making 3NT.  So we were -120 while our teammates were +600, win 10 amazing IMPs.

Here is what “Lead Captain” has to say about the choice of opening lead.  I don’t present this for vindication, just for your information.  And, the description I used for dummy/declarer is based on the auction at my table (arriving in 2NT), not the auction at the other table which arrived in 3NT without bidding clubs:

I’m not surprised, from a double dummy standpoint, that the ♠A is the best lead because, double dummy, I would always get the shift right.  At the table, not so much.  Here, the 2 top leads (♠A and ♦10) are the two leads the present declarer with their 8th trick.  As readers of the blog know, I continue to believe that Lead Captain (for specific hands) and David Bird’s books (for general principles) provide the best available information for leads.  But, the chosen lead won’t always be the best on a given deal.  As noted previously, the ♦10 must be considered (vs. the ♦5) due to potential suit blockage.  The ♦10 barely beats out the ♦5 using Lead Captain analysis, but it does come out ahead of the ♦5 and the second best lead.

Notice the bidding at the two tables was sort of similar, but not really.  At both tables, N-S competed to 4♥ but the path to get there was quite different.  At my table, 1♠X was only raised to 2♠.  Personally, with this East hand, I would jump 3♠ as they did at the other table, showing the 4 trump and preemptive values.  The singleton club with 4 trump proved quite valuable.  Over 2♠ I decided partner wanted to hear me bid and I sure wasn’t broke, so with modest values I decide to enter the auction with a bid of 3♥.  West continued with 3♠ and partner raised me to 4♥.  With maximal doubles, the 3♠ bid should simply be competitive, not a game try, but… East decided to venture on to 4♠ and North decided to make a penalty double.  My sterile distribution kept me from considering bidding 5♣ but, as you can see, with the doubleton ♥K in the slot, 5♣ will deliver 11 tricks for the vulnerable game bonus for N-S.  Should partner have offered 4♣ over 3♠ or tried 5♣ over 4♠?  Beats me. I doubt that I would have if I held the North hand, since a 4♣ bid discourages hearts and likely promises a much better club suit.  But 4♣ rather than 4♥ would likely have worked here, getting us to 5♣.

This hand is (sort of) another opening lead problem, but better defense can overcome the unfortunate start.  Often, when people are dealt any AK in a suit, leading a high card becomes a semi-automatic lead to start the defense.  Here, in the post mortem after the hand was over,we were thinking that the only leads that allow 4 tricks for the defense would be to start with a small club (impossible to find that play!) or a neutral spade lead (in fact, a neutral spade lead allows us to defeat the contract 2 tricks if partner (North) later tries to give me a diamond ruff).  By starting with a spade, South can gain the lead when a club is played (declarer must play clubs early in order to ruff his club losers in dummy prior to drawing trump).  When South wins declarer’s club lead, they can push a heart through the ♥Kx, allowing the defense to score 0+2+1+1 for down 1.  As the cards lie, the only lead that allows 10 tricks against 4♠ is a heart lead.  North did not try that!  But, once they started with a high club, the only entry to my hand was lost.  Still, the diamond suit provides additional opportunities for both the defense and declarer.  There are some obscure double dummy plays to beat it, but the easiest way is a traditional holdup play.  That is, resist the temptation to place your ♦A on the ♦Q.  Instead, simply duck 2 diamonds, win the 3rd round of diamonds, and then lead a club.  Declarer is left with 2 heart losers in the end, since the 4th diamond in dummy can’t be reached to discard the losing heart.

The actual play was ♣A led (I played the ♣Q, promising the ♣J), then a small club ruffed (I played the ♣J, thinking I was showing partner that my remaining count was an odd number (3 remaining) and showing him that I held ♣J10x at that point.  Is it possible those plays confused partner?  I was trying to help!  Declarer played a spade to hand to ruff their last club, then another spade to hand and one more to finish drawing trump (on the spade leads North pitched a diamond(?) and a heart, keeping his clubs).  Declarer played the ♦Q and North won the ♦A (duck is necessary to defeat the game).  North continued with clubs as declarer ruffed.  Now the ♦10 was led and ducked all around, then a diamond to the ♦9 and then the ♦K to pitch one heart loser.  So, in the end, the defense scored their 3 aces and declarer took the rest.

The defense is a bit double dummy to achieve down 2.  An initial small diamond or trump lead is the necessary start.  When partner wins their club, they lead a heart through.  If North’s opening lead is a small diamond (impossible with this holding), they now simply provide partner a diamond ruff to score 1+2+1+1.  If the opening lead was a more likely trump and South, after they win a club, leads the heart through declarer’s ♥Kx, North must not cash the setting tricks, but pursue a diamond ruff to achieve down 2 by underleading the ♦A.  This defense is possible, but only if North determines partner’s shape as 3=4=2=4.  After the small diamond continuation, if declarer draws trump, they can’t get all of their clubs ruffed.  If they don’t draw trump, South gets to score a diamond ruff.  Either way, 5 tricks for the defense, +500.  Instead, -790.

At the other table, our teammates put maximum pressure on N-S with the jump to 3♠ and when that was passed around to North, they repeated their takeout double.  South, reasonably, didn’t consider 4/5♣ but instead bid their 4 card heart suit and bought the contract.  The doubleton ♥Kx in the slot is great in the heart contract too, but not good enough to score 10 tricks.  In fact, even scoring 9 tricks is quite a challenge after two rounds of spades.  It turns out the actual defense was a high spade followed by a club shift.  Declarer won in hand, finessed the J and then cashed the A and 9.  When they tried to enter their hand with a club to draw the last trump, East could ruff and cash 2 spades for down 1.  The losing diamond goes on the last winning club in dummy.

After a start of 2 high spades, the only way for declarer to reach 9 tricks is to allow the opponents to win the first 2 spades and ruff the 3rd spade (so that now you no longer have spades, severing the defensive communication).  Now cross to the ♣Q, heart to the ♥J, then the ♥A.  But, North has no more hearts, so you can’t draw trump (and you can’t get to your hand to draw trump).  When you play a club, East ruffs and leads diamonds.  You must win West’s ♦Q with dummy’s ♦A and continue with the ♦J so that West can’t gain an entry and provide yet another club ruff for East (which is why declarer can’t ruff the high spade at trick 2).  Bottom line, our teammates scored 4 tricks, +100 to go with our -790 to lose 12 IMPs.

This hand had identical auctions and identical leads at both tables.  And, it is all over at trick 1.  Certainly the opening lead could have been from ♦10xx2 rather than ♦Kxx2, but I didn’t want to be in my hand – I need to get going on clubs.  So, at trick 1 I played the ♦J and, the way the cards lie, I can not be defeated.  At the other table, when the ♦9 was covered by the ♦10 at trick 1, the contract can no longer be made.  I was looking for 4+1+2+2, but to do that, I had to lose 3 club tricks and I wanted to start losing them to West (where he cannot successfully lead diamonds).  If I’m losing 3 clubs, I cannot lose 2 diamonds.

At trick 2 I ran the ♣7 losing to the ♣J (fearful that they might allow the ♣7 to win, I almost overtook the ♣7 with the ♣8 which would have left me with only 1 club trick!).  But, with the friendly singleton ♥Q coming down, I still could have managed 9 tricks if I timed it just right (4+2+2+1) even if I had overtaken the ♣7.  When West won the ♣J, no exit is effective.  They tried a spade which I won and continued clubs.  West won the ♣K and continued spades.  I won the spade in hand and forced out the ♣A.  When a diamond came through, I could win the ♦A and cash my 9 tricks.  Double dummy, no lead beats it, but it is necessary to win the ♦J at trick 1.  When the dust settled, our teammates achieved down 2, +100 to go with our +400, win 11 IMPs.

This hand was bid poorly at both tables (if I say so myself), but more poorly by me!  As I’ve said before, we allow table talk with unfamiliar partners, so I should have inquired about preempter’s key card (4♣ bid over any opening preempt with responses: 0, 1, 1+Q, 2, 2+Q).  I can still construct weak 2♦ bids that offer no play for slam, even if trump divide evenly and partner has “1+Q”.  But, I think, had I asked and found one ace plus the Q, I can pretty much count 11 top tricks.  Partner could have another Q or clubs are very likely to ruff good or possibly a spade ruff could bring the total to 12.  I have no problem with my partner’s weak 2♦, but I failed to see what bids I could make that would learn what I needed to know, so I just jumped to the terrible bid of 5♦.  My bad.  But at least neither table arrived in the challenging 3NT, but does manage to score 9 tricks on this lie of the cards.

The auction at the other table, annotated above, got to the right spot even if they were not exactly on the same wavelength.  I don’t know the details of the play, but I was told “played it safe for 6” since they were in slam.  Assuming a spade lead won and cross to the ♦A, as long as clubs aren’t 7-0, it seems pretty safe to ruff one low.  Then cross to the ♦K and ruff a club high.  Draw trump and claim, 13 tricks.  That is what my partner did for +440.  Our teammates were -920, so we ‘only’ lost 10 IMPs.

Actually, if clubs had been 7-0 or 6-1, the only way to 12 tricks was a spade ruff which risks going down when trump are 4-1.  So it seems that hoping for clubs no worse than 5-2 is the safest play to make 12 tricks and when clubs turn out to be 4-3, all 13 tricks are there.

I like to have a 6 card suit, or else a MUCH stronger 5 card suit to overcall vulnerable at the 2 level, so double seemed, to me, to be automatic at my first turn.  North decided to show their diamond suit (non-forcing after the double) and partner doubled.  I took that as ‘good diamonds, they cannot make 8 tricks in diamonds’ (he was right).  South, walking the dog, bid a gentle 2♠ and I couldn’t find a bid, so I passed.  Partner balanced with a double and there we were.  I agonized a long time before passing, but I pictured partner with weak clubs and hearts, strong spades and diamonds, possibly QJTxx Qx KQxx xx or the like.  If so, they cannot make their contract, and we have no suit to play at the 3 level.  So, I passed!  However, if this is precisely what partner held, 2NT should make.  Being wrong about 2♠ going down can be really costly, and it was.  Partner just thought he was showing convertible values with nothing to bid – suggesting that I bid or pass depending on my defense and he would be happy either way.  If dummy is short in spades, and partner is short in spades, declarer may have a lot of spades (he did). 

Basically partner made a DSI double, I have values, you have values, do something intelligent but it wasn’t very intelligent when I passed!.  Clearly I thought he had better defensive values against 2♠.  When we failed to goad South into bouncing to 4♠, we were destined to lose a lot on this hand in any case, since no 3 level contract makes.  But, I might have gotten a 3♠ bid out of South if I had bid something.  Anything!  If I chose 2NT, I’m looking at down 3 vulnerable on a likely spade lead, so that won’t gain many IMPs.  But, if I bid anything, it might prompt North to bid again.  Who bids ‘only’ 2♠ with an 8 card suit?  Nice bid Steve!

There was a different auction at the other table.  My West hand did overcall 2♥ rather than double.  When East took the overcall seriously and showed heart support with invitational values with the 2♠ cue bid, E-W had already gotten too high.  However, South saw his 8 card spade suit and bounced to the ill-fated game which was doubled.  There were the same 8 tricks in the spade contract at both tables, which meant our teammates were -300 and we were -470, lose 13 IMPs.

Recap Of 8/27/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

August 28th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Today there were only 4 boards that created double digit swings – the first one didn’t happen until board 19 and then they came in a flurry.  Leads, defense, declarer play and bidding all came into play.

This auction here at both tables, while not identical, established the same ‘known’ conditions.  That is, declarer held a strong notrump, dummy had game values, opening leader held both spades and clubs, and the partner of the opening leader didn’t have clubs.

At my table where I had supported spades, partner led his fourth best spade and declarer won the ♠K and led a diamond, hoping to bring in that suit.  When East showed out of diamonds, declarer knew that losing a diamond would result in the defense cashing 4 spades to defeat the contract.  Declarer hoped for some miracle to happen after cashing 1+2+2+2, but the rest of the tricks went to the defense, down 2, +100 for our side.

Our teammate, declaring at the other table, received the opening lead of a heart (partner ‘bid’ hearts and had no chance to support spades).  Opening leader was trying to make sure that declarer could not enjoy their spade stopper by retaining all of their spades over declarer.  Double dummy, any heart or any spade opening lead will defeat 3NT, but that is not what happened.  Declarer won the ♥A, and lost the ♦Q.  West then led the ♠Q, covered by the ♠K and ♠A and East continued with hearts.  Declarer won the ♥K and, on the run of the diamonds, the East defender held onto his ♠J8 over declarer’s ♠9, but successful defense required throwing all of the low spades and holding onto the last heart (not the ♥J!).  In the 5 card ending, East needed to hold ♠J♥5♣QT7, not ♠J8♣QT7.  By holding onto all black cards, East was subjected to a black  suit end play.  From the bidding, declarer knew East held spades and clubs.  Declarer could lead 3 rounds of clubs forcing East to surrender trick 13 to the ♠9, or declarer could lead spades, forcing the defender to give a trick to the ♣J at the end.  So declarer could score 1+2+4+2 or 0+2+4+3 to reach 9 tricks.  By retaining a heart, East has an exit card to lead to partner’s heart winners, scoring 2+2+1+0 for the defense.  With the end play, declarer was able to reach 9 tricks, making 3NT for +400 to go with our +100, win 11 IMPs.

Bidding judgment determined the final contract.  Looking only at the East-West hands, 4♥ would appear to be far preferred (vs. 3NT), with 10 tricks easy as long as spades were 5-2 and hearts 3-2.  Our teammates were defending 4♥ and led their singleton spade, got their ruff when North continued with the suit preference ♠3, so South ruffed, returned a club to partner’s ♣A and received a second spade ruff to take the first 4 tricks.  Declarer had the rest, but that was down 1, +50.  In spite of having a potential natural trump trick (via ♥Qxx), the old rule ‘if you have a singleton, lead it’ worked well here.

I liked the texture of my heart suit enough to jump to 3♥ over partner’s balancing double.  But, perhaps unwisely, decided to just sit when partner bid 3NT.  The defense can defeat 3NT leading any card (but the ♥2), but that isn’t what happened.  The opening spade lead was won by the ♠K and declarer decided to try the ♣K which was won by North with the ♣A.  North then cashed the ♠A (error) and the contract could no longer be defeated assuming best play by declarer.  After cashing the ♠A, North shifted (too late) to ♦5.  Declarer ducked that and ducked the diamond return to the ♦J, rectifying the count (now the defense has 4 tricks).  At this point, declarer only has 7 top tricks (2+2+1+2).  But there is no continuation by North that is effective.  South is caught in a 3 suit progressive squeeze that produces 2 additional tricks!  At the table, North continued with the ♥J.  On the ♠A, South was able to throw an idle diamond.  But, after that, South’s 3rd heart, 4th diamond and 4th club are all critical to protecting those suits.  West won the ♥K in hand and played the ♠9 to the ♠J in dummy.  South’s discard (they threw a diamond) allowed that suit to be established.  And after running clubs and diamonds, in the 2 card ending, dummy has ♥A10 and declarer has ♥4♣8.  If South keeps both of their hearts, declarer’s ♣8 is good.  If South keeps the ♣10, dummy’s hearts are good.

After winning the ♣A at trick 2, only a diamond continuation by North can defeat the contract.  After, say, 3 rounds of diamonds by the defense, West will win the ♦A on the third round and will likely continue with ♠Q which North must duck!  Ducking the spade establishes the spade suit and prevents declarer from rectifying the count.  It was the third round of spades that crushed South in the progressive squeeze.  But, if North ducks their ♠A, declarer cannot play 3 rounds of spades.

Tough hand.  So, my partner was able to bring in 9 tricks in 3NT for +400 to go with our teammates +50, win 10 IMPs.

At the other table, the combination of fast arrival plus partner bidding the suit of their void prompted West to give up on slam and simply play game.  The same 12 tricks produced -680 with our -200 (we were doubled), lose 13 IMPs.

Since a club will almost certainly be led against a heart slam, West has to worry about the defense establishing a club trick before it can be discarded.  Partner did bid 2/1 game force.  They could hold ♦AK to take care of both club losers.  Or the ♣K.  Or the ♦AQJ and a ruffing finesse.  Still, it wasn’t clear from the bidding that the small slam would be cold.  Small slam still seems sufficiently promising to give it a try.

Here, playing weak two bids, the dealer (West) has an automatic 2♦ bid.  North must formulate a plan.  One player offered a double (without perfect shape/support for all suits) and another just bid their longest suit.  East, at both tables, bounced preemptively to 4♦ and South had to figure out what to do.  With excellent support (but modest values) for both unbid suits (after the spade bid), South might try a responsive double (showing hearts and clubs)?  But, the responsive double after partner doubled won’t work – that implies some spade tolerance.  Should South focus on his major (hearts) or his long suit (clubs)?

At the table where North doubled, South tried bidding their longest suit.  The 11 tricks required for 5♣ came up short when two aces and a trump trick had to be lost.  At my table, South passed 4♦ around to North who reopened with 4♥.  South was VERY happy with that, and that ended the bidding.

After my ♦A won trick 1, I had to find a continuation at trick 2.  This is a basic defensive position that occurs extremely frequently.  That is, dummy has a long threatening suit (clubs), so it is time to attack potential late entries (diamond ruffs)…NOW!  Clearly, the best continuation at trick 2 was a diamond.  Instead, I lamely tried a club (after which 11 tricks are cold).  Declarer won the ♣A, led the ♥J which was ducked (making life even easier for declarer), then a small heart which I won with the ♥A.  Declarer ruffed the (belated) diamond return, cashed the ♣K, ruffed the clubs good with the ♥K, then a heart to the ♥Q to draw trump and run clubs.  In the end, they took the spade finesse (risking the contract!) to make 11 tricks.

There are always 10 tricks in hearts, even with the diamond continuation at trick 2, but it is much more difficult.  Declarer must ruff clubs good, as they did at my table.  They can even ‘guess wrong’ and ruff with the ♥9, allowing an overruff with the ♥10, but they must not ruff with the ♥6 (if they did, my hand can discard a diamond and declarer quickly loses control of the hand).  But, interesting (to me), if they do ruff with the ♥9 and my hand does not overruff, there is only one continuation to make the contract – that is to lead their ♥6 and finesse dummy’s ♥7, playing me for the ♥10 that I did not overruff with!  Any other line of play leads to defeat with best defense.

Essentially all successful lines of play (after the best defense of a diamond continuation at trick 2) rely upon my hand (East) holding the ♥10 and partner (West) holding the ♠K.  We did hold those cards, so the game can always make.  But, the job of the defense is to make declarer’s life tough, and I failed miserably on this hand when I did not lead diamonds at trick 2.

So, with 5♣ down 1, our teammates were -50 to go with our -450, lose 11 IMPs.

The big hands of the day involved lots of defensive issues with some bidding, leads and declarer play thrown into the mix.

Recap Of 8/8/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

August 10th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Seven double digit swings today including an unusual number of slams.  In addition to 3 boards where an excellent slam was bid at both tables for a push, 5 more boards had slam bid at only one table with huge IMP swings in the balance depending upon the success of that slam.  The other 2 boards were games that were bid/not bid causing the swings.  So, you could say bidding decisions created all of the swings.  But, in fact, opening leads, defense and declarer play played significant roles in deciding which way the swing would go.

Based on the lie of the cards, this hand ended up all about bidding, since no defense can defeat the 4♠ game once trump broke 2-2.  At one table, North offered a ‘mini-splinter’ raise of spades and South decided to pursue the game despite modest values.  A full game splinter bid would be 4♦ and, had West passed, 2♦ would have been a natural forcing reverse, so 3♦ must be shortness, strongly invitational, but less than game force.   Had the ♣A been onside, declarer could have withstood a trump loser with a 3-1 trump split, but after the opening ♣J lead, there were 2 club losers and a certain heart loser.  This meant trump had to be 2-2.  Trump were 2-2, so declarer was able to win 7 spade tricks (with 2 diamond ruffs in dummy) along with the red aces and a second trick in hearts to provide their 10 tricks and fulfill their contract.

When game was bid at the other table, East noticed that he provided no help in the red suits that partner held, so he decided the best chance to defeat 4♠ would come from an opening club lead, allowing him to choose which red suit to shift to (or continue clubs) after winning the first trick and looking at dummy.  So, he made a Lightner double of the final contract.   Theodore A. Lightner of New York City, New York,  was born in the year 1893 and was an early pioneer of bridge theory.  He figured out that if you ‘knew’ that the contract would be made by a normal lead, it cost little to double if you had a reason to believe that directing partner to make a different lead might present declarer with problems.  Often the bid is made with a void (but partner doesn’t know you have a void so they won’t be leading the suit unless you double).  Here the double was made holding ♣AQ expecting to find the ♣K in dummy.  Any unexpected double of a freely bid game or slam contract is considered a Lightner double and asks for an unusual lead, often dummy’s first suit.

Result, we were -170 but our teammates were +790, win 12 IMPs.

Here is the first of the 5 hands where slam was bid at one table and not the other.  In my opinion, this slam is close – during the bidding we were both kicking around the idea of slam, but I just thought the tricks weren’t there, so we settled in game (no 5 card suit of my own, no help for partner’s heart suit, only 8 trump between us).  The bidding took a different turn at the other table resulting in the 6♠ contract.  Our bidding (which indicated two shapely hands in a 4-4 spade fit) suggested a trump lead to cut down on ruffs.  West did lead a trump and East did well by saving their ♠10 for a potential overruff in diamonds, should the play develop that way.  So, I won the ♠8 at trick 1 and decided to knock out the ♣A at trick 2.  West won and returned their ♠10 to continue cutting down the cross ruff. At this point, scoring my trumps separately via ruffs, a successful heart finesse would bring me to 12 tricks (6+2+2+2) assuming both the ♣QJ cash and that I can figure out which loser to throw on the ♥A and which loser to ruff low (since the last trump was held by West, I couldn’t go wrong), but a losing heart finesse could cut me back to 10 tricks if they could win with the ♥K and return a trump (5+1+2+2).  So, I just went for 11 tricks (6+1+2+2) and did not pursue the heart finesse, since I was only in game.  But, given the two rounds of trump leads by the defense, the heart finesse is the only route for me to score 12 tricks.

Playing 6♠ at the other table, 12 tricks were a requirement (with one sure loser).  How is declarer supposed to find 12 tricks?  Assuming no singleton in the minors (risking an early ruff), declarer has no reasonable way to get an extra trick out of their 4-4 minor suits (yes, a tripleton ♦QJ10 would promote the ♦9 after a ruff, or a doubleton ♣A onside (small to the ♣K, duck coming back).  So, after an opening trump lead and ignoring these extreme outlier cases, there are exactly 2 tricks in each minor and 1 in hearts.  That means declarer must obtain 7 trump tricks via a nearly full cross ruff (ruffing 2 diamonds and 1 club in dummy), or else 6 trump tricks and a heart finesse.  But, at the table that bid the slam, the opening lead was the ♣10, and East went up with the ♣A, presenting declarer with 3 club tricks.  Now the route to 12 tricks looks greatly simplified.  6+1+2+3 will see you home.  There are no clubs that need to be ruffed in dummy.  Assume trump are 3-2, assume diamonds are 4-3.  Ruff one diamond low, ruff one diamond with the ♠Q and you reach your 12 tricks.  That was declarer’s plan, so declarer was disappointed when the first diamond ruff was overruffed by East’s ♠10.

Transportation is amazingly problematic on this hand, in spite of numerous winners in both dummy and declarer’s hands.  If declarer draws two rounds of trump (a precaution to reduce chances of an overruff if East happened to have only 2 diamonds and only 2 trumps), he can safely ruff the first diamond low.  But then a heart ruff is the only way back to hand for the second diamond ruff, and then there is no way back to hand to draw trump and enjoy the established clubs.  Still, I think declarer took, by far, the better percentage play for the 12th trick (vs. heart finesse) once he was presented with a gift of an extra club trick.

Should East rise with the ♣A at trick 1?  Obviously not, on this hand.  But what if declarer held AQJxx in diamonds and the club loser went away on a high diamond.  A trick is a trick and it only takes two to defeat the small slam.  Making sure the ♣A is one of the defensive tricks is a high priority.  But, is it really possible that declarer has a hand like that?  After the bidding at my table, the defense should know that I am 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=4=5.  But, after the bidding at this table where clubs were never mentioned, declarer could have long strong diamonds, allowing them to discard dummy’s club.  However, if that is the case, I don’t think any defense is going to defeat 6♠.  So, I think best defense is to not play the ♣A at trick 1, saving the ♣A for dummy’s ♣K.  What does declarer do for 12 tricks if East withholds the ♣A at trick 1?   They can try to cash 2 winners in each minor suit and ruff 3 minor suit losers in dummy (will not be a success on this lie of the cards) or ruff 2 minor suit losers and take a heart finesse to discard the other loser.  Missing both the ♠10 and ♠9 of trump makes it quite challenging to choose the best line, avoiding overruffs at each step of the way.

Back to the actual play after the ♣A won the first trick and the ♣K won trick 2…What other options does declarer have (besides a heart finesse or ruffing two diamonds)?  Trying to ruff hearts good (playing for Kxx in either hand) will fail because there isn’t transportation to do that and still draw trump.  What about a squeeze after drawing trump?  You would have 11 tricks and have threats in both hearts and diamonds, but again, transportation is a problem.  So, you could draw only 2 rounds of trump, then ruff a diamond high, return to hand using the last trump in dummy, then play winning black cards coming down to ♦9 and ♥8.  If the long diamond and ♥K are in the same defensive hand, that hand will be squeezed and either the ♦9 is good or the hearts in dummy are good.  As the cards lie, this squeeze play also works, but I think it is hardly the indicated line of play.  There is no guide from the defensive bidding or play to suggest that this would be successful.  So, it seems to me the simple straight forward plan to ruff one diamond low and one diamond high is clearly the best percentage play, but unsuccessful as the cards lie.

In any case, the defense scored two tricks when the diamond overruff gathered in the second trick, so our teammates were +50 to go with our +450, win 11 IMPs.

After both tables started with a Drury auction, one table bounced to game while the other settled quietly in 2♠.  With 3 nearly certain club losers plus the ♦A, it was best to not be in game…unless the opponents let you make it!  Both tables had the opening lead of the ♥10, won in dummy followed by a trump finesse.  Not knowing that the ♠K was doubleton (not that it mattered or changed things), both declarer’s won the trump finesse and led diamonds to the ♦K and ♦A.  At my table, after winning the ♦A, partner played the ♣K and then ♣10.  I overtook with the ♣J and led back a small club for partner to ruff and declarer claimed, -140.  

North, at the other table, after winning the ♦A, returned a heart (presumably hoping partner can ruff).  That assumes that declarer held the ♣A and 4 hearts.  There are two problems with that assumption.  One – declarer would likely have checked on a possible 4-4 heart fit via a 2♥ rebid rather than bouncing to 4♠.  The other problem: if declarer does have the ♣A, 4 tricks are not possible for the defense, even with a heart ruff.  Declarer will have 5+3+1+1 even if a heart winner is ruffed away.  If, on the other hand, North assumes that partner (South) holds the ♣A, continuing with the ♣K offers significant chances for defeating the contract.  Either the defense scores 2 clubs and a ruff, or 2 clubs and a trump promotion (when the ♠K is overruffed with the ♠A, it is possible that that will promote partner’s remaining ♠10x to a trick.  When North continued with a heart, declarer won in dummy, drew trump and then led a diamond to the ♦10, allowing a losing club to be discarded on the remaining high diamond.  Game bid and made, +620 for our  teammates to go with our -140, win 10 IMPs.

What about the Drury auction?  Assuming you are not playing a big club, nearly everyone will pass with the West as dealer.  All will open 1♠ and it is time for Drury showing invitational values with 3+ card trump support.  I think the choice to bounce to game comes from full membership in the club: ‘never take back a red +170’.  By bidding game, you are assured of not producing +170!  Any time you hold Qxx in a suit, that Q is not pulling full weight unless partner has some help there or you are lucky enough to have the AK on the right.  Also, 5-3-3-2 hands are only 1 card removed from the death holding of 4-3-3-3 (which is what West actually held on this hand).  Balanced hands need more HCP to produce games.

Both tables started with an opening 2NT and the focus shifted to North.  My partner simply raised to 3NT ending the auction.  At the other table, with the strong 5 card diamond suit and all prime values, North decided the hand was worth an invitational 4NT.  Their partner accepted by offering 6♠ as a contract, but that was corrected to 6NT.  This needs diamonds to be 3-2 or else diamonds 4-1 with a singleton honor in East to pick up the diamond suit for 5 winners.  To reach 12 tricks, declarer also needs the ♠A in the East hand, or else the ♠J10 in the East hand (likely doubleton, since a first round successful finesse of the ♠9 would involve suspected cheating!).  When the spade suit lay poorly for declarer, our teammates ended defeating the slam down 2, +200 while we played a quiet 3NT, scoring +660 to win 13 IMPs.

Does North have the values to invite?  It is close.  One player thought yes, the other no.

Bidding at both tables was quite short.  Here again, it was the response to the opening bid the propelled the partnership into slam.  What is the ‘right’ response to 1♦?  Either you decide the hand evaluates to an invitational diamond raise and bid 2♦ or you don’t (and bid 1NT).  Both bids are flawed.  After 1NT, the opponents are going to lead a major suit, and you are ill-prepared for either major, but perhaps partner has you covered.  If you raise diamonds, you are usually promising 5 card support or else a bit better hand.  Still 5 card suits headed by the AK can often produce a lot of tricks (opposite a singleton or doubleton, 1 or 2 ruffs might produce an extra trick.  Opposite club length, perhaps the whole suit can run?  As you can see, the more passive 1NT resulted in 11 tricks for +660 while the play in 6♦ had 12 sure tricks as long as trumps were not 4-0 (1+3+6+2).  Assuming no singleton heart, after drawing only 2 rounds of trump, declarer played 3 rounds of hearts pitching dummy’s last spade and then cross ruffed the hand to score all 13 tricks.  In IMPs, this line of play was risking -100 to score a useless extra 20 points, but the chance of a singleton heart was quite small.  So we were -1390 to go with our teammates +660, lose 12 IMPs.

Preempts were invented to keep the opponents guessing.  The mild bump to 3♠ left little difficulty for the opponents, while the bigger bump to 4♠ left me guessing at a higher level.  I felt I had a nice hand, but my bidding showed a nice hand.  I clearly didn’t have sufficient values to unilaterally bid slam.  Partner really needed some perfect cards in a maximum double for 12 tricks to be assured.  So, blame me, my fault, no one else to blame.  But, something happened on the way to the bank.  West made an opening (spade) lead out of turn, allowing the North declarer to forbid an opening spade lead.  Now the slam is cold if declarer could work out the necessary conditions for success.  The diamond spots are quite poor in dummy, creating a substantial problem.  The opponents will lead spades whenever they get in, tapping dummy.  Declarer must establish diamonds to pitch their losing spade.  So, I think to score 12 tricks, the ♦A must remain in dummy when you lose a diamond trick.  The only way that can happen is to lead diamonds off dummy.  There is no way to lead diamonds from your hand that will force out the ♦K, leaving the ♦Q high and the ♦A as a late entry to the established diamonds.  Try it (with any lie of the defensive diamonds).

So, what can you do?  If you determine diamonds MUST be led from dummy (preserving the ♦A as a later entry to the established diamonds), and you must dislodge the ♦K when you do lead diamonds, and you must have the singleton spade discarded from dummy prior to losing the diamond, I think there is only one choice. 

Dummy has plentiful tricks, plentiful entries, but not after drawing 3 rounds of trump and playing 4 rounds of hearts to discard the spade.  With that line of play, dummy is down to 2 entries – a spade ruff and the ♦A.  If the ♦A is gone prior to losing the diamond, the spade ruff that follows the losing diamond trick will leave you with possibly established diamonds in dummy that are inaccessible.

There is a winning play, but hard to find at the table.  Draw only 2 rounds of trump, then play 4 rounds of hearts pitching a spade, then draw the last trump ending in dummy, then lead a diamond off dummy.  If West holds the ♦K, he must play it.  Otherwise, you could win ♦Q, then ♦A, then another diamond, establishing the diamonds with the spade ruff as an entry.  But, if West doesn’t play the ♦K, you must assume he doesn’t have it and finesse the ♦10.  Now, hoping East doesn’t hold the ♦J, East must win the ♦K (otherwise, you, again, can play, ♦A and another diamond, establishing diamonds while retaining the spade ruff as an entry to the good diamonds.  You hope for East to be 4=4=2=3.

I think the key to the hand is realizing diamonds cannot be successfully led from hand to produce the necessary ending.  Leading diamonds from hand, no lie of the diamond suit can provide establishment as well as the necessary entry after they are established.  In actual play, declarer drew 3 rounds of trump, played 4 rounds of hearts discarding the spade, then led the ♦Q, covered with the ♦K and ♦A.  When a small diamond was led from dummy, the ♦J came up and a spade was led, tapping dummy.  Now a diamond to the ♦10 and all the diamonds are good, but they are in a dummy with no entry.  

Playing 5♣ at the other table, the defense cashed a spade and declarer navigated the diamond suit for one loser, scoring 11 tricks.  Our teammates were -400 to go with our -50, lose 10 IMPs.

The last slam of the day was lucky for me.  Both tables had identical bidding for the first 6 bids.  I felt partner’s choice of sequence showed very strong hearts (they were, but not THAT strong) and a desire to not play NT (actually he was OK with NT having strong values in every suit outside of hearts).  Anyway, for the 7th bid of the auction, my hand bid 3NT at the other table, ending the auction.  I raised hearts (likely suggesting a doubleton, which, if I held that, wouldn’t have made the heart slam quite so bad).  Partner checked on aces and bid the slam.  The 6♥ slam requires a doubleton or tripleton ♥10 as well as no spade lead.  If I (East) played 6NT, I am protected from a spade attack and the only requirement for 12 tricks is a doubleton or tripleton ♥10.  So, a poorly bid slam came home when North led from their club sequence rather than attacking spades, the unbid suit.  We scored +1430 against our teammates -690 to win 12 lucky IMPs.

So, all 7 swings were game/not game or slam/not slam, but leads, defense and declarer play was often the determining factor regarding which side obtained gains by bidding (or not bidding) higher.

Recap Of 7/18/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

July 20th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

Reporting on 7 double digit swings today – 5 caused by bidding decisions, 1 lead problem and 1 play problem.

The lower bound threshold for all bids seems to be in a continuing downward slide.  Here, at one table, after the dealer passed, East opened 1♥ but at the other table, East opened 2♣.  The result – a slam that, barring a ruff on the opening lead (followed by cashing the ♣A), needs nothing more than the ♦K and ♠K onside (or 3-3 diamonds to pitch a black loser after winning the diamond finesse).  It is possible that a favorable opening lead could improve the odds of the slam?  There is one more chance (but not exactly another arrow in the quiver), instead of taking the spade finesse, lead up to the ♣K hoping the ♣A is onside (or lead to the ♣J hoping the ♣Q is onside) providing a discard for the spade loser.  So, a very poor slam needing 2 cards favorably placed was reached with the result: win 11/lose 11 based on the location of the kings.

In my mind, this was all decided on the opening bid.  I don’t see how West, opposite a real 2♣ opening bid, can fail to proceed towards slam.  In fact, West at the other table might consider moving onward towards slam, since they have a good 3 card limit raise and partner blasted to game opposite a nebulous forcing 1NT.  However, if East-West could look at all of their cards, there is no reason they would want to get to slam.  But 22 IMPs hung in the balance (win 11 vs. lose 11) based on the location of the ♦K and ♠K.  Since both kings were onside, the club loser could go on the 13th diamond and 13 tricks were made at both tables.  For me, -1010 vs. +510 for our teammates, lose 11 IMPs.

The first 7 calls were the same at both tables and the focus was on East.  With nearly half the deck in HCP, it seems East must chose something other than pass.  One table bid 4NT suggesting 2 places to play (likely both minors, but since spades was the suit initially doubled, hearts might still be one of the suits offered).  Partner replied 5♦ with their longest minor, but North wasn’t done.  North bid 5♥ which was doubled by East, corrected by South to 5♠ which was also doubled by East.  The powerful fit found by North-South had 11 easy tricks, just losing the 2 pointed aces.  So we were +650 for making 5♠X non-vulnerable.  Seemed like an OK result…

At the other table, faced with the same start to the auction, East chose to double.  In this situation, it is still largely a takeout double, so partner, with reasonable shape and no defense to offer vs. 4♠X pulled the double to 5♥.  North had no problem doubling that contract and, with East-West vulnerable, it was not a happy ending.  Our teammates were down 7 for -2000!  Lose 16 IMPs.

Double dummy analysis shows that, with best play/defense, 5♣ would be down 3, 5♦ would be down 2, and 5♥ would be down 5.  So, had declarer been ‘only’ down 5, he could have saved 3 IMPs.  The real problem goes back to the double of 4♠.  If West chose to pass, letting the opponents make a non-vulnerable doubled game with an overtrick, they would only lose 1 IMP (-690 vs. -650).  But, partner’s double suggests bidding.  With a likely useful ♣Q, ♦J, singleton spade and 5 trump, West bid onward to the ill fated 5♥.  So, I think the verdict (what caused the swing) falls to the 4NT call chosen at our table vs. the double chosen by our teammate.  After a 4NT call, if North chooses to double 5♦, they can collect +500 vs. +450, but with their 6-5 hand, North will certainly bid onward as they did at my table.  It would take a very meek East to not double 5♠, but 5 IMPs can be saved by avoiding the double of a making contract (assuming both tables arrive in 5♠, one doubled and one not).  With 2000 scored at the other table, the double of 5♠ only cost 1 IMP.  Like most swings, this hand was all about bidding decisions.

A pair of phantom saves brought a big swing on this hand.  The choice of opening bids seems (to me) to be a close call.  A 2♦ opening risks losing a potential heart fit (this would be an incredible dummy in a heart contract).  A 1♦ opening risks suggesting more overall strength.  As you see, one table tried 1♦ while the other tried 2♦.  After our teammates opened 2♦, North-South quickly reached 5♦ and then West made the peculiar decision to try for 12 tricks (to make? to save?) and bid 6♣!

At my table, after North opened 1♦ East overcalled 2♣ and South had a clear negative double.  I bounced to 5♣.  When that gets passed around to South, with their excellent diamond fit, it seems South must try for the vulnerable game bonus (+600 vs. taking the ‘sure plus’ defending 5♣X).  It turns out defending would have been better, since 10 tricks is the limit with the North-South hands.

When 5♦ failed by a trick (2 hearts and a spade for the defense), we were +100.  Meanwhile at the other table, in an attempt to ditch the losing diamond in 6♣, declarer won the ♠K opening lead with the ♠A and tried a heart finesse.  When that failed, the spade continuation provided a spade trick, a spade ruff, the ♥K and 2 aces, down 4, +800 for our teammates.  Added to our +100 produced 14 IMPs.

Several side notes to observe here.  The famous law of total tricks is off by 3, with 22 total trumps only providing 19 total tricks.  In addition, the best contracts are not in the longest fits.  The best contract for North-South is 4♥ where the same 10 tricks are possible (their 8 card fit instead of their 11 card fit, even though they are missing the AQJT9 of trump).  And, for East-West, their best contract is 4♠ where 9 tricks are possible (down 1) rather than 5♣ where 9 tricks are also possible (down 2).  Not surprisingly, neither spades nor hearts were ever mentioned in the auctions.

Here is the opening lead problem of the day.  After what I would consider a routine 1NT-3NT auction at both tables, West was faced with a classic problem. 

1. Lead a 4 card suit with 2 honors
2. Lead a 4 card suit with 1 honor
3. Lead a 4 card suit with no honor
4. Lead a singleton

Here, the old adage of a 4th from longest and strongest ♠4 lead would have sufficed for down 1.  A diamond lead and continuation would lead to down 2.  I’m baffled by what actually happened, which I will get to in a minute.  I ran Lead Captain to see what it would pick from the list above.  Lead Captain attempts, via software, to capture David Bird’s classic book on opening leads.  Assuming you have correctly defined what to expect in the hands of both declarer and dummy, you can run a simulation (with double dummy play) for the lead  of every possible card in the hand of the opening leader (note, if you hold cards in sequence, such as 765, from a double dummy perspective, the 765 all are equal so the program treats them as the same card and only simulates one of those cards, not all 3).

What would you lead?

Here are the results from Lead Captain.

I fully expected the ♥7 to come out as the lead most likely to succeed, and it did.  However, surprisingly (to me), there was not a great difference in any of the leads in terms of expected results.

Back to what happened at the tables.  In my mind, the clear ‘book lead’ (using the principles from David Bird’s book), was a major.  And, leading away from AQ suits can provide declarer undeserved tricks, so I picked the other major and started with the (fatal) ♥7 (2nd best from a weak 4 card suit).  Fortunately, partner was dealt the ♥8, so he is able to read that I have made a lead of 2nd best from nothing.  That is, using 4th best leads, if my ♥7 was 4th best, he can see all of the hearts except ♥QJT9.  For the ♥7 to 4th best, I must hold 3 of those 4 cards – which one do I not hold?  If not the ♥Q, I would lead ♥J from ♥JT9.  If not the ♥J, I would lead the ♥10 from ♥QT9.  If not the ♥10, I would lead the ♥Q from ♥QJ9.  And if not the ♥9, I would lead the ♥Q from ♥QJT.  Therefore, the ♥7 is not a 4th best lead, declarer holds great hearts and it is time to shift.  As the cards lie, the only shift to give declarer a problem is a diamond.  Declarer has a guess.  It might seem that the only card to play is the ♦K, since you can’t afford to have LHO win the ♦Q and then possibly lead to RHO’s ♦A and then perhaps still lose the ♠AQ.  But, by the same logic, you can’t afford to have the ♦K lose to the ♦A and then possibly lead to RHO’s ♦Q and then lose the ♠AQ.  Declarer has plenty of tricks as long as he can gain the lead (6 solid clubs and 3-4 hearts).  If he loses the lead, the defense might be able to score 2+1+2+0.  So, had a diamond shift occurred at trick 2, on a different lie of the cards the ♦J would be the winning play, but here, as the cards lie, declarer must fly with the ♦K to ensure the contract.  All of that was rambling about a defense that might have occurred, but didn’t.  In reality, at trick 2, partner returned the ♥8, declarer cashed their 10 tricks, and conceded two aces at the end.  We were -430.

What was the lead at the other table?  The ♠A!?!  That lead did not hit my radar, but it had the benefit of defeating the contract when spades were continued at trick 2, establishing 3 spade tricks plus 2 aces.  Playing leads of the ace vs. NT asks for attitude, what would you signal, as East, to the ♠A?  You do have spade length, but no strength.  I must confess that I would have discouraged, but then partner may have shifted to a fatal heart rather than a successful diamond.  If the opening lead was from ♠Ax or ♠AQx, you so not want a spade continuation, but from the actual ♠AQxx, the continuation was satisfactory for down 1, -50 for our teammates, lose 10 IMPs.  I can’t argue with success – my lead resulted in 10 tricks for declarer, while the ♠A achieved down 1.

Often an ace lead allows you to look at dummy to figure out what you should have led.  Often, you learn what you should not have led was the A!  Here, according to Lead Captain, hearts, diamonds and even the lowly singleton ♣10 were all deemed to be a better opening lead than a spade, but on this hand the club is ineffective and the spade was quite effective.  Why is the ♠A superior to 4th best?  Because you will retain the lead and might be able to figure out the best defense after seeing dummy as well as partner’s signal.

I considered opening 4♥ but feared that bid would just invoke the “transfer” to 4♠ (by the opponents) and then I wouldn’t know what to do (but partner would know what to do on this hand!).  So, I started slow and advanced to 4♥ after the 3♠ weak jump raise.  That showed both a pretty good hand and a very good suit.  Partner, not unreasonably, made a slam try with a 4♠ cue bid.  When I cue bid the ♣A, the exposure of our weakness in diamonds was complete, so the defense started with 3 rounds of diamonds sending our contract down 1.  At the other table, after East’s 4♥ opening bid, West, the partner, might consider going further, trying for slam.  Alas, our opponents at the other table passed it out in 4♥ and took their 10 tricks.  -620 for our teammates and -100 for us, lose 12 IMPs.  Clearly without a diamond ruff, we would have been safe in 5♥ and 12 tricks are possible without a diamond lead.  Was this result bad luck, or was my failure to open 4♥ simply bad bridge?

Another interesting (to me) note – had partner simply blasted to 6♥ we would not have provided the roadmap for the defense.  Obviously 3 rounds of diamonds could have still scored the same 3 tricks, but without the clue from the bidding, I doubt that that defense would have been found when defending against 6♥.  Not complaining, just observing.  Of course, I could have bounced to 6♥ over 4♠ and I think it would have been highly unlikely to find the ♦A lead.  Interesting that 5♥ cannot make but 6♥ likely does make!