Recap Of 11/7/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

Today’s game featured 5 double digit swings with one challenging play problem along with 4 bidding decisions (2 slams) creating the remaining 4 big swings.

There was nothing to the lead, defense or play of this hand – draw trump and establish hearts so that one diamond loser can go on the 13th heart and 1 diamond can be ruffed for 13 tricks.  It was all in the bidding.  This vulnerability (white vs. red) provided me the opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the opponents auction, so my first bid of 5♣ left little room for the opponents to explore.  East had the perfect cards for West’s long spade suit, but they were unable to sort that out and guessed to let the bidding die at 5♠.  When my hand bid only 4♣ at the other table, East-West were able to express their solid controls of the minor suits with cue bids and almost bid the grand (but few extra IMPs would have been paid out had the grand been bid and made when the other table failed to reach the small slam).  This (failure to be in slam at the other table) is what makes the IMP odds for bidding the grand slam quite perilous – you need to have a high degree of certainty for 13 tricks to take the plunge and bid the grand.  When the other table has not bid the small slam, you are gaining 4 (additional) IMPs when you bid/make the grand with a chance of losing 26 IMPs (the 13 you would have gained for the small slam bid/made vs. the 13 you lose for going down in the grand against their game bid).

Another reason to not bid the grand – when the opponents are bidding at a high level with extremely weak hands, they have some extreme distribution.  Always.  Here, had the unusual NT been 6-5, or if their shape was 2=1=5=5, then 7♠ has no play.

What about West’s initial bid over 2NT?  It is quite common for many established and new partnerships to play “UvsU” – that is, when the opponents bid unusual NT (or other bids that show 2 suits), use those 2 suits as anchors to show the other 2 suits (in this case, use clubs and diamond cue bids to show hearts and spades).  Often, that is how far the discussion goes, but, as with virtually any ‘system’ bid, much much more discussion is required.  Which variation do you play?  Some play that the cheapest bid (in this case 3♣) shows support for partner’s suit, some play it shows the lower suit (in this case, partner’s suit is hearts, the lower, so the ‘system’ would be the same regardless).  Also, if 3♦ is going to show spades, does an immediate 3♠ bid (which obviously also shows spades) show a better hand than 3♦ or is 3♠ a non-forcing competitive bid?  At out table, it was an established partnership and both understood 3♦ to be a stronger spade hand than had West bid 3♠.which would have been non-forcing competitive.   Our teammates were not an established partnership, and with no discussion, West bid 3♠ assuming it was forcing (and stronger than 3♦) and carried on from there.  Memo to all partnerships: be sure to nail down what bids mean and be sure both partners have the same understanding!

Out teammates were +1460 vs. our -710 to win 13 IMPs.

The bidding started the same at both tables – pretty automatic to open 1♠ and respond 1NT.  At East’s first chance to bid, he has a very awkward hand.  If they had dealt, undoubtedly they would open 1NT.  But what does East do after RHO bids 1NT?  At the other table, holding nice values but limited support for the unbid red suits,  they tried a takeout double.  They soon found themselves as dummy playing their 4-3 heart fit in 4♥ doubled.  At my table, East overcalled 2♣ with their modest club suit.  At both tables South who had opened 1♠ rebid 2♠.  But, at my table 2♠ ended the auction.  Partner was able to find 5 tricks opposite that miserable dummy for down 3, -300.  Our teammates somehow managed to find 9 tricks in their 4♥ game contract, but they needed 10 tricks, so they finished -200 to lose 11 IMPs.

Bridge is a tough game.  Given the exact same problem, different players come up with different solutions.  That is what makes the game so fascinating.  East has a very tough bid at their first opportunity.  Bouncing to the 4♥ game in response to the double may have been a bit exuberant, but if partner held short spades (as advertised by the double) and some fitting diamonds (little wasted in clubs), game may have been just right.

Here I violated one of my oft mentioned ‘rules’:  never bring back a red +170 to your teammates.  I was really close to making a game try, but Mike Lawrence wrote a book about 50 years ago about the principle of ‘in and out evaluation’ – ‘in’ being points in your suits and ‘out’ being points in the opponents suits.  Specifically, queens and jacks are good in your suits (for offense – poor for defense) but queens and jacks are very poor values in the opponents suits (for offense, but good for defense).  The queens and jacks don’t come into play until the 3rd or 4th round of the suit and by then partner could possibly ruff it, providing no offensive value at all.  On top of that, those points that you hold are points that not held by the opponents, yet the opponents are bidding, so they have compensating values elsewhere to make their bid.  Those ‘other’ points they hold could be your downfall.  Of course singleton kings in the opponents suits may take a trick on defense, but they will rarely be useful for offense.  In reality, my ♥QJx paired with partner’s ♥A10 to make a good holding in that suit.  When considering the option of making a game try or not, the overall spade suit was weak.  So, even though I had 15 HCP, I discounted the heart and club values, taking me down to 9 ‘working’ HCP.  Since partner had provided a simple raise to only 2♠, I decided to preserve the plus rather than risk a game try that might result in playing 3♠ going down when only 8 tricks were available.

With 3 top losers in the black suits, everything else had to work.  The heart finesse has some chance of success (of course the finesse must succeed in order to make game).  LHO showed heart length with his double, but opener (RHO) has more points (both opponents are bidding on light values, but you don’t know who is light during the auction – it could be partner).  figured to be successful, but unless the ♥A captures the ♥K, there is still a heart loser that must be ruffed.  And, unless diamonds are 3-3, there is a diamond loser that also must be ruffed.  If trump are 3-1, it won’t be possible to obtain 2 ruffs in dummy.  Alas, diamonds were 3-3, so no problem – 10 tricks were scored at both tables.  Our +170 vs. our teammates -620 cost us 10 IMPs. 

It is pretty common in standard bidding to play a jump cue bid as a mixed raise – a raise that shows some offense, some defense, 4 card trump support and about 6-9 HCP – a bid which pretty well describes the South hand.  Partner wanted to do a ‘mixed raise’ with a jump to 3♣.  But, other than playing in this game, we have never played together and he wasn’t comfortable throwing that bid in the mix.  Still, South at the other table made the same simple raise to 2♠ and my hand found the game try that allowed them to reach and make the reasonable game.  Charge this one to me.  Even though the game was somewhat lucky, vulnerable games have to be bid due to the 10 IMP payoff.

This hand was the play problem for the day.  With slightly different bidding, both tables arrived in 3NT with the same ♠10 lead.  With the club finesse on, after the diamond ♦A is knocked out, declarer has 3+0+2+3 ‘top’ tricks – one short.  Spades may split 3-3, diamonds may split 3-3, the ♥A may be onside, or an endplay may be possible.  Or, perhaps a finesse in spades or diamonds will make it possible to pick up the suit for the extra trick when those suits break 4-2.  For instance, if the opening leader held ♠1097x and their partner held ♠Jx, the ♠8 is there to finesse West out of their ♠9.

Playing for the ♥A onside is pretty scary with that heart suit.  At my table, partner won trick 1 with the ♠A and proceeded to knock out the ♦A.  West won and persisted with spades, won in dummy, and then declarer led the ♣Q to the ♣K and ♣A.  Hoping for a favorable split in spades or diamonds, declarer cashed his winners ending in dummy and in the end position, knowing that East had the last spade, led a spade hoping for an endplay.  They may have a club to cash, but then, if they held ♥Ax, they would have to surrender the 9th trick to dummy’s ♥K.  Alas, as they won the ♠J, their partner threw away their ♥9, leaving them with the ♥A and a good club and and a good diamond.  5 tricks for the defense, down 1.

Play at the other table started the same, but when West won the ♦A, they shifted to clubs which went to the ♣Q, ♣K and ♣A.  But, declarer, noting the fall of the ♦98 on the first 2 rounds of diamonds elected to finesse the ♦7 on the 3rd round of diamonds and that play brought them to 9 tricks.  I think this falls in the category of restricted choice plays and it sure worked for this hand.  Our teammates were -400 and we were -50 to lose 10 IMPs.

What about the response to 1♣?  I chose 1♦ and Gary chose 1♠.  Traditionally, I have responded in my 4 card major with less than invitational values, but just bid up the line with good hands.  The actual choice had no bearing on the result, but it is worth discussing with partner.

What about the lead?  It was the same at both tables, once when spades were bid, once when no major was bid.  I like the spade lead, either way.  With clubs bid on your right, the ♣9xxxx hardly looks like a place to go looking for tricks.  If you rule out clubs, ♦Axxx satisfies ‘4th from longest (remaining) and strongest’, but David Bird’s book and experience have indicated that a lead from a suit like that is often helpful to declarer (on this hand it would have shown the way to 9 tricks via a finesse against the ♦10) and rarely (but sometimes) fruitful for the defense.  Although the ♥A could hit partner, they didn’t bid the suit, so it is unlikely to help and it gives up a valuable tempo in the hand (it proved to be the entry to the setting tricks late in the hand).  The ♠10 seems to offer the best prospects of safety (avoid giving away tricks) and attack (partner might have good spades over the spade suit that was bid by dummy at one table).  And the ♠9 to go with it provides some texture to help fill in partner’s suit.

This is a tough hand to judge.  With the bidding starting the same at both tables, my partner unilaterally trotted out RKCB and, finding me with both missing key cards, bid the slam.  At the other table, South advanced with a club cue bid and, with weak diamonds (no cue bid possible there), North simply rebid hearts and that ended the auction.  In the context of having made a limit raise showing 10-11 HCP with 4 trumps, what do you think of the North hand?  Clearly holding 2 aces is slam positive.  But the ♣Q is soft and the hand is flat.  Perhaps they should offer a 4♠ cue bid back to partner and see what they do?  That might have allowed them to reach the slam, but when I gave the hand to another strong player, they still didn’t get to slam after a 4♠ cue bid in response to the 4♣ cue bid.

If my ♣Q had been a ♦Q or ♠Q, I would have bid the same and the slam would have had virtually no play.  But if my entire club/diamond suits were switched, so that I had ♣xx and ♦Qxxx, 12 tricks might have been possible with the ♦K onside.  Obviously there are many many hands that I (North’s limit raise) could have held, some which make slam hopeless, and some which make slam cold.  The bidding challenge is to find out which of those hands I do have and end up in the right contract.  Partner had very solid hearts and nice controls outside of hearts.  This time, his  approach (RKCB) worked.  We were +1430 vs. -680 to win 13 IMPs.