Recap of 7/15/2013 28 board IMP individual

I have been traveling a lot lately, so we haven’t had our 2-table game in quite some time.  Finally, Monday, July 15th we played.  There were some swings from the usual nonsense of unfamiliar partnerships floundering around in the bidding where both partners are not sure what the other partner is doing – actually, there seemed to be more of that than usual this time.  There were 7 double digit swings and several more hands of interest.

Virtually every swing was determined by bidding.  Bidding judgment, bidding understandings, bidding misunderstandings, bidding styles.

Board 3

 

Two different auctions resulted in very different results.  It is standard to double 1♠ with spade values, but I thought I needed a stronger hand to expose a psych and I didn’t think Ed would be psyching, so I tried 2♦ to show some values.  I think everyone at the table expected Manfred to pull  3NTX to 4♣, but he held his ground in 3NTX vs. the more normal -450 in the other room when they were playing 4♥.  It was all in the bidding, little to the play.  The ♥J, fourth from longest and strongest, proved to be an effective lead against 3NTX.  +1100, win 12 IMPs.

Board 5

 

Not a double digit swing, but interesting.  I have been harping on regular partner Dan that the ‘3 level belongs to the opponents’ when you hold only 8 trumps.  Clearly there are times to compete higher, but that is a useful rule that I think has been proposed/supported by Larry Cohen’s Law.  However, in this case, Mike decided to open 1♣ (I guess intended as a lead directing, sub minimum opener) and not 1♠, even though he held 5 spades.  Later in the bidding, Mike didn’t compete further and Dan followed ‘the rule’ not realizing pard held 5 spades.  Double part score swing +110 and +140, win 7 IMPs.  The choice of opening bid came back to bite Mike unless he balanced with 3♠.  When he sold out, both partscores made.

Board 7

The play was over at trick one.  The bidding was problematic.  Over 3NT, Jack knew he had extras but wasn’t sure how to proceed.  Is 4♣ Gerber, Minorwood, natural or what?  Finally he decided on 6NT and pard didn’t know there were 13 easy tricks.  The bidding was MUCH slower at the other table with very long pauses.  Mike decided to rebid 4NT.  Is that quantitative, RKCB, or, (due to no agreed trump suit) Easely Blackwood (my discussed agreement with many of my partners, where replies are  0-4, 1, 2, 3 and only aces count, the way Easley always intended it?  Dan gave a 1430 reply of 5♣ and decided, over 5♥, he just had too much over a 2♣ opener to not carry on.  Not having a clue what was going on, he raised to 6♥ and Mike immediately bid 7NT.  While floundering along the way, you cannot argue with the final contract.  So, since many of us play who play in this game play regularly with multiple other players in the game, sometimes you are with a ‘regular’ partner and sometimes you are playing with one you never play with except in this game.  This hand came up where both pairs with the critical hands were never regular partners and they had to figure out how to negotiate the bidding.  Some of us at the table thought Mike’s 5♥ bid was to play.  But Mike correctly argued that he had to bid 3♥ over 3♣ in order to establish hearts as trumps, not jump to 4NT if he was always intending to play hearts.  Lose 13 IMPs.

I would like to point out (since 3♣ showed 2 of the top 3) that this is one of the key reasons why I believe 4NT should be Easley Blackwood (when no trump suit has been agreed) with a trump K not counting as an ace as in RKCB.  If pard holds ♣KQ, it will not cover a singleton club loser in the 2♣ opener’s hand, but ♣AQ does cover a singleton and you need to know the ace, not key cards.  Of course you can still use 1430 replies if you choose, even if there are only 4 aces.  But I think it is very important to have an agreement that certain 4NT bids are ace asking (no trump K), not RKCB.

Board 11

 

At my table, I was passing throughout.  Both pairs (me/my partner as well as my opponents) were regular partners who “play” XYZ.  However, merely saying you play XYZ leaves, as always, MANY things that must be discussed among which are:  What if the opponents bid, what if pard is a passed hand?  This pair has agreed it is always on, even by a passed hand, thus the auction produced above.  My partner and I had discussed that XYZ is off by passed hand.  So we watched in amazement and amusement as the auction progressed.  At the other table, 4th hand decided to open 1NT.  Our group plays “15-17” but, as anyone who watches the team trials or Vanderbilt or Spingold vugraphs knows, players find reasons to “upgrade” and turn hands that are below the announced range into a hand suitable for a NT opener.  I count 5 card suits as “1 point” so those are the only 14 HCP hands that I open 1NT.  Here, Mark decided (and Bruce, at my table almost decided) to open 1NT.  Mark and partner quickly arrived at a challenging 3NT contract, making 2 overtricks!  It turned out the defense to defeat 3NT wasn’t that easy to find.  On top of that, it is cold with the right view in clubs (first round finesse of the Q).  An initial diamond lead puts declarer under pressure.  But, taking the right view in clubs will see the way home to 9 tricks.  But when spades were led at trick 1 and later, when the defenders got in with a heart, clubs were tried, there were lots of tricks.  After the XYZ auction at our table, Bruce almost bounced to 3NT (since the 2♣ bid showed invitational values), but because of the auction, I think we would have found the diamond lead and now nothing brings home 9 tricks.  So, I won 8 IMPs due to teammates making +460.

Board 12

 

I have mentioned before that we allow significant table talk/questioning of partner about ‘what do we play?’ as the auction proceeds.  Here, strangely, the question was asked (Minor Suit Stayman? – yes), but the auction still crumbled.  Most play 3♦ as end of auction, but Manfred decided to continue on to 3NT.  Mark pulled to 4♦ which was quickly doubled for -500.  Thankfully, at my table, Mike raised gently to 3♥ which I was able to make, +140.  Lose 8 IMPs.

Board 13

 

The same bidding resulted in 3NT at both tables.  However, the play resulted in a swing when declarer took a first round spade finesse, losing to the ♠J, losing 5 tricks, instead of reserving the spade decision for later (and playing the opening bidder for the spade A).  Seems strange, but that is what happened.   -600, -100 lose 12 IMPs

Board 15

 

More examples of unfamiliar partnerships floundering in the bidding for spectacular results.  I have seen some pretty extreme slams (very low likelihood of success) come home before, but this one ranks right up there.  First, the auctions.  At least one player considered the rebid over 2♠ as automatic.  4♠, no question about it.  He claimed opener rarely has a 5 card suit, usually 6-7, so the doubleton is perfectly adequate support.  I thought the fast arrival jump was standard as showing 3-4 trump, showing no A, no K, and no singleton or void.  Based on that, I fail a couple of the benchmark requirements.  What do you think?

In any case, more unfamiliar partnership floundering.  At my table, I considered 4♦ as forcing, an offer of a strain, but not minorwood.  I usually play that the minor has to be supported below the 4 level before 4m can be minorwood.  Of course when you start with 2♣, it is not possible to get in support for a minor below the 4 level, and I could have held a variety of hands where 6♦ or 7♦ would be cold.  I didn’t.  I intended 4♠ as an offer to play.  Actually, on this hand, 4♠ is probably the desired end contract.  You can handle 4-2 trumps and 3-2 diamonds or singleton ♦J and have good play for 10 tricks.  However, Jack took my 4♠ bid as a ‘0’ reply to minorwood and he decided I must have good clubs to bid 3♦ without a top diamond, so 4NT must be a good place to play.  I retreated to 5♦ which was not such a great place to play.  But at least I had play for 11 tricks and managed to bring home 5♦.  Lose 11 IMPs.  The incredible 6♠ contract came home at the other table.  I use

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

a lot to determine the odds of making a contract.  It is a great web site for bridge nuts who love analysis of odds.  Assuming I have both figured out the parlay correctly and did the odds right, I came up with the odds of success of the 6♠ slam at 2.797%.  What do you need?  3-3 trumps (35.528) plus diamonds coming home (84.782) plus only 1 heart loser (1.615 x 5) – hearts had to be JT doubleton in either hand (2 chances) or Ax on side (3 chances).  With AH onside, you get to guess whether it was an Ax case (continue with a low heart) or a JT case (continue with a high heart) which I think leaves you the same odds.  Corrections to the computations welcome.

I have received input on a correction to the odds.  There are other lines of play, defense, and lie of the cards that come into play.  Assume a trump lead.  Now, no heart ruff is possible, but you no longer need 3-3 spades since you have not been tapped.  So, the computation above is revised, on that defensive start to trumps 3-3 or 4-2 plus diamonds coming home plus 1 heart loser which improves to 6.611%.  But, assume the more normal club tap at trick 1.  Now a heart ruff (assuming 3-3 hearts) is possible.  At trick 2, lead the ♥K (which is what Mike did).  The defense grabbed the ♥A which cannot be right to give declarer the maximum problem.  If you duck the ♥A, declarer is at a cross road.  The slam now comes home when hearts are 3-3 by simply leading/losing a heart, win the lead, ruff a heart, establishing them, draw trump, claim.  No need for anything special in diamonds (except avoiding a ruff with a 5-0 split).  Everyone in this game plays upside down count, but who gives true count when defending a slam to help declarer?  When the ♥K wins and the ♥10 appears, is that count (3-3 hearts) or count (♥J10 doubleton) or…?  The declarer at this point must choose.  The parlay of 3-3 hearts and doubleton J10 are not both in play.  It is either/or and must decide.  If you decide 3-3 hearts and you are right, you make whenever spades are 3-3 (they tap again in clubs upon winning the heart) and hearts are 3-3.  This improves to 12.622% chance.

But, assuming best defense (which is always lead trump when hearts are 3-3), the slam has no play on 3-3 hearts.  Best defense is to always lead clubs when hearts are 4-2 and you are left with no heart ruff possible (dummy’s trumps are too small unless the 3-3 split includes ♠987-♠542 and the hand with the doubleton heart cannot beat the ♠6.  This is a 1.776% parlay, so ruffing a heart when hearts are 4-2 is probably not the line you want to try.

If my analysis and assumptions (best defense) are correct, I believe the initial number of 2.797% is still correct.  Best defense is (quite often) not attained.  But the opponents heard the bidding.  They know how their spades and hearts are distributed.  And they have a good idea about the opponents lengths, so they might get it right.  Without best defense, the odds change around a lot as noted above.  If a club is led when hearts are 3-3, the odds improve to 12.622%.  If a trump is led when hearts are 4-2, the odds improve to 6.611%.

More on the bidding.  The first issue is what to bid over 2♠ .  This is clearly not a double negative hand, so 3♣ is out.  Bruce and I chose 3♦, and that still seems right to me.  The next problem is what to bid over 3♥.  I felt my choice was between 4♠ (fast arrival) and 3NT.  I chose 3NT, still not ready to force a 5-2 spade contract, thinking 9 tricks might be easier than 10, in spite of my soft club ‘stopper’.  Then we floundered as noted above.  Bruce chose 3♠ .  Based on further discussion and further thinking, I believe that is the right call (and, fast arrival should no longer apply – it was only relevant over the 2♠ bid).  Pard will expect better clubs than Jxxx for the 3NT call.  He could sit when that is wrong.  If you bid 3♠, it leaves him maximum room to further clarify his hand.  He is free to bid 3NT, or support diamonds or go where he wants.  In any case, Mike thought that the hand should offer decent play for slam and, in case of false preference (Bruce holding 2=3 in the majors, Mike jumped to 6♥ as a pass/correct slam.  Bruce corrected to 6♠ making, lose 11 IMPs.

Board 18

 

This was a bidding problem.  3NT was a suitable final contract.  Our auction was simple (2NT-3NT).  Hearts were never introduced.  Sorry, but I don’t know the auction or the play at the other table, but they arrived in hearts and were only able to manage 9 tricks.  Win 10 IMPs.

In my initial post, I failed to discuss the play and defense (and lead).  The ♠K was led by Mike, Mark winning the ♠A.  After cashing the K (all small), Mark led the ♣J which held.  He followed with the ♣Q which also held, per force.  Winning the second club lead is clearly fatal with the ♠Q entry established in dummy.  Declarer will easily have 2+2+?+5 for 9 tricks.  Somewhat counterintuitive, winning the first club with the ♣A can never be wrong.  If declarer has ♣QJx, holding up will not prevent 2+2+?+5 because the entry is there.  However, grabbing the first club lead and immediately playing spades kills the dummy entry while the clubs are blocked.  Declarer’s only hope is a doubleton ♣10, and since you are holding the ♣10, you know that parlay will not be successful.  So, with an entryless dummy, declarer will be forced to crash the ♣K on the ♣Q and when the ♣10 doesn’t fall, declarer will likely take a heart finesse and score only 2+4+1+1 for 8 tricks.  Clearly, finding the heart Q doubleton offside will see declarer home, but that play is unlikely.

Board 23

 

Identical start to the auction took a wild diversion.  Bruce wanted to show values with no direction and made a responsive double.  Ed, hoping for one 4 card major, tried 4♦ and partner played 4♥, down 3.  Jack simply passed the preemptive jump to 3♦ and, in the passout seat, Dan (North) passed it out.  At the other table, Ed (North) said he would have reopened with a double, given the opportunity.  If so, that would have worked well if south passes.  In any case, -200 at my table (playing 3♦ not doubled) and -300 by teammates resulted in lose 11 IMPs.

Board 24

Very interesting hand, but quite a bit different from hand 3, reported earlier.  Neither board was an opening ‘gambling’ 3NT, but both times 3NT was bid in a rather gambling fashion.  The very big hand over the 3NT bid has to make a choice (both here and board 3).  Pass and take the plus.  Or double and hope they sit.  Or bid.  On hand 3, double was win-win.  If they sit, +1100.  If they run, 4H is still available for +450.  Here, not so much.  You can pass and collect +150.  You can double.  If they sit, you get rich, +500.  If they run, you have to decide whether to double 4♦ or bid 4♠.  As you can see from the bidding, one table (Manfred, who earlier unsuccessfully sat for 3NTX) ran to 4♦ and Jack decided to try 4♠.  He bought a reasonable dummy for zero points, but still was one light.  The other table sat and lost -500.  Since I was the 3♦ bidder that got to defend 4♠, I won 11 IMPs.

Board 27

 

Normally, I play Drury on after P-P-1♥ -1♠ but here, forgetting that 2♣ was still available to me for Drury, I used a ‘tool’ that I have often found effective – make a negative double with a 3 card limit raise and then support later (saving cue bids for promising 4 card support).  When pard freely bid 3♦, I happily jumped to the easy game and pard was +450.  The auction was brief at the other table.  Even if you don’t play LTC, it seems like a 5 loser hand is worth an opening 1 bid, even if partner is a passed hand.  +450 vs. -230, Win 6 IMPs.