Recap Of 10/13/2014 28 Board IMP Individual

Once more bidding decisions accounted for almost all large swings.  There were many hands of potential swings and smaller swings that were interesting, but without BBO, it is sufficiently tedious to enter the hands and get it right that I’ll stick with the 6 hands that were double digit.  Two slam swings (unfavorable, involving my decisions) were especially disappointing making the total IMPs for the day a big disappointment.  You be the judge.  I’ll start with a pop quiz, not exactly representing the hand at the table, and see what you do?  No one vulnerable and no opponent bidding, you hold:

After you open 1♦, you hear 1♥.  Your turn?  There seems to be only 2 choices, invitational raise to 3♥, a raise to 4♥ or a game forcing splinter of 4♣.  Your call?

Now I’ll begin with the real hands that happened.  It all started on board 1.

South heard the club preempt at the other table and considered passing for penalty (assuming partner reopens with a double), but they decided to bid their strong suit with their strong hand.  When North raised to game, the auction was over.  At my table, hearing no club bid, I held out hopes for slam and made the ambiguous slam invite of 5♠ (good trumps?  good hand in context?  Anything extra you haven’t shown?).  I’ve certainly been in much worse slams, but partner declined my invite.  Here, a 2-2 trump break makes slam cold (as long as there is no ruff on the opening lead).  And 3-1 trumps still make the 5 level safe.  But no.  Trumps were 4-0 offside, resulting in -50 paired with -420 to lose 10 IMPs.  Not exactly a slam swing, but it felt like one.

Is this hand a bidding problem, opening lead problem, or declarer problem?  It turned out to be all 3.  Both tables began with 1♣ – 1NT.  At my table, partner, seeing their 6 card heart suit, came in with 2♥, preventing a transfer by East.   East merely bid 2♠ and ended the auction.  But the North hand passed at the other table, allowing a transfer to spades, after a free bid of 3♠ was considered an invite which resulted in reaching the shaky 4♠ game.   It is curious that North’s bid at one table had the effect of shutting out game, while South’s second round bid had the effect of pushing them into game.  Even though the ♣A figures to be onside, counting on the ♦AK onside and hoping that they don’t obtain a nearly certain diamond ruff is a bit much to hope for. 

Clearly the game is easily down on 3 rounds of diamonds, with partner ruffing the 3rd round.  But, what is the best lead by South against 4♠?  Should you lead your singleton, or try to give partner a club or diamond ruff by leading one of your aces?  Readers of the blog will know that I answer all opening lead questions by going to Lead Captain – software that can determine the best lead assuming you have accurately captured what you ‘know’ about the unseen hands.  Lead Captain heavily favors singleton leads (in general), but here, it is impossible for partner to hold the ♥ ace and partner is unlikely to gain the lead to give you a ruff.  So, it is not surprising that the ace leads come out on top as shown here:

Against a contract of only 2♠ all leads by South are hopeless, but I led the ♥6, ‘partner’s suit’ and declarer quickly scored his 10 tricks.  Our teammates (who arrived in 4♠ by West) had the North hand on lead.  They also led partner’s suit, clubs.  South won the ♣A, cashed the ♦K, couldn’t read partner’s card and did not continue diamonds.  Now the contract seems cold, but declarer went astray and finished -2.  -170 and -200, lose 9 IMPs (not quite double digit, but seemed close enough to double digit to include in the blog).

When I ran Lead Captain for the North hand, it was close to a 13 way tie for first/last regarding the best card to lead against 4♠.  No lead really stood out.  So, I guess it isn’t really an opening lead problem after all, but since it is my blog, I can write about whatever I want to write about!  Opening leads fascinate me.

Instead, the problem is what South should do against 4♠ by West at trick 2/3/4 after winning trick 1 with the ♣A?  In any case, without a diamond ruff, the contract failed anyway, so no accurate defense was required after all.  Since I was interested in the results of the best opening lead by South, I went ahead and included the Lead Captain report for the South hand, even though that was not the hand on lead against the shaky game.  As shown by Lead Captain, aces often make good leads (I used to say “take all your suits with aces, set them aside, then figure out what to lead from the suits that remain”), but Lead Captain is showing the power of ace leads.  Not that they are that great in and of themselves, but if you can read dummy and partner’s signal, you can often win the first trick and get the continuation right – in effect, leading at trick 2 what you should have led at trick 1, and just as effective as if you had led it at trick 1 to start with.  Aces on air, setting up declarer’s kings, will rarely be effective defense, but it still turns out that aces are amazingly more effective as opening leads than I had ever imagined.

You might think that “of course AK leads are ‘always’ best” but another hand later in the day saw an AK lead become the fatal way to lose 300 points (+500 vs. +800) defending a vulnerable 3♦ preempt that was  doubled in the pass out seat and then passed out to play there.  That data point doesn’t make AK leads bad, but they are not as good as they are cracked up to be.  And, leading the ace from ace empty is not as bad as its reputation.

Board 18 is a very tough hand to bid.  The results seem a bit random.  3NT and 5 of a minor are both impossible, so you are looking at some contract in a major.  There are 4-3 fits with 3-3 splits in both majors to consider as you choose your trump suit.  If you choose hearts, you make 10 tricks and spades will only make 9 tricks.  This hand is another example of the documented bridge theory (Vondracek phenomenon) that, given choices between equal length holdings, choose the weaker one as the trump suit (here, hearts ♥KQJ are weaker than spades ♠AKJ).  I’m not sure how you figure that out accurately during this auction.  My opponents played 3♠ making 3 and our teammates played 4♥ making 4.  +620 vs. -140, win 10 IMPs for the red game.

Bruce had diamond support, but modest points and sterile distribution, so he stayed out of the auction.  I don’t have the full auction, but at the other table East preempted with 3♦ over the double and soon after the opponents were in their cold heart game.  Bidding can make it tough on the opponents, but it can also force them into games they would not bid of their own accord.

Board 23 also proved very tough to bid.  Our opponents at my table played 4♠ down 2, and our teammates defended 3NT down 4.  All about bidding, not much to play or defense.  +200 and +400 won 12 IMPs.

Board 27 has the hand that I gave you at the start of the blog, only different.  Even though some may bid a splinter with the initial hand (singleton ♣2), I think very few players would consider the splinter a full valued automatic bid, even vulnerable.  The diamonds are nice, but the spots in hearts and spades are very weak.  

But, the hand I gave at the start was a lie.  The actual hand held the singleton ♣K, not the ♣2.  Does that upgrade the hand so that it is now worth a 4♣ splinter?  I thought it was very close, but decided against it and simply raised to 3♥.  Chris did bid the splinter and was rewarded with the slam swing.  My partner considered offering a 3♠ cue bid over my 3♥ bid on the way to 4♥, but eventually just accepted my invite and our auction died at 4♥.   I’ve given the hand to a number of strong players and, while some side with me and bid only 3♥, most favor Chris’ 4♣ splinter or even a simple 4♥ call.  If I’m going to force game, I feel like I should show the splinter along the way, just in case that is magic to partner’s hand.  Lose 11 IMPs.