Recap of 3/30/2020 21 board IMP individual on BBO

March 31st, 2020  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

With face to face bridge on hiatus for as far out as we can see, I have set up a number of BBO games online.  Recently I have blogged on google blogspot, but I’m trying WordPress/bridgeblogging again because of extra features available here that are not available with google (for instance the actual BBO movie, not a link or a screen shot of it).  We play 7 rounds, 3 board per round, with random partners, BBO is not really set up to do an individual movement where everyone is your partner for one and only one round.  Today, there 5 double digit swings where bidding judgment drove the varied results, but some interesting declarer play problems arose as well.  There were 3 slam swings.  See how you would have fared.

At our table, after North tried the save in 4♥, North bid 5♣ which ended the auction.  With 11 of the most straightforward tricks imaginable (8 top trump and 3 aces), North claimed after the heart lead.  He could have tried spades (and luckily made 12 tricks), but it didn’t matter.  At the other table, it mattered a lot when they bid the club slam.  How good is that slam?  Since there are 11 top tricks, it seems like there would be various options for a squeeze, but the spots are so bad, it is hard to construct any chance of making it except for the layout that actually occurred.  The slam has zero play on a diamond lead (well, really close to zero – if the opening lead was a singleton diamond plus ♠KQ in the slot, there would still be 12 tricks – not possible on the bidding).  After a heart lead, there is a 25% play for slam (actually MUCH less than 25%, since East has very limited values on the bidding making it highly unlikely they hold both of those cards).  But this time they do have the ♠KQ and if declarer leads spades (after the heart opening lead) he will find 12 tricks).  When the ♠K was led against the slam, you are close to 100% to make the slam – play for the opening leader to have both spade honors and 12 tricks are there with the losing diamond discarded on dummy’s high spade.  So we were -600 vs. +1390 to win 13 IMPs.

At the table I thought, with some good guessing, declarer could get 10 tricks in hearts via discarding a spade on a diamond and then ruffing 2 spades in dummy, but double dummy analysis says the limit when playing in hearts is 9 tricks.  Still, 6♥X down 3 only pays out 500 points.  But, far better to beat the slam if you can find the right lead rather than take a save.  Unless West inserts a diamond lead directing bid on their way to 4♥ (4♦ bid – good bid on this hand!), I don’t think it is possible to find a diamond lead vs. 6♣.  A lucky favorable swing for our team.

On this hand, the bidding was the same at both tables through the first 2 rounds of bidding.  At the other table, 1NT ended the bidding, but I decided that my top spades and minor suit texture warranted a raise to 2NT.  Partner, with a near maximum, advanced to the game.  There are only 8 tricks after a non-heart lead, but the opening heart lead provided declarer with their 9th trick.

As this deal was constructed, due to the lucky ♣J10 falling, declarer ‘only’ needed the ♥9 instead of the ♥8 to have a heart stopper and still score 9 tricks on any lead.  But, since he didn’t have that card, the defense has the ♦A and 4 easy heart tricks after a non-heart lead.  We were +600 while our teammates were -150 to win 10 IMPs – another lucky favorable swing.  At the other table defending against 1NT, the defense did start cashing hearts after winning the ♦A, but rather than set up declarer’s 5th heart, the ♥A wasn’t cashed and declarer had the rest of the tricks.

Wow, radically different bidding here, starting with the opening bid.  As you know, I consider most 5 card suits worth a point, so I also would have opened 2NT.

Anyway, at my table, West started with 1♥ and when 3♣ was passed around, he balanced with 3NT.  Although 10 tricks are possible, it mostly involves double dummy play and declarer survived with 9 tricks to score their vulnerable game. 

At the other table, after West opened 2NT, North competed with 3♣ and East transferred into spades, dutifully bid by West.  But, North wasn’t done.  They bid a (very) unusual NT suggesting that diamonds might be an alternative place to play (besides the clubs that they had already shown).  East  doubled to suggest defense might be preferable to declaring – defending is preferable, since fairly normal defense will result in +800 vs. 4♣X.  However, West elected to bid 4♠ to show their spade support.  On the lead of the ♥J, double dummy,12 tricks are there for the taking if West made some inferences from the bidding and the lead.  It would seem the lead is a singleton (otherwise, why not lead one of their suits) and that they can trump a heart, so they are not void of spades.  But, the bidding and lead sound more like 1=1=5=6 than 1=1=4=7, so the line of play that gathers in 12 tricks on this actual deal may be a much worse (double dummy) line of play against a 1=1=5=6 North hand.  With such limited assets, how do you score 12 tricks?  Win the ♥Q, then (knowing North showed diamonds, lead a diamond to the ♦Q, then a spade, covering whatever South plays.  If you lead small and play the ♠7 and North holds a singleton ♠J or ♠K, there won’t be 12 tricks, but they will be endplayed into leading clubs or diamonds for you).  Next a diamond to the ♦A (only works if diamonds are 4-2, not if they are 5-1), and then a heart finesse (again, assuming North is 1=1 in the majors).  Then cash the ♥A (pitching a club from dummy) and ruff a heart.  Take another spade finesse.  You have 8 tricks in at this point.  Ruff your last heart, club to ♣A and ruff a club.  You have scored 11 tricks and you still have the trump ♠A remaining.  South will ruff North’s good diamond at trick 12 or 13.  The bidding (and lead) suggests that North is 1=1=5=6 and this line only works for 1=1=4=7.  If you had a wire that North was 1=1=4=7, I think this is actually not double dummy play.  You desperately need dummy entries to take major suit finesses.  South has the majors.  North has the minors.

Anyway, it was interesting, to me, that 12 tricks were possible on this deal.  With less double dummy play, the trick count drops to 11 or 10…or even 9.  Declarer, on the actual play of the hand, won the ♥Q and played ♠A and ♠7, South winning the ♠J and, strangely, not cashing the ♠K but led a club instead.  If they had cashed the ♠K, drawing declarer’s last trump, they still can’t beat it.  Now, to make the hand, West must win the ♣A and return the ♣Q, forcing North to either lead diamonds or provide a ruff/sluff.  West did win the ♣A, but continued with diamonds and, even with double dummy play, 9 tricks was the limit from there on out.  This was certainly an awkward/difficult hand to play with the bidding indicating some extreme distributional dangers.  Sometimes, in those situations, it is better to sit back and defend rather than put yourself through the torture of declarer play.  Even if you slip some tricks on defense, you are going plus.  But, the lure of the vulnerable game vs. possibly paltry points for defense against non-vulnerable opponents got E-W into the spade game that failed.  We were -600 and our teammates -100, lose 12 IMPs.

There is a maxim in bridge – support with support – and it usually works pretty well.  At the other table, opener heard a response of 2♣, noticed their 4 card club support and raised clubs.  I’m not sure of the best auction to get to the grand, but soon they were cue bidding their way to the small slam in clubs and scored the 13 obvious tricks – ruffing the last diamond good for 2+1+4+6.

At my table, opener rebid 2♥, so I showed my spades which, potentially could be artificial (4th suit), asking for a spade stopper.  Now partner supported clubs.  I thought 9 tricks would be easier than 11, so I bid 3NT with my balanced minimum misfit hand.  Partner raised to 4NT. 

Now what?  What is partner’s shape.  Since he failed to bid 2NT over my 2♠, I would say he doesn’t have a spade stopper.  Is he 2=4=4=3?  2=4=5=2?  1=4=5=3?  My 2♠ forced him to chose something.  Rebidding hearts would show 5=6 in the red suits.  Rebidding diamonds would show a 5 suit.  He chose to support clubs over 2♠ by bidding 3♣.  I was surprised at this development (raise of 3NT to 4NT) in the auction, but still had a balanced minimum misfit, in context, and could not imagine how 12 tricks could be scored, let alone a cold grand slam.  So, I passed, looking for 10 tricks.  On the spade lead, it was straightforward to score 2+1+4+5 for 12 tricks.  We were +690 while our teammates were -1390 to lose 12 IMPs.  On a heart lead, as the cards lie, the only route to 12 tricks is to start diamonds by leading to the ♦9.  Had we been in the inferior 6NT, I don’t know what North would lead, but if he leads a heart I’m going down.

How might the bidding go here?  I think, in spite of the spade singleton being the ♠K, the East hand is so powerful that a jump to 3♠ showing club support and a singleton spade is indicated.  Now, it would be impossible to miss slam, since my ♠A covers the singleton and my spade losers can be ruffed in dummy (and, partner, in general has a strong slam positive hand indicated by the splinter jump).  In context, I also have a slam positive hand – I have good trumps, the fitting ♦K, the ♠A and small spades to be ruffed.  Certainly there is a heart problem – I can find out about that, but my hand is also slam positive.  How do you think the bidding should go?  Here is one possible auction:

Here is yet another 2nd seat, vulnerable vs. not preempt.  How can you not bid clubs?  Both tables preempted clubs – 4♣ by me, 3♣ at the other table.  I suppose there are some exceptions, but I have always thought that the 2 level was for 6 card suits, the 3 level for 7 card suits and the 4 level for 8 card suits (yes, I make some exceptions).   On this deal, double dummy, I could get out for -500, but I was probably going down 3 had the opponents decided to punish 4♣X.  But, with that hand, no North player is going to defend 4♣, so I was safe this time.  What should North bid over clubs?  The other table was able to jump to 4♥, showing a potentially wide ranging hand, but sufficient extra values that South felt that they could ask aces, advise partner that N-S were in possession of all key cards and North, with an incredible playing hand, jumped to the grand slam.  At my table, a jump to 4♥ was not available, so what bid can North make to show the red suits?  I don’t know of a bid.  Clearly 4♥ is a big underbid and partner is a passed hand.  But, jumping to 5♥ or 6♥ could turn a plus score into a minus.  I mentioned that 4♥ after 3♣ shows a wide range of hands, but 4♥ over 4♣ shows an even much wider range of hands.  South is quite happy with their support and figures partner will make it, but I think, for South to move beyond 4♥ assuming that North holds a monster would be wishful thinking.  South just doesn’t know.  Sometimes preempts work (which causes me to do it sometimes when I shouldn’t!).

In the play, North pitched the ♠Q on the opening club lead, drew all trump ending in dummy and floated the ♦10 (he is only in 4♥).  When that won, they easily had the rest of the tricks.

The play was a bit more complicated in the grand slam.  Rather than pitch the ♠Q on the ♣A at trick 1, declarer chose to ruff in hand.  Now 13 tricks were in great jeopardy.  If, at any time later in the hand, declarer leads a club from dummy without drawing trump, they will be down.  If they lead a spade from dummy to finesse, they will be down.  They need to establish diamonds, draw trump, and discard the ♠Q on the ♣A … in some order.  That ♠Q needed to be discarded on the ♣A at trick 1.  But it wasn’t.  In a perfect world, declarer would like to ruff all 3 potential diamond losers in dummy.  But, without looking at the opponents cards, he doesn’t know who might have diamond shortness and who has the ♥J for an overruff to defeat the contract.  He found out who had the ♥J when he cashed the ♥K at trick 2 and West showed out.  At this point, there is no way to make the hand except to find diamonds 4-3 with the ♦Q only 3 long (or cross to dummy and finesse for the ♦Q).  Declarer must return to their hand if they are to accomplish two diamond ruffs.  As I mentioned earlier, getting off dummy in a black suit would spell defeat – even a spade to the ♠A (as an entry to get another diamond ruff) would require a later attempt to discard the ♠Q on the ♣A, hoping that clubs were 7-2, not the actual 8-1.  If you draw trump, you have exactly 1 diamond ruff available.  Declarer decided to play ♦A, ♦K and ruff a diamond.  When the ♦Q did drop on the 3rd round, declarer was home.  He was able to draw trump ending in dummy, finally obtain the discard of the ♠Q on the ♣A, after which his hand was all good red cards.  Wow!

Had ♦Q the dropped doubleton, 2 ruffs would be needed in dummy, but it would not be possible to get them – there is no way back to hand.  Should declarer start trying to ruff diamonds immediately?  I’m not certain, but I’m, pretty sure not.  If West, who is distributional, happens to have a singleton ♥J, drawing 1 round of trump allows 3 diamond ruffs in dummy, where playing diamonds early exposes you to a diamond overruff.  Actually, had declarer discarded the ♠Q on the ♣A at trick 1 and found the singleton ♥J, he is completely cold for 13 tricks if the ♦A is not ruffed – he can ruff all 3 losing diamonds in dummy, crossing to hand with club ruffs (since his hearts are all high – he doesn’t have to worry about any overruffs).

How good is this grand?  Of course a ruff at trick 1 always defeats a grand slam, so there is that danger – greater danger after a preempt, but “no (Lightner) double, no trouble.”  If you play a trump at trick 2 and both follow low (52% of the trump splits), the ♥J is still outstanding.  It seems you must extract the ♥J rather than risk an overruff.  If you do complete drawing trump, you can only ruff 2 diamonds, successful on all 4-3 splits regardless of where the ♦Q is (as well as singleton or doubleton ♦Q) – about 72% of the 2-1 trump splits, ♥J not singleton.  As noted, when there is a singleton ♥J (26%), the slam is pretty much always making with no ruff at trick 1.  When trump are 3-0 (22% of the time), as long as you took care of discarding the ♠Q on the ♣A at trick 1, you can still get your 2 diamond ruffs in dummy (ruffing the 2nd diamond with the ♥A if West was the one holding 3 trumps, then finesse to finish drawing trumps).  Of course, when North bid the grand slam, he didn’t know partner’s diamonds.  With 3-4 small diamonds in dummy, the prospects of 13 tricks (in the context of the preempt) drop in a really big way.  However, once the bidding starts at a high level after a preempt, there is no way of locating the singleton diamond that I know of (which improves the grand a lot).

Summing up, if I’ve got it right:

1. 52% (when trumps are Jx-x) of 72%
2. 26% (when trumps are J-xx) of 99+% (assume spades are not 7-0 and diamonds are not 7-0)
3. And 22% (when trumps are 3-0 either way) of 72% 
4. That is more than 79%, if I’ve got it right – a very good grand

As declarer played it (he didn’t know that a black suit lead off dummy spelled doom), he was only getting 1 diamond ruff.  I’m not sure how the preempt affects the odds, but looking at the diamond suit alone, playing for Qxx in either hand is 26.6%, while finessing, playing West for ♦Qxx or ♦Qxxx, is  31%, so it is slightly better to finesse (the line of play taken in 4♥).  I think declarer was actually hoping for 7-2 clubs so that he could still get 2 diamond ruffs if the ♦Q failed to fall in 3 rounds.  When it did fall, he had 13 tricks for +1510 and we were -510, win 14 IMPs.

Recap Of 2/12/2020 28 Board IMP Individual

February 13th, 2020  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

Today there were 5 double digit swings that involved bidding judgment, leads, defense, declarer play – and a ‘little’ luck, pretty much every aspect of the game.

Grant Baze argued at one time that he was not the inventor of what is know as the ‘Baze’ convention, but many players use this gadget (and call it Baze) after a fit is found in a Stayman auction.  It is used to establish trump, declare shortness somewhere and explore slam potential.  For anyone unfamiliar, I found this explanation online that seems to capture the essence of it.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5127d3d2e4b0b304f0b6db24/t/51cdedb4e4b0d519d0ba6c4b/1372450228942/4+%2849%29+Slam+Tries+-+Shortness+%28Reverse+Baze%29.pdf

Here South players had the maximum 17 HCP for their 1NT opening bid and North used Stayman to uncover the 4-4 spade fit.  Both North’s judged their hand worth suggesting slam (I agree), so they confirmed spades via bidding the other major at the 3 level, showing a fit with shortness somewhere.  Typically, the NT bidder will ask which suit is short (I did at my table).  When I learned that the short suit was my powerful side diamond suit, I figured there were too many cards in partner’s hand that were not diamonds that I would be unable to establish and arrive at 12 tricks unless partner unilaterally continued on to slam based on his power.  So upon learning that the shortness was diamonds, I signed off in game.

At the other table, rather than ask shortness, South showed their side strength and when partner signed off in game, they continued with a key card ask and, without checking on the trump ♠Q, bid the spade slam.  Had they checked and found that partner did have the ♠Q instead of the ♠J, slam is still a poor proposition (well below 50%) due to the diamond strength opposite shortness.

How good is this slam?  ‘All’ you need is a doubleton ♠Qx to fall (either LHO or RHO) which happens 27.13% of the time…PLUS the ♥A with West PLUS either find clubs 3-3 or hearts 3-3, since only 2  of dummy’s losers can be discarded on the ♦AK.  That additional requirement comes out at 26.619%, but needing both conditions (doubleton ♠Q plus favorable side suits) to bring the slam home makes it a 7.22% slam.  It is actually slightly worse than that, since the defense, on a different layout, could score 2 quick tricks with an unlikely club ruff on opening lead or a heart ruff after winning the ♥A.  For anyone interested, I use this tool to determine ‘what are the odds?’

http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm

If it isn’t clear how to use the tool, send me an email and I can walk you through it.  Of course, this is only useful after the fact – it has no practical value at the table, but still it provides interesting information.

Enough about the bidding.  The play in the slam was straightforward.  With a certain heart loser, declarer had to win the club lead in dummy, cash ♠AK and find the ♠Q falling, lead a spade to the ♠J to finish drawing trump, cross to hand with the ♣Q to lead a heart up finding the ♥A onside, and then ‘only’ need either clubs or hearts breaking 3-3.  When clubs suits broke evenly, no problem, 12 tricks, chalk up +980.  If West ducks their ♥A, dummy will win the ♥K and continue hearts.  The defense will prevail only if both hearts and clubs fail to break 3-3, and declarer will have time to find out which, if either, are breaking whatever the defense returns after winning their heart trick.

Since I needed to find 10 tricks (not 12), I did not pursue this line, but I think using the same start  as suggested for the slam would have been better than what I did.  I wanted to ruff my 2 diamond losers in dummy, so I started by doing that.  But, had trump been 4-1, problems would have developed that possibly could not be overcome.  Starting with the 2 top trump and then ruffing diamonds if the ♠Q is still outstanding is better.  When the ♠Q does fall, I can adjust the play and score 12 tricks the same way they did when playing the slam.  Bottom line, I scored 11 tricks (not that it mattered) for +450 to lose 11 IMPs.  When our teammates came back to compare, we thought they were joking when they said -980, showing us a false scorecard…but they weren’t!

In second seat, partner (North) decided to open a preempt.  Second seat vulnerable is the most dangerous position to preempt (there is 1 partner and only 1 opponent to preempt), but with the 8 card diamond suit, the 3♦ bid certainly seems reasonable to me.  The 3♦ opening bid propelled East into a cold 3NT contract (when I chose a diamond opening lead, 10 tricks were possible, but only 9 were scored).  In the play, declarer won the diamond lead, played 2 hearts which I ducked (trying to prevent declarer from enjoying a third trick in hearts), and then played 2 clubs which I won with the ♣K.  I then belatedly led spades (an opening spade lead holds declarer to 9 tricks).  After my spade, lead, declarer can win the ♠A and play another heart to get his 10th trick, but my ♠10 was ducked all around and now declarer ‘only’ has 9 tricks.  We were -600.

North decided not to preempt at the other table and East, too strong for 1NT, opened 1♣.  South bid 2♣ showing a Michaels bid with both majors.  Somehow, this had the effect of getting North-South into the cold 3♦ contract.  Only the black aces and 2 top trumps must be lost.  The trump suit that was 8 long took care of the rest when the South hand provided the perfect cover cards for North’s losers.  So, our teammates were -110, lose 12 IMPs.

Back to the bidding – should I ‘save’ over 3NT and bid 4♦?  As the cards lie, absolutely.  But, partner did open vulnerable and sometimes the 3NT call is stretching/hoping to catch a fitting dummy (they did).  I felt I had enough stuff that 3NT might fail and it is silly to take a phantom save (why should I go down when they were going down?), so I passed 3NT.

Should East-West be able to arrive in 3NT after the Michael’s bid by South and the diamond bid by North?  East has diamonds doubly stopped, but the major suit stoppers are more suspect unless partner can produce some major suit fillers.  The 2NT rebid showed the 18 HCP that East held, but West’s modest values make it hard to advance to 3NT.  I think there are very interesting/challenging bidding judgment issues by every seat at the table at each turn to bid.  It is easy, looking at all 52 cards, to see who should bid what.  At the table, everyone can only see their own 13 cards and has to judge what is best.  So, at the table, I failed to bid 4♦ and our teammates failed to bid 3NT, so 12 IMPs away.

Once again, preemptive opening bidding judgment altered the destination of the final contract.  As dealer, West at my table opened 2♠, while at the other table West opened 3♠ (I think I would show the 7 card suit and start with 3♠, but often 2♠ shows more values which West clearly had).

So, I had to come up with a bid after 2♠ was passed around to me.  My choice (2NT) may seem like a typo, but that is what I bid!  When spades weren’t raised by East, I felt certain partner had a spade stopper.  If I bid 3♠ it would ask for a stopper (allowing us to reach 3NT slightly more legitimately), but I wanted to keep my hand hidden.  Also, I thought there were some hands where partner would provide 2 tricks, but may not convert a more normal 3♦ call to 3NT.  But, if I bid 2NT, he would raise to 3NT if he had what was needed.  Also, if he had hearts, perhaps he would offer Stayman and we could arrive in 4♥.  But, 7-4-1-1 hands often play better in the 7 card suit – you run out of trump too soon!  Anyway, however silly my 2NT bid was, we arrived in 3NT and had 12 tricks after the spade lead (I went up with the ♠K).  Of course, ’12 tricks’ were only possible due to the incredible lie of the club suit.  Using the same tool as before, I learned that a doubleton ♣KJ onside will happen .119% of the time.  That is barely more than once in 1000 deals. 

Meanwhile, South at the other table was faced with a different problem when the 3♠ bid was passed around to him.  Having 7 tricks in his own hand, he decided to go for the 11 trick game with a 5♦ call.  Partner, who couldn’t take a joke, raised to 6♦.  If the 7% slam looked bleak on board 3, that slam had great prospects compared to this slam.  On a heart lead, no lie of the cards can produce 12 tricks – technically a 0% slam.  But, after the ♠A lead, the same 12 tricks that I scored in 3NT are there in the diamond slam (a .119% slam).   After cashing the ♠A, West made the excellent shift to the ♣J which had the psychological effect of convincing declarer that West could not hold the ♣K.  What are the odds!?!  When declarer went up with the ♣A, the slam failed by a trick, so our teammates were +50 to go with our +490 to win 11 IMPs.  We dodged a big loss.

It isn’t clear how you can get there after a 3♠ opening bid, but 3NT is clearly the desired target contract looking at the North-South cards.  Finding 11 tricks (let alone 12) would be impossible in many layouts when playing in diamonds (lose a spade and 2 hearts).  Depending on the opening lead, there is a chance to score 11 tricks (on a different deal, different distribution of the East-West cards) if declarer can judge the heart layout correctly.

There was nothing to the play on this hand, it was all in the bidding.  North has a clear cut 3♥ opening bid as dealer, vulnerable.  South, with a key filler (♥K) and other scattered points in each suit has to choose to pass (deciding that their values are too soft), try 3NT (only 9 tricks required) or raise to the heart game.  At the other table, South bid the heart game – solid trumps with 1 loser in each side suit (and no defensive ruffs) made the 10 trick game easy.  My partner chose 3NT.  The opening spade lead doomed the contract.   However, when East won the ♠K at trick 1 and returned the ♠J, West didn’t know who had the ♠9, so they returned a passive heart.  After declarer ran hearts and tried to win a club trick, the defense was able to take 5 tricks, so we were down 1, -100 compared to -620, lose 12 IMPs.

If my ♣Jxx had been ♠Jxx, 3NT would have been perfect and 4♥ likely would have failed.  But my weak spades doomed 3NT.  Does partner have enough to advance past 3♥?  Is the correct advance 4♥ or 3NT?  Here it was 4♥?

Here the bidding judgment difference (open 2NT or open 2♣ and rebid 2NT) had no bearing on the final result.  However, if a 5 card suit is ever worth more points, the ♠AKQJ10 surely qualifies as a quality suit worth something extra.  And the North hand has 22 HCP besides, so I don’t understand the downgrade, but as I said it made no difference.  My passive spade lead was the same at the other table and declarer had to find a path to 9 tricks.

The club suit is extremely favorable for the defense, unfavorable for declarer.  Double dummy, the only defense to defeat 3NT is a heart lead won by the ♥A followed by a club shift (and then a club return ducked to the ♣A).  Then the defense has 0+1+1+3 tricks for down 1.

Watching the hand play out, double dummy, is pretty amazing.  As card by card is played…with the spade lead, 10 tricks are ‘cold’; oops, now declarer can only score 8 tricks; oops, now they can score 10 tricks… now declarer is down against best defense; and so it goes, depending upon what cards are played by each player.  Bottom line, even though the bidding judgment was different, this was a hand that was all about: (leads), defense, declarer play and judgment as to how the cards are falling.

At my table, declarer took the spade lead and cashed all 5 spades, pitching diamonds (it turns out that the lucky lie of ♦J10 doubleton was the only way to score 9 tricks – declarer needed to save all of dummy’s diamonds and toss clubs).  East discarded 2 hearts on the 4th and 5th spades, while West discarded 2 hearts and…a diamond on the 5th spade (potentially fatal).  West wanted to be able to duck hearts to isolate declarer to 1 heart winner, so they did not want to pitch down to the singleton ♥A.  But, once declarer abandoned diamonds in dummy, West needed to keep the threat of the ♦8 to beat declarer’s ♦7.  So, once again, declarer can make it if they pound out diamonds (because diamonds are now 2-2-2 around the table).  But, declarer led the ♥J, ducked (to legitimately beat the contract, West must win the ♥A and play clubs).  After the ♥J won, declarer can still make it if they switch to diamonds, but they persisted in hearts.  West won the ♥A, played a small club to the ♣Q and ♣K.  East returned a small club ducked to the now bare ♣A.  Now, declarer was down to all diamonds.  When declarer played diamonds, West could win and cash 2 club winners for down 1.

At the other table, declarer won the spade lead (can now make 10 tricks) and played a heart to the ♥K (can now make only 8 tricks… if West wins the ♥A and plays a club, the defense has 5 tricks).  But West ducked the ♥K.  Then declarer played a diamond to the ♦K which held (noting the fall of the ♦J).  Now, again, 10 tricks are possible by continuing diamonds, or playing spades, then diamonds.  Declarer cashed 2 more spades (West pitching a fatal club) and then declarer led the ♥J (If East holds the ♥A, 9 tricks are assured – either they duck for the 9th trick or they win with no good return).  However, West won the ♥A and led a club to the ♣Q and ♣K.  A club return was ducked around to the ♣A.  Now declarer played his last 2 spades and led a small diamond.  In the 3 card ending, East held ♦10 and ♣94, dummy held ♥K ♦9 and ♣10.  West held ♥9 ♦A and ♣J.  So, the diamond lead was won with the ♦A, West cash the ♣J and, in the end, West led a heart to dummy at trick 13 for declarer’s 9th trick.  So we were +100 and teammates were +600 to win 12 IMPs.

Can the defense get this ‘right’?  I don’t think so.  On this particular deal, a heart opening lead and club shift will defeat 3NT.  East makes a passive lead, and he holds the HCP that West would hope for (a side K and a side J).  But, if East’s KJ values are the ♦KJ10x, the right defense after winning the heart lead is a diamond shift, not a club.  If, after a heart lead, East’s values (♠KJ10x) are in spades, the right shift is a spade – but, 5 tricks are unlikely here since declarer can duck the spade shift (East can’t continue spades) and later win the ♠A and cash 9 tricks easily (since, if declarer didn’t have the spades that he held, he would have red suit tricks to cash).  Bottom line, the defense to beat 3NT on the go is double dummy for this deal, not obvious, not something to ‘get right’.

What about defense getting it ‘right’ in the middle of the hand?  In spite of the spade lead, both Wests were presented an opportunity to beat 3NT outright if they won the first heart lead by declarer (and shifted to clubs), yet both ducked.  I think ducking makes sense – declarer may hope the ♥A is onside and lead up to the ♥Q later in the hand.  The defense cannot stop declarer from winning 1 heart trick, but ducking could prevent declarer from winning a second heart trick.  At our table, a heart wasn’t led until 5 spades were cashed.  If West wins the ♥A (♥J led and ducked to West) and leads clubs, declarer is down.  When West ducked so that declarer’s ♥J won, declarer can switch to diamonds and make the hand – but declarer continued hearts and then the club shift defeated 3NT.

What about declarer – can they get this right and score 9 tricks (assuming no double dummy heart lead at trick 1 and club shift)?  After a spade lead, they have 8 pretty certain tricks.  They can power 1 trick in each red suit by knocking out the ace of diamonds and ace of hearts.  That gives them 5+1+1+1 – they need 1 more trick.  What they need is for East to hold a red ace (they didn’t) and figure out which red ace, and then put them on lead (protecting your club holding).  Since West held both red aces, that option wasn’t available.  The 9th trick can come via hearts (with help from the opponents), via clubs (with the ♣K onside), or via diamonds (with the ♦A onside or with any 3-2 split).  How should declarer proceed after winning the spade at trick 1?  Play more spades first?  Knock out the short suit (♥A) or the long suit (♦A)?  It is easy to be blinded by the layout of the cards in the actual deal (what works on this hand), and not see what is the most likely route to 9 tricks.  I think I might have played 3 spades (no discards required from dummy) and then tried the ♦Q – if LHO has the ♦A, no return hurts and most returns help.  BUT, if RHO wins the ♦A, you are pretty much left with 1 chance to make the hand – doubleton ♦J10 (after a losing club finesse and club return).

Running all the spades early has the advantage (as well as disadvantage) of forcing the defense to make some early discards (some of which may be helpful signals).  It also has the disadvantage of forcing dummy to make discards, as well as telling the opponents how many spade tricks declarer owns.  One declarer played all 5 spades to the first 5 tricks.  The other won the spade, then red suits, then 2 more spades,  then red suits, then 2 more spades.  Best?  I don’t know, but it was successful in getting the 9 tricks needed.

Obviously the objective is to parlay as many potential sources for your 9th trick as possible.  Setting up a long diamond, after losing 2 diamond tricks is not a panacea, since you haven’t yet scored your heart trick and, meanwhile, the opponents may be poised to cash clubs when they win the first heart lead (giving them 0+1+2+3).  Perhaps the best chance is hearts first, hoping they duck, then diamonds, which is what Cris did.  The doubleton ♦J10 is a pretty thin reed to base your hopes on, but that isn’t the only option for success – it is just the only option that works on this layout (and nothing works if the opponents figure out what to do).

Bottom line, this was a complex hand where the cards lie quite poorly for declarer.  Single dummy defense is hard, single dummy declarer play is hard.  Both defense and declarer play are much easier if you look at all 52 cards.  What is right, double dummy, on any given deal may be very wrong on a different layout of the cards.  I’m unable to draw any definitive conclusions about the ‘right’ defense or ‘right’ declarer play.  This was a hard hand for everyone to play but the dummy.  And, it was hard to discuss in the blog, since the best play (for any lie of the cards) may not be the winning play on this particular deal.

Recap Of 2/3/2020 28 Board IMP Individual

February 4th, 2020  ~  bobmunson  ~  6 Comments 

As we gathered to mourn the 49ers loss in the Super Bowl, we went through the first 6 rounds where there were zero double digit swings, but we had 2 in round 7 – mostly decided by leads, but there were also decided differences in bidding which factored into the swings.  I’m going to start with 2 opening lead quizzes and then present the two hands.

After this auction:

What is your lead?

And, after this auction:

What is your lead?

Now here are the two deals with all the hands in view…

On the this first deal, each table had a different auction to arrive in 3NT.  With no obvious stopper in clubs, I simply overcalled in diamonds and soon arrived in 3NT played by North.  At the other table, 3NT was played by South.  You could say the lead/success of the contract was determined by the bidding (putting West on lead instead of East).  But I gave you the problem as an opening lead problem from West’s perspective.  For years I have felt that over 90% of competitive auctions that arrive in 3NT can be defeated (I don’t have data that proves that, but it is a “feeling” I have from my years of experience at the table).  But, to defeat 3NT, you must either make a sneak attack in a new unbid suit, or lead ‘our suit’ – and, you have to figure out which lead is the winner on each particular hand.  Also, it has often been reported that a ‘stopper’ is only as strong as it sounds.  Here, even though neither South (who overcalled 1NT at one table) nor North (who advanced 1NT at my table) had a full, real, actual stopper.  Yet it sounded like they had clubs stopped.  Together North-South did have the suit stopped.  But, after a club lead, their stopper was gone.  The percentage play to score 9+ tricks, given the bidding, is to try the diamond finesse and not count on the (anti-percentage) doubleton ♥QJ as well as various strip squeeze/end play options that follow from that.  But, the diamond finesse lost.  So, at my table, with the long strong club suit on lead (but no entry), a 4th best club was led.  When the diamond finesse lost, no entry was required because West still had a club to return after winning the ♦K.  The defense had 6 cashing tricks, down 2, -100.

At the other table, you were given the lead problem from the West hand, since South was declarer.  A club lead would likely have been equally successful vs. 3NT (as long as East ducked – necessary due to a lack of entries).  However, the ♣42 didn’t appear very promising, the opponents bid NT 3 times, so it seemed like time to try a major suit.  With declarer’s club stopper still in place, it was easy to win the opening major suit lead (♥8 was the actual card chosen) in dummy, take a diamond finesse, and score lots of tricks.  When clubs weren’t cashed after the diamond finesse lost and the East hand pitched a spade (down to ♠Q10)  when they had to make discards, declarer ended up with 11 total tricks.  So, our teammates were -460, lose 11 IMPs.

Addendum:  Several have pointed out (including Mark Ralph and Mark Moss, both Grand Life Masters that play regularly in the game) how seriously flawed my analysis was for this 3NT hand.  So, I’ve modified my initial verbiage which said 3NT cannot make after a club lead.  That is, there is no defense to beat 3NT with double dummy declarer play (even with the threatening club lead).  Seemingly, the percentage/obvious way to make the hand (take a diamond finesse) fails.  But, seeing all of the cards, declarer can take what initially appears to be an anti-percentage (double dummy) play: win the club lead, cash 4 hearts forcing 2 discards from East and proceed to win 9 tricks in a variety of ways depending on East’s choice of discards.  

1. If they pitch 2 clubs, simply take the diamond finesse because there are only 3 club tricks outstanding – they can no longer defeat 3NT
2. If they pitch 2 diamonds, cash the ♦A and see what they discard next:
   1. If their discard is a club, cash the ♠A, give them their 4 remaining clubs and they will give you the ♠KJ in the end when they lead away from their ♠Q (3+4+1+1)
   2. If their discard is a spade, you now have 3 spades to cash for your 9 tricks
3. If they discard 1 club and 1 diamond, cash the ♦A and the ♠A and use plan 2.1
4. If they discard 1 spade (and anything else), use plan 2.2 for 9 tricks

One big advantage of double dummy analysis is the ability to open your eyes to plays you fail to see.  Here, the traditional odds of restricted choice indicate that when an honor falls on the first round of a suit missing the QJ, the odds are 2:1 that it is singleton.  So, only one third of the time will you find a doubleton QJ.  Not that doubleton QJ’s don’t happen, just that it is twice as likely to be singleton as doubleton.  At the table, declarer actually won the ♣Q at trick 1 which required an entry to hand in order to take the diamond finesse.  That entry was the ♥K, and and East was forced to play an honor.   Since you are about to take the diamond finesse to make the contract (or not), there is little downside to trying hearts ‘just in case.’  That is, instead of finessing diamonds at trick 3, you can play a heart to the ♥A.  If the other honor comes down, play 2 more hearts.  If not, play a spade to the ♠K and take the diamond finesse, now made even more likely because points that could have been in opener’s hand (both the ♥Q and ♥J) now have one of those cards in West’s hand.  When the East hand does play the other honor, cashing the ♥109 gets you up to 8 top tricks (2+4+1+1).   If you judge well from watching East’s discards (see bullets 1-4 above), you are now home with a 9th trick.

Initially, I was thinking that that line of play left you with a losing spade finesse, but as noted in bullets 1-4, there are many winning choices without the spade finesse if you read the cards correclty.  Of course, another (possibly failing) option after cashing 4 hearts is to cross to the ♠K and take the diamond finesse.  But, again, depending on the discards made by East, even that could work!  The point of all of this rambling is that plays rejected as anti-percentage can, in fact, be additional arrows in your quiver.  If you can collect two 30% plays such that you win if either one brings you home, that line of play is (barely) better than one 50% play.  That is, a 30% line fails 70% of the time.  But .70*.70 results in a failure rate of .49, or a success rate of .51 which beats 50%.  Not that you can do all of these precise computations at the table every time, but every little bit helps.

Eddie Kantar has articles in the Daily Bulletins every day at the Nationals.  They are titled ‘Take All Your Chances’ – another way of saying that ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket.’  If you can combine multiple parlays (if this or this or this or this happen, then I win), you will often arrive at the best line of play.  So, perhaps cashing the 4 hearts first is not double dummy after all.  Readers, what do you think?  At a minimum, you have not ruled out the diamond finesse – that play is still available after cashing the hearts.  So, using bridge/Eddie Kantar’s logic, it has to be right to see if hearts cash and then assess the best line of play from there.  You have removed any of your initial prospects of making the hand and, meanwhile, you have added to your possibilities of making the hand.  So, what I initially declared to be ‘anti-percentage’ and ‘strictly double dummy’ now appears to be the ‘percentage’ line to play the hand.  You still have the finesse after trying hearts.  Plus you have additional chances.  Any time you are not worse off, you are better off!

So, my thanks to alert readers who pointed out the shortcomings of the initial analysis.

The 3NT contract was excellent in principle, since it only required the opening bidder to hold the ♦K.  With relatively few HCP outstanding, the opening bidder would often need that card to have enough points to open, but not on this deal.  What about the 1NT overcall vs. 1♦?  Clearly 1NT worked best on this hand and quite possibly on most hands.  I play 1NT opening bids as 14+-17 and overcalls as 15+-18.  I had planned to open 1♦ and rebid 2NT if partner didn’t bid hearts.  When 1♣ was opened in front of me, I failed to reconsider NT (I thought the hand was too strong to open 1NT, but the value of the hand is now in range for an overcall) and just continued with my planned 1♦ opening and things went downhill fast.  Actual K&R evaluation puts the hand at 18.95 HCP, for whatever that is worth: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=a3+at92+aqj97+q8

Again, there was quite a difference in auctions at the 2 tables.  At the other table, one teammate thought ‘everybody’ played that 1♦-2♦ was a game force.  The other teammate thought that partner’s 3♦ rebid was natural, not forward going, and easily passed with their balanced minimum.  They ended up scoring all 13 tricks (for +190) after an initial club lead.  Still, there was an opportunity for a nice pickup for our side…if the winning opening heart lead could be found at my table against the slam.  One regular partner and I have found that leading the ‘unbid minor’ is often successful after an inverted minor auction that ends in 3NT.  That is, the opponents spend all of their bidding effort figuring out if they have the major suits stopped and, when they conclude that they do, they arrive in 3NT without the other minor suit controlled.  Here, though, they did not end in 3NT.  Opener rebid 2♠ showing values in spades and denying values in hearts.  I fleetingly thought about coming in with a 2♥ bid over 2♦, but the vulnerability convinced me that that could be unwise – why offer -800 or -1100 when the non-vulnerable opponents would be unlikely to score that much left on their own.  Should I come in with a 2♥ bid?  Anyway, I didn’t bid 2♥, so that left it up to partner to find the heart opening lead.  Did you lead a heart (when presented as a problem at the start of the blog)?  Sadly, partner went for the unbid minor and led a club – declarer had 12 easy tricks (3+0+6+3).  Lose -920, lose 12 IMPs.

What about the lead?  When opener rebid spades, they denied anything useful in hearts, so partner, who also had nothing in hearts, knew that my hearts were over dummy’s hearts, but partner didn’t know if my hearts were sufficient to do damage to the diamond slam.  It is possible to construct East-West hands where a club trick must be established before South’s heart entry is knocked out.  Here is one example, where my values in the ♥QJ are replaced by the ♣K and rearranging the East-West hands to remain consistent with the bidding.

FYI – my partner on this hand was not the partner where we have talked about ‘lead the unbid minor.’  And, that ‘rule’ we made up (but don’t always follow) applied to a 3NT final contract, not a slam in the minor that was opened.  Before the opening lead, I felt pretty confident that, barring a singleton heart in East or West’s hand, that a heart lead was coming, and that we would beat the slam.

What about the bidding?  As you can see, 6NT by East cannot be touched.  The same top 12 tricks are there, with no damage from a heart lead when the hand is played by East.  East doesn’t know what fitting values partner has.  If partner has only 11-13 balanced minimum points, the HCP are not there for a traditional requirement for slam.  But, 6 card suits produce lots of tricks without points.  And, 3 ‘unprotected’ kings argue to find a way for East to be declarer, so that, as in this actual deal, no opening lead can go through one of the kings and defeat the slam immediately.  But, there are a number of minimum hands that partner could have where 2 aces are missing.  Bidding a unilateral slam missing 2 aces is kind of silly.  Partner could hold:

This (carefully selected) 14 HCP balanced minimum for West would be opened 1♦ by almost everyone (and with this sample hand, even a 5♦ game goes down if the heart honors are wrong (and hearts are led)).  So, it seems reasonable to check on aces.  Many/most players in our group play ‘minorwood’ where, having supported a minor suit prior to the 4 level, a bid of 4m in a game forcing auction, or a jump to 4m, will ask for key cards.  Unfortunately, after East asked, the answer (2 key cards without the ♦Q) landed in 4NT!  Now that East has found out that the key card situation is good (only 1 missing), he is unable to ‘right side’ the contract in 6NT!  Still, if the ♥A is in the North hand, all will be well.  Or if no heart is led.  So, East decided to play in diamonds rather than NT (partner could still have a singleton heart, where 6♦ is cold and 6NT is hopeless if the ♥A is offside).  Of course, creating another perfectly misfitting minimum hand for West, it is even possible for partner to have 2 aces and not only have no play for slam but be unable to make game should the ♥A be offside, even if you ‘right side it’!  Let’s say West held:

With this construction for the West hand, no lead will allow the slam to make.  The actual West hand had well placed black queens, well placed spade length and no heart lead.

With traditional slam HCP (33 for 6NT), you can do the math and know for certain you cannot be missing 2 aces.  However, in this auction, the expected high card points are quite likely to be well below 33, so even though you can see, looking at all of the hands, that 6NT by East cannot be beaten, jumping unilaterally to 6NT (without checking for aces) is rather foolhardy and arriving in that contract via a sensible auction is challenging, perhaps impossible.  Well, one way would be to play 4NT by East as key card for diamonds.  That would achieve right siding NT while, at the same time, asking about key cards.  Bidding 4NT as key card would have worked here, but many hands benefit by asking for aces at a lower level.

Bidding, declarer play, defense and leads are all remarkably simplified by looking at all 52 cards.  When the only data you get to hear is the bidding, and all you get to see is your hand (and dummy, when it comes down)…well, that is what makes bridge such a great game.

Recap Of 1/15/2020 28 Board IMP Individual

January 16th, 2020  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

Today there were 4 double digit swings (I lost them all!) and all involved bidding judgment.  Two were high level doubles that did not work out, 1 was a low level double that didn’t work out, and one was a slam decision.  See if you can do better…

As an aside, when the blog began, I was using North/South/East/West.  Then I had a request to start using names so I started using first names.  But, we have multiple Dans and Marks and Garys and…so forth, resulting in queries about ‘which one’ so, starting today I am using last names.

There is a saying in bridge ‘bid one more/take out insurance’ and it certainly applied on this hand.  If the opponent’s bid might be making and if you bid one higher in your suit to a contract that might also make, simply bid one more and find out.  Looking at your own hand, you really can’t tell which is right and rather than guess – take out insurance – if both are down, it is a small loss, if both make it is a huge win (to bid on) but a huge loss to stop bidding or, even worse, double.  As you can see, this is a classic hearts vs. spades battle – classic in the sense that it happens all the time, but, usually the side that holds the spade suit comes out the winner…not here.  One table stopped off to double 4♠ and the other table (me) decided to double 5♥.  I looked at my relatively flat hand, 2 aces, knowing that partner opened, and so I decided to double 5♥.  Should I pass and let partner decide?  Should I take out insurance and bid 5♠ myself?  If I do bid 5♠, we ‘only’ lose 14 IMPs instead of 17 IMPs (because the opponents would double for -200 and our teammates -790 would net to -990 and 14 IMPs away). 

Of course, had I bid 5♠ they could then bid 6♥ and then I need to bid 6♠!

Jump shifts during auctions are a matter of partnership style/agreement and since most partnerships are not ‘regular’ there is a certain amount of table talk allowed in the game.  Here, at my table, North, East and South assumed that West’s 4♦ was a splinter raise of hearts.  East asked ‘is that a a splinter?’ and was told ‘no’.  We decided that was enough table talk and East was left to guess and fend for himself.  It turns out 4♦ was a fit jump shift – perfect description of the values he held if that is what the 4♦ bid means.  In any case, East chose to bid onward and reached the unbreakable 5♥ contract.  In fact, 12 tricks are cold on any lead.  Simply lose a spade and ruff 2 spades and pitch the last spade on the 13th diamond.  At the table, declarer was in a doubled contract and found a path to 11 tricks and took it.  Since declarer did not score 12 tricks, we were ‘only’ -850 while our teammates were -790 to lose 17 IMPs.  The high card points were split 21 for us, 19 for them, but who needs points when you have tricks.  A sad start to the day, but it only gets worse.

The spade contract that was doubled at the other table has 10 easy black winners and 3 unavoidable red losers (as long as club ruffs don’t come into play).  Double dummy, a diamond lead/club shift; then another diamond lead/club ruff and then underlead ♥AKQ for a third club ruff and 4♠X can go down 3 for +800.  Much better to bid onward in hearts than hope for that miracle defense that was not found.  The heart slam depends on 2-2 diamonds (otherwise a diamond ruff is threatened), but 11 tricks are no problem in hearts unless there are 2 diamond ruffs (4-0 split with the 4 card diamond suit on opening lead).

Support with support.  This is a bridge maxim that has stood the test of time – when partner knows you have support, they can usually handle their hand much better than they can if they do not hear support.  At my table, West chose the simple raise to 3♠ which ended the auction.  The opening bidder was unable to picture that all 3 missing kings that mattered (as well as the ♠Q) could be finessed away so that, barring an unlikely diamond lead, 12 tricks were cold.  The high card points are split 20-20, but the friendly location and distribution of all cards means that it takes a diamond lead to defeat slam in spades.  When partner led their singleton ♣5, declarer dutifully took his finesses and scored his 12 tricks, so we were -230.  Not bad… we thought.

At the other table, West, in spite of their spade support, found a double over South’s classic Michaels cue bid of 2♠.  When North bid a ‘pass or correct’ 3♣, East (with a minimum opening bid in terms of HCP) felt that 9 tricks would not be possible in a club contract, so they doubled, going along with partner’s theme of penalize the opponents.  South corrected to 3♦ but the momentum of ‘we have them on the run’ saw another double hit the table and the auction was over – 3♦X.  Any normal defense should produce 5 tricks for the defense.  The defense should manage to score the ♥Q as well as 3 aces.  The setting trick can come from a third heart trick (the power of the ♥AQ9 behind the ♥K10) or else a diamond trick (the power of the ♦J9xx behind the ♦10).  That is, the defense can lead 3 rounds of diamonds until there is no heart ruff in dummy (giving up their diamond trick), or not lead diamonds and allow a heart ruff in dummy, but still score a diamond trick for down 1.  In practice, the actual spade lead established a spade winner in dummy and when East returned a spade at trick 2 (reluctant to cash the ♣A on air), the club trick went away allowing 9 tricks for declarer, 4 for the defense (East should shift to a heart at trick 2, and then West wins and puts a club on the table to achieve an easy down 1, but that is not what happened).  Thus, our teammates were -470 to pair with our -230 to lose 12 IMPs.

Once again we see a heart/spade battle where ‘bid one more’ is necessary, but that theme got taken to an incredible (bizarre!) extreme at the other table.  Again the HCP were nearly evenly split with 21 for North-South and 19 for East-West. 

The choice of opening bid changed the auction in a profound way.  As dealer, East is too strong for an equal vulnerability 4♠ preempt.  The playing strength amounts to a 2♣ opening bid, but since the HCP and defense is below the expectations for a 2♣ opener, 1♠ seems like the normal way to start.  As North, I was stunned to hear partner overcall 2♥, but what do I (North) do?  I have very very weak defensive prospects (my only outside cards are the ♦Q and ♣J and it is unlikely that partner had only ♥QJxxx to overcall 2♥ (therefore zero heart tricks on defense)) – perhaps I should bid an immediate 5♥ in advance of the upcoming 4♠ bid?  Instead, I cue bid 3♠ showing a strong heart raise (well, I DID have strong hearts!).  But, that led partner to later choose to double 5♠.  I came close to bidding 6♥ after the double, but fear of turning +200 into -200 made me pass the final bid of 5♠X.  I should have bid.

At the other table, East chose the opening preempt of 4♠ which was passed around to North who (quite reasonably/correctly) bid 5♥.  South then looked at their 6 card heart support with outside values and decided the initial preempt was actually weak and that North-South owned the hand and was being robbed, so they raised to 6♥.  West had spade help with very little defense, so they assumed that partner also had little defense and took out insurance with a 6♠ bid.  But, speaking of insurance, South still wasn’t done, so they further competed to 7♥!  Which was passed out!!!!!!!!?

There are 2 losers and 11 winners in spades (clubs set up for diamond discards and the defense cannot effectively attack diamonds).  There are 3 losers in a heart contract with double dummy defense (East needs to bang down the ♣K to avoid an end play where they would be forced to provide a ruff/sluff or a diamond lead, allowing the North-South diamond loser to slip away.  It was a great contract to buy at the 5 level, but it wasn’t for sale at the 5 level for the heart bidders, so I needed to go on to 6♥.  We lost 12 IMPs when we were -850 while our teammates picked up +200 defeating the undoubled 7♥ contract 2 tricks when the lead of the ♣K was not found (at trick 2 after winning a spade at trick 1).  If our teammates had simply doubled the grand slam, they could have picked up +500 (or +800 with the inspired ♣K lead) and this miserable hand would never have been reported in the blog.

Often when I am 6-3-3-1 and open my minor and hear a major where I have 3 card support, I will raise the major.  My singleton allows a ruff in the short hand and my side suit has potential tricks later.  The more likely game is 10 tricks in the major rather than 11 tricks in the minor.  Here, my diamonds are rather robust and my spades a bit modest, but I raised spades anyway.  Did that irreparably harm the auction?  Partner (with no control in clubs) had visions of a grand slam, so he immediately went to a key card ask.  After learning we held all the key cards, he checked on the ♠Q, but when he found that missing, he inexplicably passed 5♠.  I’m not sure how grand slam can be in view at one minute and all of a sudden small slam isn’t bid when the trump Q goes missing.  In any case, both sides had an inescapable loser with the ♠Qxx behind the ♠AK, but 12 tricks were there for the taking.  We were +680 and our teammates were -1440 to lose 13 IMPs.

At the other table, East rebid 3♣, their second ‘suit’ and then bounced to the slam in NT, feeling that a club lead was unlikely and partner probably has them covered anyway.  East’s heart holding made it desirable to be declarer, and playing IMPs, NT can be safer than a suit – bad splits have more recovery options, but a 5-0 spade split would likely doom a spade slam.

Recap Of 12/16/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

December 18th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

What a day.  8 double digit swings, but I’m only reporting 7 of them.  There were bidding issues all over the map: Open weak 2 or pass; open weak 1 or pass; takeout double or pass; slam try or sign off in game; lead directing Lightner double or pass…and more.  There were defensive problems, declarer problems, but only one opening lead problem…when partner did not make a Lightner double!  See how you would have done on the various bidding and play problems.  Here we go…

North, as dealer, felt that their hand was unsuitable for an opening 2♠ bid at both tables, so they passed (I agree, since I was one of the passers).  After East opened 1♥ my partner made a takeout double (not a classic perfect double, but I think that is the right call).  West raised to 2♥, I bounced to 4♠ and was doubled by East, who was looking at 3 aces and felt partner may contribute something.

Meanwhile, at the other table, South didn’t like holding only 3 spades so they did not double at their first opportunity.  When 2♥ was passed around to them, they reopened with a double, but North had no game ambitions opposite a partner who couldn’t double the first time, so NS subsided in 3♠.

What about the defense?  East started with the ♥A and then considered where 3 more tricks could be found.  Certainly, if partner has the ♦A, the defense will be well positioned to beat the contract, but what about a club ruff by partner?  East can see 8 clubs and can hope that the remaining clubs are split 3-2, but if declarer has a doubleton, leading clubs will just work towards allowing him to set up the clubs to dispose of any losers he may have.  However, if partner has a doubleton club (or singleton!), leading clubs is a path to defeat the contract, since partner could ruff the third round (assuming they have at least 2 spades).  So, while it is possible partner has the ♦A, that trick (or tricks) can wait, since you still have the ♠A.  So, the best shot to defeat 4♠ is, I think, to lead ♣A at trick 2 and then another club while watching partner’s cards.  If they do not have a singleton and fail to show a doubleton, try diamonds after winning the ♠A.  But if they do show a doubleton, try to give them a club ruff.   At the table, the trick 2 shift to the ♦Q allowed declarer to win the ♦A, draw trump, and play clubs for themselves, starting small to the ♣K.  When the ♣J showed up on the club continuation,  10 tricks were easy.  At the other table, the partscore also scored 10 tricks, so we were +790 vs. -170 to win 12 IMPs.

Essentially the same auction allowed both North players to play the same contract with the same lead.  Double dummy, there are always 9 tricks for declarer, but he has to find them.  The play to the first 4 tricks was the same at both tables – duck the ♥Q, win the ♥K, and then play the ♠A and ♠Q which was won by West with the ♠K – with sufficient hesitation that it was clear spades were breaking 4-2.  If the ♠K was doubleton, West would, of course, have to win it.  But if the ♠K were tripleton, ducking would be routine because declarer could use their 1 remaining entry to dummy to cash the winning spades if you mistakenly won trick 4 holding an original ♠Kxx.

At the other table, the lead to trick 5 was the ♣3.  Declarer won the ♣Q and led a small diamond which East won with the ♦J.  East continued with the ♣9 (not a heart, suggesting that they do not have an entry) and declarer won the ♣A.  Declarer crossed to dummy’s ♥A and West discarded the ♣K, suggesting that they need to hold onto both spades and diamonds.  So, declarer could play a diamond to the ♦Q, win the ♦A, and lead another diamond, endplaying West into leading a spade into dummy’s ♠J9 to score the last 2 tricks.  So, declarer won 3+2+2+2 for 9 tricks.

At my table, the lead to trick 5 was the ♦3.  I wanted to use the power of the 10 in dummy to help establish my 5 card suit, so I ducked – not fatal, but not good.  If I had played the ♦Q, I have a bit easier path to my 9 tricks.  Anyway, after ducking the diamond, East won the ♦J and cleared hearts while West discarded the ♣5.  I’m still in the running for 9 tricks, but I have to achieve the same spade endplay against West to do it (that is, DO NOT cash the ♠J to discard a club loser).  I did cash the ♠J, throwing a club loser and hoping that I might still be able to get 2 finesses via leading the ♦10 (not covered) and then a club finesse.  But, West did cover the ♦10 with the ♦K, so I won the ♦A and was down to requiring diamonds to be breaking 3-3.  They didn’t.  I played my diamonds and West won the 4th round to cash their spade for the setting trick.  My diamonds were established.  I didn’t need the club finesse.  But, I provided 5 tricks for the defense (2+1+2+0).  If I had not cashed the ♠J and simply led the ♦10 when I was in dummy with the ♥A, it would be covered with the ♦K and ♦A.  But, that gives me a diamond tenace over West (I would be holding ♦Q75 over the ♦96).  I could then play ♣A and a small club, forcing West to win their ♣K but allowing me to take the last 4 tricks via the established ♣Q and all 3 of my diamonds if West exited with a diamond (and I finessed), or the established ♣Q and all my 3 of my spades if West exited with a spade.  Or, if West unblocked the ♣K under the ♣A, I can cash the ♣Q and then play 2 diamonds, achieving the same endplay that happened at the other table.  I didn’t find those plays, since I had already cashed the ♠J and established the defensive 5th trick, so I was down 1.  Darn.  There is still a lot of guessing/finessing to do, and I think the diamond play at trick 5 was more challenging than the club play, but cashing the ♠J was a clear error – hoping for a late endplay was a far better shot at 9 tricks than what I tried.  So, we were -50 and our teammates were -400, lose 10 IMPs.

North-South passed throughout and the first 3 bids were identical at both tables.  At the other table, West decided that their hearts were so weak that they would just raise to game.  Gary thought he should at least offer a club cue bid to see what I would respond.  When I cue bid 4♦, Gary had a problem – he didn’t want to engage in table talk to find out whether 4♠ was natural or a cue bid or key card for hearts?  Or was 4NT a spade cue bid (necessary if 4♠ is key card) or key card for hearts?  So, he took the simple approach and just blasted to 6♥.  After the ♠Q lead, it was simply a matter of playing out hearts and learning that the 4-1 split was going to hold me to 12 tricks.  A club lead would be interesting, but I might as well take the finesse as ‘one more arrow in my quiver’.  Initially I was thinking why take the club finesse when I won’t need it if spades come in, but I DO need the club finesse if spades do not come in (or, if hearts break badly).  So I was able to score +1430 vs. -680 to win 13 IMPs.

What do you think of the 4♣ cue bid?  Of course I like it, because it worked to win 13 IMPs.  The weak trump support is certainly a factor (and might have been the downfall of the slam on a club lead).  Still, ♠AK 5 long and ♣AQ are some mighty strong slam cards and simply bidding 4♣ doesn’t force a slam (for sure, if partner cannot cue bid diamonds, you do not want to be in slam).  I think the failure to try the 4♣ bid is pretty pessimistic.  Thanks Gary!

East-West passed throughout and here again the first 3 bids were identical at both tables.  At the other table, South passed it out in game, but at my table, after some consideration, South cue bid their ♦AKQ104, North cue bid hearts and South bid the 6♠ slam.  But, the auction wasn’t over because I still had one more chance, in the passout seat, to double 6♠ for a club lead.  A double of a freely bid slam is referred to as a Lightner double, asking for a lead you might not normally make – often dummy’s first bid suit.  I reasoned (poorly) that with the red suit cue bids, partner might lead a club anyway.  And, since I had so many clubs, declarer might have a singleton or void.  But, there are too many IMPs riding in the balance to not try the double.  Had I made a double, the opponents might sit for it, partner would lead a club as they did at the other table, and the slam goes down 2 to score +500 and win 14 IMPs.  But North, seeing their exposed ♣K might pull 6♠X to 6NT which cannot be beaten as the cards lie.  Pass and hope for a club  lead, or double and hope they sit?  As you see, I passed and when partner found the lead of the ♦2, declarer had no problem wrapping up 13 tricks when spades behaved.

What about South’s first bid?  For years, many West coast players have adopted a ‘Walsh style’ in responding to 1♣ such that hands that are only worth 1 bid (less than invitational) bypass diamonds in favor of showing their major suit with their first and only bid.  Here, with a weak spade suit and an amazing diamond suit, bypassing diamonds to bid spades seems (to me) to be taking that principle a little bit far.  This is not a 1 bid hand.  South doesn’t have a game force, but he certainly has invitational values, so I think I would respond 1♦.  Both tables felt that 1♠ was the proper response to the 1♣ opening bid.  After South responds 1♦, it is possible to imagine a continuing sequence where North becomes declarer in spades and you reach a slam protected from the damaging club lead.  How about this auction?

Perhaps that is dreaming, but I like that auction better than the one at the table and no Lightner double can affect that slam.  But, I didn’t make the Lightner double.  Lose -1470 vs. +420, lose 14 IMPs.

Epilogue – if you positively knew that the opponents would run to an unbreakable 6NT slam upon hearing a Lightner double, then it can never be right to double.  Why send them to a cold contract when partner might find the right lead and beat the current contract?  But, this is trying to rationalize my poor decision to not double.  You can never know that 6NT is cold, nor that they will choose to run there even if it is.  Finally, I had to start thinking about the Lightner double as soon as South bid 5♦.  I need to make up my mind before the slam bid comes around to me.  It is extremely unethical due to communicating unauthorized information to pause after they bid slam.  Whether you double or pass when the Lightner situation occurs, it must be with a smooth tempo – so, I did pass in tempo!  Sorry teammates.

This is a very complex hand with issues galore for both the declarer and the defense.  The same contract with the same lead was played at both tables.  Double dummy, declarer always has 10 tricks, but they have to time the play carefully as the cards were dealt, and it is possible that a different lie of the cards would require different play.  After losing to the ♦K at trick 1, declarer still has a club to lose and a likely trump loser, so careful play is required to avoid 4 losers.  At both tables, declarer timed the play such that the defense could succeed, but only one defense was successful.  The power of West’s ♠87 was key to the defense (as well as key to successful declarer play – declarer must play trump early and often to neutralize the spade strength of West).

At our table, after winning the ♦K, partner continued diamonds at trick 2 with declarer winning their remaining high diamond.  Declarer then led a small spade towards dummy, winning the ♠Q as East dropped the ♠10.  At trick 4, declarer then led a heart to the ♥K (doesn’t seem crazy), and they can no longer make the hand as the cards lie.  Double dummy, declarer has many choices of what they could have played to trick 4 and still make 10 tricks: lead a high spade, lead a high heart, lead the ♦A or lead the ♣2.  There are many variations to arrive at 10 tricks depending on which is chosen, but after the actual heart to the ♥K, declarer continued with 2 more rounds of hearts, cashed the ♦A and led a club.  My partner (East), after winning the ♣A, is down to 1 diamond and 4 clubs.  The defense has 2 tricks.  A club play will force declarer to ruff in dummy and declarer cannot avoid 2 trump losers and be defeated.  The hearts are established, but West can overruff and trump cannot be drawn.  But, when partner exited with a diamond, declarer was able to score a small trump in hand while I followed suit and a heart was discarded from dummy.  Then, declarer ruffed a club in dummy with a low trump, ruffed a heart with the ♠A (while I underruffed with the ♠7), and dummy has ♠J9 left while I have the ♠K8, so I can only score 1 trump trick.

Should partner know to lead a club instead of a diamond?  If declarer has the ♣K, it doesn’t matter.  But, since declarer had already shown out of diamonds, the diamond play offered declarer a choice regarding where to ruff.  Scoring a small trump in hand was the only available route to 10 tricks and declarer took it.

At the other table, a heart was led at trick 3 (possibly suggesting hearts are breaking badly).  The same basic principle applies – declarer must extract trump in a successful way – by leading small to dummy and continuing with a high spade from dummy, preserving the ♠A.  But, there are many paths to success including winning the trick 2 heart lead in dummy and leading high spades off dummy.  West can duck or win, but the defense cannot come to 4 tricks if declarer handles trump correctly.  At the table, declarer won the trick 2 heart shift with the ♥K, cashed the ♠A (now he can no longer make the hand) and led another spade, ducked to the ♠9.  When another high spade was led from dummy, West could win the ♠K and, having seen partner’s signal (that they held the ♣A), knew that forcing a club ruff in dummy would establish the ♠8 as the master trump for down 1.  So, they led the ♣K and another club and the defense had their 4 tricks.

Both declarers gave the defense opportunities but we failed to capitalize at our table, so we were -620 and our teammates were -100 to lose 12 IMPs.

As dealer, East must decide whether or not to open.  Count all of the jacks, they do have a ‘rule of 22’ opening bid: add up quick tricks (2), HCP (11) and length of 2 longest suits (9) and they reach 22.  At my table, East did not open and when West opened their 4 card heart suit in 3rd seat, the auction unfolded in a way that did not appear to offer great game prospects.  North has a routine 1NT overcall and East can show values by making a penalty double.  As South, holding zero points, I redoubled to ask partner to bid clubs (seemed like as good a runout as any, leaving the opponents plenty of room to bid).  When North did bid 2♣ East finally supported hearts but West had no interest in going on to game.

Meanwhile, our teammates did open the East hand with 1♠, West had a normal game forcing response of 2♦ and when East rebid hearts, the game was easily reached.  With the club finesse working, diamonds splitting 3-3 (friendly diamonds is not necessary to make the game) and hearts 3-2, there were only 2 diamonds and a heart to lose, declarer scoring 10 tricks.  So, we were -170 while our teammates were +620 to win 10 IMPs.

Once again, there is an opening bid decision – this time in 2nd seat with everyone vulnerable.  This is a matter of style.  I prefer my 2nd seat preempts to be pretty standard/classic – this one doesn’t really match that description with doubleton ♥J, tripleton ♣J, and doubleton ♦QJ on the side of a broken spade suit.  In any case, at our table, West passed, partner (North) opened a routine 3rd seat 1♥ and East, with a powerhouse, has to double in spite of limited support for the unbid major.  I preempted with 3♥ and when West bounced to the spade game, the auction was over.

At the other table, our teammate decided to open 2♠ and a subsequent Ogust auction arrived in the same excellent 4♠ game with the same lead.  Double dummy there is no defense.  The play of the hand worked quite well for declarer, with the ♦QJ filling in the long diamond suit as a threat for scoring a number of tricks.  But, even though you can essentially establish diamonds with one lead (when they split 3-2), the inability to draw trump and THEN play diamonds created the need to get a heart ruff along the way, as well as pitch the club loser on the established diamonds.

At our table, after winning the club lead, declarer led a diamond to the ♦Q and ♦A.  Partner (North) continued with a heart to knock out that ace, but declarer could win the ♥A, lead a diamond to the ♦J, ruff a heart, cash the ♠A, and lead the ♦K.  I could ruff, but declarer simply overruffs and leads a club to the board for one more diamond lead, allowing him to pitch the club loser.  So declarer just lost a diamond and 2 trumps, 10 tricks for declarer.  The standard defensive ploy, when dummy threatens with a long side suit, is to attack the entries as early and thoroughly as possible.  The defense needs to get a lot of aces off of the board and there are only so many chances to try – it can’t be done.  

Meanwhile, the play at the other table was identical for the first 4 tricks: Win ♣A, Lose ♦A, Win ♥A, Win ♦J.  At this point, it seems to be time to ruff a heart to take care of that loser (as the declarer did at our table), but here declarer played to the ♠A and led another spade.  With the ♠KJ over the ♠Q10, there was no winning guess and declarer had to lose their 2 trump tricks along with the heart that the defense could now cash as well as the earlier ♦A that was lost for down 1.  That meant we were -620 and our teammates were -100, lose 12 IMPs.

One of the problems with the unsuccessful line of play that was chosen is that you might get your wishes (doubleton ♠K onside, no guess), but still lose on a diamond overruff (if South had held 3 diamonds and ♠Kx).  As long as trump break 3-2 (and, actually, many 4-1 distributions), the texture of your spade suit is sufficiently robust to just budget for 2 trump losers and take the heart ruff to dispose of that loser (and also pitching the club loser on established diamonds).  The recommended line (ruff a heart at trick 5) provides excellent chances for scoring 10 tricks.  Declarer had a blind spot.

Recap Of 11/13/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

November 14th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Only 4 double digit swings today with a different theme than usual.  One was a slam decision, one was a part score ‘battle’ that ended poorly when the same team declared at both tables with neither contract successful, but the other two were a different theme than normal.  For both of these hands, the defense was able to defeat the contract at one table, while the other table had a critical shift in the middle of the hand that allowed declarer to make the contract.

Here both tables arrived in a reasonable 3NT with 26 HCP and stoppers in every suit, but at our table East declared with South on lead, while our teammates had West declare with North on lead.  With East holding the minor suit tenaces (and West having no tenaces), it proved better for East to declare.  Three out of four hands at the table are 4-3-3-3 which make it quite challenging (for both sides) to find their necessary tricks. 

The cards are sufficiently friendly that, at my table, South must lead a heart at trick 1 or else declarer, if they play accurately, can make the hand (albeit some amount of double dummy play required).  Many years ago, I believe from the game of whist, a ‘rule’ was established: “4th from longest and strongest.”  For the opening lead on this hand, in my opinion, a minor suit looks very wrong, but either major might work (as I said, on this deal, only a heart lead beats it, double dummy).  South reasonably chose the ♠9 for the opening lead.  To make the contract against best defense, declarer must duck the first trick, or else win trick 1 and continue  spades (establishing their 8th trick) .  Any other continuation provides an opportunity for 5 tricks for the defense.  At the table, East won the first trick and led a heart, ducking South’s ♥J.  Now, to defeat the contract, South must continue a major, but at the table they shifted to a diamond at trick 3 which brought declarer’s trick total to 8.  Now, when declarer ducks a spade, they have their 9 tricks (3+1+3+2).  If South had continued with a major suit after winning the ♥J, declarer could/should be defeated.  Since I had to hold onto my 4th heart, I had to let go of a club on the 13th spade.  South let go of a club on the 13th spade and another club on the third round of hearts, so declarer found 10 tricks, making us -430.

Looking at all of the hands, it is easy to see some of the successful defensive options.  I should point out that the defense is not all that easy for South.  Yes, they can get out with a major as they win the first heart trick.  But, when their majors run out, they need North to take them off the end play by playing the ♥K (crocodile coup if a small heart is led from dummy) on the ♥Q.  If I had held the ♦J instead of the ♣J, the diamond switch would have worked wonders.  I cannot overtake in hearts the first time hearts are led (at trick 2) and still beat the hand – South must be allowed to win at that point and continue a major suit.

Our teammates, playing from the other side with West as declarer, had a more challenging path to 9 tricks.  Here, if North leads a small club or diamond or small heart, the defense should find 5 tricks.  An opening spade lead by North puts declarer on a potential path to 9 tricks – the same opportunity that our East declarer had after the spade lead by South at our table.  The actual heart lead left declarer with no options.  South won the first 2 tricks with the ♥J and ♥Q, and then North won trick 3 with the ♠J.  But, by ducking a spade, declarer is up to 8 tricks (9 if hearts split 3-3, or the diamond finesse works).  After North’s ♠J held trick 3, North led a diamond and declarer finessed the ♦J, losing to the ♦Q.  So the defense won the first 4 tricks and still had a club to come for down 1, -50 to go with our -430, lose 10 IMPs.

Here, the first 8 calls were the same at both tables.  As North, I felt I had too much playing strength to stop in game.  Partner did make a free bid at the 2 level, and I suspect partner has very few HCP in spades and I know they have zero HCP in clubs.  If partner has the ♥AK and ♦KQ, 7♦ will be cold.  If he has just the ♥A and ♦K (he did), 6♦ should have play.  And if he only has the ♥K and the ♦Q (what was he doing bidding 2♥ on a 5 count?!), there is still a chance (with some finesses) that 12 tricks can be found.  So, it seemed worth a shot.  Bidding the slam prompted West to save in 6♠ which did save them a few IMPs vs. the slam that was going to make.  But when slam wasn’t bid at the other table, we were still able to pick up 10 IMPs, +1100 vs. -620.  There was nothing to the play at either table, with 5 top tricks to cash on defense vs. 6♠, and 12 tricks to cash on offense in 5/6♦.

A slightly different auction resulted in both tables playing 4♠ with the same ♦A lead at trick 1 followed by the lead of the ♦3 which was ruffed by West at trick 2.  The ♦3 looks like a suit preference for clubs (it was), but my partner cashed the ♣A prior to leading another club at trick 4.  That was 3 tricks for the defense and a heart still had to be lost, for down 1.  At the other table, West tried the effect of under leading the ♣A, so declarer was able to not lose any club tricks and with just the 1 heart loser remaining, that meant 10 tricks were scored for +420 and +50 to win 10 IMPs.

Here both sides have 20 HCP – whose hand is it?  Both sides have stoppers in every suit.  But, there aren’t a lot of tricks nor places to play.  There were many questions of bidding judgment that created problems all around.

• Should North open the bidding in second seat with their 3 quick tricks (but 4-3-3-3 and 11 HCP)?  One did, one didn’t.
• If North passes, and East opens 1♣ does South have a vulnerable 1♠ overcall?
• If South does overcall, how does North handle their hand (strong in the context of having passed)?
• If North redoubles (whatever it might mean after 1♣-1♠-X) and West bids 1NT-P-P – now what?  A penalty double by North in this position would work well to push the board, but is that even feasible?  Could partner read it – a passed hand now trying to penalty double 1NT when all partner did was overcall?
• Almost all partnerships that play in this game have a rule: if partner forces the bidding to a certain level and strain, whether the next hand bids or not, returning to the level/strain that was forced shows the weakest hand possible (that is, I could bid 2♠ over 1NT to show a weak overcall whereas pass would show a stronger hand).  Does that ‘rule’ apply here?  I didn’t think so.  Anyway, this is a useful rule that all should have some agreement about what subsequent bidding shows.
• After passing as dealer, does West have a reason to enter the auction (vulnerable) showing their 5-5 in the red suits after North opens 1♣ and South bids 1♠?  West thought so when that auction occurred at the other table.
• Once North opened the bidding at the other table, South had their doubling shoes on, making a penalty double of both 1NT and 2♦.  Double dummy, both contracts are down.  Those 40 point part scores provide some of the safest penalty doubles in bridge, since, even if you allow it to make, that still leaves them short of game.

For what it is worth, I don’t have a strong opinion about any of the questions posed above – do you?  Each is a tough bidding judgment decision.  Clearly, on this deal, I can answer each question with clarity, since I can see all of the cards.  But, for a different layout of the cards, different answers will prove effective.  I certainly did not have to overcall 1♠.  I like bidding the boss suit whenever I can, since it can move the opponents to the 2 level sooner than they might want to (and, here, they don’t want to play at any level).  Anyway, when my partner did not open I did overcall 1♠ and partner (quite reasonably) felt they had some ground to make up at their next turn to bid to show their values.  As you see, we arrived in 3♠ and I needed to play/guess way better than I did to find 8 tricks (that were available double dummy).  I had to duck the opening club lead (I did), and when East shifted to a heart at trick 2, I had to go up with the ♥K (but, instead I played a small heart, allowing another club lead by West).  The heart return was almost forced (spades, diamonds and clubs are unattractive and partner implied hearts).  After West won the ♥Q, the second club lead crippled my hand.  I won the ♣A, then played a spade to the ♠A and a spade to the ♠10.  East won and started playing clubs.  I needed to discard my ♥KJ on clubs to hold it to down 2.  When I ruffed the club, I was down 3!  I only scored 3 spades 2 diamonds and a club.  Going back to trick 2, had I gone up with the ♥K, I am MUCH better placed because West never gets on lead and the power of the ♣A109 remaining in dummy provides protection against being tapped out.  East has no effective leads – all suits help declarer.  Since it was a third seat opening bid, I was clueless about how much playing strength to attribute to the East hand.  In short, I got the heart suit way wrong.  But, whether I played for down 1, down 2 or down 3 barely changed the IMP result.

Meanwhile, our teammates at the other table were competing for the partscore with the East-West cards.  With no fit (a 7-card fit in 3 suits), they had no place to play.  Double dummy, 1NT by East (which was doubled) is down 2 and 2♦ by West is down only 1.  But, in the play, West only found 6 tricks, so they were down 2.  South (Gary M) made some excellent decisions to start doubling the vulnerable opponents rather than bidding onward.  When the dust cleared, our teammates ended in 2♦X down 2 for -500 and I was -300, losing 13 IMPs on a partscore hand.  Pretty amazing. 

Bridge is a bidders game and it seems that, more often than not, success goes to those who are bidding aggressively.  This was a hand where the more you bid, the more trouble you got yourself into.  Every once in awhile, your hand records that you pick up after playing a duplicate game will show a very short list of makeable contracts, double dummy.  Here, as the cards were dealt, N-S can make 1NT or 2♠ and E-W can make 1♦.  Neither side can make a club or heart contract.

Recap Of 11/4/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

November 6th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

Apologies in advance.  You are not going to see a lot of good bridge today, but I’m just reporting what happened.  Here is a preview of things to come.  Defense played a significant role in 3 swings (see if you would have done better?).  Twice a minor suit slam was bid vs. 3NT – once a very good one to win IMPs, once not a good slam to lose IMPs.  Once a (rare) excellent minor suit game was bid vs. a failing 3NT.  There was a lead ‘problem’ – see what you would have led.  Once there was a problem with doubles (penalty? take out?) that got way out of control.  And finally, there was an awkward hand where the auction started with a 3rd seat weak 2♦ at both tables and it was difficult to determine where to land – but friendly cards resulted in a win for the aggressive bidders.  If you are keeping track, that is a total of 9 double digit swings!

Here we go…

Playing that 3♣ over 1♠ shows an invitational hand, non-forcing, I felt that really described my hand well and chose that option at the risk of losing the heart suit.  When partner repeated spades (non-forcing), I feared that the tricks my hand offered (possible diamond ruff, force a club trick, plus a heart trick) might produce game, so I raised to 4♠.  It is certainly not partner’s fault for failure to offer hearts – my 3♣ bid showed interest only in clubs with no side suit.  Double dummy, only 8 tricks are possible playing in spades and when partner misguessed hearts, 6 tricks were lost for down 3.  Had partner left me in 3♣, only 7 tricks are possible.

The player with my hand at the other table simply bid a forcing NT and when partner offered hearts, they bounced to the heart game.  Here, double dummy, 9 tricks are possible, but the defense has to find their 4 tricks.  On the opening heart lead, East could see the singletons in dummy, the length in hearts (and clubs) and concluded that if declarer had the ♣A, there would be lots of tricks (i.e. no hope for the defense), but if partner (West) held the ♣A, declarer will fail by losing a trick in every suit.  So, they cashed both their ♠A and ♦A and the hand was over for the defense.  The spade suit, which initially had holes in it, became established.  The diamond loser could be ruffed in dummy, and there was communication to draw trump and enjoy all of the tricks.  Double dummy, after winning the ♥K, almost any continuation defeats the contract (only a trick 2 continuation of the the ♠A or ♠9 allow 10 tricks).  It is safe to cash the ♦A.  After that, it appears the safest lead is to try clubs, although any card at trick 3 but the ♠A or ♠9 will leave declarer a trick short.  Of course, had declarer held the ♣A, a club shift allows a needless overtrick, since the club suit will provide discards for everything in declarer’s hand.  I don’t know if I could have resisted the temptation to cash the ♠A, but it was necessary to not lead the ♠A in order to defeat 4♥.  So we were -150 and -420 to lose 11 IMPs.

Back to the bidding – I have heard numerous times, over the years, that 7 card suits dwarf 4 card suits, so don’t worry about the 4 card suit.  And I had a decent 7 card suit.  But, I now think bidding 1NT is the right bid, even if you are playing invitational jump shifts – it allows you to bring the heart suit into play.  If partner rebids 2♦, you can rebid 3♣ (which is a slight underbid – you do have invitational playing strength, but on a misfit, 11 tricks will be unlikely).  If partner rebids 2♠, you can chose to pass or convert to 3♣.  But if partner rebids 2♥, you can bounce to game and see if the opponents can figure out how to defeat your contract.  The forcing NT is the choice made at the other table and clearly the better choice on this deal.

When I make impossibly bad plays, I am constantly tempted to omit them from the blog, but here comes another one – a play so bad that it defiles the game of bridge.

At the other table, West chose to rebid their 6 card club suit rather than show spade support by raising to 2♠ with only 3 card support.  West’s 2♣ rebid ended the auction and on the spade lead, the defense got their 4 top major suit tricks, a spade ruff and the ♣K for down 1.

I’m not sure why a simple raise to 2♠ suggested to East that a game try was in order, but try they did and game was quickly reached.  Now to find 9 tricks.  On the diamond lead, declarer could see 6 tricks (which is all they had), but things got better.  On the run of the diamonds, using upside down carding, my partner discarded the ♠5 and ♠9 of spades, in that order, guaranteeing that they held the ♠AQ.  They also pitched the ♣7.  Declarer also pitched a spade and 2 clubs.  Then, on the club lead, declarer thought a bit before finessing – it turns out they were thinking should I risk going down 4 or hope to win the finesse and only be down 2.  I felt they held ♣AQ10 and were trying to decide which finesse to take.  Anyway, they played the ♣Q so I won the ♣K and I made my first horrible play – shifting to a heart rather than simply lead a spade to score our 2 spade tricks and find out what else we can get after that.  Partner, of course, won my heart lead with the ♥A and continued with the ♥J.  Declarer played the ♥9 under the ♥A and covered the ♥J with the ♥Q.  I placed declarer with originally holding ♥Q109, and, horror of horrors, I ducked to maintain communication with partner to score my 13th heart.  If the hand was dealt as I was thinking, I don’t need to score my 13th heart because partner, after winning the ♠AQ, can lead a heart and it will end play declarer into losing to the ♣J at trick 13.  MUCH more significantly, I forgot I had already won the ♣K, so the 2 known spade tricks plus the ♥AK ensures down 1 – that is 5 tricks.  Down more is good, but at least beat the hand.  When I ducked, that was declarer’s 6th trick and they cashed 3 clubs for 9 tricks, making 3NT!?!?!?

In a different context, when a suit is 4-3-3-3 around the table, it is often right to duck the second round to maintain communication with partner, so that 2 more tricks can be scored in the suit.  This was NOT that situation.  Terrible terrible terrible.  Earlier I asked to see if you can do better on defense – board 3, I’m not sure how many players would have defeated 4♥ but here, everyone that can count to 5 defeats the hopeless 3NT…except me.  We were -600 and teammates were -100, lose 12 IMPs instead of winning 5 IMPs.

Competitive bidding (vs. passing throughout) always alters the auction, sometimes in unpredictable ways.  At my table, with a hand rich in controls and tricks, North elected to force game with a jump shift rebid of 3♣.  At the other table, West stuck in a 2♦ bid which prevented a jump shift, so North underbid slightly with 3♠.  With strong diamonds and a solid hand, South chose to rebid 3NT and that ended the auction.  Back to my table, with a maximum 1NT hand (but shortage of aces), South chose to take the jump shift seriously and bounced to the club slam.  Perhaps 3NT or 4♣ or even 3♠ would have been preferable to the precipitous jump to 6♣.  See if partner wants to make a further move towards slam and proceed more cautiously.  It turns out the leap to slam was too unilateral, too high.  Hands that are 5-3-3-2 are only one card away from the dreaded 4-3-3-3, hands which always have trouble producing tricks.  However, without a diamond lead, there is hope (for declarer).  Draw 2 rounds of trump, and if the spades are 4-1 and the long trump is with the long spades, all diamonds can be discarded before the opponent can ruff in, and the losing heart can go on the final spade.  However, the 5-0 spade split doomed the slam.  An opening spade lead would lead to down 2, an opening diamond lead would at least produce down 1.  My choice of a heart lead left a bit of suspense to the hand, but in the end, 11 tricks was the limit.  So we were +50 while our teammates had 9 easy tricks in NT (possibly could have scored more depending on the play and defense), so they were +400, win 10 IMPs.

At the other table, North looked at their hand and found a negative double at the 2 level with 2 HCP!?  East looked at their hand and bid (4♥) what they thought they could make.  South found the amazing bid of double which has the virtue of being right, in that the defense will painlessly score 5 tricks on any lead but trump.  That is, leading any of the 10 cards that are not hearts (most of those cards are impossible to lead, such as a small diamond or a small club) will prevent declarer from scoring more than 8 tricks.  Assuming reasonable defense after any non-trump opening lead, the defense will fall into a spade ruff, 2 club ruffs, and 2 aces.  Declarer can’t get to their hand to draw trump.  A trump lead produces 11 tricks for declarer because then he is in charge – he loses 2 aces and wins the rest of the tricks.  The inability to draw trump due to the 6-0 fit creates a 3 trick swing.

Clearly South intended the double as penalty – spades is the only unbid suit and they hold a singleton.  I suspect it was the negative double at the 2 level that made South feel that 10 tricks would not be possible in hearts.  They have no reason to believe that their hand will produce 4 tricks.  But, North, who had already advertised spades, heard the double and thought partner wanted THEM to bid spades (plus, their undervalued negative double made them fear there was no chance of defeating 4♥).  I think South could have bid 4♠ themselves if that is the contract they were pursuing.  So, it seems more prudent, if North has to pull the double, to revert to partner’s suit, diamonds.  There are 9 tricks available in diamonds.  In any case, North decided to try for 10 tricks in spades.  West thought that was unlikely and doubled.  Instead of now pulling back to diamonds, North sat for the double and was able to manage 5 tricks, down 5, -1400.  Double dummy, 1700 is possible, but who’s counting.

Meanwhile, at my table, there was no negative double.  East didn’t bounce to 4♥ but bid a simple 2♥ as their first bid.  I then bid 2♠ to show my second suit and East bid only 3♥.  Now I could bid 3♠ to show my 5=6 shape and partner took a preference back to clubs rather than repeating his solid heart suit.  I wasn’t sure what tricks I would find, but I felt my hand was too good to not bid the 5♣ game.  South could see 3 almost certain tricks in their hand, maybe more, so they doubled.  South won the ♦A at trick 1 and returned a diamond to the ♦K.  There are a lot of tricks around, but I can’t get at them.  I started by attempting to cash the two top spades but South ruffed the second one.  No matter what I did, South was destined to score 3 trump tricks along with their ♦A for down 2.  In fact, I am down 3 if, after ruffing the spade, South ensures that dummy is never reached for heart discards by continuing clubs – the easy way is to play the ♣A and then the ♣J).  Declarer has spade losers and dummy is down to 1 trump and if declarer attempts a spade ruff, South will over ruff and lead diamonds.  Instead, declarer can play his high trump to draw South’s last trump, but it also takes dummy’s last trump and declarer is left with 2 spade losers to go with the 3 tricks they have already lost.  By leading clubs, South trades 1 club trick for 2 spade tricks.  But, when South ruffed the spade, they led a diamond allowing a spade discard as dummy ruffed, plus 2 more spade discards on high hearts.  But South still had 2 power trump tricks for down 2. Our -300 and our teammates -1400 lost 17 IMPs.

What about the bidding?  It is hard to call a 6-3 fit a misfit, and even the spade 5-2 fit can play for 9 tricks for East-West.  Even though there are 26 HCP and stoppers in every suit, 3NT is hopeless on a diamond lead, since 6 tricks must be lost.  Bottom line, if our team declares at both tables on this deal (at a high level), we are destined to lose a lot of IMPs wherever we land, especially if we are doubled.  The secret to this hand is to let the other side play it.  My partner and I felt we had too much power (if clubs are 2-2 there are 11 easy tricks, just losing 2 aces).  So we bid too much (as the cards lay on this deal).  And our teammates also bid too much.  So there you have it.

Here, both auctions started exactly the same.  For their second bid, East had to make a choice.  At my table, they signed off in 3NT and West passed, ending the auction.  Our teammates saw strong diamond support with an outside ace and king opposite the powerful 2♣ opening bid, so they decided they had to push for slam (I agree).  One curiosity of this particular deal, the ‘2♦ waiting response’ had the (rare) effect of right siding the diamond contract.  Had West been declarer, the natural ♣J lead would have forced declarer to either win the ♣A on the first round, or duck and (assuming South wins the ♣K and continues clubs) win the ♣A on the second round and take an immediate finesse for the ♦Q.  Since declarer is more likely to play for 2-1 trump than take a first round finesse, that would have led to the defeat of the diamond slam, since once the ♣A is gone, there is no reentry to the East hand to take a diamond finesse (after you learn about the 3-0 split).

Anyway, that is not what happened.  I was on lead and led a spade against 3NT and declarer could win, find out about the diamond split, unblock the ♥A, come to hand with the ♣A, cash the ♥K pitching a club from dummy and then finesse in diamonds, 12 easy tricks, -490.  Since East is playing the diamond slam, no lead by South is effective, there are always 12 tricks, just as there were in NT.  So our teammates scored +920 vs. our -490 to win 10 IMPs.

Some wildly different bidding created a swing on this hand.  Start with the dealer, East – is this an opening hand?  Of course.  I will occasionally pass 12 HCP that is 4-3-3-3, but this hand has 13 HCP and 2.5 quick tricks, excellent spades, but an awkward initial call in first seat.  At my table, East opened 1♠ (which normally shows a 5 card suit) and when I doubled (which normally shows 4 cards in hearts, the unbid major), West raised to 3♠ which was passed around to me.   I felt that if I doubled again, I would be promising 4 hearts, so I merely competed to 4♣.  Partner, still thinking I held 4 hearts converted to the game in hearts, which West decided to double.  With the ♥KJ6 over the ♥AQ4 (and with the 3 card trump suit clearly visible in dummy), the defense was able to work out a path to 4 tricks.  The defense began with two high spades with the second one ruffed in dummy.  Declarer played 3 high clubs, with the third one ruffed by West with the ♥J as the last spade is discarded by North.  West exited with a diamond ducked to the ♦K and ♦A.  Then a diamond to the ♦Q allowed a heart finesse that lost to the ♥K.  West exited with a spade, ruffed by North who then led a diamond to dummy to score the ♦10.  But, at this point, the defense already has 3 tricks and East retains the ♥107 while only a singleton ♥A remains in dummy.  No line of play can prevent East from scoring their ♥10 for the setting trick.  So, we scored 9 tricks for -100.

At the other table, East miscounted their points and did not open.  Without the spade opening bid, North-South had the auction to themselves with no opposing bidding.  South judged that their hand was worth a 2♣ opening bid (what do you think?).  After the 2♦ response, South showed their suit with 3♣ and heard North rebid 3♦ (table talk decided that this was either diamonds or a double negative, but unclear which – turns out it was both!).  Now South is trying to find a place to land, hoping that by showing hearts, partner, with spades stopped, can rebid 3NT.  North, with no spade stopper, raised hearts so that North-South reached the same heart game that we did at our table, but played by the South hand.

The play started the same: two high spades with the second one ruffed by South followed by 3 high clubs.  However, West did not ruff the third club with the ♥J – they just discarded as dummy got rid of their last spade.  Declarer then played ♥A, then ♥Q, won by the ♥K.  Unable to see that South had bid a 3 card suit naturally at the 3 level, West continued with the ♥J, dropping partner’s ♥10.  A spade continuation after cashing the ♥J took dummy’s last trump, but South was now down to the ♦A and good clubs to score 10 tricks.  They didn’t even need the diamond finesse which was working.  We were -100 while our teammates were -420, lose 11 IMPs.

There were an unusual number of bidding judgment decisions on this hand.  East must open, but what?  If it were me, I would just follow my rule: opening hand, no 5 card major, 3=3 in minors, open 1♣.  But opening 1♠ (as East did at one table) has a lot of merit – far superior lead director (vs. 1♣) and a better preempt than 1♣ so the only downside is fooling partner about your length in spades.  Perhaps I will adjust my rules about what to open!  If East opens 1♣ it would certainly have changed the flow of the auction a lot, but who knows where it would end, since no one did open 1♣.  South certainly has a problem after East opens 1.  They would probably double and then bid 2NT if the opponents have not bid spades.  If East passes, South has the chance to open – does South open 2♣ (or 1♣ as I would)?  Since the cards are sufficiently unfriendly for (vulnerable) East-West, a penalty double of 3♠ would allow a winning score of +500 if North-South took all their tricks. The problem is that had I made a double of 3♠ it is still takeout!  Should North pull 4♣ to 4♥?  Does West have a penalty double of 4♥?

What about the defense?  When I have 3 trump, I often play high-low to show count (let partner know that I am 3 long), so that they can then work out how many trump declarer has.  Many others use ‘trump suit preference’ to tell partner where their values are, since the small spots played while declarer draws trump can be meaningless cards unless you assign a meaning.  On this particular deal, no suit preference signal is going to help the defense, but if East provides the count in trump, West could work out that a 3 card suit had been bid and that tapping dummy with a spade (after winning the ♥K) would leave declarer helpless.  That isn’t what happened, so the game came home.

The first round of bidding (and West’s rebid) were pretty automatic and the same at both tables.  Then East has to decide if they should try 9 tricks in NT or pursue game/slam in a minor.  With diamonds doubly stopped, one player decided that they should go for 9 tricks in NT.  But, when the club finesse lost, the defense had 0+1+3+1 for 5 tricks, down 1.  At the other table, Dan was sitting East and he saw a shortage of helpful honors in partner’s suits (and void in the suit partner opened), with no great source of tricks in his own suits, so rather than offer 3NT as a game contract, they raised partner’s clubs to 4♣ and partner bid the club game.  In spite of the ♣K being offside, there are actually (double dummy) 12 tricks available (after the ‘obvious’ ♦K lead – an unlikely opening spade lead will hold declarer to 11 tricks due to altering the timing necessary to get all of the diamond ruffs). Declarer simply pursues a cross ruff (and 1 ruffing finesse in hearts) to score all 8 trumps, one at a time, plus 2 top spades, a heart and the ♦A.  I don’t know the actual line chosen, but declarer made 11 tricks, so our teammates were +600 and we were +100 to win 12 IMPs.

What do you think of the 3NT bid?  It certainly seems reasonable and 9 tricks are there if ♣Kx(x) is onside.  If the opponents don’t set up declarer’s spades or diamonds for extra tricks, declarer can force a heart trick to reach 9 tricks.  But, I like the 4♣ bid.  Yes, you only have 3 trump, but they should be useful with the heart void, while the heart void is problematic in NT.  Plus, your 3 fast tricks in the pointed suits figure to cover partner’s losers there.  And, as partner ruffs diamonds, you know the diamond length on your right will prevent any threatening over ruff.  So, would you pursue the minor suit game or assume you will find 9 tricks in NT?  Playing matchpoints, one has to worry about whether there would be 10 tricks available in NT, but playing IMPs you just need to pursue the safest game contract.  I like the 4♣ bid and it had the virtue of being the winning bid on this deal.

Here, both tables started with two passes and South opened a rather routine weak 2♦.  From there, both tables floundered around a bit with no obvious place to land.  North-South have 7 card ‘fits’ in both minors with 6 card ‘fits’ in both majors.  East-West are just the opposite (7 card major fits, 6 card minor fits).  The target of every auction is ‘how high and where?’  The answer to both questions is far from obvious.  Often 25 HCP plus a stopper in every suit (without an 8 card major fit) means 3NT should be the target…only 8 tricks are there with best defense – but that ‘best defense’ includes a double dummy opening lead of a small diamond so as not to squash the critical ♦109 of diamonds that partner holds.  Double dummy, the deal produces 11 tricks in spades and 10 in hearts, but as you will soon see, double dummy is not the likely scenario for offense or defense.

I’m not sure what to say about the bidding at either table.  West has an enormous problem after the 2♦ opening bid.  NT makes no sense with no diamond stopper.  Double makes no sense with a doubleton heart.  And bidding spades…well, partner decided to make a 4 card suit overcall (2♠) at the 2 level (well they did have 15 HCP).  I raised to 3♠ and that ended the auction when partner didn’t feel his hand warranted a game bid.

At the other table, West, who held 15 HCP, noticed that they had nothing to bid and passed over 2♦.  East (who could not open the bidding in second seat) then reopened with a double.  West came to life with a cue bid, so East bid 3♥ showing the only ‘suit’ they had.  Partner now bid 3♠, the only suit that they had.  Since East’s hearts were 5 long, they decided they must be rebiddable and so they now bid 4♥ ending the auction.  Neither hand could bid at their first opportunity, but still game was reached.  Now to find 10 tricks.  The ‘obvious’ way is to win the diamond (ducking could be quite poor if South opened a 6 card suit), and then finesse the ♥Q.  But, double dummy, the only card to lead at trick 3 (after winning the ♥Q) is…a diamond.  This is to sever communication early so that the ♦10 can never be a late entry or exit card for the North hand.  The actual play continued with the ♥A (a normal, but potentially fatal continuation).  Now a club finesse to enter hand to drive out the (hoped for) 3-3 hearts with one more lead of trump.  When South wins the ♥K, they must play a club (through dummy’s ♣Q6) to declarer’s ♣A – this would establish the ♣K while North still retains a diamond.  In practice, South first cashed a diamond (stripping North of their exit card) and then led a club.  This establishes the ♣K just like it would have if they led a club a trick earlier, but North can now be strip squeezed in the black suits.  After winning the ♣A, declarer plays 2 more hearts and North has no answer in the 4 card ending.  If they ever pitch a spade, the spades are all good, and if they hang onto all 3 spades, declarer can (and did) play a club to North’s ♣K forcing a spade lead away from the ♠Q, making 10 tricks – 3+4+1+2.  Very nicely done.  The cards were very friendly for East-West, but since declarer didn’t play a second round of diamonds very early (trick 3), the defense could have prevailed by not cashing their diamond and leading clubs, preserving North’s exit card.  Other similar ways to score 10 tricks is to duck the opening diamond lead (already noted as dangerous) or lead a diamond at trick 2 after winning the ♦A.  But if you continue with a heart finesse at trick 2, you must play a diamond at trick 3 or the defense can prevail.

It is amazing (to me) there there are 11 tricks available, double dummy, in the 4-3 fit with spades trump.  The cards were really friendly for East West.  We were only in 3♠ and when it was all over, partner scored 10 tricks for +170, but our teammates were -620 to lose 10 IMPs.

The nearly automatic 3rd seat weak 2♦ bid reeked havoc on the East-West bidding.  But, even without that opening bid, the choice of bids and choice of contracts for East-West remain extremely problematic.  All of bidding is structured around finding 8 card major suit fits.  There were none.  3NT suffers from a lack of a source of tricks.  But, on this deal, nearly anything was possible, double dummy.  I was shocked our counterparts (opponents holding our cards at the other table) arrived in the 4♥ game, and even more shocked that it made – I hadn’t tried to analyze it at the table, it just didn’t seem likely to score 10 tricks.  This deal took a distribution and key card location so precise and so specific that I think the game in either hearts or spades might be less than a 10% probability of success (but I don’t have the patience to compute what the probability really is – perhaps a reader will?).  All I can say is congratulations and move on to the next hand…

The exact same (normal) auction was produced at both tables, so it came down to the opening lead.  At our table, the heart lead produced 7 tricks for the defense, down 3, -300.  Our teammate found a diamond lead producing 9 tricks for declarer, -600 to lose 14 IMPs.

David Bird says to lead a major suit on these auctions and on this deal, either major can work to find the 7 defensive tricks.  A diamond didn’t work.

Recap Of 10/21/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

October 22nd, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  5 Comments 

When we play, our movement is an individual movement with 7 rounds, 4 boards each round with everyone else who is playing being your partner for 4 hands.  Round 3 had, for the first time, all 4 boards with double digit swings (11-12-12-11 IMPs respectively) and those were the only double digit swings all day until one more came in the last round.  And, there were quite a number of other amazing hands which did not result in a double digit swing, but could have – so I decided to write up one of those.  Bidding and leads both played a role in creating the swings, but for the hands reported, neither defense nor declarer play were ever a factor in the swing.

There are lots of debates among experienced players about what sort of balanced hand opens 1NT with a 5 card major – some always do, some never, and some ‘it depends.’  As you see, one table opened with 1♥ and soon they were in the heart game.  The other table opened 1NT.  After the 1NT opener, South showed a good hand with at least 9 black cards with doubt about strain and level (from his perspective, the deal could play in spades, hearts, clubs or NT in game or slam, depending on partner’s hand and possibly a perfect fit).  He did this by first transferring to spades and then bidding clubs.  After it was over, North admonished himself for not bidding 3♥ on the way to 3NT.  His partner can certainly raise, bid NT themselves, or repeat a black suit if appropriate.  When my partner found the diamond lead, the defense quickly scored their 5 diamond tricks to set the 3NT contract 1 trick.  At the other table, trying to ensure 10 tricks, it is best to take an early spade finesse while dummy still has trumps to control diamonds.  When spades behaved so well, declarer had 5 tricks in each major and 2 top clubs for 12 tricks, +480 for our teammates and our +50 won 11 IMPs.

What should you open with the North hand?  I think it is a matter of style.  Sometimes, the 1NT opening bid will shut out the spade suit where neither defender can enter the auction reasonably at the 2 level, but, if you don’t choose to open 1NT, they can overcall 1♥ with 1♠.  With South taking his time in the bidding and not merely jumping to 3NT, he sent the right ‘alarm’ to North, but North persisted with NT.  North certainly had hearts covered and ♦Q97 seemed enough.  The opening NT bid wasn’t fatal, but the final signoff in 3NT was.  My partner almost chose a passive heart lead (any suit that is only 4 long headed by the AJ is often ineffective for an opening lead when a strong NT is bid on your right).  Here the diamond lead was quite effective, in spite of holding ♦AJ83.  Thanks partner!

Preempting in second seat is the most risky time to be offbeat.  This is because one opponent has already passed, so of the two players remaining to bid, one is partner, one is your left hand opponent.  Preempting your partner can create unwanted difficulties.  In short, it is recommended to have classic values when opening a 2nd seat (vulnerable) preempt.  At the other table, our teammate sitting South began the auction with 3♦ and North, assuming classic values (and possibly a little more?) bid the slam.  South is unlikely to have both the ♦AK as well as a side Q, but if they do, you are on a finesse.  Here there was no side Q, but the extra shape (1=4=7=1) that South had fit quite well (along with great heart spots) and that proved to be enough.  It was a quick easy auction and when the heart honors are split between East and West, 12 tricks are there for the taking.  Unless a heart is led on opening lead (it was), both the ♥10 and ♥9 are critical to make the slam (and the ♥8 also if the suit splits 4-1).  As long as opener was 7-4, the 4 card suit could have been spades or clubs and the slam still would have had play (especially with the ♠J (making it cold) or the ♣10 which would provide the same chances that the actual heart suit provided).  The shape of a hand usually radically changes the trick taking ability.  Had opener been 2=2=7=2, the only way to make would be an opening lead of a K from KQ, allowing a later lead up to the J for a discard in the remaining doubleton.

At our table, a 3♦ checkback (part of the Wolff relay system after a 2NT rebid) found the 4-4 heart fit which also was able to score the same 12 tricks when the hearts honors were split between the defenders.  On this deal, 12 tricks are available in either red suit, but for slam, diamonds is a safer contract due to having complete trump control.  So, our teammates scored +1370 while we were -680 to win 12 IMPs.

Our luck ran out on this deal.  With no stopper in 2 suits, I was sure West would not open the hand 1NT at the other table.  Wrong!  After a failed Stayman invite auction, East-West quickly arrived in 3NT.  After the normal spade lead (and spade continuation after winning the ♦A), E-W had 10 tricks with declarer scoring 2+0+4+4.

When I began the auction with 1♣ we had a wildly different auction at my table.  North, of course, overcalled 1♠ and partner made a routine negative double.  South showed invitational spade support and I doubled to show serious clubs.  North retreated to 2♠ and partner supported my clubs.  Time to try for 9 tricks in NT, so I bid 3NT.  On a spade lead, it looks like 8 tricks and where there are 8, there must be 9!  But, Manfred, with his club void, wasn’t done.  He gave me a problem when he bid 4♠ passed back around to me.  I could take the money and simply double 4♠, but, there are some reasonable lines of defense/declarer play that will actually allow 10 tricks in spades (but if all players play double dummy, only 9 tricks are possible in spades).  In any case, I felt that I could score 10 tricks in NT (just like they did at the other table), so I bid 4NT.  My clue should have been South’s invitational cue bid.  Even though I had a likely source of tricks, my choice to try to declare 4NT vs. defend 4♠ was simply wrong.  When Manfred made the excellent sneak attack lead in hearts, South won the ♥10 and led spades through.  I was limited to my ♠A and 4 club tricks, scoring 5 total tricks, down 5!  We lost -250 while our teammates were -430, lose 12 IMPs.

Is opening 1NT the right bid?  Is it right to accept the 2NT invitation with two unstopped suits and sub-minimum HCP?  On this deal it certainly worked well.  I have opened 1NT many times with a 6 card minor, but my two weak red doubletons convinced me not to do it this time.  

Here, the first 2 bids were the same at both tables, but my partner elected to show their spade stopper by bidding 1NT.  I showed my heart stopper by bidding 3NT and that ended the auction.  An initial club lead, or a spade lead that sees a discouraging signal and then figures out to make a club shift would allow 5 tricks for the defense.  On the actual heart lead partner was able to claim the first 10 tricks.

Meanwhile, when diamonds were raised (rather than bidding NT), much more competitive bidding followed where, eventually, E-W ventured into the diamond slam which was doubled by South (thinking that both aces would cash).  They did.  So, our teammates were +100 while we were +430 to win 11 IMPs.

What about the lead vs. 3NT?  The sneak attack doesn’t always work to defeat 3NT, but I have found on nearly every competitive auction that arrives in 3NT, the contract will fail with the right lead.  And, it seems to me, more often than not, that right lead is the off suit, not the one that you advertised during the auction (such that the declarer’s side felt that it could cope with that lead when they bid 3NT).  That isn’t to say leading your suit is always wrong.  But figuring out the right lead always swings a HUGE number of IMPs.

What about the competitive auction?  The defensive prospects vs. 5♦ are not strong (it is cold on a difficult spade guess), so North (Jerry) at the other table made an excellent decision to push on to 5♥.  Now East had to decide about their defensive and offensive prospects.  Since partner had not bid 1NT initially and had not doubled 5♥, East was fearful that the vulnerable opponents might be making 5♥!  Unless the defense achieves a ruff (not impossible, but not possible after an opening diamond lead), 5♥ will only be down 1.  In any case, East decided to take out insurance and try for 12 tricks in diamonds.

Most players in my group use invitational jump shifts.  That is, the jump shift is not weak at all, but it  is natural and not forcing.  The West hand here is the prototypical example of an invitational jump shift showing about 10 points and a good 6 card suit – exactly what they held.  West, with a known key filler in the diamond suit, converted to 3NT.  Partner had to find a passive diamond lead (or an even more impossible spade lead, then heart shift) to beat it.  Declarer has 8 top tricks, but on the lead of either unbid suit (hearts/clubs), declarer is presented with his 9th trick and wraps up the game.

At the other table, our teammates were not an established partnership, so in order to avoid too much table talk that would give away the hand, West simply bid a forcing NT and passed when they heard the spades rebid.  Declarer managed 8 tricks for +110, while at our table, after the club lead, declarer just claimed their 9 tricks 0+0+6+3 for -600, lose 10 IMPs.

So, that was it for the double digit swings.  Here is one more, that could’a been a double digit swing, for a little bid of comic relief. 

At both tables E-W scored 12 tricks with hearts trump, so there was a missed slam opportunity, but the board was not a push!  At the other table, competitive bidding got the auction high and opener had to decide, with their 3 loser hand whether or not to chance a key card call.  When they bid 5♣ partner bid 5♥ and the auction was over.  With declarer’s club suit providing a diamond discard from dummy (and the ♠A in dummy), 12 tricks were easy.  But, even with the ♠A, 12 tricks are not assured – if dummy had 1 more diamond and 1 less spade or heart, 11 tricks would have been the limit since there would have been 2 diamond losers.

At our table, where I decided to start with 2♣ North trotted out their Suction tool.  South alerted, said it was Suction, but couldn’t remember what it showed, so they passed.  I knew what Suction was so I told him, but he still passed.  At this point, even though I was playing with a regular partner, we hadn’t discussed what various continuations would be after this intervention.  I thought we might land on our feet, but I wasn’t confident about finding a slam, let alone making one.  And, if we arrived in the wrong game and went minus, it would be a huge loss, so I decided to just defend 2♥ at 100 per trick, rather than try to figure out where we should play and how high.  Lazy?  Perhaps.  Looking at all of the hands, passing 2♥ seems pretty crazy (letting the opponents play 2♥ undoubled when we are cold for slam).  But, both East and South have 5 points.  Both hands would ‘show values’ opposite the 2♣ opening bid and pass the 2♥ bid to show those values (with a bad hand, East would conventionally double the overcall showing a double negative worthless hand).  And, given the confusion, it seemed more likely to me that South held the hand that East held and East held the hand that South held.  If that were true (East and South trade hands), then the double dummy best contract is 6♦ but that requires a doubleton ♦QJ (which North held).  Meanwhile, in spite of the 6 card heart suit (that South would have held if East/South traded hands), North-South would be down 5 playing 2♥.  3NT is another reasonable place to play, but there is risk there as well (poor spade stopper).  I don’t know what contract we would have chosen (either with the actual East hand or if East held the South hand).  Anyway, however foolish I was to pass out 2♥ at the table, I did.  The result was +700 vs. -680 to win an IMP.  Bridge is a great game.  When is the last time you saw +700 on a scorecard (recalling the old days of scoring when doubled non-vulnerable penalties were 100-300-500-700-900-1100…was changed in September 1986)?

Recap Of /10/2/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

October 4th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  5 Comments 

Today there were 6 hands with double digit swings where, again, bidding played the major role, but leads, defense and declarer play added opportunities that could have reduced/eliminated the swing.