Recap Of 4/25/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

For the first time we got in two games in a month, mostly with different players.  While bidding judgment played a definite role, leads, declarer play, defense and even right/wrong siding the contract all contributed to the largest swings of the day.  We had 7 double digit swings and numerous other interesting hands that I probably won’t find time to report.

There will be more on the subject of leads, but I have mentioned previously my fondness for David Bird’s 2 books on opening leads and for the program written to essentially have ‘David Bird’s books in a can’ via the software developed for Lead Captain.  We will look at that more later.

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

Board 3

On this first hand, the main component of the cause for the swing was ‘siding’ but, looking at only the two hands that were bidding, it is far from clear which ‘side’ you would want to be declarer.  As it turns out, declarer needs to be such that the opening lead is not a diamond.  In this case, South is best to declare because West will almost never lead a diamond and East will.  I was East, my partner led a heart on the auction shown.   I have seen 4=5=2=2 hands that opened 1NT, but this is the first time I’ve seen a 5=4=2=2 hand that opened 1NT.  As you can see, the result was playing from the ‘right’ side, since Lead Captain as well as human players would never find the diamond lead from ♦J85.   My partner chose the old trusty 4th from longest and strongest, hitting my void and declarer’s strongest suit.  David Bird avoided leads of 6 card suits in most situations and I think would lead the ♠Q on this hand.   David Bird was heavily biased towards leading a major vs. 1NT-3NT auctions.  (snide remark – of course David Bird has never seen someone open 1NT when they were 5=4 in the majors!  Sorry Mike, couldn’t resist)  Since the West hand is so weak (to have a chance of beating 3NT), I had trouble getting meaningful data from Lead Captain.

Still, the lead wasn’t the only issue here.  The play of the club suit entered into success/failure.  Our declarer won the ♥A at trick 1 and led the ♣Q at trick 2.  When that found the ♣K, declarer had 9 certain tricks (by establishing another club trick on power) and due to no diamond danger, was able to score 10 tricks via the 13th club, -430 for my table.  1+4+2+3

Meanwhile, after the (to me) more normal 1♠ opening bid, 3NT ended up being played by North, with East on lead and diamonds were the unbid suit and natural lead.  Still, after ducking a diamond and winning a diamond, declarer could have crossed to the ♥A in order to lead the ♣Q, same as at my table.  As the cards lay, that would have ensured 9 tricks and only lost 1 IMP (after the diamond lead, 10 tricks were not possible).  But, declarer tried the ♣A and small to the ♣Q.  With the ♣KJ over the ♣Q, that provided the necessary entries to the long  diamonds and 3NT was defeated a trick, -50 for our teammates, lose 10 IMPs.

While may seem a bit strange to lead the ♣Q without the ♣J towards a doubleton ♣A, there was a famous hand written up in The Bridge World 15-20 years ago where declarer worked out that the right play with a slightly different holding (Q1098x opposite Ax) was to start with the Q (shocking many observers at the time until they analyzed the possibilities).  If the K is onside, you have already brought the suit in for 1 loser (assuming not 6-0 or 5-1).  If the J is doubleton in either hand, you have also succeeded in bringing it in with one loser.  If the suit is 3-3 with the honors split, you are on a complete guess when you try A, then small towards the Q.  Leading the Q takes the guesswork out of it. 

Here, when the honors weren’t split, but both the ♣K and ♣J were over the ♣Q, doom for playing the ♣A and then small towards the ♣Q.  If, on the actual hand above, the ♣KJ had both in the West hand, the play of the ♣A would have worked well and I would not be losing 10 IMPs.  Bottom line, leading the ♣Q first is obviously not always a winner, but I believe it has been proven to be the best percentage play due to winning on all doubleton jacks.  Since diamonds had not yet been touched, the declarer at my table could have withstood both the ♣KJ in the other hand – losing 2 clubs, but having time to power 2 club tricks and bring his total to 9 before the defense got 5.  My teammate did not have that luxury, so when the clubs were wrong, he was down.

A factor in MIke (declarer at my table) choosing to lead the ♣Q at trick 2 is the safety of his LHO winning the trick – a spade return (should the ♣Q lose to the ♣K) immediately establishes the 9th trick due to the power of the ♠J and ♠10.  And, a red suit return is no problem, since there are plenty of entries between the two hands.  Just cash the ♣A and reenter dummy to force a club winner.  Whenever you have 8 tricks, looking for 9, look for the safest way to find #9.

Looking simply at North-South hands, I don’t think there is any obvious ‘right’ siding as to who you would want to declare without knowing the East-West hands (and who will/will not lead diamonds).  So, bidding, leads, declarer play and luck all factored into this 10 IMP loss.

Board 6

Next up, another lead problem vs. 3NT (same hand was on lead, same contract at both tables, same auction at both tables).  

First I should mention that I was brought up being taught that ace leads vs. NT ask for unblock/count and K leads ask for attitude.  In the past couple of years (only), I have switched to A for attitude, King for count/unblock (and Q attitude).  I think this is provably superior, since you might try a speculative lead of the ace against NT from Ax.  Whatever happens, you WILL win the first trick and view dummy.  From there, plus partner’s signal, you may be able to work out what you should have led?  Perhaps it is already too late.  But often, with careful analysis you can continue with the suit you led, or shift, whatever you judge to be correct.

But, all that only works if the ace is your attitude card, not your count/unblock card.  If the king is your attitude card, trying a speculative king lead from Kx is not only quite risky, unless you hit the jackpot, you will not be likely to hold the first trick.  So, you will unable to shift to what you should have led.  You will see dummy, but you will see it as it runs tricks and you are discarding because you failed to retain the lead to trick 2.  

Actually, based on David Bird’s book, I didn’t think this was a lead problem at all for this hand.  The lead is ‘obvious’ – a free ‘two-fer’.  At the other table, Dan successfully led a heart, took the first 5 tricks, easy peasy, no problemo.  He was so excited because he knew I had his hand at the other table and there was no way I would lead a heart.  David Bird hates NT leads from Axxx.  So do I.  So, I started with my ♠A.  If pard likes spades, continue.  If pard doesn’t like spades, shift to hearts and hope (thus the ‘two-fer’ mentioned earlier).  If, instead, you start with a small heart, all your eggs are in one basket.  If a spade lead was needed to beat the contract and a heart lead at trick 1 had been a disaster, there is no time to recover.  That isn’t to say that starting with the ♠A can never be wrong, but I think the ♠A is the right lead and so does Lead Captain.  However, something went wrong on the way to the bank.  Pard said he liked spades, I continued spades, and declarer immediately wrapped up 9 tricks.  In the post mortem, partner agreed he should have discouraged spades and all would be well, push board, down 1 at both tables, no swing, no problem.   But, in reality, -400 and -50, lose 10 IMPs after I think I made the provably best opening lead!  Darn!!!!

Why should partner discourage spades?  Because, if the opening leader does have ♠AKx and continues a third round to establish your spades, you need your entry to the established spades ato be the ♥K.  But, for the ♥K to be an entry, partner must hold the ♥A.  If partner has that card too, declarer has everything else and will likely run 8 more tricks in the minors to go with the ♠Q, for a total of 9.  On top of that, declarer advanced to 3NT over the invitational 2NT, so he probably doesn’t hold exactly 16 HCP with no 5 cards suit.  So, even though at first glance (holding 5 spades) you are encouraged by partner’s ♠A, you should discourage because there is no future there.

It is only fair to acknowledge that, had partner discouraged, I still have to determine which red suit to shift to.  If partner has ♦K98, a diamond shift will be far preferable to a heart.  Both David Bird and Lead Captain defend double dummy, so the lead of the ♠A is ‘protected’ by always making the correct shift!  I think I would have tried hearts due to declarer’s known maximum heart length (3) vs. potential maximum diamond length (5-6).  But, still, a heart shift is not assured of success and not assured of ‘the only way’ to beat the contract.  Bridge is tough.

Board 7

 

 

On this next deal the lead could have played an important role (an unlikely small club at trick 1 leaves declarer a trick short), but with spades bid and raised, a spade lead to start the defense seemed more normal.  After winning the ♠A and leading a small diamond towards the helpful ♦J in dummy, the ♦A catches air, leaving the power of the diamond suit intact.  South can (and did) still score a diamond ruff after partner wins the ♥A, but that, with the two red aces just supplies 3 tricks for the defense, allowing 10 for declarer (2+3+4+1) and +620.  Trump being 3-3 didn’t hurt our cause, but had trump been 4-2 with the long hand ruffing the diamond, trump can still be handled.  I think 4♥ was at least a reasonable contract that happened to make.  

I usually try to respond to partner’s opening bid with an A.  Here you have a bit more.  You hold a side ♦J in partners suit and a rather beefy club suit.  But, with no 4 card major, no support for partner’s minor, and 1NT unappealing, West chose to pass at the first (and last) opportunity.  I can’t say that passing was wrong, but it was wrong on this hand where a red game was missed.  Passing is so…final.  I was fortunate that I wasn’t faced with that dilemma because South intervened with a 1♠ overcall.  That gave my partner another chance to bid, and we were there.  The 3♥ bid was a really big bid, reversing at the 3 level opposite a partner that could not make a negative double at the 1 level, so I felt I had plenty to raise to the red game.

With 10 tricks in diamonds (-130) and 10 tricks in hearts (+620), win 10 IMPs.

Board 15

How do you play trump?  In my opinion, if trump breaks 5-0 or 4-1, you are not making, so assume that trump are 3-2.  There are 2 ways to play trump:

1. Finesse for the ♥Q.  Winning the trump finesse is an illusion.  You gain no total tricks if it wins, but you lose a critical ruffing opportunity if it loses.
2. Ignore the ♥Q and lay down the ♥AK.  With this line, assuming trump are 3-2, and assuming you get clubs right, you have 12 tricks.  That is, 13 tricks – minus the ♥Q whoever has it and whenever they decide to take it, either as a ruff or an overruff.  How do you get 13?  ♠AK, ♥AK, ♦AK, ♣AKJ (again assuming I do something in clubs to achieve the critical spade discard needed) plus 2 more ruffs in dummy and 2 ruffs in hand.  At some point, and you don’t care when, someone will win the ♥Q, but that still leaves you with 12 tricks.

How do you play clubs?  There are two ways:

1.  Cash the ♣A and finesse the ♣J.  My odds tables show this succeeds 50.5% of the time – half the time LHO holds the ♣Q plus when the ♣Q is singleton with RHO and falls when you cash the ♣A.
2. Cash ♣A, ♣K and ruff a club, hoping for ♣Qxx falling and establishing a critical spade discard on the ♣J.  This line of play succeeds whenever the ♣Q is singleton, doubleton or tripleton with LHO or RHO.  My odds tables show this succeeds 36.3% of the time.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the odds tables – very useful in analyzing the best line of play: http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm

My opponent chose option 2 for both clubs and trumps.  When the ♣Qxx allowed the ♣Q to be ruffed out on the third lead of clubs, he succeeded, just losing to the ♥Q.  My teammate chose option 1 for both clubs and trumps.  The ♣Q was onside, but the ♥Q was offside and he went down.  Sometimes it just doesn’t pay to draw trumps.  Those 2 ruffs required in dummy and 2 ruffs in hand are critical to your total trick count.

The declarer that ruffed clubs stated the the ♣Q coming down was simply a bonus, causing him to alter his line of play.  When the ♣Q fell, he correctly cashed top hearts, took his spade discard and cross ruffed the balance, losing only to the outstanding ♥Q.   But, had the ♣Q not fallen, his plan for 12 tricks was the 8 tricks for AKs and 4 ruffs – ruff 2 diamonds and 2 clubs for 12 tricks, leaving only a spade loser at the end.  The problem with that is that diamonds and clubs must both be 4-4 to avoid an over ruff.  Obviously, clubs cannot be 4-4, since the opponents only hold 7 clubs.  If RHO is short in clubs, they can throw a diamond as you ruff the last club.  If LHO is short, they can over ruff the last club and you are left with a spade loser at the end.  The cards can be such that LHO cannot over ruff the last club and, when they pitch a diamond, they are unable to do damage to dummy’s trump holding on your last diamond ruff (such as ♥43 doubleton and likely some other holdings).  However, I don’t think this potential extra parlay overcomes the odds disadvantage of simply taking the club finesse.  The trump holding is too weak for a high cross ruff.  Any overruff dooms the contract.

So, I’ve spent a long time on this hand and ready to bring it to a close.  I think the best play is to win trick 1 (presumably a spade), cash the ♥AK, ♣A and then, if the ♣Q has not appeared, finesse in clubs.  If the finesse wins, you have 12 tricks assured (13 top tricks minus the losing ♥Q).  But, this makes the slam less than 34% since you need both the finesse and the 3-2 trumps to succeed.  At least that is how I see it.

The alternative – cross ruff your way to 12 tricks and simply lose a spade at the end (with a bonus (36.3% of the time) if the ♣Q drops in 1-2-3 rounds) became too complex to analyze.  It depends on the distribution of clubs and diamonds and hearts and heart spots in the opponents hands.  So, I may have made invalid disparaging remarks about this line of play – I simply don’t know what the chance of success is.  With enough time and effort, the odds tables mentioned above could actually answer this question.  Interested parties, unclear how, can contact me to learn how.  It is a lot of work.

Board 20

 

 

As you see, wildly different approaches to the bidding resulted in different contracts.  Once again David Bird’s book comes to the forefront.  Doubleton leads have been frowned upon for quite a few years, but David Bird showed that leading a doubleton is surprisingly often the best start to the defense.  Here it was the only successful opportunity.  The Axxx suits certainly look unappealing (and leading either of those suits gives away the contract).  My partner chose a trump which, had he held the all important 9, would have worked fine.  As it was, the trump lead accomplished the needed finesse for declarer (without the trump lead, diamonds provides the only dummy entry for a finesse and diamonds is also the source of tricks, declarer needs lots of help).  After winning the ♠A at trick 1, declarer tried the ♠Q.  When the ♠9 fell, establishing the ♠8 as an entry to the diamonds, he could see his way home.  Diamond to the ♦A, diamond ruff high, small spade to the ♠8, run diamonds.  In the end, he was able to power home a heart trick (after the run of diamonds, the ♥K lost to the ♥A, but then the finesse of the ♥10 on the heart continuation made 11 tricks).  On a diamond lead, declarer has many options, but none lead to 10 tricks against best defense.

David Bird found trump leads undesirable except when the alternatives were so bad that it made a trump look good.  If you hold xxx Kxx Kxx KJxx or some similar holding, by all means lead a trump.  But, he found doubletons to be quite desirable and acceptable.

According to double dummy analyzer, the 3♦ contract was cold for 10 tricks on any defense.  But declarer was only able to find 8 tricks, to -650 and -100, lose 13 IMPs!!!  All on the lead and the fall of the ♠9.  Finally, note that if Dan’s spade suit is even stronger, such that HE held the ♠9, he cannot make the hand because he lacks a dummy entry after diamonds are established.  Bridge is a strange game.

Board 22

This was all about bidding judgment.  Here with a doubleton, 2 aces, 3 trumps, and 10 HCP, the hand looks to me more like a 3 card limit raise than a simple raise.  One table went one way, one the other.   Also, the East certainly might consider a game try with good trumps, shape, and a possible source of tricks outside trumps.  With the fit meshing well and the ♠Q falling, 11 tricks were easy for both sides.  For me, -200, +650 by our teammates, finally winning 10 IMPs.

Board 25

 

This is an interesting area of bidding judgment with South on the spot.  The auction started the same, but diverged in a very important way.  Sometimes the rewards of defeating a very low level contract can be pretty paltry when the game bonus awaits for your side.  Here with the vulnerability being the most favorable for a penalty, the opportunity for a big score was there for the taking.  East certainly has a minimum takeout double, especially for the prevailing vulnerability, but I think many would make that call, and here both players did.  After the redouble, showing values, East-West are toast.  There is no place to land.  I considered running to 1♠, which is the best result possible (-1100) once the doubling begins.   In hindsight, I possibly should have.  

I think, after the redouble, partner of the doubler should normally make the trump suit selection for his side.  Partner (who doubled and, in general ‘asked’ for the other major) will assume, if you pass, that don’t have the requested major.  Therefore, he will likely bid his better minor, assuming that you have no choice between the minors (or you would have made that choice with your first bid).  For responding to the double, after the redouble, I think pass should be reserved for a hand with equal support for either minor (not 5-1).  And, both minors should be better than the unbid major.  If you pass, partner (the one who doubled) will likely choose his better minor (and did so here).

I chose my longest suit, clubs, and offered 2♣ over the redouble.  I may have been lucky to have chosen clubs, since the relative strength of South’s spades and clubs are quite different – that is, he is quite happy for a penalty double of any spade contract, but he was not so sure that he could inflict major damage to clubs (imagine my hand short in spades and much longer in clubs). Double dummy, the result for 2♣X is -1400, but South, with the heart misfit, both spades (implied by the doubler) and clubs (that were bid) well stopped, judged to bid 3NT rather than defend.  9 tricks in NT were easy (3+2+2+2) for +400.  Our teammates slipped a trick defending 2♠X, scoring ‘only’ 1100 instead of the 1400 that was available.  That was still good for 12 IMPs for my team and a more happy (for me) ending of the day.

Successful low level penalty doubles are rather rare.  The downside (if they make it, they can sometimes get a game bonus besides) can be huge.  But the upside, when there is a misfit and you have all of their suits well defended, can be huge.  Here defending was huge.