Recap of 1/13/2014 28 board IMP individual

Most players in our group prefer playing bridge face-to-face vs. BBO.  I do too, but blogging favors BBO because I always know what happened (everything) at the other table, it is impossible to make typos while entering the hand records, and it is much faster to capture the hands/bidding.  So, here’s hoping I’ve avoided the typos for Monday’s game.  It has seemed to me, not only in our game, but in most IMP competitions that I play, the majority of large swings come from bidding decisions: open (or not), preempt (or not), invite (or force or pass), overcall/compete (or not).  Monday, there were many swings all due to bidding (as just noted), but there were 3 interesting lead/play/defense differences that created large swings (boards 1, 8, 15).  Start at the beginning… (footnote to those who attended – don’t worry, I omitted the infamous grand slam hand to protect the guilty).

Board 1

The trusty 4th from longest and strongest (the lead I received as North as declarer at table 1) created the biggest problem.  As declarer, I considered winning the club and returning a club, forcing my LHO to  break a suit (since continuing clubs would set up my ♣9).  I considered spades, but so many missing cards made that a suit that was better played by the opponents.  I finally decided to hope for 1 trick out of diamonds (hoping either the ♦J or ♦8 would produce a trick) and one out of spades (the ♠K or the ♠9).  At trick 2 I led a diamond the the ♦9, ♦J and ♦Q.  The ♣8 was returned to the ♣K, resulting in the second trick for the defense.  At this point, a spade shift left me with no recourse.  If I ducked, 2 spades plus 2 clubs plus the ♦Q insured -1.  My only hope at that point was that the ♠A was onside (getting me to 8 tricks) and that somehow I could score a 9th trick with the ♦8.  The opponents took their 3 spades and another club to leave me with the same 7 tricks I started with, -2, -100.

Mike Schneider led the ♦10 at table 2, covered by the ♦J, ♦Q and ♦A.  Apparently this gave declarer (Dan) hope that the ♦8 would, in the fullness of time, become a trick (bringing him to 8 tricks), so that 1 spade trick would bring him to 9 total tricks and fulfill his contract.  In any case, he led a spade at trick 2 to the ♠K and ♠A.  The ♦3 return went to the ♦K and the ♠6 was then ducked around to the ♠Q.  Next the ♦7 was pushed through, and Dan guessed to duck with the ♦5, allowing the ♦9 to win the trick and establishing the ♦8 for 1 of 2 needed tricks to add to the 7 he started with, trying to reach the needed total of 9.  Clubs had never been played, but a club at this point clearly establishes the setting trick.  However, apparently losing track of the spade suit, a small spade was led away from the ♠J, allowing declarer to score the ♠10 for his 9th and game fulfilling trick.  Cashing the ♠J would have been no better because then the ♠9 in dummy would provide the 9th trick.  Clubs had to be played sometime and they never were.  3NT making vs. down 2, lose 11 IMPs.

Deep finesse has an easy time at declarer play.  The contract is cold.  Simply lead a spade at trick 2 and duck it.  Win the return and duck another spade.  Now the ♠J can be finessed and the 2 required tricks (to reach 9) are provided by the lucky lie of the spade suit.  I think my play always makes when the ♦Q and ♠A are both onside (25%) with a (few) extra chances.  Not very good.  When faced with computations (as to the best percentage line of play), I am often guessing at the table.  But, once I get back home, I can often use http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm as an effective tool to compute the odds.  Attacking spades (at trick 2) by floating the ♠6 (the play deep finesse will make) will be successful whenever ♠ quack 8 (x) (x) are with LHO.  But that only gets up to 13.5%.   If both ♠QJ are onside, there are some more combinations that can bring home 2 spade tricks for declarer, depending on how LHO and how declarer both play to subsequent tricks.  Still, that seems to come up at less than 20% – even worse than the line I chose.  I gave up trying to compute the odds and reverted to http://www.rpbridge.net/ where expert Richard Pavlicek is available to offer input on the best line of play.  I thought it was an interesting play problem and defensive problem where some did better than others.  Here is Richard’s reply:

Hi Bob,

Interesting layout. It seems routine to lead the ♠10 at Trick 2,
reserving options in spades whether covered or not; East would
duck, losing to queen. On a club back, East must win and shift, say
♦10-J-Q-A. Then if declarer guesses spades: ♠7-8-9 (ducking would
be double-dummy) to the ace, then a diamond won by the king.
Running hearts now triple-squeezes East, who must abandon
spades to stop 10 tricks.

The ♠9 finesse, however, is dubious, as East should cover the ♠10
with J8x, so against capable defenders it seems better to put up
the ♠K (imagine East with ♠A8x). Down as usual. 🙂

So you’re right in theory.

I think all of that means that I was never going to make the hand, although he would have started spades, not the small diamond to the Q that I did.

Board 2

I think I correctly captured the bidding, but let me know if I got it wrong.  I lost a double part score swing here.  In our group, almost all players adhere to 6 card suits when opening 1st and 2nd seat weak 2 bids.  Mike Schneider is an exception.  Here he opened 2♠ and preempted their side out of the “cold game” in clubs.  Of course, to make 11 tricks, you must draw trump and rely on the ♠A onside, or else assume hearts are not 6-1 and embark on a cross ruff.  The latter line of play gets you to only 10 tricks.  But, since Mark was only in 4♣, his 10 tricks scored +130.  10 tricks were also allowed against 3♦, +130, so my team was -260, lose 6 IMPs.  So, this hand was an example of my original observation, choosing to open/preempt creates swings, sometimes favorable and sometimes unfavorable (and seems to be the most frequent cause of IMPs won/lost).

 

Board 3 was another bidding choice problem that created an early difference in the bidding resulting in wildly different results at the 2 tables.  I play a Walsh style, bypassing 4-5 card diamond suits when I have less than invitational values.  The difference in the 2 auctions was staggering.  When the bidding showed a strong heart hand with LHO, I thought it was quite possible that we could scramble 8 tricks in NT.  Bruce (South) played 2NT scoring 2 hearts, 5 diamonds and a spade for +120.  However, we lost 9 more IMPs (our team is now down 26  IMPs after 3 boards!) when 4♠X went -500.  My early spade bid took the spade suit off the table at our table.  An interesting side aspect of scoring in a 28 board individual IMP game: after 3 hands of play – 4 players are now 52 IMPs ahead of the other 4 players!  It is a deep hole to climb out of.

Board 8

West does not have a great opening bid, but I suspect I would have also opened 1♦.  The rebid is a problem.  Mike admitted to the spade stopper via 2NT and soon was declaring 3NT (at least that is how I believe the auction went at our table).

Here either side can play NT (both hands hold a spade stopper, the suit the opponents bid).  I was North and North managed to get in a spade bid at both tables, but at my table, West declared and I was on lead.  I didn’t want to lead a spade into the ♠AQ, so I chose to start with the ♥9.  Declarer won the ♥A in dummy and led a small club.  Partner erred by not flying the ♣K (far easier to do when looking at the exposed singleton ♣Q that was visible in dummy at the other table), and declarer won the singleton ♣Q.  Declarer then erred by accessing dummy in hearts to continue clubs, planning to get to dummy later in spades.  When declarer won trick 3 with the ♥K, he cashed ♣A and led another  club, watching the ♣KJ fall and the clubs become established.  However, upon winning the ♣K, partner played diamonds.  I (North) won my ♦K and continued with the ♦9.  Partner must play the ♦10 on the ♦9.  If declarer ducks the ♦10, partner can cash the good heart and lead spades so that we score 1+1+2+1 and if declarer does not duck, I still have a diamond left to lead to partner after I win my ♠K, so that we still score 1+1+2+1.  However, partner did not cover my ♦9, so declarer could duck that and isolate our winners such that we could no longer defeat 3NT.

Revisiting declarer’s choice of lead at trick 3 to get to dummy:  had declarer crossed to dummy in spades (not hearts) after winning the singleton ♣Q, the ♥Q would not be established for the defense.  However, as North, I could have still defeated the contract by rising with the ♠K and continuing with the ♦K.  That exposes declarer to losing 1+0+3+1 so the defense gets 5 before declarer gets 9.  I don’t know if I could have found that pretty defense.  I should though, because I can see declarer’s 9 tricks (2+2+0+5) if I duck or if I rise with the K.  So, the duck of the ♣K at trick 2 was not fatal as long as we defend correctly after that – we just get down 1 instead of down 2.

Had I started with 4th best spade instead of the ♥9, partner is more likely to have risen with the ♣K in order to continue spades.  Now we can get 3+0+0+2 to easily defeat the contract.  Of course rising with the ♣K is very wrong if declarer holds ♣Jx instead of singleton ♣Q.  According to my double dummy program, an initial spade lead can only achieve -1 against best defense/best declarer play.  On the other hand, my opening lead of the ♥9 can achieve -2, but only by rising with the ♣K to make a diamond shift (not spades).  The continued attack on spades will only lead to -1.

At the other table, East declared and the doubleton spade was led and North (Bill) ducked the first trick rather than playing 3rd hand high.  Interesting play!  He can see, with only 1 likely entry, he needs an early entry from partner to continue spades again in order to get them established.  By rising with the ♠K at trick 1, he could have achieved -2 double dummy, but I like his play of the small spade at trick 1 to maintain communication with partner who is able to push another spade through early in the defense (as long as he still has one, which Bill accomplished by ducking trick 1).  Bottom line, whether East or West declares, best defense results in -2 and normal defense results in -1, but at our table 3NT came home when the ♣K was ducked and the ♦9 was not overtaken, lose 10 IMPs.

Board 10

 

Again I was North.  My table got to a quiet 2♦, making 10 tricks easily after the ♥A was led (his partner bid the suit and his LHO bid NT, so he figured the ♥K was in dummy or with partner).  I don’t know the auction at the other table, but they managed to arrive in 4♠ by South.  The singleton diamond was led.  Declarer flew the ♦A to begin drawing trump.  When West won the ♠A, they had to find a shift.  A heart at this point trivially beats 4♠ a couple of tricks but partner had opened 1♣ and when a club was led after winning the trump A and trump broke 3-3, declarer had 10 tricks (3+0+5+2).  +130 vs. -620 lose 10 IMPs.  If you have been keeping track, my day has not been going well so far.

Board 15

 

You can see the auction here.  Again I am North.  My 3♥ bid was merely competitive since a maximal double would be a game try.  I was probably worth a game try, but I didn’t do it (weak trumps).  Partner came through and bid 4♥ anyway (recalling that I have often said ‘never bring back a red +170 in an IMP match’).  I received a trump lead and played on cross ruff lines: ♥A, ♣A, ♣ ruff, ♦ ruff, club.  East ruffed the club (in front of dummy, as I discarded a diamond) and led trump, ending the cross ruff.  I now had full control of the hand and needed to bring in spades to pitch my losing club.  I was hoping LHO was 2=3=6=2 with the ♠A.  As partner pointed out, all I need to do is lay down the ♠Q,  If LHO has ♠Ax, I’m good (by ducking the second spade).  If LHO has ♠Axx, they must duck the ♠Q (or I have the same established spade suit by the play of ducking the second spade), but when they duck the ♠Q, a spade continuation allows me to score the ♠K and ♠Q and 10 tricks (2+6+0+2).  However, I made the (far inferior) play of small to the ♠K and small back, hoping for ♠Ax.  It wasn’t ♠Ax, but it was ♠JT doubleton, so I still had my 10 tricks!  Bottom line, leading the ♠Q caters to both ♠Ax and ♠Axx with LHO.  My play catered only to ♠Ax and ♠JT doubleton opposite ♠Axx.  Lucky.  

The other table received a diamond lead, tapping declarer at trick 1.  Double dummy defense and declarer play results in 1 overtrick on any lead (due to the unlikely finesse of the ♣Q).  Well, full double dummy analysis includes the impossible small spade from ♠Axx (the small spade lead will eventually achieve a spade ruff, allowing no overtricks).  I would go after a cross ruff line after the diamond lead and that seems to arrive at 10 tricks, but I don’t have the details of play at the other table.  I only know they went -1, so +620 and +100, win 12 IMPs.

Board 16

I used to ‘never’ open 1NT with a 5 card major and now I ‘always’ open 1NT with a 5 card major when in range (adding a point for the 5 card suit).  However, this hand has some pretty special spades and seems to warrant reconsideration of that philosophy and a 1♠ opening bid seems in order.  You see the simple auction at our table.  I led a 4th best heart and then won the ♦A.  It seemed as though declarer had the ♥A.  If so, time to shift or beating 3NT is hopeless.  Partner could hardly have spades good enough to beat 3NT (if he did, he likely would have doubled 3NT), but he could have clubs.  When I shifted to the ♣2, we quickly took our 5 clubs to go with the ♦A for down 2, +200.  Our teammates avoided the NT trap, but played 4♦ instead of 4♠, so we were +130 at the other table to win 8 IMPs.  I don’t know their auction, but the play for 10 tricks is the same in spades or diamonds (except in spades, a 3-1 diamond split risks a ruff).

Sometimes after play during the day, I take the boards to have some practice play with Ed Nagy and our wives in the evening.  Of course Ed and I know the hands, but we still attempt to bid and play normally and give them practice with some of the more difficult hands.  Here, I was going to see if they could match my defense against 3NT, so Ed and I sat E-W against the wives.  Here is the auction we produced Monday night playing against our wives.  

I like our auction and don’t feel like it was the result of double dummy awareness of the hands.  It didn’t give them a chance to defeat 3NT, but gave us a chance to practice some bidding!  So, Monday night playing against the wives, we arrived at a solid 4♠ contract with 10 tricks easily there when diamonds were 2-2.  In the actual afternoon game neither table sniffed at 4♠. 

Board 24

 

As North, I think the hand is slightly strong for a 3♣ preempt, but what else can you do?  Both tables opened 3♣.  At the other table, South ended it with 3NT and took the obvious 10 tricks and somehow managed to score even 11.  He does have 2 5-card suits for a potential source of tricks, and you can’t argue with success and 3NT is a reasonable call.  I suspect that, if I ran a simulation, few 3♣ opening bids by North will offer significant play for 3NT by South since, without the ♣A, dummy will need 2 unlikely entries to enjoy more than 1 club trick.  And with the ♣A, dummy will need the solid clubs that they actually hold, or again, most of the 9 tricks required will come from the strong hand.  After a spade lead, I don’t like the chances and down 3-4 seems quite possible.  But, if not 3NT, what can you bid?  5♣?  That would work well on this hand, but likely requires the same strong clubs that makes 3NT a success.  My partner, Bill, decided to try 3♥ and I raised to 4♥.  After the spade lead, 2 clubs were played to pitch the remaining spade, 2 diamonds were cashed (pitching a club), and the cross ruff began.  Oops – on the first attempt at a diamond ruff, Jack ruffed in front of dummy with the ♥10.  Now, a simple ♥A and another heart leaves declarer with 2 losing diamonds, down 1.  But, Jack, seeing that he would lose his ♥J if he did that, tried to cash a spade.  Bill ruffed the spade and led another diamond, Jack pitched the ♠9 rather than:  ruff with the ♥J, cash the ♥A and lead another heart.  This defense kills all diamond ruffs in dummy achieving down 1.  Once Jack pitched the ♠9 rather than ruffing the 4th round of diamonds, Bill should be home.  He knows Jack still holds the ♠J (he led the ♠Q at trick 1), so a spade ruff to hand is safe, followed by his last diamond.  Now there is no defense.  All diamonds have been taken care of and 10 tricks are coming home.  Instead Bill led a good club to pitch his last diamond, but Jack ruffed with a low trump, allowing him to score his 4th trump trick for down 1.  Darn!

Had Bill ruffed a spade to return to hand in order to lead his last diamond, here is the ending for the last 4 cards.

As you can see, he has only lost 1 trick so far (Jack’s diamond ruff with the ♥10) and he will always get 2 of the last 4 tricks to make the contract.

The only opening lead to defeat 4♥ 2 tricks is the A♥.  But any of the other 12 cards led at trick 1 can achieve -1.  The key to the defense is killing diamond ruffs, the key to declarer play is getting diamond ruffs.  Since the diamond ruffs were never killed (via trump leads at some point), Bill was on his way home, but didn’t see 4 card ending.

I don’t think the bridge on Monday (across all 28 boards) was up to the high quality that I feel we usually see in this game, but that is how bridge goes sometimes.