Recap Of 7/18/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

Reporting on 7 double digit swings today – 5 caused by bidding decisions, 1 lead problem and 1 play problem.

 

 

The lower bound threshold for all bids seems to be in a continuing downward slide.  Here, at one table, after the dealer passed, East opened 1♥ but at the other table, East opened 2♣.  The result – a slam that, barring a ruff on the opening lead (followed by cashing the ♣A), needs nothing more than the ♦K and ♠K onside (or 3-3 diamonds to pitch a black loser after winning the diamond finesse).  It is possible that a favorable opening lead could improve the odds of the slam?  There is one more chance (but not exactly another arrow in the quiver), instead of taking the spade finesse, lead up to the ♣K hoping the ♣A is onside (or lead to the ♣J hoping the ♣Q is onside) providing a discard for the spade loser.  So, a very poor slam needing 2 cards favorably placed was reached with the result: win 11/lose 11 based on the location of the kings.

In my mind, this was all decided on the opening bid.  I don’t see how West, opposite a real 2♣ opening bid, can fail to proceed towards slam.  In fact, West at the other table might consider moving onward towards slam, since they have a good 3 card limit raise and partner blasted to game opposite a nebulous forcing 1NT.  However, if East-West could look at all of their cards, there is no reason they would want to get to slam.  But 22 IMPs hung in the balance (win 11 vs. lose 11) based on the location of the ♦K and ♠K.  Since both kings were onside, the club loser could go on the 13th diamond and 13 tricks were made at both tables.  For me, -1010 vs. +510 for our teammates, lose 11 IMPs.

 

The first 7 calls were the same at both tables and the focus was on East.  With nearly half the deck in HCP, it seems East must chose something other than pass.  One table bid 4NT suggesting 2 places to play (likely both minors, but since spades was the suit initially doubled, hearts might still be one of the suits offered).  Partner replied 5♦ with their longest minor, but North wasn’t done.  North bid 5♥ which was doubled by East, corrected by South to 5♠ which was also doubled by East.  The powerful fit found by North-South had 11 easy tricks, just losing the 2 pointed aces.  So we were +650 for making 5♠X non-vulnerable.  Seemed like an OK result…

At the other table, faced with the same start to the auction, East chose to double.  In this situation, it is still largely a takeout double, so partner, with reasonable shape and no defense to offer vs. 4♠X pulled the double to 5♥.  North had no problem doubling that contract and, with East-West vulnerable, it was not a happy ending.  Our teammates were down 7 for -2000!  Lose 16 IMPs.

Double dummy analysis shows that, with best play/defense, 5♣ would be down 3, 5♦ would be down 2, and 5♥ would be down 5.  So, had declarer been ‘only’ down 5, he could have saved 3 IMPs.  The real problem goes back to the double of 4♠.  If West chose to pass, letting the opponents make a non-vulnerable doubled game with an overtrick, they would only lose 1 IMP (-690 vs. -650).  But, partner’s double suggests bidding.  With a likely useful ♣Q, ♦J, singleton spade and 5 trump, West bid onward to the ill fated 5♥.  So, I think the verdict (what caused the swing) falls to the 4NT call chosen at our table vs. the double chosen by our teammate.  After a 4NT call, if North chooses to double 5♦, they can collect +500 vs. +450, but with their 6-5 hand, North will certainly bid onward as they did at my table.  It would take a very meek East to not double 5♠, but 5 IMPs can be saved by avoiding the double of a making contract (assuming both tables arrive in 5♠, one doubled and one not).  With 2000 scored at the other table, the double of 5♠ only cost 1 IMP.  Like most swings, this hand was all about bidding decisions.

 

 

A pair of phantom saves brought a big swing on this hand.  The choice of opening bids seems (to me) to be a close call.  A 2♦ opening risks losing a potential heart fit (this would be an incredible dummy in a heart contract).  A 1♦ opening risks suggesting more overall strength.  As you see, one table tried 1♦ while the other tried 2♦.  After our teammates opened 2♦, North-South quickly reached 5♦ and then West made the peculiar decision to try for 12 tricks (to make? to save?) and bid 6♣!

At my table, after North opened 1♦ East overcalled 2♣ and South had a clear negative double.  I bounced to 5♣.  When that gets passed around to South, with their excellent diamond fit, it seems South must try for the vulnerable game bonus (+600 vs. taking the ‘sure plus’ defending 5♣X).  It turns out defending would have been better, since 10 tricks is the limit with the North-South hands.

When 5♦ failed by a trick (2 hearts and a spade for the defense), we were +100.  Meanwhile at the other table, in an attempt to ditch the losing diamond in 6♣, declarer won the ♠K opening lead with the ♠A and tried a heart finesse.  When that failed, the spade continuation provided a spade trick, a spade ruff, the ♥K and 2 aces, down 4, +800 for our teammates.  Added to our +100 produced 14 IMPs.

Several side notes to observe here.  The famous law of total tricks is off by 3, with 22 total trumps only providing 19 total tricks.  In addition, the best contracts are not in the longest fits.  The best contract for North-South is 4♥ where the same 10 tricks are possible (their 8 card fit instead of their 11 card fit, even though they are missing the AQJT9 of trump).  And, for East-West, their best contract is 4♠ where 9 tricks are possible (down 1) rather than 5♣ where 9 tricks are also possible (down 2).  Not surprisingly, neither spades nor hearts were ever mentioned in the auctions.

 

Here is the opening lead problem of the day.  After what I would consider a routine 1NT-3NT auction at both tables, West was faced with a classic problem. 

1. Lead a 4 card suit with 2 honors
2. Lead a 4 card suit with 1 honor
3. Lead a 4 card suit with no honor
4. Lead a singleton

Here, the old adage of a 4th from longest and strongest ♠4 lead would have sufficed for down 1.  A diamond lead and continuation would lead to down 2.  I’m baffled by what actually happened, which I will get to in a minute.  I ran Lead Captain to see what it would pick from the list above.  Lead Captain attempts, via software, to capture David Bird’s classic book on opening leads.  Assuming you have correctly defined what to expect in the hands of both declarer and dummy, you can run a simulation (with double dummy play) for the lead  of every possible card in the hand of the opening leader (note, if you hold cards in sequence, such as 765, from a double dummy perspective, the 765 all are equal so the program treats them as the same card and only simulates one of those cards, not all 3).

What would you lead?

Here are the results from Lead Captain.

 

I fully expected the ♥7 to come out as the lead most likely to succeed, and it did.  However, surprisingly (to me), there was not a great difference in any of the leads in terms of expected results.

Back to what happened at the tables.  In my mind, the clear ‘book lead’ (using the principles from David Bird’s book), was a major.  And, leading away from AQ suits can provide declarer undeserved tricks, so I picked the other major and started with the (fatal) ♥7 (2nd best from a weak 4 card suit).  Fortunately, partner was dealt the ♥8, so he is able to read that I have made a lead of 2nd best from nothing.  That is, using 4th best leads, if my ♥7 was 4th best, he can see all of the hearts except ♥QJT9.  For the ♥7 to 4th best, I must hold 3 of those 4 cards – which one do I not hold?  If not the ♥Q, I would lead ♥J from ♥JT9.  If not the ♥J, I would lead the ♥10 from ♥QT9.  If not the ♥10, I would lead the ♥Q from ♥QJ9.  And if not the ♥9, I would lead the ♥Q from ♥QJT.  Therefore, the ♥7 is not a 4th best lead, declarer holds great hearts and it is time to shift.  As the cards lie, the only shift to give declarer a problem is a diamond.  Declarer has a guess.  It might seem that the only card to play is the ♦K, since you can’t afford to have LHO win the ♦Q and then possibly lead to RHO’s ♦A and then perhaps still lose the ♠AQ.  But, by the same logic, you can’t afford to have the ♦K lose to the ♦A and then possibly lead to RHO’s ♦Q and then lose the ♠AQ.  Declarer has plenty of tricks as long as he can gain the lead (6 solid clubs and 3-4 hearts).  If he loses the lead, the defense might be able to score 2+1+2+0.  So, had a diamond shift occurred at trick 2, on a different lie of the cards the ♦J would be the winning play, but here, as the cards lie, declarer must fly with the ♦K to ensure the contract.  All of that was rambling about a defense that might have occurred, but didn’t.  In reality, at trick 2, partner returned the ♥8, declarer cashed their 10 tricks, and conceded two aces at the end.  We were -430.

What was the lead at the other table?  The ♠A!?!  That lead did not hit my radar, but it had the benefit of defeating the contract when spades were continued at trick 2, establishing 3 spade tricks plus 2 aces.  Playing leads of the ace vs. NT asks for attitude, what would you signal, as East, to the ♠A?  You do have spade length, but no strength.  I must confess that I would have discouraged, but then partner may have shifted to a fatal heart rather than a successful diamond.  If the opening lead was from ♠Ax or ♠AQx, you so not want a spade continuation, but from the actual ♠AQxx, the continuation was satisfactory for down 1, -50 for our teammates, lose 10 IMPs.  I can’t argue with success – my lead resulted in 10 tricks for declarer, while the ♠A achieved down 1.

Often an ace lead allows you to look at dummy to figure out what you should have led.  Often, you learn what you should not have led was the A!  Here, according to Lead Captain, hearts, diamonds and even the lowly singleton ♣10 were all deemed to be a better opening lead than a spade, but on this hand the club is ineffective and the spade was quite effective.  Why is the ♠A superior to 4th best?  Because you will retain the lead and might be able to figure out the best defense after seeing dummy as well as partner’s signal.

 

 

I considered opening 4♥ but feared that bid would just invoke the “transfer” to 4♠ (by the opponents) and then I wouldn’t know what to do (but partner would know what to do on this hand!).  So, I started slow and advanced to 4♥ after the 3♠ weak jump raise.  That showed both a pretty good hand and a very good suit.  Partner, not unreasonably, made a slam try with a 4♠ cue bid.  When I cue bid the ♣A, the exposure of our weakness in diamonds was complete, so the defense started with 3 rounds of diamonds sending our contract down 1.  At the other table, after East’s 4♥ opening bid, West, the partner, might consider going further, trying for slam.  Alas, our opponents at the other table passed it out in 4♥ and took their 10 tricks.  -620 for our teammates and -100 for us, lose 12 IMPs.  Clearly without a diamond ruff, we would have been safe in 5♥ and 12 tricks are possible without a diamond lead.  Was this result bad luck, or was my failure to open 4♥ simply bad bridge?

Another interesting (to me) note – had partner simply blasted to 6♥ we would not have provided the roadmap for the defense.  Obviously 3 rounds of diamonds could have still scored the same 3 tricks, but without the clue from the bidding, I doubt that that defense would have been found when defending against 6♥.  Not complaining, just observing.  Of course, I could have bounced to 6♥ over 4♠ and I think it would have been highly unlikely to find the ♦A lead.  Interesting that 5♥ cannot make but 6♥ likely does make!

 

 

As you can see, the auction started the same at both tables.  Since East’s 1♠ bid only promised 6 points and 4 spades, I was a bit surprised when dummy came down.  East expected more playing strength (to justify the leap to 4♠ since the ♦K is likely worthless on offense), and I expected a 4th spade.  However, East was not hurting for spades – there were plenty of tricks as long as clubs were 2-2 (or a possible restricted choice play).  The singleton club honor was there, but it was in front of the clubs instead of behind the clubs so the slam had no play as long as the defense captured a diamond trick before or after winning the club that they always must win.  Our teammates simply bid 3♠ over the weak 3♦ jump, so East raised to game, but there was no slam exploration.  So, 11 tricks were there and it just depended upon how high East-West got.  Our +50 along with +450 allowed us to win 11 IMPs.

 

 

Similar bidding resulted in the same contract with the same lead (the unbid suit, 4th best diamond) at both tables.  With clubs solid, declarer is looking at 8 sure tricks (4 clubs and AK in both pointed suits).  The 9th could come from a spade finesse or the ♥A on side (by leading up to the ♥K).  As long as diamonds are 5-3 and the ♥A is onside, a losing spade finesse still doesn’t jeopardize the contract and provides the 9th trick.  But, as the cards lie, declarer must duck a round of diamonds to sever the transportation for the defense.  After the opening ♦4 lead went to the ♦J and ♦A, declarer led clubs.  Partner won the ♣A and continued with the ♦2 (confirming a 5 card suit), so when declarer went up with the ♦K, it was easy for me to unblock the ♦Q, preserving the ♦3 as an entry to partner’s diamonds.  Now, a losing spade finesse can’t utilize the ♠10 for the 9th trick because the defense will have already cashed out sufficient tricks to defeat the contract.  So, in the fullness of time, declarer took their 8 tricks, we took 5 for down 1, +50.  Our teammates did duck a diamond, so they were able to score 9 tricks when the ♥A was onside for +400 and 10 IMPs.

The commentary about the play on board 25 suggested that failure to duck a diamond was simply wrong.  Clearly that is not the case – sorry.  If declarer ducks the diamond at trick 1, any heart shift (high or low) will produce 5 tricks for the defense.  If declarer ducks the diamond after losing the ♣A, there is still a risk of a heart shift.  If the East-West hearts are reversed (so that East holds ♥Q976), a shift by East to the ♥Q (smothering the ♥J) would produce 3-4 heart tricks (to go with the club and diamond tricks already won).   The texture of declarer’s heart suit presents great risk.  In short, the right way to play diamonds (duck or don’t duck) is based on where you think other key cards are (♠Q and ♥A).  Since RHO held both, a diamond duck was necessary on this hand.  But, had LHO held both, ducking a diamond could be fatal when a simple spade finesse will produce the 9th trick.

I’m adding a footnote as another opening lead problem.  You are leading against 6NT holding:

And you heard this auction

Clearly a spade is right if partner has the ♠K.  Anything but a spade is right if the opponents need a spade trick to reach 12 tricks and partner has the ♠QJ.  Clearly a heart is right if the opponents need a spade trick to reach 12 tricks and partner has the ♥K.  Opening leads can be tough.  You have to pick something.  (Sorry, I don’t know the auction at the other table)

All players who join in this game attend the National tournaments and have had some success.  The two players that held this lead problem have recently had high finishes in 2-day national events.  This hand didn’t reach the blog because it was a push.  A heart was led at both tables producing 13 tricks for declarer (yes, partner had the ♠K).  This is not the same hand, nor the same auction as board 10 where I suggested 6♥ might have succeeded had the auction not provided the road map for the defense.  I have received numerous and universal feedback that the ♦A would have been the automatic lead vs. ♥6.  When you are given the hand as a problem, you often think of unusual leads.  When you are given the hand and see all of the other hands, there is often a clear cut best lead.  My main point was that as long as we are going down in 5♥ we may as well go down in 6♥ just in case 6♥ happens to make.