Recap Of 8/8/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

Seven double digit swings today including an unusual number of slams.  In addition to 3 boards where an excellent slam was bid at both tables for a push, 5 more boards had slam bid at only one table with huge IMP swings in the balance depending upon the success of that slam.  The other 2 boards were games that were bid/not bid causing the swings.  So, you could say bidding decisions created all of the swings.  But, in fact, opening leads, defense and declarer play played significant roles in deciding which way the swing would go.

Based on the lie of the cards, this hand ended up all about bidding, since no defense can defeat the 4♠ game once trump broke 2-2.  At one table, North offered a ‘mini-splinter’ raise of spades and South decided to pursue the game despite modest values.  A full game splinter bid would be 4♦ and, had West passed, 2♦ would have been a natural forcing reverse, so 3♦ must be shortness, strongly invitational, but less than game force.   Had the ♣A been onside, declarer could have withstood a trump loser with a 3-1 trump split, but after the opening ♣J lead, there were 2 club losers and a certain heart loser.  This meant trump had to be 2-2.  Trump were 2-2, so declarer was able to win 7 spade tricks (with 2 diamond ruffs in dummy) along with the red aces and a second trick in hearts to provide their 10 tricks and fulfill their contract.

When game was bid at the other table, East noticed that he provided no help in the red suits that partner held, so he decided the best chance to defeat 4♠ would come from an opening club lead, allowing him to choose which red suit to shift to (or continue clubs) after winning the first trick and looking at dummy.  So, he made a Lightner double of the final contract.   Theodore A. Lightner of New York City, New York,  was born in the year 1893 and was an early pioneer of bridge theory.  He figured out that if you ‘knew’ that the contract would be made by a normal lead, it cost little to double if you had a reason to believe that directing partner to make a different lead might present declarer with problems.  Often the bid is made with a void (but partner doesn’t know you have a void so they won’t be leading the suit unless you double).  Here the double was made holding ♣AQ expecting to find the ♣K in dummy.  Any unexpected double of a freely bid game or slam contract is considered a Lightner double and asks for an unusual lead, often dummy’s first suit.

Result, we were -170 but our teammates were +790, win 12 IMPs.

Here is the first of the 5 hands where slam was bid at one table and not the other.  In my opinion, this slam is close – during the bidding we were both kicking around the idea of slam, but I just thought the tricks weren’t there, so we settled in game (no 5 card suit of my own, no help for partner’s heart suit, only 8 trump between us).  The bidding took a different turn at the other table resulting in the 6♠ contract.  Our bidding (which indicated two shapely hands in a 4-4 spade fit) suggested a trump lead to cut down on ruffs.  West did lead a trump and East did well by saving their ♠10 for a potential overruff in diamonds, should the play develop that way.  So, I won the ♠8 at trick 1 and decided to knock out the ♣A at trick 2.  West won and returned their ♠10 to continue cutting down the cross ruff. At this point, scoring my trumps separately via ruffs, a successful heart finesse would bring me to 12 tricks (6+2+2+2) assuming both the ♣QJ cash and that I can figure out which loser to throw on the ♥A and which loser to ruff low (since the last trump was held by West, I couldn’t go wrong), but a losing heart finesse could cut me back to 10 tricks if they could win with the ♥K and return a trump (5+1+2+2).  So, I just went for 11 tricks (6+1+2+2) and did not pursue the heart finesse, since I was only in game.  But, given the two rounds of trump leads by the defense, the heart finesse is the only route for me to score 12 tricks.

Playing 6♠ at the other table, 12 tricks were a requirement (with one sure loser).  How is declarer supposed to find 12 tricks?  Assuming no singleton in the minors (risking an early ruff), declarer has no reasonable way to get an extra trick out of their 4-4 minor suits (yes, a tripleton ♦QJ10 would promote the ♦9 after a ruff, or a doubleton ♣A onside (small to the ♣K, duck coming back).  So, after an opening trump lead and ignoring these extreme outlier cases, there are exactly 2 tricks in each minor and 1 in hearts.  That means declarer must obtain 7 trump tricks via a nearly full cross ruff (ruffing 2 diamonds and 1 club in dummy), or else 6 trump tricks and a heart finesse.  But, at the table that bid the slam, the opening lead was the ♣10, and East went up with the ♣A, presenting declarer with 3 club tricks.  Now the route to 12 tricks looks greatly simplified.  6+1+2+3 will see you home.  There are no clubs that need to be ruffed in dummy.  Assume trump are 3-2, assume diamonds are 4-3.  Ruff one diamond low, ruff one diamond with the ♠Q and you reach your 12 tricks.  That was declarer’s plan, so declarer was disappointed when the first diamond ruff was overruffed by East’s ♠10.

Transportation is amazingly problematic on this hand, in spite of numerous winners in both dummy and declarer’s hands.  If declarer draws two rounds of trump (a precaution to reduce chances of an overruff if East happened to have only 2 diamonds and only 2 trumps), he can safely ruff the first diamond low.  But then a heart ruff is the only way back to hand for the second diamond ruff, and then there is no way back to hand to draw trump and enjoy the established clubs.  Still, I think declarer took, by far, the better percentage play for the 12th trick (vs. heart finesse) once he was presented with a gift of an extra club trick.

Should East rise with the ♣A at trick 1?  Obviously not, on this hand.  But what if declarer held AQJxx in diamonds and the club loser went away on a high diamond.  A trick is a trick and it only takes two to defeat the small slam.  Making sure the ♣A is one of the defensive tricks is a high priority.  But, is it really possible that declarer has a hand like that?  After the bidding at my table, the defense should know that I am 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=4=5.  But, after the bidding at this table where clubs were never mentioned, declarer could have long strong diamonds, allowing them to discard dummy’s club.  However, if that is the case, I don’t think any defense is going to defeat 6♠.  So, I think best defense is to not play the ♣A at trick 1, saving the ♣A for dummy’s ♣K.  What does declarer do for 12 tricks if East withholds the ♣A at trick 1?   They can try to cash 2 winners in each minor suit and ruff 3 minor suit losers in dummy (will not be a success on this lie of the cards) or ruff 2 minor suit losers and take a heart finesse to discard the other loser.  Missing both the ♠10 and ♠9 of trump makes it quite challenging to choose the best line, avoiding overruffs at each step of the way.

Back to the actual play after the ♣A won the first trick and the ♣K won trick 2…What other options does declarer have (besides a heart finesse or ruffing two diamonds)?  Trying to ruff hearts good (playing for Kxx in either hand) will fail because there isn’t transportation to do that and still draw trump.  What about a squeeze after drawing trump?  You would have 11 tricks and have threats in both hearts and diamonds, but again, transportation is a problem.  So, you could draw only 2 rounds of trump, then ruff a diamond high, return to hand using the last trump in dummy, then play winning black cards coming down to ♦9 and ♥8.  If the long diamond and ♥K are in the same defensive hand, that hand will be squeezed and either the ♦9 is good or the hearts in dummy are good.  As the cards lie, this squeeze play also works, but I think it is hardly the indicated line of play.  There is no guide from the defensive bidding or play to suggest that this would be successful.  So, it seems to me the simple straight forward plan to ruff one diamond low and one diamond high is clearly the best percentage play, but unsuccessful as the cards lie.

In any case, the defense scored two tricks when the diamond overruff gathered in the second trick, so our teammates were +50 to go with our +450, win 11 IMPs.

After both tables started with a Drury auction, one table bounced to game while the other settled quietly in 2♠.  With 3 nearly certain club losers plus the ♦A, it was best to not be in game…unless the opponents let you make it!  Both tables had the opening lead of the ♥10, won in dummy followed by a trump finesse.  Not knowing that the ♠K was doubleton (not that it mattered or changed things), both declarer’s won the trump finesse and led diamonds to the ♦K and ♦A.  At my table, after winning the ♦A, partner played the ♣K and then ♣10.  I overtook with the ♣J and led back a small club for partner to ruff and declarer claimed, -140.  

North, at the other table, after winning the ♦A, returned a heart (presumably hoping partner can ruff).  That assumes that declarer held the ♣A and 4 hearts.  There are two problems with that assumption.  One – declarer would likely have checked on a possible 4-4 heart fit via a 2♥ rebid rather than bouncing to 4♠.  The other problem: if declarer does have the ♣A, 4 tricks are not possible for the defense, even with a heart ruff.  Declarer will have 5+3+1+1 even if a heart winner is ruffed away.  If, on the other hand, North assumes that partner (South) holds the ♣A, continuing with the ♣K offers significant chances for defeating the contract.  Either the defense scores 2 clubs and a ruff, or 2 clubs and a trump promotion (when the ♠K is overruffed with the ♠A, it is possible that that will promote partner’s remaining ♠10x to a trick.  When North continued with a heart, declarer won in dummy, drew trump and then led a diamond to the ♦10, allowing a losing club to be discarded on the remaining high diamond.  Game bid and made, +620 for our  teammates to go with our -140, win 10 IMPs.

What about the Drury auction?  Assuming you are not playing a big club, nearly everyone will pass with the West as dealer.  All will open 1♠ and it is time for Drury showing invitational values with 3+ card trump support.  I think the choice to bounce to game comes from full membership in the club: ‘never take back a red +170’.  By bidding game, you are assured of not producing +170!  Any time you hold Qxx in a suit, that Q is not pulling full weight unless partner has some help there or you are lucky enough to have the AK on the right.  Also, 5-3-3-2 hands are only 1 card removed from the death holding of 4-3-3-3 (which is what West actually held on this hand).  Balanced hands need more HCP to produce games.

Both tables started with an opening 2NT and the focus shifted to North.  My partner simply raised to 3NT ending the auction.  At the other table, with the strong 5 card diamond suit and all prime values, North decided the hand was worth an invitational 4NT.  Their partner accepted by offering 6♠ as a contract, but that was corrected to 6NT.  This needs diamonds to be 3-2 or else diamonds 4-1 with a singleton honor in East to pick up the diamond suit for 5 winners.  To reach 12 tricks, declarer also needs the ♠A in the East hand, or else the ♠J10 in the East hand (likely doubleton, since a first round successful finesse of the ♠9 would involve suspected cheating!).  When the spade suit lay poorly for declarer, our teammates ended defeating the slam down 2, +200 while we played a quiet 3NT, scoring +660 to win 13 IMPs.

Does North have the values to invite?  It is close.  One player thought yes, the other no.

Bidding at both tables was quite short.  Here again, it was the response to the opening bid the propelled the partnership into slam.  What is the ‘right’ response to 1♦?  Either you decide the hand evaluates to an invitational diamond raise and bid 2♦ or you don’t (and bid 1NT).  Both bids are flawed.  After 1NT, the opponents are going to lead a major suit, and you are ill-prepared for either major, but perhaps partner has you covered.  If you raise diamonds, you are usually promising 5 card support or else a bit better hand.  Still 5 card suits headed by the AK can often produce a lot of tricks (opposite a singleton or doubleton, 1 or 2 ruffs might produce an extra trick.  Opposite club length, perhaps the whole suit can run?  As you can see, the more passive 1NT resulted in 11 tricks for +660 while the play in 6♦ had 12 sure tricks as long as trumps were not 4-0 (1+3+6+2).  Assuming no singleton heart, after drawing only 2 rounds of trump, declarer played 3 rounds of hearts pitching dummy’s last spade and then cross ruffed the hand to score all 13 tricks.  In IMPs, this line of play was risking -100 to score a useless extra 20 points, but the chance of a singleton heart was quite small.  So we were -1390 to go with our teammates +660, lose 12 IMPs.

Preempts were invented to keep the opponents guessing.  The mild bump to 3♠ left little difficulty for the opponents, while the bigger bump to 4♠ left me guessing at a higher level.  I felt I had a nice hand, but my bidding showed a nice hand.  I clearly didn’t have sufficient values to unilaterally bid slam.  Partner really needed some perfect cards in a maximum double for 12 tricks to be assured.  So, blame me, my fault, no one else to blame.  But, something happened on the way to the bank.  West made an opening (spade) lead out of turn, allowing the North declarer to forbid an opening spade lead.  Now the slam is cold if declarer could work out the necessary conditions for success.  The diamond spots are quite poor in dummy, creating a substantial problem.  The opponents will lead spades whenever they get in, tapping dummy.  Declarer must establish diamonds to pitch their losing spade.  So, I think to score 12 tricks, the ♦A must remain in dummy when you lose a diamond trick.  The only way that can happen is to lead diamonds off dummy.  There is no way to lead diamonds from your hand that will force out the ♦K, leaving the ♦Q high and the ♦A as a late entry to the established diamonds.  Try it (with any lie of the defensive diamonds).

So, what can you do?  If you determine diamonds MUST be led from dummy (preserving the ♦A as a later entry to the established diamonds), and you must dislodge the ♦K when you do lead diamonds, and you must have the singleton spade discarded from dummy prior to losing the diamond, I think there is only one choice. 

Dummy has plentiful tricks, plentiful entries, but not after drawing 3 rounds of trump and playing 4 rounds of hearts to discard the spade.  With that line of play, dummy is down to 2 entries – a spade ruff and the ♦A.  If the ♦A is gone prior to losing the diamond, the spade ruff that follows the losing diamond trick will leave you with possibly established diamonds in dummy that are inaccessible.

There is a winning play, but hard to find at the table.  Draw only 2 rounds of trump, then play 4 rounds of hearts pitching a spade, then draw the last trump ending in dummy, then lead a diamond off dummy.  If West holds the ♦K, he must play it.  Otherwise, you could win ♦Q, then ♦A, then another diamond, establishing the diamonds with the spade ruff as an entry.  But, if West doesn’t play the ♦K, you must assume he doesn’t have it and finesse the ♦10.  Now, hoping East doesn’t hold the ♦J, East must win the ♦K (otherwise, you, again, can play, ♦A and another diamond, establishing diamonds while retaining the spade ruff as an entry to the good diamonds.  You hope for East to be 4=4=2=3.

I think the key to the hand is realizing diamonds cannot be successfully led from hand to produce the necessary ending.  Leading diamonds from hand, no lie of the diamond suit can provide establishment as well as the necessary entry after they are established.  In actual play, declarer drew 3 rounds of trump, played 4 rounds of hearts discarding the spade, then led the ♦Q, covered with the ♦K and ♦A.  When a small diamond was led from dummy, the ♦J came up and a spade was led, tapping dummy.  Now a diamond to the ♦10 and all the diamonds are good, but they are in a dummy with no entry.  

Playing 5♣ at the other table, the defense cashed a spade and declarer navigated the diamond suit for one loser, scoring 11 tricks.  Our teammates were -400 to go with our -50, lose 10 IMPs.

The last slam of the day was lucky for me.  Both tables had identical bidding for the first 6 bids.  I felt partner’s choice of sequence showed very strong hearts (they were, but not THAT strong) and a desire to not play NT (actually he was OK with NT having strong values in every suit outside of hearts).  Anyway, for the 7th bid of the auction, my hand bid 3NT at the other table, ending the auction.  I raised hearts (likely suggesting a doubleton, which, if I held that, wouldn’t have made the heart slam quite so bad).  Partner checked on aces and bid the slam.  The 6♥ slam requires a doubleton or tripleton ♥10 as well as no spade lead.  If I (East) played 6NT, I am protected from a spade attack and the only requirement for 12 tricks is a doubleton or tripleton ♥10.  So, a poorly bid slam came home when North led from their club sequence rather than attacking spades, the unbid suit.  We scored +1430 against our teammates -690 to win 12 lucky IMPs.

So, all 7 swings were game/not game or slam/not slam, but leads, defense and declarer play was often the determining factor regarding which side obtained gains by bidding (or not bidding) higher.