Recap Of 6/3/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

For our game (held on Wednesday for the first time), we had numerous swing opportunities that were missed.  I’ll only cover the 5 that achieved double digit swings.  Duplicate bridge sort of means it doesn’t matter who gets the cards, but on the 5 swing hands presented below, our opponents had the cards (and our teammates at the other table).  I can’t find much in the way of leads, defense or destructive bidding opportunities where partner and I can alter the result at our table.  Suggestions welcome.  The main reason I bother doing the blog is to learn and share things I learn along the way.  

Unfortunately, many of the swings were not so much bidding judgment as they were bidding ‘agreements’.  Since this is an individual event, you are often playing with a very unfamiliar partner.  So, we allow some discussion at the table to sort out bidding understandings.  You’ll see how some of these (mis)understandings affected the results.   As such, they aren’t so much about what can be learned about bridge as they are about how important common bidding agreements are between both sides of a partnership.

To those who read the early version of the blog – there was an error in reporting.  My table (forgotten over time) had the bidding as currently shown above.  Mark chose to close out the bidding by showing his values with 3NT (of course, with a different hand, Ed, who is unlimited, could override that decision).  As the cards lie, 9 tricks was very easy in 3NT – more tricks are possible, but Mark saw 9 and took them.  -400 for my table.

I can’t flaw Bruce’s decision to try the known 8 card fit.  The harsh trump split and trump spots made 4♥ a challenge.   Bruce struggled for 10 tricks and couldn’t find them, -50.  Lose 10 IMPs.

Deep finesse can see all of the cards.  He is able to score 11 tricks in hearts via a finesse of the ♥8 and ♣Q, losing only 2 top hearts while pitching dummy’s diamonds on the high spades.  That scores 3+3+2+3 tricks.  But, not seeing all the cards, the heart contract turned out to be too tough.

Another bidding ‘judgment’ hand, and this one seems like #11 to me.  A tossup.  There could be 12 tricks.  There could be 11.  No action seems questionable to me, but the result was clear.  Without a heart lead by South or two spade discards by North, 12 tricks will never come home.  Against 4NT, Ed led the ♥J and declarer already had their 12 top tricks.  Against 6NT, of course, a heart was not led and there was no way to find 12 tricks.  Lose 11 IMPs.

There was nothing to the play.  A club was lost.  12 tricks were scored.  -620 and +1370 for 13 IMPs for my team.  So, I didn’t have bad luck on ALL 5 hands I’m reporting…

I think this hand does have some lessons to learn from the bidding.  For starters, don’t assume a convention that you and partner have not discussed/agreed.  And, when you hold 2 fast losers in a side suit, cue bidding is often the way to arrive in a good slam and stay out of a hopeless slam.  RKCB is a great tool, but should not be deployed when you have 2 fast losers in an unbid suit.  Even with 18 HCP and a nice fit.

Should opener rebid their robust 6 card spade suit or support diamonds?  You would like a 4th diamond, but you do have a great hand for diamonds.  And, by bidding 3♠ over 3♦, partner can redirect the auction back to spades if they had a 3 card spade game raise for their 2♦ bid.  I’m certainly fine with either bid (raise diamonds or rebid clubs), but some may have strong feelings.

After the raise to 3♦, what should responder now bid?  Certainly a cue bid of the spade void is not an option.  That sounds like support.  And two fast losers in hearts is a problem, so RKCB is out.  I would hate to give up on slam so readily and I think I would choose a 4♣ cue bid as my next step.  But a 5♦ “signoff” certainly isn’t crazy.  Here, partner had so much extra, he forced slam with 5♥ in spite of no club control, and pard, with nothing in the majors and only 7 points in diamonds, provided the needed club control for the 12 tricks required for the small slam.

This is a hand that a practiced partnership should always get right.  If it was submitted to The Bridge World in their ‘Challenge the Champs’ bidding contest, they would clearly reject it as ‘too easy’.

Another hand with nothing to the lead, nothing to the defense, nothing to the play.  7NT and 7♣ both have 13 top tricks.  So 7NT is superior since no ruff is possible at trick 1.

Arithmetically, this was not a double digit swing.  It was scored as 10 at the time, since the game vs. small slam and small vs. grand is usually 500 points which computes to 11 IMPs.  But when the game is in a higher scoring denomination (NT vs. major) the extra points knock it down to 10 IMPs.  But, when the grand is a minor and the small slam is a NT slam and both score all 13 tricks, the 500 point bonus is reduced to 420 which, on the IMP scale just scores 9 IMPs.  So, lose 9 IMPs.