Recap Of 7/14/2014 28 Board IMP Individual

Form returned to normal yesterday.  By that, I mean that there were 7 swings greater than 5 IMPs and all 7 involved variance in bidding decisions.  Certainly there were opportunities in play, defense and opening leads on many hands, but bidding differences seems to always be where the swings occur.

It all started on Board 1.  The bidding was the same at both tables up through 4♥.  The critical bidding decision arrived.  Partner, Bruce, decided to make one try with 4♠, I cooperated with 5♣, and there we were, in 6♥.  It turned out to be a very decent slam with the diamond finesse a successful fallback when the ♥Q did not drop in 1 or 2 rounds (if I computed right, this is a little better than 59% slam).  Plus 980 vs. 480, win 11 IMPs.

 

Another ‘slam’ came up on Board 4.  The varied choice (3♦/4♦) for opening the bidding had a dramatic effect on the final result.  As the auction progressed, I had a very bad feeling about this hand. It is not often you can double the opponents at the 5 level, surrender an overtrick, lose -950 and still win 13 IMPs!  Our teammates came through for us.  Jerry liked his hand a lot when partner (Dan) produced a 4♦ vulnerable opening bid in 2nd seat, so he bounced to 6♦ which promptly got doubled.

Back to my table, I was on lead against 5♦X, and I commented (doing the math) as I put the opening lead (♣Q) face down, “-1150 for 2 overtricks?”  Declarer drew one round of trump prior to beginning the spade suit, so he eventually had to lose a trick to the ♥A.  Spades were established, but there was no entry.  At the other table, the opening lead was the ♠K, so declarer was off to the races, bringing in all 13 tricks when the spades came home after two ruffs and he still had an entry to use the established spades for two heart discards.  +1740 vs. -950, win 13 IMPs.

On this hand, the slam prospects are difficult to judge during the auction.  Both players knew that the ♦Q had no value (and short diamonds opposite short diamonds never bodes well).  As long as trumps are 3-2, had there been a 5th club in dummy to provide a spade discard, no spade finesse would have been needed for 12 tricks.  There was lots of power between the two hands, but no long suits, no source of tricks and 11 tricks proved to be the limit. This is one of the super frustrating aspects of bridge, IMP bridge in particular.  Here, there were 22 IMPs at stake.  One side is winning 11 IMPs and one side is losing 11 IMPs and it all hinges on the 50-50 location of the ♠Q.

Another issue in the bidding is whether opener is ‘too strong’ to splinter?  I think that is what Mark decided when he rebid 2♠ and then jumped to 4♥.  It is interesting that Dan (Mark’s partner) chose not to pursue slam after the sequence shown, and when the splinter was the bid chosen at the other table, partner proceeded to the ill fated  slam.

On Board 16, 4th chair (South) had the critical bidding decision to make after hearing (1♠)-P-(1NT)-?  At my table, they chose 2♦, Jerry rebid 2♥ (saying later that he has never freely made two bids in two suits of poorer quality!).  That was passed out and with the cards so friendly and the defense not optimum, partner brought in 9 tricks for +140.  That didn’t IMP well against our teammates.  South, in the 4th seat chose to double 1NT. Opener briefly considered 2♥, but passed 1NTX.  North is now faced with a difficult problem.  They are 3=2=3 in the unbid suits.  Should they choose either rounded suit, they will be playing a very ugly 3-3 fit.  Why they would chose diamonds is beyond me, but if they found a way to play diamonds, that would allow them to play a far superior 5-2 fit.  But, N-S spots are horrible in all suits.  In practice, they chose to pass and defend holding weak spade spots but the ♠AQ over the opening bid.  With great splits for declarer and no communication/source of tricks for the defense, Bruce, in 1NTX, found 9 tricks and was rewarded with +580.  We unexpectedly lost 10 IMPs on a nothing part score hand.

 

 The last round had 3 swing boards.

 

We had a strange auction on Board 25.  As I have mentioned before, we are playing an individual, so we have many unfamiliar partnerships and we allow discussion in the midst of the auction as to what treatments are being played.  After a 1♣-(X) start, with such weak majors, (as South) I did not think a redouble was a good bid for my hand.  I like redouble to largely show a misfit (some exceptions on 3 card support hands) with intention to penalty double a couple of suits that LHO may chose to bid. So, I asked partner (Mark) if we were playing flip-flop Jordan (where 2NT is preemptive) or regular (where 2NT shows a limit raise in clubs)?  He replied ‘regular’ so I bid 2NT showing clubs, invitational or better.   This is not a perfect bid, but seemed the best available bid to me.

But, later in the auction, the right to inquire about the bidding does not go so far as to ask ‘what does 3♦ mean?’  It turns out it was an attempt to arrive at 3NT, hoping/asking for a diamond stopper and making an invitational forward going bid.  I took it as showing more clubs than diamonds (he had that) and a very minor suit offensively oriented hand (he didn’t have that!).  He was simply trying for 3NT which is cold if you guess the hearts.   Bruce explained later that his double of 3♦ was showing good diamonds (he thought we were heading to 3NT and wanted to alert partner to the diamond situation).  However, not knowing what Mark or Bruce meant by their bids, I chose, over 3♦X to raise to 4♦.  4♦ would not have been a success.  But, Mike thought Bruce’s double indicated his hand was much more offensively oriented to major suit play, so Mike decided to try 4♥ which I doubled.  Eight tricks were the limit of the hand, so instead of our side going minus playing 5♣, we collected +500.  I thought Mark had a hand like this, where 6♦ is cold but 6♣ has no play.

But, this was not the hand Mark held!

This deal really highlighted the mysteries of individual (vs. pairs/teams) bridge.  Even with discussion for system agreements during the live auction when conventional options come up, bids are often made later in the auction which mean one thing to the bidder and something else entirely different to partner of the bidder.  This results in large IMP swings that are somewhat random for all 8 players, 4 players winning and 4 losing.  Specifically at my table, I think all 4 of us made rather poor bidding choices, starting with 3♦ by Mark (why not 3NT?), double by Bruce (why not pass), 4♦ by me (why not pass or redouble, showing diamond values?  My bid took 3NT out of play!) and 4♥ by Mike (why not pass)!!  But, I understand why all bids were made.

This hand also highlights the benefits of flip flop Jordan.  It frees up 3♣ to show an invitational club hand and allows the opening bidder to become declarer in 3NT (right-siding) if that is a desired place to land.  It also places the doubling hand on lead.  Since he started the auction with a double, trying to find partner’s suit (lacking one of his own to bid), he may guess wrong on opening lead in attempting to find the suit where partner has help.  Specifically on this hand, if the ♥Q and ♥7 were interchanged, South loses the first 5 tricks in NT on a heart lead while North is able to bring home 3NT if he can read East’s discards accurately.

Meanwhile, at the other table, Jerry decided to redouble at his first turn.  That allows LHO to get in his heart bid, but on the lie of the cards, there is no suit that is an effective lead against 3NT.  The auction continued to 3NT by North with the K♠ lead.  Declarer won the 2nd spade trick, cashed all 5 clubs (squeezing East), but went astray in the end and finished down 1. +500 and +50, win 11 IMPs.

So, at trick 2 I led back my ♦8, establishing my diamonds but ensuring 3 certain losers.  After LHO won the ♦Q, I won the club shift and led spades.  RHO went up with ♠K and led a club.  I ruffed and finally played 3 rounds of hearts, drawing trump ending in dummy to cash the 3 good diamonds.  +420 vs. -170, win 6 lucky IMPs.

 

Board 28, last board of the day, was an awkward auction that had a lucky ending for our table.  As South, I feel I had an automatic 1♦ opener in 4th seat (15 Pearson points, 2.5 quick tricks, no question).  Partner had an automatic 1♥ response and I rebid 1NT.  We had the same auction in both rooms up to this point.  But, at the other table, North decided to invite with 2NT at his second turn and ended the auction.  On the spade lead against 2NT, the defense soon had 6 tricks (3+1+1+1) for down 1, +100 for our teammates.  

Mark, North/partner at my table checked back for heart support with 2♣.  I rebid 2♦ and he raised to 3♦ with his doubleton ♦K.  Not a real elegant contract, but again it has the virtue of being unbeatable.  When the defenders attempted to kill a spade ruff in dummy, they lost their natural diamond trick and I ended up making 4, +130 to go with +100 for 6 IMPs.  Playing NT seems pretty normal on these cards.  Mark chose a good time to support with a doubleton, avoiding the NT trap.