February 28th, 2018 ~ bobmunson ~ No Comments 
Bidding choices basically decided the swings in today’s game, but there were some interesting play and defense opportunities as well that could have made a difference, both on the hands reported and some others not included. There were only 3 double digit swings, but I included one more hand (‘only’ 9 IMPs, but a funny result).
In standard bidding (where Jacoby and Texas transfers are both used), when a player has a 6+ long major suit and only has game aspirations, the transfer is done at the 4 level (Texas), signing off with pass after the 1NT opener completes the transfer into game). If a player does a Jacoby transfer and then bids game in that major, they show a suit 6+ long (since partner may only have 2), but the Jacoby sequence suggests to the 1NT opener that, should the NT bidder have a slam suitable hand, further bidding would be welcome. The ‘Jacoby then game’ sequence is considered ‘slam invitational’.
Also, in standard bidding, I try (and have asked my partners to try) to ‘never’ use a key card ask when they hold 2 quick losers in an unbid suit. Use control bidding instead.
At my table, partner used Texas to arrive in 4♠ quickly and easily. At the other table, East and West were not using the ‘standard bidding rules’ noted above and arrived in a rather unhappy 4NT contract. Perhaps West transferred while considering playing only 3♠ but then changed his mind and decided to bid game?
Unfortunately, even 4♠ is too high, since it can be beaten after the actual diamond opening lead (unless declarer takes a view in the heart suit). Fortunately, the defense allowed 10 tricks at my table. The foul trump split (and strength of the ♠9) allows the defense to score 2 clubs and 2 spades. After the ♦K was played at trick 1, I won the ♦A and reviewed the situation. It looks like I can score 5+2+2+? – I need 10 tricks. I have to deal with the problem in clubs – either promote the ♣Q to a trick, or ruff the third club, or take a heart finesse (to discard a club on a heart winner) or ruff out the ♥Q and then discard a club. The last option has transportation problems (unless 3 rounds of hearts is the first thing you do, which it should be) and doesn’t seem likely to succeed (but, in fact, leading 3 rounds of hearts is the only winning line, double dummy for this lie of the cards). There is no legitimate way to promote the ♣Q other than ♣AK onside. If the ♣J is with South, they should cover what I lead (whether I lead the ♣10 or ♣9) with the ♣J and when I play the ♣Q from dummy, North will win the ♣A, leaving a club loser for later, hopefully to be ruffed by declarer’s small spade. If the ♣J is with North, they will win the ♣J and the ♣AK will still be outstanding and I will need to ruff (or discard) the third club in dummy. I led the ♣9. Rather than cover with the ♣J (best) or duck (next best), South rose with the ♣K and not liking any other suit, continued with a small club. The ♣J (pinning my ♣10) would have been a better continuation and given me further problems). I ducked the club lead in dummy around to my ♣10 with North winning the ♣A (establishing my ♣Q and solving that problem). When North shifted to a heart, I won with the ♥A and started playing trump (seeing the bad trump break). North won the third round of trump (while South was pitching hearts) and continued hearts. When I won the ♥K, I had to chose a red suit to ruff (low) in dummy so that I could play my last high trump from dummy, allowing me to extract the outstanding ♠9 and claim the balance of the tricks (by this point, dummy was down to the established ♣Q and trump). Had I led a diamond, North could overruff with their ♠9, but when the ♥Q came down under the ♥K, I concluded North still had a heart remaining and ruffed my good heart in order to get to dummy, draw trump and score 10 tricks.
How might the defense have gone? Best (cover my ♣9 with the ♣J) leaves me very poorly placed. Double dummy, the hand can still be made, but I wouldn’t have. North wins the ♣A, leads their last diamond which I win. Now if I play another club (so that I can void myself in clubs and ruff the third club), South can win their preserved ♣K and play another diamond. This promotes the trump ♠9 into the setting trick. Playing the ♣K on the first club lead lost the defensive transportation to get the diamond ruff.
Finally, if the ♣J was played on the first club lead, I still have the losing club to worry about to possibly go down 2. Or take a heart finesse and go down 3? All in all, a very messy hand.
The only way to set the hand, double dummy, is to make an opening lead of the ♣K or ♣J. This is not happening – no one would make that lead. Once a diamond is led, the only way to make the hand (double dummy) is to play for South to hold the ♥Q and play hearts (early) from the top, ruffing out the ♥Q. Then take spade finesses leaving 1 trump outstanding, cash your good heart to throw away one club loser while they ruff with their last trump. You still have a club to lose, but you make it, losing 2 clubs and a trump.
If declarer plays trumps early, there are complications that cannot be overcome. The only entry to dummy is a red suit ruff (and that red suit better be hearts, because diamonds will be over ruffed).
After the diamond lead against 4NT at the other table, declarer won and played ♠AQ, North ducking. East doesn’t have a lot of options to score tricks, but South pitched hearts on the spades, so the ♥AK brought down the ♥Q bringing declarer to 8 tricks (2+4+2+0). The defense took the rest, down 2, +200 for our teammates to go with our lucky +620, win 13 IMPs.
There were quite a few missed opportunities on this hand. First, in the bidding, since we were not playing Flannery (where opening 2♦ shows 5+ hearts and 4 spades with less than reversing values), I opened 1♥ and passed partner’s semi-forcing 1NT. No rebid appealed and that was the best possible contract for the E-W hands. Double dummy, the only lead to beat 1NT is the ‘impossible’ ♦J. After the actual lead of the ♠6, declarer won in dummy and can reach 7+ tricks by attacking hearts or clubs. But, hoping to find 3-3 diamonds, declarer played the ♦K and the hand can no longer be made. When the ♦J fell under the ♦K, he continued with another diamond, hoping that the ♦J was an upside down count signal showing that diamonds were breaking 3-3. Instead, he established the diamond suit for the defense and, in the end, was only able to score 2+1+2+0 for 5 tricks, down 2, -100. Dummy was endplayed with a heart at trick 12, forced to lead from ♠K8 to the ♠A10.
Depending on how the defense goes, declarer can reach 8 or 9 tricks if the defense doesn’t get diamonds going soon enough. The rule of 11 shows that the ♠8 is a power card, once the ♠7 falls from the North hand at trick 1. With the ♣A onside and the ♥9 falling, 3+2+2+2 tricks are possible unless the defense gets their diamonds established early. Here, a bit unluckily, declarer established diamonds for them.
On this hand, the ‘par’ result is 2♣ by North. When holding a Flannery hand that is 4=5=2=2, but not having the option of a Flannery opening bid, West is stuck for a rebid after a forcing 1NT. Sometimes bidding a 2 card club suit is chosen. That would not work well here, since only 5 tricks are available to E-W playing in clubs. Sometimes rebidding a modest 5 card heart suit is chosen (and that is what West did at the other table). Sometimes stretching a reverse and bidding 2♠ is chosen, but that is nowhere near the values of this West hand. So, after the 1♥-1NT-2♥ auction was passed around to South, they looked at their 5 card heart suit (where they would collect down 2 with best defense) and decided they didn’t want to defend. It was time to introduce spades, so they balanced with 2♠. North, not happy with spades, pulled it to 2NT (intended as ‘pick a minor’). For some reason, rather than picking a minor, South persisted with 3♠ and West did not double to collect +1100. However, they did achieve the optimum double dummy defense for +400 to go with their teammates +100 and win 11 IMPs. Only 4 more IMPs were available had they doubled and gotten +1100. Sometimes large numbers produce large IMPs. Sometimes, the numbers start off so large, that making them even bigger only captures a few more IMPs. That is one of the funny things about the IMP scoring tables.
This hand didn’t create a double digit swing, but the (failure to make an) opening bid changed things in a remarkable way. Some have upgraded the ‘rule of 20’ to the ‘rule of 22’ saying that you need to add the length of your 2 longest suits plus high card points plus quick tricks. Here, using that math, East, as dealer, holds 22.5. Plus all of their HCP are in their long suits and the ♥10 is also a significant card. Few would pass – my partner opened 1♥ but at the other table, East did not open, South passed, and West opened 1♠. You can see how the auctions unfolded. At the other table, North overcalled 2♥ after the 1♠ opening bid. South’s singleton spade could be useful, but the ♠Q is unlikely to be worth any points and the trump are minuscule. So, with 4 working HCP and 3 small trump, South raised to 3♥ which was passed around to East and they doubled, ending the auction. Double dummy defense vs. 3♥ can achieve down 2 (only by starting with ♥A and another heart, cutting down spade ruffs in dummy). The actual defense was only able to score 5 tricks for down 1, +100. Chances are that East was hoping to hear a reopening double of 2♥ and sit for penalties. The result at the table points out the danger of making a reopening double with a void – here, if 2♥ had been passed around to West, they would need to either pass quietly, balance with 3♦ or double. If they double, the defense needs to be more accurate or they pay out a game bonus for 2♥X scoring 8 tricks.
Back to my table – I forced game and partner signed off in 5♦. After winning the opening ♠Q lead in dummy, declarer had to assess their plan. Had the ♦K been onside with a 2-2 trump split plus the ♣A onside, 12 tricks were there (3+1+7+1). But, that isn’t how it was. Partner started diamonds with the ♦J. This doesn’t cost a trick if diamonds are 4-0 in the North hand, but I can’t think of any lie of the cards where leading the ♦J actually gains a trick (the advantage of being able to pick up the diamond suit without loss is offset by the lost opportunity of ruffing tricks). Besides, the opening lead looks like someone who is looking for ruffing tricks, not someone who is void in trump. Here, with diamonds 4-0 in the South hand, starting with the ♦J cost a trick (South scored 3 trump tricks and North scores 2 clubs), so we were down 3, -300. Paired with our teammates -100, lose 9 IMPs.
Once partner opens (I would always open this hand 1♥), I don’t see how my hand can merely invite game. Had I raised 2♦ to 3♦, we would have played it there and might have gone plus. Yes, people are opening light these days, but big fits often produce lots of tricks. This one didn’t.
Would you open? Would you stay out of game?
After the 2♥ overcall by North, would you raise to 3♥ as South? If 2♥ is passed around to you as West, would you reopen with a double? As East, would you start with two rounds of hearts for the defense against a doubled heart contract?
Anyway, I thought there were so many variations on bidding, defense and declarer play that I included this hand even though it wasn’t ‘double digits’.
This last hand is reminiscent of some hands last month where the bidding was the same up until the last bid – one table stayed below slam, the other ventured forth with a slam bid. If, instead of worthless (as the cards lie) 6 HCP (♠QJ, ♣K), West had provided 3 useful HCP (♦K) or even 4 useful HCP (♣A), the slam would have produced 12 tricks. With the opponents bidding up to 4♠, East does have reason to hope that partner’s high cards are not in spades…but, alas, they were. As it was, both a club and diamond had to be lost, 11 tricks at both tables, +100 at my table and +650 for our teammates, win 13 (pretty random) IMPs.
Another way to look at it – if you took away all 8 HCP from the West hand but left the distribution the same, declarer still scores 11 tricks. Sometimes, when partner supports you at the 5 level, they can offer a trick in the play of the hand. I think the 5♥ call is clear. I think the final pass is reasonable, but I also think 6♥ is what I would bid with this hand. It didn’t work. What do you think?
February 16th, 2018 ~ bobmunson ~ 4 Comments
Sorry readers, but I’m not sure how much bridge edification is available in today’s post. I considered moving on to other hands, but decided to stick with my ‘standard’ of reporting on the double digit swings. There were 4 of these swings in the Valentine’s Day game, 3 determined by bidding, 1 by declarer play. See if you would make the winning decisions on these boards?
This first hand, dealer started with a preempt and 4th seat balanced with NT. But, as you see, a different level preempt, different level NT at the two tables. At the other table, bidding was simple and straight forward. At my table after the 3♥ opening bid was passed around to me, given my flat shape, NT seemed to offer more promise than forcing partner to the 4 level (via a balancing double) with no known fit. Pass seems out of the question. If I can’t pass, then that only leaves 3NT or double. Clearly double would have worked on this hand. In many bidding contests, respondents are always proclaiming the famous ‘F’ word – flexibility. Would you double? Double is certainly more flexible than 3NT (3NT figures to end the auction most of the time). Double also pretty much rules out 3NT which may be our only makeable game. After a double, my hand will become dummy, exposing the opening lead through the ♥K. I chose 3NT (which works rather well on a non-diamond lead but, alas, South found the diamond opening lead). After failing to unblock the diamond 10/8 (to keep partner in the lead for a heart through), South won the 5th and setting trick and decided to seek even more tricks by not cashing the ♥A. That allowed me to escape for down 1, -100. Meanwhile, our teammates were only able to score 2 tricks against 4♠ for a score of -650, lose 13 IMPs.
Many/most players preempt at the 3 level with a 7 card suit, but will usually open a weak 2 with a 6 card suit. However, this was a good 6 card suit in a 1=6=5=1 hand. I think the results speak for themselves – the 3 level proved to be an extremely effective start to the auction (for my opponents!). Bid 1 more when you have this powerful distribution. Of course Marty Bergen proclaimed you should bid 1 more (than standard) on all hands, but his style never really caught on in mainstream bidding.
Update: Sid Lorvan made some astute observations about this hand that I totally missed. While spending time regarding the right number of hearts for South to open (2♥ or 3♥) I totally missed the fact that N-S are cold for 11 tricks in diamonds! Should South be declarer, E-W better cash one of each black suit at trick 1 and 2, or there will be 12 tricks in diamonds! If North declares, the two black singletons will be visible in dummy.
Meanwhile, 11 tricks are never possible in clubs (the longer E-W fit), and 11 tricks in spades are only possible if East declares (here, also, double dummy, 12 tricks are possible when East declares spades unless South starts with ♥A and a ruff).
The bidding questions are how to ensure East plays spades and how N-S get to diamonds? If you rule out NT (not good for either side to play NT), lots of auctions could result in West being the declarer in spades where 10 tricks is the maximum after a heart lead (but North might be enamored with their diamonds and start unsuccessfully with a high diamond). Singleton leads don’t always work – they can blow up the suit on partner, allowing declarer to find a missing Q or J that they would not find otherwise, but singletons are often the best start to the defense and that would be the case here.
Back to the bidding – what sort of bidding, for each side, could allow them to achieve their optimal results? What if South, dealer, passes (what? pass a good 6 card heart suit!?)? West could try 3♣ but their void and strong side spade suit should argue against that, so let’s say West also passes. Now, North is in 3rd seat and might open 1♦ or even 2♦. In spite of no diamond stopper, some East players will unwisely compete in NT anyway, but a more logical start would be to make a takeout double. South, having begun with a pass, has some ‘undisclosed values!!!’ After a 2♦ opening bid, if playing McCabe or ‘transfer McCabe’, South would have tools to suggest a heart lead on their way to diamond support. In fact, since the double could suggest the ♥K will likely be in East’s hand, South can see that a high level diamond contract has great prospects – 11 tricks if partner merely has ♦Axxxxx or ♦AKxxx and diamonds behave. But, with a nice 4 card side suit in spades, North might consider that a 2♦ opening bid could prevent reaching a good spade contract and start with 1♦.
This is getting really involved, guessing the various routes the bidding could take, with each seat having choices that vary widely depending on what the prior bids have been! On top of that, it assumes South passes to start with, and I would project that nearly zero contestants would pass with the South hand in a bidding contest/quiz. After the recommended 3♥ opening bid, I can’t really see how N-S can arrive in 5♦. With no heart fit to fall back on, North bidding 4♦ over 3♥ seems crazy, and all standard bidding would consider that forcing. The only option would seem to be new suits non-forcing after a weak 2♥, allowing 3♦ to be bid, but North has no reason to suspect that a 3 level diamond contract will play better than a 2 level heart contract. Nor can I see how East can play 4♠ or 5♠ after the 3♥ opening. The strong diamond fit with N-S is a freak unexpected fit, but it would always be nice, playing bridge, that the optimum contract could be achieved with best possible bidding. Sometimes that is not possible.
The last comment – the old adage “6-5 come alive” applies to this hand. If you make a ‘rule’ that 6-5 hands first bid their 6 card suit but ‘must’ introduce their 5 card suit later, that would work well on this hand. One hand obviously cannot establish a ‘rule’ and it cannot be blindly followed if you smell a misfit, but it would work really well here! Judgment and more data required.
Here, the same auction at both tables resulted in the same lead at both tables. Since the diamond lead gave up a trick for the defense, declarer is looking at 4+1+3+1 to reach the required 9 tricks, as long as spades are 3-3. You hate to rely on 3-3 spades, but finding extra tricks in clubs or hearts is really not very likely – spades better be 3-3 or you probably will not be making this contract. My partner was declarer on this hand and simply led a small spade at trick 2, maintaining communication with dummy. When spades turned out to split 3-3, they had their game with 9 tricks as well as the needed transportation to cash them. At the other table, declarer had a blind spot. He wanted to fully ‘know‘ that spades were splitting right away. So, he played ♠A, ♠K and another spade. Sure enough they split and now he knows it. But, so do the opponents. They switched to hearts which provided an entry to the established spades, but removed the crucial entry to the ♦K. This meant the ♦A/K could no longer be untangled. After winning the ♥A, declarer could cash spades and cross to dummy’s ♦A. But there was no small diamond to return to hand and score the ♦K, and no other entry back to hand. Thus, declarer ended up with 8 tricks, down 1, plus 50 for our teammates to go with our +400, win 10 IMPs.
What about that opening diamond lead? Since Stayman by North followed by 2NT did not promise a 4 card heart suit (due to other system constraints), I think a good case can be made for West to start with a heart lead (besides the heart suit includes the 10, which is potentially significant). As the cards lie, after a heart lead and best defense, declarer has trouble finding 9 tricks. In fact, after the heart opening lead, it is difficult to construct any layout that will produce 9 tricks other than 3-3 spades plus a diamond finesse, but this hand contains one such layout (a route to 9 tricks without counting on spades 3=3). The alternative route to 9 tricks involves the fact that East (the danger hand) is unable to gain the lead early for a diamond through declarer. Here, the strength of the club suit as well as the ♥9 dropping doubleton brings into play the power of the ♥8 allowing declarer to score 2+2+2+3 and reach 9 tricks without scoring long spades. As the cards lie, Declarer’s club losers must be won by West and West cannot attack red suits.
Here, the diamond opening lead provided declarer a trick with the ♦J that they can never score otherwise. Finding 9 tricks after a heart lead would have been possible, but difficult.
As you can see, with N-S passing throughout, the first 4 bids by E-W were the same at both tables. My partner, with a quacky hand (loaded with queens and jacks) reasonably decided to pass my invitational 4NT. The same hand at the other table, noting the same lack of values, decided to signoff in 5♠ rather than risk 4NT with the weak doubleton in clubs. However, East wasn’t done. After issuing an invitation that was declined, they proceeded to bid 6♦ and found partner with 100 honors! Wow!!! Had the clubs and diamonds been reversed in the opening NT bidder’s hand, the auction would have proceeded to 6♠ or 6NT. Then, as long as the heart finesse works and the missing minor suit ace was onside, no problem. Anyway, bidding 6♦ had the benefit of keeping the ♣K protected as well as the virtue of scoring 12 tricks without a club lead. On the heart lead, declarer went up with the ♥A, drew three rounds of trump and found that trump split. Then they simply ran the spades, pitching dummy’s clubs. Then the lead of the ♥J forced a second heart trick and declarer had a trump left in each hand to land 5 tricks in diamonds, 5 in spades, 2 in hearts, 12 tricks, unbeatable as the cards lie. -1370 for our teammates to go with our +660, lose 12 IMPs.
After a club lead scores the ace, declarer cannot benefit from throwing away clubs or hearts and must eventually rely upon the heart finesse which fails. The auction seems to call for either a club or heart lead and on a different lie of the cards, a heart might have worked. Here a club lead works and a heart doesn’t.
We had a fair discussion (without resolution) regarding responder’s second bid. I considered 3♦ and that would have worked very well here. My problem (at the time) was that I didn’t know how to invite slam after that, and bidding 3♦ might indicate I hold a more robust suit than ♦K864? Given a chance to bid this hand over, I think the right answer is to offer a 3♦ bid after partner makes a minimum acceptance of my transfer to 2♠. If partner likes diamonds (In this case, they would like them a lot), I can forget invitations – simply ask key cards and blast slam. I was so focused on my hand evaluation (I think, this is clearly a slam invitational hand, not a slam force), that I wanted to get that valuation across with a 4NT bid. That involves partner in the decision. But, a 3♦ bid would involve partner even more in the decision and I think that should be the way to handle this hand next time. If you don’t know what the final contract should be, go slow and involve partner.
On the other hand, if partner held:
He would like diamonds, have maximum HCP, and yet 6♦, 6♠ and 6NT all have no play. Here, checking on key cards should avoid the slam. Of course, on the actual hand all 3 slams have no play on a club lead. Sometimes bridge is tough.
Would you have bid 6♦ over partner signoff in 5♠? It sure worked here. West realized (correctly) that the 4-4 fit would likely produce one more trick than the 5-3 fit, plus partner can’t be disappointed with 100 honors, so they passed 6♦!
Back to the opening lead – Lew Stansby points out that opening leader knows a lot about the distribution. Declarer (in 6♦) is likely exactly 5242. Dummy is likely 3442 or 3244. (would have passed 4NT if 3343). So you want to lead the suit where they have a 22 fit, because that’s the suit where dummy’s cards can be discarded on the long spades. No guarantees, but holding longer clubs than hearts, clubs is more likely to be their 2-2 fit.
Again the auction began exactly the same at both tables. Again, one table quickly ended the auction, passing out in 5♦. The other table also quickly ended the auction by taking one more bid over 5♦… 6NT! The North hand possibly has 3-4 points more than a dead minimum negative double of 3♥. Still, 6NT is a pretty big bid considering the misfit and single heart stopper. 7♣ happens to make if you guess the location of the ♦K and ruff it out after drawing trumps (pitching your spade loser on the ♥K). If you go for a big cross ruff in 7♣, it will fail, because the defender who is also short in diamonds sits over the your shortness. But, as the cards lie, you could ruff 1 diamond low, then ruff 2 diamonds high and then, as long as you find diamonds 4-2, and clubs 2-1 you would find your 13 tricks. However, when vulnerable opponents preempt, there is often foul distribution. Here, the 3♥ bidder had two singletons, it just happened that neither was diamonds.
Anyway, the contract wasn’t 7♣ it was 6NT by North with the ♠AQ protected as declarer. However, even with South declarer, a spade lead through the ♠AQJx, simply duck to the ♠10 in dummy to guarantee 12 tricks. After the expected heart lead, declarer was able to run the ♠10, ensuring 12 tricks no matter where the ♠K was and no matter whether they covered or not. So our teammates scored 1440 while we were -620 defending 5♦, win 13 IMPs.
February 10th, 2017 ~ bobmunson ~ No Comments
I’ve been gone awhile, so I’m just now having another game to report. We played yesterday, 2/8, and only had 2 hands which cleared the hurdle of ‘double digit swings’ (my usual criteria for reporting a hand). There were a number of other interesting hands, not being reported, but I am so behind on a variety of work at home, I’m just reporting these 2 hands. Of the 2, I won one, and lost one, but my actions had no bearing on the actual swings. You can decide what you would have done.
The first swing came on the first round and was not all that interesting. A careless discard, all of a sudden, turned a hopeless 3NT into 9 tricks.
At my table, South decided to simply transfer to spades and stop in 2♠. Because I held the ♠7, I was always assured of 2 spade tricks and felt the ♠J was the safest start for our side against 2♠. In the end, we scored 2+2+0+1 to hold declarer to 8 tricks, -110. Meanwhile, our teammates, with the same start to the auction ventured onward, arriving in 3NT. It seems to me like a close call with the South hand (whether to give up on game, or try one more bid after the transfer is accepted, but not super-accepted). If partner holds 3 card spade support and a maximum, the singleton diamond might prove useful. Kaplan and Reubens (http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=k8543+j87+2+a873) evaluated the hand at 9.40! I was surprised it could come in that high. If you count a point for the 5th spade, you can get to 9 points, but the 5 card suit is decidedly weak, the ♥J is only 3 long, and there is a lot to be said for passing, which is what Lew chose.
As you can see from the auction, our teammates felt the lure of the red game and bid it. Not only is the decision close whether to pass 2♠ or continue to 2NT, the decision to go on (to 3NT over 2NT) is also very close. 16 HCP is right in the middle between 15 and 17. Evaluating the ♠AQ is good news and bad news – it will fit partner’s 5 card suit, but having only 2 can leave the suit blocked and awkward to score extra tricks. Neither passing 2NT nor bidding 3NT can be called an error (in my opinion). There are a lot of IMPs at stake when red games get bid and made, so continuing to 3NT was the final decision.
On the diamond lead (the ♠J would have been safe, but extremely passive, knowing dummy will also hold 5 spades), declarer has no real play for 9 tricks unless spades break 3-3, so they won the ♦K and cashed the ♠AQ, seeing the bad spade break. They can give up a club and get to 8 tricks (3+0+2+3), but they decided to first cross to dummy’s ♣A and cash the ♠K. On the ♠K, West elected keep all of their hearts and diamonds and let go of a club and that provided 4 tricks in clubs and 9 tricks total, +600, win 10 IMPs.
It has become extremely fashionable to open 1NT, not only on balanced hands, but most semi-balanced hands in range for your 1NT opening bid. Here East has an easy 1♣ opening bid with an easy 1♠ rebid. This hand would always be opened 1♣ by traditionalists. But, as you can see from the result, the 1NT opening bid proved far more effective (I approve!). Even though the opponents have found it very effective to disrupt the 1NT auctions as much as possible (more and more people are interfering over 1NT all the time), 1NT still preempts the auction (the opponents have to start bidding at the 2 level and may not have a suitable bid) and it conveys critical information to partner (partner knows within 1 point the number of high card points held). And, usually, you have at least 2 cards in any/every suit (the ACBL recently approved a new rule that allows 1NT opening bids with a singleton as long as it is the A, K or Q – experts have been doing this for quite some time).
So, a simple auction at my table (Stayman followed by bidding the game in spades) left me on lead vs. 4♠. Lead Captain (http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html) and David Bird’s books on opening leads have resulted in me very rarely leading trump or any suit that is Axx(xx) or Kxx(xx). So, on this hand, with all of those leads ruled out, that left me with a rather lucky lead of the ♣4. Partner ruffed and now must find me with a red ace (or the trump A). It is pretty much a coin toss, with the tie broken by the extra undertricks we will gain if declarer happens to hold the ♥K and I hold the ♥A. Partner can not only get a second ruff, they have a heart to cash for down 2. Sadly, a diamond lead at trick 2 would have achieved down 1, but on the actual ♥Q lead at trick 2, declarer could win the ♥A, draw trump and just lose the opening ruff plus 1 diamond and 1 heart, 10 tricks, -620.
Moving on to my teammates table, the 1♣ opening bid allowed a cheap 1♦ overcall. Responder was able to bid 1♠, so opener knew there was at least a 4-4 fit in spades, but when North bounced to 4♦, opener was reluctant to compete with 4♠ (I think I would have – if RHO had passed you would certainly have bid 3♠ so what is one more?), so when 4♦ came around to West, they competed with 5♣. In clubs, declarer must lose a trick in every suit (except trump) for down 1. Nothing the defense can do to allow the contract to make, nothing declarer can do to find 11 tricks. Down 1, -100 combined with our -620 resulting in losing 12 IMPs.
Interesting – a side benefit (on this hand) of having opened 1♣ right-sided the spade contract. That is, we could have beaten 4♠ by East, but 4♠ by West cannot be beaten because there is no ruff on the opening lead. North has a natural trump trick, but one ruff just scores that single natural trump trick allowing 10 tricks for declarer (West) in 4♠.
One hand does not prove a rule, and bridge biases creep into selective memory. But, I have found much greater success opening all hands that come close to looking like a 1NT opener with 1NT and then let the chips fall where they may. There are lots of tools available for responder to sort out where the hand should be played after the 1NT opening bid. I think gives an extra edge to starting with 1NT when possible. Double dummy, on this hand, opening 1NT was the losing action and opening 1♣ was the winning action. But, the actual results proved otherwise.
December 29th, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ No Comments
For the first time in a long time, we got in two games this month – mostly with different players. There was quite an assortment of 5-6-7-9 IMP swings, some with interesting hands, but I’m going to stick with reporting the 5 double digit swings of the day. Normally I just use first names – if the reader knows the players, they know who is who, if not, they don’t care. This time, with 2 Bobs and 2 Mikes, I used last names for half the field.
The first swing of the day came on board 2 where our opponents stopped in 5♦ while our teammates ventured a small slam that was, to say the least, not odds on. The auction seemed sensible at our table, but our teammates just blasted into 6♦. In 5♦ you get two chances to avoid a third loser. After winning the ♥A at trick 1, lead a small club towards the ♣Q. If the ♣K is onside, you can pitch your third spade on the ♣A without risking the spade finesse. In 6♦ your only real chance is to find spades 3-3 with the ♠Q onside (about 18%). But, since spades were 3-3 and the ♠Q was onside, no problem. The 13th spade provided a parking place for the club loser, so the only trick lost was the power trump trick to the defense. +920 vs. -400, win 11 IMPs.
It isn’t often you raise partner’s second suit with only 3 card support, but here, since I didn’t make a negative double, partner did know I only have 3 spades and that I am offering a choice of places to play. Knowing that, he still opted for the tenuous 3NT. Game in spades appears to offer better prospects than 3NT, assuming hearts are no worse the 5-3 and spades no worse than 4-2. If that is the case, you will lose 2 spades and a heart, but win 2+0+4+1 in top tricks (with the diamond finesse) and still score club ruffs in hand and heart ruffs in dummy to reach 10 tricks. The opponents can ruff your diamonds or overruff your heart ruffs, but they can still only score 3 tricks vs. 4♠.
To achieve 9 tricks in NT, declarer needs the diamond finesse and the spade finesse. With the opponents starting out with 4 rounds of hearts (establishing the 13th heart as the setting trick), you have no play but to hope the ♠Q is onside. It is, and so is the ♦K. That provides 3+1+4+1 for 9 tricks and the red game comes home. We were certainly lucky to bid/make 3NT, and 4♠ would have been a better spot, but when vulnerable at IMPs, the payout is so huge, it pays to go after red games. As you see, the other table languished in 3♦ just making, -110 for our teammates to go with our +600, win 10 IMPs.
Once again, a close vulnerable game is at stake. The first 3 bids were the same at both tables and then they diverged. Bill (my partner) slightly overbid with 2NT (so, with a maximum “minimum hand” I automatically raised to 3NT – never miss a red game), while his counterpart at the other table only raised to 3♦ and they played it there.
This is a challenging opening lead vs. 3NT, but with no suit and no entries, it is often best to try to hit partner’s suit. Perhaps partner has great spade spots over dummy and you know partner has at least 5 spades (South never supported spades, North never rebid spades). The spade lead caught the ♠KJxxxx with partner for 2 tricks, but the spots in dummy were strong, so spades provided declarer 3 of the necessary tricks for game, with hearts and diamonds also bringing 3 tricks each for a total of 9. To declarer, the club suit looks a bit scary, but the distribution of the club suit offers no great source of tricks for the defense.
On the actual play of the hand, East won the ♠J at trick 1, shifted to hearts with the ♥K winning in dummy. Declarer then knocked out the ♠K to establish spades. When East won the ♠K and continued hearts, declarer knocked out the ♦A and had his 9 tricks (able to finesse against the ♦10 when East showed out on the ♦J). So again, a vulnerable 3NT making for +600 against 9 tricks in a diamond part score, so our teammates were -110 again, win 10 IMPs.
Faced with the opening 2♠ bid on the right, North has to choose. I really hate to double a major with only 3 card support in the unbid major, but I wasn’t going to pass and I hated bidding 3♣ even more, since the hand is flat, the club spots are weak and the suit is only 5 long. So, I doubled, followed by 4♠ and then partner has to decide what to do. This is a very high frequency auction and, nearly every time it happens, no one knows whose hand it is?! Was the 2♠ opening super light (as it sometimes is, especially non-vulnerable), was the 4♠ bounce being bid expecting to make 10 tricks, or an advance save trying to jam the auction and make the opponents guess at a high level? Bill guessed to not defend 4♠ and bid 5♦ which was passed out. It turns out 4♠ cannot be beaten (on the magical fit, the defense only has 2 clubs and a diamond to collect), but E-W were unable to sort out that it was their hand (and score a penalty double vs. 5♦). On the lead of a top spade and a heart shift, they gathered in their 5 tricks in the majors before declarer got started. The rest of the tricks were ours, so we were down 3, -150 in our non-vulnerable game.
At the other table, when my hand decided to venture a 3♣ overcall after the 2♠ opening bid, East again bounced to 4♠ putting maximum pressure on N-S. Here South thought the opponents were trying to steal the hand. Since he had no idea about partner’s diamond support, he tried 5♣ over 4♠. When that got doubled, both North and South sat for the double, not realizing there was a better spot. The defense was ruthless. After 2 hearts were cashed and a third heart lead ruffed, a top spade was cashed with the ♠Q available as a signal that the ♠J was held. So, West underled to the ♠J for another heart lead, ruffed with the ♣J and overruffed with the ♣Q – the trump promotion created 2 trump tricks for East. So, E-W essentially scored the same 5 major suit tricks vs. 5♣ that they did vs. 5♦, but with 2 additional trump tricks available against the club contract, doubled, the damage was significant +1100 vs. our -150, win 14 IMPs. Had our opponents doubled (for +500 instead of +150), we still win 12 IMPs. Those 1100s can be really costly!
On this last hand, West, as dealer, has an awkward hand. 1♦, 2♦ and pass, all seem to be in play. If bidding is an option, pass is rarely right, so as you see, my table chose 2♦ (ostensibly showing a 6 card suit with 5-10 points – discounting the singleton ♠Q), and the other table started with 1♦. With N-S holding 10 spades, it is rarely right to defend 4♥. When East arrived in 4♥, there was no defense to beat it. Not a great contract, other than it makes – you must lose 3 aces and avoid any defensive club ruffs as well as avoiding a second trump loser. After ruffing a spade, you must play West for exactly ♥Ax, so get to your hand to lead a small heart to the ♥Q and then, on the next lead of hearts, play all small hearts as the ♥A catches air, preserving the ♥K to draw the remaining trump. 10 tricks, +420 for our teammates.
As you can see, we landed in 4♠ with hearts never having been bid. West has a difficult opening lead against 4♠. I think I would have chosen the ♠Q. The ♠Q is coming down singleton anyway, and the other 3 suits all have serious dangers. Eventually West chose the ♥5, declarer covered with the ♥J, and East thought they had a problem. Is it a singleton ♥5? A doubleton ♥54? Or 3 to the ♥Q75? It turns out it doesn’t matter. For any of those holdings, the ♥K is the necessary play. It costs nothing in the case of the ♥ singleton/doubleton – declarer always has 3 top heart tricks and whether or not you play the ♥K at trick 1 doesn’t change anything. They still have 3 tricks. But, if partner happens to hold the ♥Q75, failure to play the ♥K at trick 1 costs the contract. The defense is entitled to 0+1+1+2. But, when East decided to play third hand low at trick 1, the heart trick for the defense disappeared and declarer had only 3 losers, 10 tricks, and a double game swing for +620 to go with +420, 14 IMPs.
Today was my lucky day.
December 23rd, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ No Comments
Wow, this time we had no less than 9 double digit swings that included, I think, a number of interesting hands with all essentially revolving around bidding judgment/bidding choices that players face every day. Bidding at the 5 level (or not), choosing game (or slam) in hearts, spades or NT. It all started on the first first hand.
There are not a lot of constructive bidding tools created for how to compete over a strong 2♣ opening bid (for good reaason – all tools are about disrupting their auction, not creating your own constructive auction!). Here E-W are cold for 10 tricks in their heart game, while N-S are in good shape for their own 10 tricks in their spade game. A possible opening lead of the ♠A followed by a shift to, specifically the ♥J is the only line of defense to defeat 4♠. So, 4♠ will be making every time. Some mental gymnastics could arrive at that defense (if partner has the ♥K, no problem. If declarer has the ♥K and partner has the ♥Q, leading the ♥J could create a useful entry to partner so that they could continue drawing trump, preventing a club ruff. Not going to happen. So, the decision to save in 5♥ followed by the decision to declare vs. defend resulted in spades being played at both tables scoring 10 tricks. My table, that meant -1, -50 vs. 4♠ making by our opponents at the other table, -420, lose 10 IMPs. Had I doubled 5♥, partner may have pulled to 5♠ anyway. And, if he didn’t, it only would have held our losses to 8 IMPs instead of 10. The swing was created by the decision to bid 5♥ over 4♠.
Here the 6-3 heart fit proved to be more effective than the 5-3 spade fit. If the defense attempts to stop diamond ruffs (by leading trumps), declarer can merely establish the spade suit, no problem. If the defense leads diamonds early, killing the late entry to spades, declarer can set about ruffing the 2 diamond losers and only has a spade loser and 1-2 trump losers. After declarer ruffs both diamonds and is down to a singleton heart in dummy, it is time to start drawing trump. Having every spot except the ♥A and ♥Q, how do you play the trump suit? Finesse for the queen would seem to be the normal play, but it is wrong to finesse, since, with only 1 possible lead available (dummy is now down to only one trump), the finesse only works with exactly ♥Qx in the West hand. But, small to the ♥K will pick up ♥Qx in the East hand as well as the actual singleton ♥Q. So, against any defense, 11 tricks are always there in a heart contract. But, when spades are trump, there are many issues going on – the main one is getting hearts right. Here, depending on how the defense has gone prior to attacking hearts, the normal finesse not only picks up West holding ♥Qx, but also ♥Qxx and ♥AQx and possibly ♥AQxx, although the defense may have engineered a heart ruff before that (although maybe not, since declarer never revealed heart support). Anyway, I think the lesson out of this hand is to support/play hearts and not have the problem of how to play 4♠. 10 tricks are there, double dummy, in the spade contract, but when the heart finesse lost, declarer ended up -2, -200 to go with our +620 to win 13 IMPs.
I have given my hand to a few capable players and all chose to bid 2♦ over 2♣. I think it is a very tough call, and only 2♦ and 2♥ can be considered. I have to force, while leaving 3NT and 6♣ both open. How the auction proceeds (should I have bid 2♦) is anyone’s guess. You should still be able to reach the cold slam. My ill-advised 2♥ bid hit the jackpot when partner expressed strong heart support. However, 6♣ would be far less cold (depends on the heart finesse which would have lost) if partner had held two diamonds and one spade. The third diamond in partner’s hand provided a diamond ruff in dummy for the 12th trick, while both losing hearts can be discarded on the ♠AK. So, while some might chalk this up to blind luck after my bad bid, I’ll take the slam and the +1370.
At the other table, the 2♦ call threw a monkey wrench into the auction. Yes, ‘my 2♥ bid’ could still have been deployed and they likely would have ended up in the slam, but 3NT seems reasonable – you can basically count 9 tricks (2+0+1+6) and if pard only has 5 clubs, they could hold the ♠Q or the ♥A to get to 9. But, 3NT is quite unilateral, losing almost any chance of reaching the club slam. “3NT ends all auctions.” So, our teammates were -660, win 12 IMPs.
This proved to be a bad time to upgrade the South hand. I opened a pedestrian 1♦ which had the effect of rightsiding the NT contract. Having no tenaces, and the dreaded 4-3-3-3 (lack of tricks), South at the other table decided to try opening 1NT. So, at that table, 3NT was reached with South playing, West on lead. Ignoring partner’s double (you can’t lead clubs if you don’t have them), the ♠J was led. With the ♠K over the ♠Q, declarer is toast. Even if you duck spades twice allowing both the ♠J to win and the ♠K to win (so that spades are not established), you still can’t get to 9 tricks. The defense will score at least 2+2+0+1 to defeat the contract. The actual result was -2.
At my table, East was on lead and tried 4th from longest and strongest, the ♣7. This resulted in an overtrick, but even with best defense, no lead can stop 3NT played by the North hand. The hand with queens is often the best declarer in NT. Here South had one queen (protected by the A and K), North had 3 unprotected queens. So, we were +430 and our teammates were +100, win 11 IMPs.
Another 5 over 5 decision – this one proved costly (to not bid and let them play 5♣). At the other table, it went more slowly. Still, 5♣ does not sound like an advanced save! The opponents have decided to pass out 3♥, so they are not going to game. 5♣ sounds like a hand looking for 11 tricks and expecting to find them. As it turned out, both tables found the club lead which is the only lead to hold them to 11 tricks. If 2 diamond ruffs can happen in dummy, the whole diamond suit is good and 12 tricks are there for the taking. At the other table, the extra information about 2 suits (and the opening leader holding Jxxx in the other suit), I think the club lead is indicated. At my table, I found a club lead anyway. Is a club always the best lead? Undoubtedly not, but with values in all suits outside of clubs, I decided to try to make sure to limit the (unknown) potential ruffing value that dummy may have. That lead saved us from -1370. Instead we were +200 while our teammates were +600, win 13 IMPs. It would be interesting to find out what Lead Captain would choose to lead, but so much is subjective about what values and what shape you infer into the opposing hands, I decided to not do the research.
I should add that, in an email, Manfred made an excellent point about his 2NT call. Although it provides information to the defense/opponents, it also provides information to partner. Being void in hearts, Manfred ‘knows’ that there will be a heart raise on his left. Then, if partner bids freely (clubs or diamonds), he can have a reasonable expectation that 6 of the suit chosen by partner will have excellent play. If partner does not come in, he can still bid 5♣ on his on, which he did. And, right or wrong, his sequence bought the contract for 5♣ rather than have the annoying 5♥ interference over 5♣. Should that have worked? I don’t know, but it did.
Our teammates arrived in 3NT and when it was over, they had 11 tricks for +460. At our table, the opening lead (♦Q) tends to show, among other possibilities, something like ♦KQT9, asking partner to unblock the ♦J if they have it. Declarer asked me ‘standard honor leads?’ and I reported yes. He said, after the hand, he briefly considered winning the ♦A and leading towards the ♦J, playing me for the ♦K! But, why would the opening leader throw out an empty ♦Q against slam? Eventually, declarer knew the situation in diamonds. I think a duck at trick 1 might offer slightly better chances to make the hand. It rectifies the count and various positions could then arrive at 12 tricks. But, declarer won the ♦A and proceeded to run 6 heart tricks. On the run of the hearts, East’s first discard showed club values, so declarer believed him, so after running all 6 hearts, he cashed the 3 spades, and led a diamond at trick 11. That left East on lead at trick 12 holding ♣KJ to lead into declarer’s ♣AQ. Nice endplay to make the slam. You can say whatever you want about the bidding (I’ll leave it as ‘it wouldn’t have occurred to me’ – but perhaps it should?). But NS chalked up the slam for +990 to win 11 IMPs on the hand.
As you can see, the first 5 bids were the same at both tables. A more flexible 3rd bid by North might have been 3♠, offering partner a choice of games, tending to show honor doubleton. Here, one player ended the auction with 3NT, the other ended the auction with 4♠. Double dummy, there are 10 tricks in spades against any lead and 11 tricks in NT against any lead. But, 11 tricks in NT is due to the ability to finesse the ♦J and later have it fall. That relies on a very particular lie of the cards, unlikely to be declarer’s main line of attack.
I pictured declarer as possibly 6-4 in the minors and didn’t want to give him a free club finesse. Instead I gave him the heart finesse (via my opening 3♥ lead) and declarer was feeling no pain. He could power out tricks in the heart suit and eventually came to 10 tricks. All leads looked extremely unappealing, but I think the ♣5 is probably the best opening lead (unbid suit) and hope for the best.
At the other table, winning 10 tricks in spades does not rely upon the fall of the ♦J, but I don’t know declarer’s actual line of play. Something good needs to happen in hearts or diamonds. Something really good actually happened in hearts (those long lowly hearts become winners when the ♥Q is onside, doubleton). And the trump 108 coming down certainly doesn’t hurt the cause. But, if you misguess hearts (flying the ♥K the first time hearts are led, hoping to ruff some hearts later), 10 tricks will not be available. In any case, our teammates failed in 4♠ -100 while our opponents scored +630, lose 12 IMPs.
It is rare, at IMPs, to make tight doubles of partscore contracts that turn the partscore into a game. This hand shows why. Yes, they can beat 2♠ and turn +100 into +200 for, possibly, a gain of 3 IMPs. But, if the defense falters, and 8 tricks come home, The loss of 10-13 IMPs can be pretty devastating.
So, at my table, I’ve gotten partner into 2♠X and he needs to find 8 tricks. With a diamond ruff, he can get 5+1+0+2 as long as they don’t obtain a club ruff before trump get drawn. But, the actual play left many opportunities for 6 tricks for the defense – I won’t go into the details, they were pretty amazing (ugly). I’ll just say, when the dust settled, we had our 8 tricks, +670.
Meanwhile, our teammates arrived in 3♥ which I think was more routine bidding. As North, I would always respond 1♥ after partner’s 3rd seat opener was doubled. Maybe the hand belongs to us in hearts? The 3♥ contract was not without its problems, but Bruce played diamonds from the top, dropping the doubleton ♦Q offside and brought home 9 tricks. +140 with our +670, win 13 IMPs.
Penalty doubles can run up huge scores when the opponents overextend their assets, but with no spade stack (and potentially locating the trump ♠Q for declarer), the double here proved disastrous.
Amazingly, this was the very next hand! Just after my preaching about ‘don’t double partscores at IMPS’ this hand comes along. Nick, who made the penalty double of 2♠ on the prior hand, is the one who brought the penalty double into play on this hand. This time he was right. REALLY right.
Double dummy (I’ve looked at this hand a lot!), here are the results (for best possible defense/offense). If we play the hand:
1NT -5, 1400
1♠ -4, 1100, except we were redoubled, 2200
2♦ -2, 500, what I should have bid after the redouble
2♥ -5, 1400, except we ‘only’ went down 4, for -1100
If NS play the hand
3NT, +1, +630
5♣ =, +600
Even though play/defense was not optimal at either table, it was all about the bidding. We were going for a large number once I overcalled (as who wouldn’t). Our teammates managed +130 against our -1100, losing 14 IMPs. Once I overcalled, as long as N-S went for the penalty, we were toast.
There doesn’t seem to be much to the play in 3NT. We have no threat of taking tricks, they have no problem finding tricks. Likewise, in clubs, as long as you play the hand that overcalled for both missing kings, 11 tricks seem straightforward. But, it really doesn’t matter how many tricks are scored in a club partscore. Had they gotten +150 instead of +130, no difference in the IMP score. And, had they bid and made 5♣ we still lose 11 IMPs instead of 14 IMPs. So, once we were going for a number, nothing our teammates did (in terms of getting to game/making game) mattered. We just needed them to get the same number (or better!).
I think this is a great hand for IMP scoring. I’ll still bid 1♠ next time I hold this hand. We might be cold for game in spades and I have to get in the bidding. But, Nick, noticing the vulnerability, went for the jugular and found it.
November 11th, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ 1 Comment
Election conversation filled the day as we resumed our monthly (at least we try to meet monthly, sometimes twice) 2-table bridge game. Bidding judgement was the primary driver for all the big swings (throwing 9 IMP swings into the double digit category).
Board 2
You could call this first one an opening lead problem, but why would North lead a diamond? Unless South bid 1♦? Why would South bid 1♦? Beats me. I did not overcall, but Manfred did overcall 1♦ at the other table. He was able to then receive the diamond lead which established the setting trick for the defense. The ♣A and 2 trump tricks will “always” be scored (see below) by the defense, but the diamond losers can easily be discarded on clubs without a diamond lead. At my table, North led the ♥2, won by the ♥A followed by the ♣K. I won my ♣A, but at that point, there is no longer a chance to defeat the contract with the diamond losers discarded on the established clubs. Should I have bid 1♦? It appears so on this hand.
When the diamond was led a trick 1 at the other table, the defense chose to give declarer a “Grosvenor gambit” – an interesting psychological ploy in bridge. For those readers not familiar, I quote from Wikipedia.
In the game of bridge, a Grosvenor gambit or Grosvenor Coup is a psychological play, in which the opponent is purposely given the chance to gain one or more tricks, and often even to make the contract, but to do so he must play for his opponents to have acted illogically or incorrectly.
Thus, the opponent likely ends up blaming himself for not taking advantage of the opportunity presented, even though to do so would have been irrational. The benefit of the Grosvenor gambit is supposed to come on future hands, due to a loss of concentration by the player who was taken in by the gambit.
The gambit was named after Philip Grosvenor, a fictional character in a short story by Frederick B. Turner published in The Bridge World,[1] who first discovered the gambit accidentally, and over time developed its theory and deployed it deliberately. The story depicts Grosvenor as often frustrated by opponents who are too obtuse to fall for his ruse. Grosvenor’s lifeless body is eventually found bludgeoned to death, his fingers broken, shortly after a bridge tournament in which he used his gambit against the wrong opponents.
So, back to the defense – after winning the ♦A at trick 1, declarer played the ♠A and another spade. North, upon winning the ♠K, failed to lead a diamond to cash the setting trick (along with the remaining ♠Q and ♣A). Instead, they played a heart. Declarer could have ducked the heart to the ♥10, and then played more hearts discarding his losing singleton club, losing only 2 trumps and the high diamond. But, to take the heart finesse would likely result in an extra undertrick for -2, -100. Why do that? So declarer rose with a high heart and proceeded to lose his remaining trump loser along with the ♣A and diamond loser for -1, -50. With no diamond lead at trick 1, I was -420, lose 10 IMPs.
Board 4
This next hand is, again, an opening lead problem, but more so (I think) a bidding problem. As South, I was on lead vs. 3NT by East, the same contract that was played at the other table. In a weak hand with no suit of my own, I would ‘always’ lead a short unbid major, hoping for length in partner’s hand, and perhaps I should have led the unbid major here. But with both length and weakness in spades, it made me think that spades was not the right start. Instead, I went for length/strength in my minor by leading the ♦5 and presented declarer with his 9th crucial game fulfilling trick. At the other table, North chose to open 1♠, providing a roadmap for the opening lead and the defeat of 3NT. With a spade lead, declarer only has 1+0+1+6 tricks available.
Should North open 1S? I think so. It satisfies the rule of 20, it has 3 quick tricks, and it is SPADES. I love bidding spades, the boss suit, because the opponents have to go to NT or else 1 level higher to compete for any contract. But, still, I could have led a spade anyway. Darn. Lose -600 to go with -100 and lose 12 IMPs. I hate starting out the day 22 IMPs in the hole.
Board 9
Bidding had nothing to do with the swing on this hand. Both tables had the same auction arriving at the same contract. The difference came from the timing of the declarer play.
At my table, upon winning the ♣A at trick 1, declarer immediately set about to draw trump. Trick 2 was ♠3 to the ♠A, and then the ♠5 was led off dummy and RHO played the ♠9. Time to think. If RHO held ♠QJ9x there would be 2 certain trump losers (if the ♠K is played now) to go with 2 red aces, down 1. Is this time for a safety play, insert the ♠10? That certainly seems reasonable, but in this case, the “safety play” cost the contract. Declarer did play the ♠10 and when I (East) won the ♠Q, I knew partner had another spade and at most a singleton heart (2+ hearts with the NT bidder and 10 more hearts in my hand and dummy), so it was a simple matter to cash the ♥A (and ♦A, just to make sure partner didn’t accidentally return a club) and then provide the setting trick with the heart ruff.
At the other table, after winning the ♣A at trick 1, declarer led a heart. Here East rose with the ♥A and gave partner a heart ruff. When a diamond was returned to the ♦A for another heart ruff, West ruffed with the ♠9, allowing declarer to overruff with the ♠10, draw trump and lose just the red aces and a single trump trick. Had West ruffed up with the ♠J, declarer must overruff with the ♠K and then can only succeed by leading the ♠10, smothering the ♠9 if he is to bring home 10 tricks.
Is it best declarer play to play hearts first? Is it best to take the safety play? Beats me, but here the divergent lines of declarer play resulted in +50 and +420 for my side, win 10 IMPs.
Board 11
The bidding was the same at both tables through the first 6 bids. I felt, with my shape and modest strength, it might be reasonable to respond to the takeout double with 1♥, 2♥, 3♥ or even 4♥ (6-5 come alive). I’m still not sure of the best tactical bid. Had I chosen to respond to the double with 4♥, I’m sure Dan (South at my table) was going to bid 4♠. 4♠X is the par spot for the hand. In any case, both East’s responded to the double with 2♥. The big difference in the auction was when North passed at my table with their second bid, while our teammate (Manfred) supported spades at the 3 level. When Dan heard no spade support, he competed to the 5 level in clubs and then North converted to 5♠. So, their ‘save’ was certainly preferable to defending 4♥, but it would have been better to take the save in 4♠. There was nothing to the play nor defense – the defense will score 2+0+2+0, limiting declarer to 9 tricks, down 2, +300 for our side. Our teammates collected their 3 aces for down 1 vs. 5♥X, but that was all they could get. +100 resulted in 9 IMPs for our side.
Cris has a tough bid over 4♠. Might 5♥ make? Might 4♠ make? That’s why people bid – it creates problems.
I think Dan may have felt he bid so strongly the first time, he better go quietly (over 4♠X) and hope 4♠ goes down. Since I passed the first time, it was easy to bid when partner made the takeout double of 4♠.
The ♠A might not have been the best start for the defense against 5♥, but with the ♣K onside, I was never in danger of failing to score 11 tricks and, when the defense continued with a club lead into my ♣AQ after ruffing a diamond, 12 tricks were available for +480.
The defense has 6 tricks against 4♠ (1+2+1+2) for +500 and a 1 IMP pickup. But the defense started with the ♣A and went downhill from there, scoring only 4 tricks for -1, -100. So we netted +380 to score 9 IMPs.
As usual, there were other interesting hands with either lessor swings or missed opportunities, but it is easier to just focus on the largest swings of the day.
October 6th, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ 2 Comments
Well, it has been awhile. I’ve been traveling, so it has been over 2 months since we played, but finally played again on Wednesday, October 5th. I can’t complain much (well, a little), but it seems to me that most of the swings involved careless play/errors rather than any brilliant bidding, declarer play or defense. Here we go.
Board 6
As you can see, the bidding resulted in the same contracts at both tables, but far from the optimum contract. At both tables, as the bidding developed, the optimum contract, would have been 3♦X for +800 for N-S (at first glance, it seems as though declarer can only score 3 long diamonds and 2 aces for -1100, but 6 tricks are available for ‘only’ -800). But declarer must play carefully to avoid -1100. He has to use the power of the ♥9 by leading a small heart away from dummy’s ♥J after winning the ♥A. But, if the opening lead is the ♥K, declarer must first draw at least 1 round of trump. So, there are many paths to down 4, but best play will always score 6 tricks.
Against the actual contracts of 5♣X, the defense ended up less than optimum, a lot less at one table. It is always good to defeat a doubled contract, so starting with the ♠A seems indicated and that was indeed the opening lead at both tables. At my table, Cris continued with the ♥A and noting the fall of the ♥K, inexplicably continued hearts rather than providing a spade ruff for partner to achieve down 2. So, eventually he scored his trump trick for -1, +100.
At the other table, looking at that dummy and knowing partner held a lot of diamonds, East played the ♦J at trick 2, the ♥K was discarded on the second high diamond and from that point, there was only 1 trump trick to lose for 11 tricks. -550 to go with our -100 to lose 12 IMPs. Disappointed.
If E-W don’t get involved in the bidding, the par contract is 3NT, 3 tricks for the defense, 10 for declarer, +430. But when +800 is available, playing for +400 is losing an opportunity to score 9 IMPs. My partner suggested I should bid 3NT over the 3♣ bid. That certainly would have worked a lot better than what eventually happened! But I thought 6-7-8 tricks for us defending a 3 level club or diamond contract might be easier than 9 tricks in a NT contract – my RHO did open 1NT!?!?
Bruce certainly did good to run from 1NTX, since +1100 is pretty easy on defense – the same 10 tricks we would get on offense if we declared 1NT. But, since my double was penalty, a redouble normally asks partner to bid 2♣, after which he can convert to 2♦ to play and stay one level lower (if we opt to defend) and then he would lose only -500!
Hand 13
Our E-W teammates had no opposing bidding and arrived at a mostly unbeatable (as the cards lay) 3NT. Only a trick 1 diamond lead succeeds. I don’t think many would try a diamond if the hand were given to The Bridge World Master Solvers. With no N-S bidding, and all 4 suits ‘bid’, a spade seems rather normal and a diamond rather double dummy. Since the defense started with a spade to the ♠A and another spade, there was no time for declarer to go after club tricks. The heart suit had to be the source of tricks. With limited entries, Declarer is required to assume hearts are 3-3 or else ♥Kx onside. Not a great contract, but 9 tricks were there on the spade lead (2+5+2+0) for a red game of +600. Win a fortunate 11 IMPs.
One flavor of defense gets into a quite complicated end game. If the defense ducks the opening spade lead (leaving declarer with no spades and only 1 spade trick (for now)), and then the defense plays a diamond after winning the ♥K, declarer must win the diamond in his hand and run hearts. On the run of hearts, South is strip squeezed into either giving up the diamond suit, or else creating an end play resulting in declarer scoring 3 diamond tricks.
Meanwhile, in my spade contract, I had to lose 2+2+2+0 for -1, -100, win 11 IMPs. This swing was more like most swings of the past – all based on varied bidding judgment (and lucky lie of the cards to correspond to that bidding). So, as I see it, no real blunders (by the opponents at my table failing to reach 3NT). But this was the only hand of the day where that was the case.
Board 16
The bidding at our table was short a sweet, arriving at the par contract. We had 4 losers, 9 tricks were easy in 3♣ for +110.
I like Bruce’s responsive double. Sometimes, when you overcall 2♣ you have one 4 card major but are short in the other major, so you are unable to start with a double. The responsive double protects against that possibility with a later retreat to 3♣ if partner fails to offer a major. Bruce effectively issued a speeding ticket to Cris for his ill-advised 3♦ bid (N-S were scheduled to collect +500 and win 9 IMPs), but once Dan bid again over the double, it became N-S that had gotten too high rather than E-W. So, my side received 9 unexpected IMPs from what seemed like a nothing flat hand at our table. Technically 9 IMPs is not a double digit swing, but ‘win 9’ vs. ‘lose 9’ seems like a double digit swing to me.
RE: 6 defensive tricks vs. 3♦. If N-S draw trump, the defense will score 2+2+1+1. If they don’t draw trump, allowing a spade ruff in dummy, the ♦10 can be promoted into the 2nd undertrick (heart overruff).
Hand 26
So, the same 3NT contract to be played at both tables, but reached from different sides. With 25 HCP and stoppers in every suit, it doesn’t seem crazy to reach 3NT. In fact, there appear to be 9 tricks after the double finesse in diamonds: 1+1+3+4. The problem is, there is no way to unblock and enjoy all 4 club tricks. Entries to the West hand are required to take 2 diamond finesses (in order to enjoy 3 tricks there). Meanwhile, the opponents are going about setting up their major suit winners. All-in-all, 3NT is pretty hopeless. Well, that is what it seemed.
When East played the hand, the heart lead set up 4 winners there, so the split honors in diamonds wasn’t enough. The opponents got to 5 tricks quickly before 9 was remotely possible (lose the diamond finesse and cash 4 more heart tricks.
When I (West) played the hand, the ♠2 lead marked the suit as 4-3-3-3. So, before they could take a few in one major and then start taking tricks in the other major, I immediately won trick 1 with the ♠A and took the diamond finesse. The opponents then cashed their 3 spade tricks (North pitching a club on the 13th spade) and continued hearts, forcing me to win the first round with the ♥A and continue diamonds. I was already booked and needed the rest of the tricks. But, with the second diamond finesse working, I was up to 3 diamond tricks and then ‘all’ I needed was to cash 4 clubs. On the 13th diamond, rather than throwing the ♥K, North threw yet another club, allowing my ♣A to overtake the ♣J and then cash the ♣8 at trick 13 for my 9th trick. Declarer’s 2♥ cue bid (suggesting clubs), South’s small heart lead (suggesting heart values), South’s Michael’s bid (suggesting heart values) and declarer’s failure to finesse the ♥Q suggested that he didn’t hold the ♥Q. So, keeping four clubs and discarding the ♥K on the last diamond was needed to defeat the contract. +600 and +100 allowed a lucky 12 IMPs for our side.
Reviewing the dealer’s choice of opening bids – I was surprised by both tables choosing 1♣. I think Cris did it on purpose, but Mark, as he put down my dummy, indicated he made a mistake and did not actually intend to open 1♣. Not only is it normal to open the longer suit (1♦), but often 4-3-3-3 hands with 12 HCP don’t really qualify for an opening bid (I know, ‘everyone’ is opening almost all 10 point hands these days – at least the big club guys are. But no one in our group plays a big club). So, does this specific hand qualify for an opening bid? All 3 jacks are suspect in value and, as the cards lie, all 3 jacks are actually worthless. That gets the hand down to a 4-3-3-3 9 count and even the big club guys don’t open those hands as dealer.
Another way to evaluate the hand is the Kaplan and Rubens Hand Evaluator:
http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=j85+j92+a972+kqj
This is an extremely complex method of evaluating a hand that no person could perform at the table. It computes the value to 2 decimal places (perhaps suggesting that a hand of 10.07 points is better than a hand of 10.04?), but it is a valuable tool to see if a hand is worth upgrading Work points (4-3-2-1) to a higher number, or downgrading to a lower number. As you will see if you click the link, K&R evaluates this hand as 10.00. This web site also provides the evaluation of Danny Kleinman which comes out at 9+. Perhaps that is why 3NT is not a wise contract, even though partner’s hand evaluates at 13.1 K&R points (or 13- per Kleinman’s evaluator). Both of these evaluation tools downgrade rather harshly for 4-3-3-3 hands, as they should and as we should at the table.
So that was all for the double digit swings. There were 6 more 6 IMP swings – 2 were white games bid/not bid, while the other 4 were double plus positions on part score hands.
August 4th, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ 2 Comments
Wow! Only 4 double digit swings today…and I lost them all. On to the details…
On this first one, I should have reasoned that my 3♣ bid showed extras, and if partner won’t move towards slam, then perhaps I shouldn’t either. But I did. The result was a slam that was quite close to 50% on a successful club finesse (a little less than 50% because it is possible the defense can obtain a first round ruff, or a ruff after winning the ♥A, then the slam would be down even with a successful club finesse). And, without the ♣10, the slam is quite poor. But, partner did have the ♣10, so, with no ruffs available, if the ♣K is onside, we win 13 IMPs. It wasn’t. -100 vs. -650 and lose 13 IMPs.
Should I have pushed on? Should partner have accepted? Not with the ♣K offside! But not the worst slam ever.
Undaunted, we faced this hand on the very next board. Again, I felt I had too much to simply sign off in game, so I offered the 3♣ ‘game try.’ When partner accepted, I envisioned a possibly magic hand with ♠Kxxx and ♣Kx. If partner only had ♠Kxx along with the ♣K, I could survive if trumps were 2-2. Or if trumps are 3-1 with a singleton honor, I can still bring it home as long as I guess correctly whether dummy or my hand should win the first trump trick. So, I trotted out ol’ Black and when partner owned up to 1 key card, I was there, bidding 6♠. It turned out the ♦A was his key card, but he held suitable trump honors to give decent play. As I figure it, this is very close to a 75% slam (you can tell me if I have miscalculated). If either black king is onside, I am in pretty good shape. But, the order of which black finesse you try first matters. I think I played it wrong, now that I have given it more thought. Darn, I hate it when that happens.
I led the ♠Q at trick 2 because I had the illusion that trying spades first gave me a ‘two-fer’. If they ducked, I could then try clubs. If they covered, I was very nearly home, and if it lost, I still had a high spade to then try clubs. But, that thinking is flawed because ‘then try clubs’ means that after I cross to the remaining spade honor, trump likely need to be 2-2, and more critically, I not only need my RHO to hold the ♣K, I need it to be exactly ♣Kx or ♣Kxx, since I get only 1 finesse, then I must play the ♣A, then ruff, and the ♣K must fall, or else I still have a club to lose and the slam goes down.
So, back to what to play at trick 2 after the ♦A wins trick 1? I’m convinced (now) that the right answer is to play clubs first. If the club finesse wins, I cash the ♣A and ruff a club. If the ♣K doesn’t fall in 3 rounds, I enter my hand and ruff my last club. Now, I’m in dummy and I can still try the spade finesse for a chance for all 13 tricks. If the club finesse loses, I win the return (whatever it is), cash the ♣A, ruff my remaining losing club (high) and then start taking spade finesses. This fails if either opponent held only 1 club (so that they then they ruff my ♣A) or if RHO has only 2 clubs so that they overruff the third round of clubs. It also fails if my RHO has all four outstanding trumps ♠Kxxx.
Normally, a slam needing 1 of 2 finesses is considered a 75% slam. This certainly falls short of 75% because it needs a bit more than just 1 of 2 finesses. There are other considerations in handling various scenarios. Most importantly, all lines fail when LHO holds both black kings. They did, so the slam, like the prior board, was down. Since it was non-vulnerable, -50 vs. -450, lose 11 IMPs.
Note to self – don’t play so fast when a 22 IMP swing is looming for make/down in a slam. Consider the possible layouts more carefully before embarking on a plan. Here, my play didn’t matter, but finessing in clubs first after winning the ♦A (rather than spades first) handles many more situations of ‘at least 1 black king onside.’
48 IMPs difference on those two slams vs. the opposing players on the other team. Win 13, win 11, total of 24 IMPs, vs. lose 24.
So, here we go again. Another slam (only this time it was bid by our opponents at the other table). Here it was all on the lead (sort of). As you can see, the opening leader holds 12 cards that can be led to defeat the slam. But, they also hold 1 card (♦A) that can be led that allows the slam to come home. They (our teammate) found that 1 card!!!!!
But on the auction that they heard (no key card ask), the opponents are flying blind. They could be off two cashing diamond tricks, but those (potential diamond winners) may only cash if they are led and cashed at tricks 1 and 2. David Bird says to ‘never lead a singleton against a slam’ when you hold an ace, because the chance that you hit partner with an ace is zero, and you may locate a critical card for declarer by leading the singleton. So, here the singleton works, actually any card works but the ♦A! But, I think our teammate made the right lead based on the information available.
We played a mere 4♥ at our table and the singleton spade was led. The beauty of the singleton is that partner can have either ace – the ace of the suit you led or the trump ace – and you get a ruff. So, as it turned out, partner did not hold the spade A, but they did hold the trump A and provided the ruff to hold us to 11 tricks. However, they ruffed one of our losers that could never go away anyway due to partner opposite the singleton leader holding the ♠QJT7. Declarer has no place to dispose of his 3rd spade and no squeeze. So, we were never scoring 12 tricks, but we were only in game anyway.
At the other table, in slam, after the ♦A was led and ruffed, declarer must lose the trump A, so they have to figure a way to dispose of the spade loser. It is standard, for those who lead A from AK, to lead the K from AK at the 5 level or higher (this is because it is more likely that you might lead an unsupported A at that level and it is helpful to partner to know). Anyway, declarer doesn’t know that the opening leader plays that ‘standard’. Who has the ♦K is huge in the planning of the play of the hand. As the cards lie, RHO has the ♦K and the only legitimate play to make the hand is to take a ruffing finesse in diamonds. This is incredibly complicated because declarer only has 1 sure entry to dummy (♠K). The ♥K could be an entry. Or club ruffs could be an entry (yes ruffing your good AKQ of clubs!). It is almost double dummy for declarer to play ♣A at trick 2, ruff a high club at trick 3, and then float the ♦Q, hoping for RHO to hold the ♦K. But 2 entries are required for the ruffing finesse in diamonds. You could try to force the ♥K to be an entry by first leading a high heart from hand (since you have no ‘need’ to ruff a club). If everyone plays low, the ♥K is an entry only by ruffing a club. Then use the ♠K as the entry, later, to discard your spade loser on the established high diamond.
At the table at trick 2, declarer led a heart to the ♥K and ♥A. Now the spotlight switches to East. What do they return after winning the A? It turns out, on the run of hearts and clubs, they will become squeezed in spades and diamonds, so a spade return (at trick 3) is required to break up the squeeze. If declarer wins in dummy, they have lost the late entry to the diamond threat, and if they win in hand, they have lost their entry to the spade threat, so after running clubs and hearts, East will have the luxury of discarding after dummy and the slam goes down.
But wait – declarer can win the spade in dummy, lead the ♦Q, taking a ruffing finesse, and then, if covered, enter dummy with a club ruff and discard his losing spade on the established diamond. But, that line of play is the only way to make the hand at this point as the cards lie. Declarer might take the view that his LHO has the ♦K (so the ruffing finesse is a losing cause) and simply win the spade in his hand, draw trump, run clubs and hope to squeeze LHO at trick 11. If LHO is the only one that can guard spades (he is hoping) and has the ♦K (he is hoping), then his last 2 cards cannot include both the ♦K and a spade guard. Dummy’s ♠Kx will take the last two tricks, 12 tricks in all. But, as the cards lie, that line will fail.
Now back to reality – East did not return a spade at trick 3, so declarer had a double squeeze available (spade transportation intact). He didn’t care who held the ♦K if they also held the stopper in spades, they would be squeezed. And they were. On the run of hearts and clubs, declarer has won 9 out of 10 tricks, losing the trump A, but winning 3 clubs and 6 hearts. Needing the last 3 tricks, Dummy comes down to their last 3 cards ♠K9 ♦Q. Declarer’s last 3 cards are ♠A85 and East…has no answer. If they keep the ♦K, they can only keep 2 spades and declarer’s last spade is good. If they throw the ♦K, then dummy’s ♦Q is good. This is what happened and this is how declarer brought home 12 tricks. Not a good slam (looking at the 2 North-South hands you would have virtually no play). But, +650 vs. -1430, lose another 13 IMPs. Disappointed.
What do you think of the 2♣ opening bid? What do you think of no search for slam after opening 1♥? Certainly the 4♥ rebid shows a very strong suit in a strong hand, so with some hands that will make slam, I might have made a move over 4♥. I almost did with the actual hand!
It is so embarrassing to put in this last hand that I almost didn’t include it. While I lost 37 IMPs on the first 3 reported hands, I wasn’t embarrassed about my actions on any of them (well a little embarrassed about my play in 6♠ when I tried the spade finesse first instead of the club finesse). But this hand shows a classic beginner lesson that you can get wrong every time if you are not paying attention (and I wasn’t paying attention). First, the bidding. Not a thing of beauty at our table. I was 100% certain of playing a 5-2 fit, but fell victim to thinking 10 tricks are easier than 11. I should have been thinking “I can take heart taps ‘forever’ if diamonds are trump, but if spades are trump, heart taps could present a problem.” With that proper thinking, I should pull 4♠ to 5♦ and we would either push the board (if our opponents doubled) or lose 4 IMPs if we took our 11 tricks undoubled (since our teammates had doubled 5♦ making). Anyway, we were playing 4♠ so the objective is to make the bid we are in.
I won the opening lead with the ♣A in dummy, cashed the ♠A and led a spade to the ♠10 (thinking the takeout doubler likely had length in spades). Boy did he. But, no problem. Draw 4 rounds of trump, let him ruff a diamond, then cash a winning heart and a winning club and claim the rest for 10 tricks. What could go wrong? Well, diamonds are likely 3-1 (if they are 4-0, I’m hopeless). If they are 3-1, I need to discard a diamond from dummy while playing spades to get the ♦7 out of the way of my ♦32. Failing to do that will result in round 4 of diamonds being won in dummy (for my 9th trick) with no way back to my hand to score my good 13th diamond. This is not even intermediate play. This is basic beginner bridge that ‘no one’ could get wrong when presented as a problem on a piece of paper, but, at the table, I was careless, failed to throw away a diamond as I played spades, and therefore went down in 4♠ when it was cold on the club lead (yes, they could have started with hearts and I would have had no chance because I am tapped out at trick 2, but they didn’t). That goes back to the bidding, where I said I should have bid 5♦ over 4♠ and then I would not have to be reporting this embarrassing hand. -50 and -550, lose 12 IMPs.
July 25th, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ No Comments
While I (Bob Munson) am typing this, the content below is actually via cut/paste from an email dialog with Mike Schneider who played in the game on May 18. Mike’s specific point of interest involves the auction on board 21 (this board was not mentioned in the original blog).
Except for the final call by East, the bidding at both tables was identical. At his last turn to bid, Dan advanced to 3NT. Lew passed for his last bid and I played 3♣.
Here are the hands that created that auction:
And here are Mike’s comments.
I thought Board 21 from the May 18th two table bridge IMP match was interesting; Bob invited me to supplement the blog for that game with my discussion of the deal. Unfortunately, my amateurishness was front and center, as I failed to accurately capture all four hands before they were reshuffled to start a new two table IMP match on May 23rd. I did accurately record the East – West hands, however, and as it happens they did all of the bidding on the deal.
Looking at only the East – West hands, one would not be surprised to learn that 3N succeeded, as it did at the table. The cards lay very poorly for a no-trump declarer: ♦KJTx lay behind the declarer’s ♦AQ98, while ♠A9x lay behind dummy’s ♠KQ and ♣Ax lay behind dummy’s ♣KQJx. If the defense does everything right, and if declarer mis-guesses the heart suit, then the 3NT contract may be beaten. The cards lay very nicely for a club declarer: both spades and hearts broke 3-3 while clubs broke 3-2. Dan received a friendly small heart opening lead from ♥Qxx and so did not lose a heart trick playing 3NT, while Bob had to play hearts on his own, guessed wrongly and did lose a heart trick playing 3C: East – West plus 400 vs. East – West plus 130 meant a 7 IMP swing in favor of Joanna and Dan.
I was surprised to learn that Lew passed 3♣ — I would think that the “normal” meaning of West’s sequence is to accept East’s 2NT game invitation, while describing his distribution within one card, most frequently 5=4=1=3. Partner can accept the 3NT invite or hedge by bidding a major suit that might play OK in a seven card fit (you might still back into 3NT if your singleton diamond was say the jack). I suppose that it is even possible that partner might respond 4♣ to your 3♣ call should he have chosen 2NT holding say 1=2=4=6 with only moderate diamonds and honors in the short major suits. And of course, you might be 5=4=0=4 instead of 5=4=1=3 when you bid 3♣ (as in today’s deal), and this possibility complicates the subsequent auction for both partners. On the plus side, both partner’s participate in the inevitable judgement calls that the sequence demands. Perhaps Lew’s passed hand status influenced his decision to pass: his upper limit for 2N would be a bit higher had he been an un-passed hand; also West will open some hands in 4th seat that he might pass as dealer, say ♠K9652, ♥AT74, void, ♣Q874. Even if Lew understood that 3♣ was forcing, he might choose to pass once he decided not to bid 3NT — his hand will not be a particularly useful dummy in a club contract.
All artificial conventions extract a price for their use — this deal is interesting to me because it illustrates the downside of an artificial treatment that I have used for several years, and which I believe is used today by at least some top pairs (My most recent sighting was a Levin – Weinstein National Tournament Report in the Bridge World perhaps 18 months ago.) I play that the sequence 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3H♥ or 3♠ suggests that partner pass, and that 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♣ (artificial) -3♦ (forced) -3H♥ or 3♠ is the game forcing version of a 6=4 or 5=5 major suit opening bid. If I want to show game acceptance with short diamonds (as in the example hand), I use the auction 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♣ (artificial) -3♦ (forced) -3N (ostensibly 5=4=1=3). If instead, I want to bid 3NT showing short clubs on the way, the sequence would be 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♦-3N. Obviously, this agreement is hardly ideal for the cards that were dealt on May 18th, although I may well have survived whatever choice I decided to make.
Now Bob writing again – since this bridge game that we are blogging about is an individual movement with many partnerships playing as little as 4 hands 2-3 times in the past 5-10 years, specialized systemic agreements such as this are not something you review with partner as you sit down to play your next 4 hands.
June 21st, 2016 ~ bobmunson ~ 1 Comment
Three big swings on Monday – twice a game made at one table, down at the other; once a slam made. Details to follow.
Board 4
Looking first at the bidding at the other table, Does East have a vulnerable weak jump overcall of 2♥? It seems that North must have a reopening 2NT bid over 2♥. With 18 HCP and 5 quick tricks, there must be something to bid. What South does next (assuming North reopens with 2NT showing 18-19) is anyone’s guess. 5♣ seems reasonable. 6♣ seems a real stretch. 3NT might be bid, but very doubtful 3NT would make (double dummy, 3NT by North is down on any lead but the ♥Q). If South ventures forth with an immediate 3♣ over 2♥, then it seems North-South should reach game or slam in clubs. 3♣ is a bit of a stretch, but South at the other table judged to make a 2/1 game forcing 2♣ bid over 1♦. Our teammates defending 2♥ undoubled was a disappointment to us, but the reality is, what they did mattered at most 1-3 IMPs. The problem was me – my lead. My lead was a big disappointment as my lead allowed 6♣ to make!!!!
Beating 3NT is not that obvious/easy though. A spade lead (double dummy down 2) is possible, but not likely. On a heart lead, declarer must win the ♥A (not win cheaply in dummy), saving the ♥J for a later entry. It is crucial that West never ‘signal’ with a spade card – it is West’s length in spades that allows 3NT to be defeated. Declarer, after winning the ♥A, cashes the ♣A and leads a small heart towards the ♥J. Now, East must win the ♥Q and play a high spade. Any other continuation/line of defense brings in the club suit for declarer without 5 tricks for the defense. But, if East does play a high spade after winning the ♥Q, the defense will score 3+1+0+1 and defeat 3NT.
Enough on the 3NT that didn’t happen. The South hand seems more oriented to suit play. But all of this discussion about what didn’t happen at our teammate’s table really doesn’t matter. If they bid 3NT and make it, or bid 5♣ and make it, we still lose 13 IMPs because of my lead against 6♣! If they manage to arrive in 2♥X and score +800, we still lose 11 IMPs!
So, what about my lead? I thought the auction sounded like spades were being ruffed in dummy. And, I thought a club lead would reduce the spade ruffs. When I led a trump, declarer had 2 excess trumps (besides the 5 needed to draw mine) – those two trump were used to ruff diamonds good and 12 tricks came home. -1370 vs. +300, lose 14 IMPs. That was a 23 IMP swing on the lead (win 9 or lose 14), which is often the case with vulnerable slams. What would Lead Captain or David Bird lead? It is hard to say. The problem with that analysis is that you have to make assumptions about what the bidding has indicated what the North-South holdings are in the various suits.
The Bridge World magazine has a monthly problem H – what do you lead? Often people answering the problem construct a hand where their lead successfully beats the contract, while any other lead allows it to make. So, that got me thinking more about my lead – something that I should have done at the table!! For a trump lead to be necessary, one of 2 conditions must be met:
- Declarer needs to ruff 1 spade in dummy to reach 12 tricks, but a trump lead prevents that one ruff
- Declarer needs to ruff 2 spades in dummy for 12 tricks, but a trump lead holds him to 1 ruff, 11 tricks.
Example of 1 ruff needed:
With this construction, a spade lead allows 12 tricks (2+2+1+7) because dummy can ruff spades after a spade lead. A trump lead kills the ruff and declarer will come up a trick short. But, this is the only reasonable construction I could create where a trump lead is the winning lead, and it doesn’t come close to fitting the auction – would Dan really bid both 4♣ over 3♠ and 6♣ over 5♣? Not a chance.
Example of 2 ruffs needed:
Example 2 is even worse. Yes, a trump lead defeats the contract, but, again, the hands do not fit the bidding; and, a spade lead also defeats the contract. I’ve spent enough time on this to realize one thing: next time spend more time at the table instead of in the post mortem. This was not that hard to realize that a trump lead cannot be the necessary lead to defeat the contract.
One final closing note – the players involved thought that 6♣ was cold, even on a spade lead, since declarer can win the ♠A, cross to the ♣A, cash the ♦AK throwing their spade losers away, and ruff a diamond to enter their hand to continue drawing trump. The catch is, when I win my ♣K, I simply play a spade, forcing a ruff by declarer. So it turns out the opening lead must be a spade in order to tap declarer in spades (much later). That spade ruff, plus drawing my trumps, exhausts declarers trumps with none left to ruff diamonds good. Down 1.
Board 7
We had the exact same bidding, contract, and lead at both tables. It was all over at trick 1. At my table, declarer feared a club shift, which could knock out the crucial entry to diamonds, so he decided to play (me) the opening bidder to hold the ♠A. So, at trick 1, he won the ♥A, led a spade to the ♠J and ♠A. The heart continuation allowed me to cash out for down 2.
At the other table, declarer couldn’t see the harm in ducking the heart (standard play holding AJx in a suit unless a shift will be fatal). Here, declarer felt that if the defense shifted to clubs, he would duck and play for split club honors, and reach 10 tricks via 0+1+6+3. After winning the opening lead, the defense had no answer. Any continuation by South left declarer in the driver’s seat. After ducking trick 1, declarer eventually took 11 of the remaining 12 tricks. +660 and +200 win 13 IMPs.
Find the minor suit queens. Our teammates, with no opposing bidding, found them both and brought home 5♣. North, at my table, won the spade lead and led trump, watching the ♦Q show up on the way to the ♦A. Declarer then led spades, needing to ruff their last spade in dummy before drawing trump. After cashing 2 spades, I led a heart. Declarer ruffed, and knew that drawing trump would mean he had no more trump left, so decided to try clubs immediately before drawing the rest of the trump. He played partner for the ♣Q. and then I gave partner a club ruff for down 2. Declarer found out I had exactly 4 spades and 1 diamond. That meant I most likely held 6 hearts and 2 clubs, or 5 hearts and 3 clubs. Of course that would still be the case if I had not doubled. Anyway, for whatever reason, they lost to my ♣Q for +100 to go with +400, win 11 IMPs.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related