Recap Of 10/22/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

A lot of action today with 8 double digit swings, mostly bidding decisions with a couple of opening leads thrown in to make the bidding differences impactful.  One of the 8 hands was a slam swing caused by a key card mixup that I won’t bother reporting, so that leaves 7 hands in today’s blog…

An automatic 1♥ opening bid was followed by a weak jump 2♠ overcall at one table and a simple 1♠ overcall at the other table.  In both cases, the bidding was already to 4♠ when the auction returned to the opening bidder.  But, since my partner didn’t move over the 2♠ bid, I thought our chances of beating 4♠ were greater than something good happening by coming in vulnerable at the 5 level with my second suit.  So, defending 4♠, we got our two red aces, declarer took the spade finesse and made 11 tricks.

At the other table, the East hand had a routine heart raise after hearing the 1♠ overcall.  So here, the opening bidder has heard from partner and decided the opponents might be stealing (or, if they are making, perhaps there is a good save available).  As the play unfolded the defense (our teammates) managed their  3 black winners, 2 diamond winners and a trump trick, down 4 for +1100 vs. our -650 to win 10 IMPs.

What about passing 5♦?  Well, if you knew 100% that it was a serious offer to play diamonds vs. a lead director in case the opponents persist to 5♠, then perhaps the diamond fit would play better than hearts.  Not knowing that, East returned to the known heart fit.

This turned out to be a great hand for playing standard/somewhat natural ‘help suit’ game tries rather than some spiral structure (the ones that I am familiar with would clearly set hearts as trump – finding the spade fit is off the table).  At my second turn to bid, I asked partner if we were playing spiral and he replied ‘standard’.  That allowed me to bid 2♠ naturally and see what partner does.

It also is a great hand for ‘6 key card ask’ when 2 suits are supported, the kings of both suits count as aces, and the queens just take your bidding even higher.  So, if we were playing 6 key card ask, and if partner was on the same page and considered my ‘help suit’ as a suit and viewed his hand as holding 2 key cards and 2 queens, the reply to 4NT key card ask would be 5NT showing 2 ‘aces’ and both queens.  With that, the far superior 6♠ slam could be reached with 12 tricks as long as spades are not 5-0 (that is, 4-4 fits can often be superior to 6-4 fits because a ruff (here a club ruff) can turn 4 spade tricks into 5 tricks to go with the 6 heart winners and the ♣A.  But I was not with a regular partner and didn’t know a bid that would say ‘is all of your ‘stuff’ in ‘my suits?’ (other than bidding the 6 key card ask which I can’t really invent for our 1 time partnership at the table).  So, I stuck with my long suit and signed off in 4♥ after partner accepted my game try.  Obviously I was always going to game, so why bother with a game try unless I make a move towards slam if partner likes my game try?  I really can’t answer that!  I can only say that I wanted to bid 6♠ but feared there would be no play if partner’s values were in the minors instead of all values in the majors.

That is, if partner held a maximum with nice 4 card fits with both of my suits, which they promised when they raised to 3♠ and if they had help in both of my suits:

♠ Qxxx  ♥ Qxxx  ♦ AQx  ♣ KJ

I don’t even want to be at the 5 level if partner had this hand even though they do have one key card.

At the other table, the auction started the same and the player with my hand simply bid key card and reached the nearly 50% slam (the ♦A is onside or it is not).  When the ♦A proved to be lying over the ♦K instead of in front of the ♦K, 11 tricks were scored at both tables allowing +650 for us and +100 for our teammates for a random 13 IMP win.  The spade slam was much better than 80% with the only failures happening when trump are 5-0 or an opening lead is ruffed.

As I side note, with N-S non-vulnerable, you can see that, in a club contract, they only lose the 3 outstanding aces and score 10 tricks.  So, even a 7♣X contract will show a profit against any making vulnerable game.  Obviously, no need to bid 7♣ if the opponents are going down in 6♥.  Of course the spots in South’s club suit are pretty miserable, but partner’s fit makes the club contract worthwhile.  N-S did not enter the bidding at either table.

Here, the auction began the same for the first 3 bids, but our North opponent simply raised 2NT to 3NT and played it there.  After a heart lead, declarer cashed their 11 tricks and gave us the last 2 tricks.  Our teammate made a reasonable bid to show their second suit (expressing concern about hearts) and when opener came back with 3♦ North thought hearts were a problem for NT and showed their ♠Jx with a 3♠ bid.  South then, unfortunately, raised to the spade game.  The hearts proved to be a bigger problem in the spade contract since the opponents could draw two rounds of trumps and then start playing hearts to score 5 tricks (3 top spades and 2 heart winners) for -200 to go with our -660, lose 13 IMPs.

I think showing your hand by bidding the second suit makes a lot of sense.  But the result should still have been 11 tricks in a NT contract or a minor suit contract and not 8 tricks in a spade contract.

Once more the bidding centered around getting to an easy 3NT contract or a difficult (impossible) 4♠ contract.  But this time, the problem wasn’t the weak spade suit, the problem was finding 10 tricks.  The bidding started the same, and then East had to choose how to advance the positive response to Drury.  At our table, West made a game try in clubs and opener accepted, bidding the game in spades.  Our West teammate simply bid 2♠ as the followup to Drury, and opener, with a sound 14 HCP, continued with a well-judged 2NT game try.  With no ruffing values and strong spade fillers, West was happy to raise to 3NT.  The defense had no chance against 3NT and declarer ended up scoring 10 tricks for +630.  At my table, declarer has to lose 3 diamonds and a club, so we were +100 to win 12 IMPs.

For many years, I have found much success trying to make a 2♦ bid over a 1♣ opening bid whenever possible.  The opponents have easy ways to handle 1♣-1♦, but often 1♣-2♦ creates an awkward bid that doesn’t quite match the values/shape that is held.  It puts more pressure on the opponents and they often arrive in the wrong contract.  This hand was no exception – against best defense there is no play for 9 tricks in NT…except partner thought it best to lead his suit (spades) instead of my suit (diamonds).  Declarer has 7 (somewhat) top tricks – take the heart finesse and knock out the ♣A and they will see 1+3+1+2.  That leaves them 2 tricks short.  But, a spade lead gets them up to 8 tricks, and then by cashing all winners, West can be thrown in with a heart to make 1 more spade lead and all of a sudden, the 7 trick hand has become a 9 trick hand.  Perhaps I should have overcalled only 1♦?  Would partner then have led my suit?  We will never know.   But, he reasonably assumed that, since he could not provide any help in diamonds, that I couldn’t have strong enough diamonds and outside strength to make a fruitful defense out of a diamond lead.

Incredible, at the other table, my hand passed(!) rather than bid 1♦ or 2♦??  And, South, with 11 HCP  and a 5 card suit (seemingly a routine 2NT response to an opening bid of a minor) decided to bid only 1NT.  With no diamond bid to guide them, West led the routine spade.  Declarer won the ♠10 and led a small heart to the ♥Q which West won with the ♥K.  West  continued a club and declarer cashed their 2 clubs, 3 hearts, and ♦A and then played another diamond, hoping to endplay West to provide another spade lead into the ♠AQ.  Instead, East was ‘endplayed’ when they took the rest of the tricks, holding declarer to 7 tricks.  So, we were -600 while our teammates were +90, lose 11 IMPs.

Clearly on a diamond lead, declarer cannot reach 9 tricks on any reasonable defense (but on a diamond lead, declarer’s 5th round diamond ‘stopper’ (♦10xxxx) or some endplay will get them to 8 tricks eventually with best play/defense).  Should partner have led my diamond suit?  I have found the ‘sneak attack’ (some unbid suit) is the most effective lead (most of the time) when one side introduces a suit and the opponents, in spite of hearing that suit bid, continue to 3NT.  This is one of those exceptions when leading partner’s suit was right.  This is what makes bridge such a great game – familiar problems, recurring problems, always trying to find the best answer, but sometimes what worked last time doesn’t work this time.  This is not an advertisement for: “don’t lead partner’s suit” – I’m just saying that many NT contracts will fail when the opponents are well prepared for a lead in partner’s suit, but they are vulnerable in a side suit that you can successfully attack.  Obviously, this hand is an advertisement for: lead partner’s suit.  But that isn’t always best.

Here, both tables reached 4♥, but after our teammates (North) inserted an unusual 2NT showing both minors, South opted to ‘take out insurance’ and save in 5♣.  If the opening lead vs. 4♥ is a diamond, South can win, shift to a club through the ♣K and 4♥ will fail when 2 clubs and 2 diamonds are lost.  An opening spade lead finds the ♠J for declarer and a later club discard holds declarer’s losses to 3 tricks.  On an opening trump lead, Declarer’s play to partially draw trump, then finesse the ♠J, then finish drawing trump and discard a losing club on the ♠K  will allow 10 tricks for declarer.  This play is strictly double dummy without the unusual 2NT bid, but this line of play should be automatic if North has made an unusual NT bid to show 10 cards in the minors.  This shows how 2-suited bids can be a double edged sword – they can help you in the bidding, but they can help declarer in the play of the hand!

What about a diamond lead against 4♥?  Most have read or heard about David Bird’s strong admonition to not lead away from kings.  Much more often than not, it gives declarer an undeserved trick that they cannot score otherwise.  Here, leading away from the ♦K is the only way to defeat 4♥.  So, as noted in the commentary closing out the previous problem – sometimes a choice of leads that worked for a similar problem fails to work on the actual problem at hand.  I would like to play all of my bridge hands against someone who always leads away from their king – I would lose on this hand and on many hands, but in the long run, I feel I would come out far ahead.

Normally you don’t want to take a sacrifice, ensuring a minus score, when the opponents could be set (giving you a plus score), but, bottom line, our teammates taking the ‘phantom’ save worked perfectly – they didn’t have to worry about finding the successful diamond lead and merely surrendered 100 points when they were down 1 in 5♣X.  After my partner received the lead of the ♣A, 10 tricks were easy.  We were +620 vs. -100, win 11 IMPs.

This hand had different paths the bidding can and did take.  Show the minors or not?  Take the save or not?  And, if you are going to tell declarer how to play the hand (by showing 5-5 or better in the minors), you better find the diamond lead or else find the save in 5♣!

Boy did I feel confident bidding the grand.  Since I knew that partner knew he couldn’t count on me for all of the aces, he had to be void in diamonds (or have the ♦A, but that didn’t seem likely).  So, if partner has a diamond void, I felt ‘sure’ we had 13 tricks.  If we can get 12 tricks missing an ace, surely there are 13 with all of the aces.  As the cards lie, there was no play for 13 tricks.  The traditional trump was led at trick 1 and the defense claimed down 1 when they saw the dummy.  When ‘only’ a small slam was bid at the other table, our teammates were -980 to go with our -50, lose 14 IMPs.

What about my 4♦ bid?  I considered 3♥ but felt that letting partner in on the knowledge of ‘good spade fit’ early in the auction would be key, and I didn’t really have a source of tricks in hearts anyway.  My cue bid said nothing about diamonds, simply that my hand was too strong to merely raise to 4♠.  Thus, I was at least making some form of slam try via my 4♦ bid.  Partner accepted (should he?) and I thought I had too much to pass 6♠ (any sympathy out there?).  ‘They say’ never bid a grand unless you can count 13 tricks and this hand is one of the reasons for that ‘rule.’  Live and learn…slowly.