Recap Of 8/18/2014 28 Board IMP Individual

Once more, with today’s hands, almost all large swings were driven by bidding judgment, but defense (and opening leads) did play a role in a couple of hands.

 

On this first hand, many things happened.  First, I passed a takeout double, thinking we might get rich off the vulnerable opponents.  Then, when declarer went wrong in the trump suit, I failed to beat the contract.  On top of all of that, there was an ethical question.  Can I, should I, alert declarer that I have passed a takeout double and, if so, how and when?  Or do I require him to ask and remain silent if he fails to ask?  The auction had a sound to it of a penalty double (that East, Bruce, held strong hearts).  But, my partner and I have specifically discussed and agreed that all low level doubles are takeout.  So, in spite of my failing to offer diamonds, hearts or spades over their 1♣ opening bid, the subsequent double of the 2♥ overcall is takeout.  It shows short hearts and a desire to compete.  I took partner for a better hand and thought that my extra defense combined with his (my imagination) extra defense could score a big number.  Still, my pass was a big position that was wrong and I paid out 13 IMPs when 2♥X came home.

On hand evaluation, I almost always add 1 point for all cards past 4 in any suit.  Here, that would get me up to 11 points, worth a 2NT response.  I could also simply respond 1♦.  Instead, I chose the preemptive value of 1NT, but didn’t judge the hand (only 10 HCP) worthy of an 11-12 2NT response.  I wish I had.  The auction began the same at the other table and when North did not overcall 2♥, our opponents bought it for 1NT at the other table, bringing in 10 tricks when the defense was not optimal.

Back to our defense against 2♥X, partner began with the ♦J (Rusinow), ducked all around, and continued with the ♦Q which declarer (Mark) won.  Mark now, thinking Bruce held the heart strength, floated the ♥10 to my ♥J.  If I simply play clubs now, I will eventually get a ruff, scoring all 3 trumps, a diamond plus 2 black aces for down one.  However, I attempted to cash the ♦K (hopeless, since we lead top from a doubleton, so pard holds 3 diamonds) and when declarer ruffed, my club ruff was no longer possible and -670 along with -180 scored -13 IMPs.  Clearly, there is no chance to defeat the contract if Mark knows I hold the penalty pass rather than Bruce holding the penalty double.  Mark will find the ♥J and, even if I score my club ruff, I will not get all 3 trump tricks.  This (what is right/ethical in terms of clarifying to declarer how to play the hand) seems to me to be a murky area of the laws.  Anyone reading this with insight on this topic is welcome to comment.

 

Board 5 provided an extreme example of adding points for the cards in a suit past the 4th card held.  I held 13 HCP, but evaluated the hand at 16 Total Points.  Thus, we had the auction shown.  At the other table, it was a quick 1NT-3NT.  When no spade lead appeared to cash the ♠A at trick 1, all 13 tricks were scored at both tables when the heart squeeze against the ♠A prevented the defense from getting any tricks.  Win 13 IMPs for the vulnerable slam.

 

Hand 6, yet another example of adding points (here only 1 point) for the 5th card in a suit.  Opposite 1NT (15-17), everyone will invite with 9 HCP.  Here there were only 8 HCP, but 9 TP when adding 1 for distribution – the long diamond suit has potential and, as it proved in the play of the hand, diamonds were the key to declarer arriving at 9 tricks.  So, at my table, they proceeded to 3NT.  The spade lead  at our table knocked out one of the crucial entries to diamonds.  But, when the ♦K could not be held up, the long diamond suit provided the needed tricks for +600.  At the other table, responder only saw 8 HCP and did not invite, languishing in 1NT.  A heart was led, allowing leisurely development of diamonds and 10 total tricks, but the 1NT contract only scored +180 vs. -600, lose 9 IMPs.  

Epilog – the hand is much more likely to be really worth 9 TP if the outside A or K (either one) had been in the diamond suit with the ♦J.   It would be much more likely that the length could be enjoyed.  With the actual spade lead that partner found, the contract requires the singleton or doubleton ♦K to come down in order to see his way to 9 tricks.  So, there was definitely an element of luck with the ♦K coming down vs. skill in hand evaluation.

 

On Board 11, the weakest hand at the table made the big decision at our table.  Making 10 tricks in hearts proved easy for our opponents at the other table.  At my table, our opponents persisted to the minor suit save against 4♥.  Partner doubled (good, since we cannot score 11 tricks in 5♥), but when he chose to lead trumps at trick one (cut down on ruffs?), it became a very good ‘save’ indeed since we could no longer defeat 5♦.  -550 and -420, lose 14 IMPs.  Leading trumps vs. a save has been a recommended action over the years, but David Bird’s book argues against that.  His models showed that attacking, usually starting with the suit we have bid, is a better initial salvo.  One of the readers of my blog (Bob Richardson) actually has the programming skills to create a program (Lead Captain) to run the numbers much like Bird did and find out what lead will work best.  That is, the program generates 5000 (or whatever number you chose) hands which are consistent with the holding of the opening leader and the bidding.  It then shows percentages of success for the various choices of opening leads, given the hand patterns input for the auction chosen.  He has recently completed the program and you can learn more about it here:

 http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html

I expect to have another blog about Lead Captain soon, but I wanted to make readers aware of it.  I ran a simulation for this specific hand and, assuming I accurately reflected what the hands should be for the auction that occurred, it suggested that the trump lead would not be best.  A heart turned out to be the best choice in the simulation, followed closely by a club.

In any case, 8 of our IMPs were lost in the bidding when our teammates did not bid on over 4♥.  Even if we beat 5♦ (+100 vs. -420) we lose 8 IMPs, but the other 6 IMPs were lost when we failed to defeat the sacrifice.

 

Wow.  My partner’s 3♦ preempt prompted an attempt at 3NT by North.  When I doubled, North saw nowhere to run.  Should South pull it to 4♣?  Certainly that would work better on this hand, but I don’t know if that is the percentage action.  The 3♦ preempt didn’t happen at the other table.  

On the run of the hearts, partner discouraged in diamonds, but I got out with the ♦K in any case.  So, declarer was able to score 4 tricks with ♦AQ and ♣AK, +1400 vs. -450 in the heart game at the other table, my side won 14 IMPs.  Preempts were designed to present problems to the opponents.  Sometimes the problems get solved and sometimes… 

This hand is worth a comment about our opponents at the other table (holding our cards) reaching the heart game after the opponents open 1NT.  Most of us play Woolsey over a NT opening bid.  Here is the auction:

 Well done!  Hard to get to game when the opponents open 1NT.

 

On Board 16, as East-West, we defended against 2NT by North at our table.  Declarer had their 7 top tricks, but we took the other 6 for down 1.  Seemed OK at the time.  This discussion is about the other table.

I don’t know how to attribute the cause of the swing on this hand based on the result at the other table.  The bidding was not good, the contract was hopeless, but the defense conspired to allow the contract through.  I have had a difficult time figuring out how to write up the hand.  It has double dummy complications (a totally unexpected singleton ♥K, whch, when not led early, provides an unsuspecting declarer a play for the contract that, in practice, did not even cross the declarer’s mind.  You be the judge.

With West having a minimum opening hand and only 3 card spade support, there’s not much to explain the 3♠ call other than it was his turn to bid.  Bruce advanced to the spade game, thinking it might be a 2-way shot.  They were in (he thought) a 4-4 fit and that, as declarer, he might have a source of tricks in diamonds or, bidding the red game, it might prompt the opponents to take a save in 5♣.  Double dummy, the defense is due 5 tricks against 4♠.  But to achieve down 2, hearts must be led early by the defense.  Trick 1 or 2!  If the singleton heart had been the ♥2, the defense wouldn’t be too hard to find.  Many people, when presented with a singleton, lead it.  As it turns out, the singleton ♥K (unknown to declarer) is the key, late in the hand, to have a legitimate play to make 4♠ when the best defense is not found early.  But, the key to the defense is to get the singleton heart led early, threatening heart ruff(s).  If the ♥K is led at trick 2, declarer has no answer and 8 tricks is the max.

I want to take a closer look at the opening lead.  In David Bird’s book on Opening Leads, he often pointed out how fruitless it can often be to lead from KQJxxx (a forcing game notwithstanding).  Standard beliefs about opening leads has always thought this was a pretty good (and safe) start to the defense.  But, in reality, in one hand or the other, declarer will often be short and few tricks will be available to the defense in this suit.  Often it is better to look elsewhere for tricks.  Also, David Bird suggests that a singleton lead (even a singleton K) is a good start to the defense.  Once again, I’m going to deploy Lead Captain to examine the opening lead.  Lead Captain is software (mentioned above) where you input the hand that is on lead, describe the dummy, declarer and partner’s hands as you understand their hands from the auction, and then generate 5000 (or whatever you choose) deals which match that description.  Then try every lead (all possible 13 cards) and see which leads work (playing and defending double dummy) most often (and, with further research, you can find out why is it that that lead works so well).

The results of my simulation showed a diamond lead was best, followed reasonably closely by the ♥K.  All clubs were nearly the same (no one would lead a small club from this holding, but the simulation doesn’t care what ‘no one’ would do, it tries them all!).  Somewhat surprisingly, all club leads were virtually tied with a trump lead for the worst possible lead.  On this specific hand, a trump lead is useless and hopeless, allowing the contract to make double dummy, where an initial club lead (again, on this specific hand) is no harm, no foul.  At trick 2, after cashing your club, you can still switch to the ♥K that you should have led at trick 1 and survive.  David Bird loves singleton leads, hates trump leads, and assuming I described the hands correctly, the singleton ♥K, while not the best in the 5000 deal simulation, is one of the top leads to choose from this hand.

On this layout (the actual hand dealt vs. what the simulation of 5000 deals showed) the ♥K is especially effective (but cashing 1 club, then shifting to the ♥K works just as well).  After that start, achieving 8 tricks (down 2) by declarer takes very careful (actually double dummy) play.  A much more likely result, single dummy, is -300 or -400 if the ♥K is led at trick 1 or 2.

But, the actual defense began with two rounds of clubs, tapping declarer.  This seems like a reasonable start due to the precarious 4-3 trump fit being tapped in the long hand at trick 2.  In fact, due to the ♥K coming down (creating an entry for the useful diamond suit via the ♥Q), double dummy the contract is now cold after the club continuation at trick 2 (declarer ruffs the club in his hand at trick 2).  But, look at the problem from declarer’s (single dummy) viewpoint:  He has lost a club, must lose a diamond, has no where to pitch his nearly certain heart loser, and needs to negotiate the spade suit for no losers.  So, it is time to start drawing trumps, hoping for 3=3 with the ♠K on side.  But, so what?  When you are done drawing trumps, unless the ♦A is singleton, you have no way (that you know of) back to your hand to enjoy diamond tricks.  One thing at a time.  You lead the spade 10.  If RHO holds up the ♠K, declarer is in serious trouble (unless, again, he plays double dummy).  If declarer leads trumps again and repeats the spade finesse after the holdup of the ♠K, -400.  He has no tricks.  But, RHO helpfully won the first round of spades and persisted in clubs (removing North-South communication with South’s threatening club tricks).  Declarer ruffed the club return (of course) and played 2 more rounds of trump, successfully drawing them upon finding them 3-3.  But, on the last round of trumps, he has no more trumps and must discard.  Double dummy he must pitch a diamond, preserving his ♥Q ‘entry’ to the diamonds.  In practice, he pitched his ‘losing’ heart and kept all of his diamonds.  He next led the ♦K.  If RHO ducks his ♦A, declarer will be back to 8 tricks, since that ♦K will be the only diamond trick he scores.  But, RHO grabbed the ♦A and that was the last trick for the defense.  Making 10 tricks.  4+1+5+0.  Incredible.

Declarer had heard partner open 1♥, but declarer never supported hearts.  Looking at dummy and his own hand, North could see 10 of the hearts (11 counting the heart discard declarer made on the last round of spades).  That leaves only the ♥KQ outstanding.  Declarer is unlikely to hold the remaining ♥KQ having never raised hearts.  Also, he is unlikely to have pitched down to a singleton ♥K (but, if he did hold the ♥K or ♥KQ, the rest of the tricks are his anyway).  So, a holdup play on the diamond is required, severing communication to declarers long strong diamonds.  When the ♦A holdup wasn’t found, my side lost 11 IMPs, +50 vs. -620.

Board 22, I was sitting West, and the bidding was not obvious to me.  After hearing 1♣ – (P) I had to respond.  I considered 1♦, 2♣, and 2NT.  Thinking it would be better for the lead to come up to partner, I settled on 2♣.  Partner, with a maximum (below NT range) balanced hand, would seem to have a 3NT call.  Instead I heard 3♣ and had to decide what to do.  We have ‘understandings’ – don’t bring back +170 or +150 when red.  So, looking at my prime cards, I decided to try 3NT.

Now I’m the declarer, and, if the bidding wasn’t obvious, the play was also not obvious.  Clearly win the opening diamond lead.  Assuming LHO holds ♦QJ, I am up to 3 diamond tricks, 2 hearts and 4 spades are possible for 9 tricks, without relying upon the ♣A being on side.  I wondered why LHO would attack diamonds if he held useful cards in spades, and so I placed ♠Q9xx of spades in my RHO’s hand.  So, the ‘obvious’ thing to do is to lead a spade to the 7.  Oops – LHO wins the ♠9 and after some pause, continues with the ♦J.  OK, I’m up to 4 diamond tricks, so 3 spades and 2 hearts will see me to 9 tricks without the dreaded reliance upon the ♣A being onside.  I decided LHO had club length including the ♣A.  Why is he leading a 3 card suit?  So, after winning the ♦K in dummy, I led a spade to the ♠10.  Oops.  That lost too!!  Somehow my 4 spade tricks has dropped to the 2 I started with (♠A and ♠K).  So, I proceeded to run my diamonds and hearts and spades, relying upon an endplay on LHO to score my ♣K.  Boy was I surprised when I finally led a club off dummy and the ♣A came up on my right.  But, thankfully, he was left with only 1 heart to cash and the ♣K was my 9th trick at trick 13.  When I was reviewing my ‘play’ of this hand with Bruce, I reported that the opponents won 2 spade tricks!  He said ‘that is not possible!!!!!’  Yet, I proved it was possible.  Not a shining example of my declarer play or card reading skills.  Still, when game was not reached at the other table, we won 10 IMPs.

 

The last hand of the day was roughly a 50% slam depending upon a finesse of the trump J.  Since the ♥J was on side, there wasn’t much to the play in 6♥.  I like the auction by my opponents at our table where they arrived at the successful slam.  It is very difficult opening 2♣ with three suited hands, so both North players decided to open 1♥. The jump shift in diamonds could have found a diamond suit in dummy much like the actual club suit that they held.  If so, 6♦ would have been an outstanding contract.  The other table tried a reverse into into spades.  But, partner cannot look at their hand and get excited upon hearing spades.  They hold at most the ♠J and at most 3 spades – so nothing about their spade holding can be very slam positive.  So, after the spade reverse at the other table, South jumped to 3NT (clubs and diamonds well stopped), ending the auction.  Should North make one more try over 3NT?  Beats me.  At my table, as you can see from the auction presented, the diamond jump shift left Bruce thinking he had to do something with his extra values.  When he jumped to 4♥, ostensibly showing a 3 card limit raise, pard leapt to the heart slam and was rewarded with 11 IMPs when the ♥J proved to be on side.