Recap Of 12/17/2018 28 Board IMP Individual
There were a lot of IMPs flying around today, but only 5 hands that cleared the hurdle of ‘double digit.’ The opening lead determined the result on one hand, but bidding decisions created all of the other swings. It all started on the first board…
With identical auctions at both tables, this hand came down to the opening lead. On this auction, no lead is especially appealing, but a heart is probably the last choice, and a weak holding with length in dummy’s first suit suggests there is unlikely to be any future there. If you got that far in your choices for an opening lead, you are down to a couple of black queens – the unbid spade suit that is only 2 long (♠Q10), or dummy’s second suit where you are 3 long (♣Q76).
My partner tried the ♣6 which I read as 4th best on this auction. When I covered the ♣9 with the ♣J, declarer could win the ♣A and try 4 rounds of diamonds. My partner won the ♦10, but when partner continued with the ♠Q ducked to declarer’s ♠K, declarer could finesse the ♣10 and bring in 10-11 tricks. At the table, they discarded a club on the ♥A, so only 10 tricks were scored, -430.
Playing the same contract with the same bidding at the other table, our teammate was faced with the lead of the ♠Q. If they could see all of the cards, they could duck the spade at trick 1 and then pursue various double dummy line of plays to arrive at 9 tricks ‘knowing’ that East held a doubleton spade, so there would be no danger to let them on lead. Some lines of play involve throwing East in with a heart after cashing exactly 2 diamonds so that a diamond lead allows a finesse of the ♦9 to bring in 5 diamond tricks! There are many double dummy variations, but single dummy, declarer had to allow for the possibility that the opening lead looked more like the ♠Q from ♠AQJxx so that ducking would result in zero spade tricks if West ever gained the lead. By winning the first trick, declarer had the potential to score 1+1+5+2 for their required 9 tricks. Sometimes the ♦JT would be doubleton or the ♣QJ would be doubleton providing the necessary tricks without a 3-3 split. Alas, diamonds did not come home, and East still had a spade to lead when they gained the lead, so declarer took 1+1+4+2 while the defense gathered in a diamond trick to go with 4 spade tricks for down one. So, our teammates were -50 combined with our -430 resulting in losing 10 IMPs to start the day.
When I put this hand into Lead Captain (http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html), a diamond lead was the best non-spade lead. The ♠Q was 3 times better than a diamond and even the ♠10 (impossible in practice to start with the ♠10!) was more than 2 times better than a diamond lead. Of course no one would ever start with the ♠10, but Lead Captain methodically tries out every card as a possible lead against thousands of random hands that could have been dealt that are consistent with the actual hand on opening lead as well as N-S bidding.
When facing favorable vulnerability, I will often preempt ‘1 higher’ than my shape calls for (e.g. jumping to 3M over 1m when holding only 6 cards in my major). Preempts were made to create problems for the opponents and Marty Bergen would certainly approve. Here at my table, East (not vulnerable) opted to use his first bid to jam the auction to the 5 level opposite vulnerable opponents (1 higher than standard). If the opponents can score their vulnerable game, it is unlikely that the penalty in 5♦ will greatly exceed the value of the game. “Make ’em guess.” However, here there was no game above 5♦X so the opponents simply made a penalty double and took their 5 tricks (2+1+2+0) and scored 500 points. In fact, on this layout, there is no contract above the 1 level that N-S can make! Par (best possible result for N-S and E-W) is to let East play 2♦ and make it! At the other table, East made the more pedestrian 4♦ preempt. South thought that negative doubles only went through 3♠ so they made what they thought was a penalty double. North thought that they had more offense than defense, and, they also thought, that partner was asking them to bid. Since North ‘knew’ that there was no heart support in the South hand, they tried 5♣. South ‘corrected’ to 5♥ and West had no trouble finding a penalty double. Double dummy declarer play as well as double dummy defense can hold declarer to just 6 tricks, making their book but down 5 tricks. That is what happened, so we were +500 to go with our teammates +1400 to score 18 IMPs!
This swing was based more on partnership agreement about what level of bidding constitutes a negative double vs. a penalty double. As I have reported many times in the past, we do allow discussion at the table regarding what certain bids mean, but it is a bit awkward to ask ‘is a double of 4♦ a negative double or a penalty double?’ That question kind of gives the hand away. Therefore, I should possibly throw this hand out based on a misunderstanding…but it is still instructive – make sure you and partner are on the same page when it comes to “when do negative doubles no longer apply?”
This auction had the same start at each table for the first round of bidding. Holding the big hand, I was all set for a 2♣-2♦-2NT auction, but these days the opponents are rarely silent so those simple descriptive auctions are often not available. I had an automatic double when East opened 1♥ and I couldn’t really see an option other than to double again when 3♥ came back around to me. 3NT certainly doesn’t appeal and I have no suit to start bidding. If partner declares the hand but has no entry and must lead away from my strength on each trick, we may not score many tricks. When partner could only offer 3♠ in response to my second double, I finally decided, after considerable thought, to pass and let him try to score 9 tricks. Yes, there is a possible vulnerable game and the opponents may be “out stealing” – bidding with meager values and a lot of shape. Even though my hand doesn’t have to be THIS good, partner knows I have a great hand to double the second time. If partner has values, they owed me a stronger bid than 3♠. West was waiting for the penalty double if I had decided to raise 3♠ to 4♠. Double dummy results in 8 tricks for declarer playing a spade contract, and that is what my partner got. After the second heart was won with the ♥K, partner played only 1 spade and then led a diamond to hand in order to lead a club up to the ♣K, dropping the singleton ♣Q offside. As long as 2 top spades aren’t played early on, the defense can’t find more than 5 tricks. So we were down 1, -100.
At the other table, our teammates weren’t content to pass it out in 3♥. Opener raised 3♥ to 4♥! That really put the pressure on the player with my big hand. Now my huge hand gets to make their second bid at the 4 level! What can you do? With both sides vulnerable, pass will score 5 tricks and allow +200. But, that seems pretty wimpy. You could double and hope partner passes. The player with my hand tried a second double (in this situation it is certainly standard for this double to be treated as takeout) and North took it out to 4♠. West was all set with the penalty double of 4♠ to end the bidding. Here, declarer won the second heart lead and cashed the ♠AK. Now, the defense had 6 tricks coming, because West had gained trump control. Declarer could cash 3 diamonds successfully, but when the 13th diamond was led from dummy, all West needs to do is ruff low. Declarer can overruff, but that is their last trick. After the ♣A, West can ruff a club, draw trump, and run hearts. So our teammates scored +800 compared to our -100 to win 12 IMPs.
After the preempt and subsequent penalty double by West, should North pull 4♠X to 5♣? There are 10 tricks available in clubs (as long as you play East for the ♣A), so running to 5♣ sure would have worked out here.
Here our opponents pretty much jammed us into the game. I can hardly do less than support partner with my 6 trumps (even if it is at the 4 level) and partner continued to the 5♦ game. When a simple 2♣ overcall by West happened at the other table, the player with my hand also supported diamonds, but only at the 2 level. Then clubs were raised by East, and with no club stopper for NT, the opening 1♦ bidder simply rebid their diamonds and ended the auction at 3♦. Both declarers lost the first 2 club tricks, but that was all for the defense. No tricks to lose in the majors or diamonds, so 11 easy tricks were scored at both tables. We were +600 and our teammates were -150, win 10 IMPs.
Should my hand (North) bid more at the other table? After the 2♣ overcall, normally a jump to 3♦ would be much weaker than this hand and a jump to 4♦ would often be more shapely but still weak (since a cue bid of 3♣ is available, so any bid that isn’t a cue bid will show less than limit raise values). The shape of the North hand is really bad (in the context of 6 card trump support), but using LTC or other hand evaluation methods, I think it evaluates to “limit raise/invitational values” – bid 3♣ with the first bid. When the bidding comes around to North the next time, South had had no easy bid to show extra values. They could have tried high reverse with 3♥, but their hand had dropped in value since the ♣QJ evaluate to 2 losers and zero high card points. So, for North’s second bid, the current bid is 3♦ and they must decide what to do. Now, raising 3♦ to 4♦ might jeopardize the plus score and, even though you have 6 trump, you have no singleton nor void. Bridge is a tough game. You certainly hate to miss a game that merely requires a 2-1 trump fit and no finesses to fulfill your game contract. It to me looks like they had to cue bid to show the limit raise the first time.
There are a wide variety of treatments to handle minor suits after partner opens a strong 1NT. From my experience, the 2 most popular ones appeared on this hand. At the other table, a 2♠ relay/transfer to clubs was offered (and there are actually 2 flavors of this system – one where you bid 2NT if you like clubs, and one where you bid 3♣ if you like clubs). Anyway, the result of this sequence left South with an option to bid over the 3♣ signoff bid, but they did not. Looking at 8 almost certain tricks with a possible heart finesse for 9, West didn’t sit for the 3♣ partial but went forward, uninvited, to 3NT. When diamonds were led at trick 1, declarer was only able to score their 8 top tricks, so they went down 1, -100 for our teammates.
At my table, the 2NT response to the 1NT opening bid forced a 3♣ bid. East would pass 3♣ if they simply wanted to play 3♣ or else, if they had game values with a 4-4-4-1 hand, they could use this tool to show that particular strength and shape by bidding their singleton over 3♣. So, after 2NT, West dutifully made the requested 3♣ rebid which was passed around to South. With little hope of defeating 3♣ and knowing that I had to have some useful values (if the opponents are willing to play a partscore, where are the rest of the points?), my vulnerable partner bid 3♥. West had a lot of quick tricks and thought that 3 heart tricks were likely to go with the ♦A and ♣A to defeat our contract. Since North-South were vulnerable, +200 seemed assured with higher numbers possible if dummy proved to be a disappointment and partner produced some help on defense, so West doubled. They did get their 3 heart tricks, but when there were no club tricks for the defense, partner was able to score their 9 tricks for +730. When it was all over, West was lamenting their failure to bid 3NT rather than double, since little bad could happen to the 3NT contract and there was a huge potential upside if they could score 9 tricks (as well as avoiding the downside of 3♥X being made!). Our +730 combined with our teammates -100 to score 12 IMPs.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
On board 1, if North holds off winning an opening S lead until trick 2, leaving E out of S, I am still not seeing how N brings in 9 tricks. N can not let W in, so he finds the unfriendly D split and puts E in with a D loser. If E leads the Q of C, North is stuck isn’t he? He will get 1S, 1H, 4D, and 2C. Is the winning play after trick 2 to play the AQ of H, developing a 2nd H trick, then start on the D?
Larry, it turns out there are an incredible number of ways, double dummy, to 9 tricks. I played around with it for quite awhile. There are lots of defensive and offensive options. Does West win the spade A and return a spade? If so, East needs to find a discard and whether they play a club, a diamond or a heart, all help declarer. There are so many variations it is impossible to go through them all. Basic line for 9 tricks:
West does not ‘squeeze’ partner but ducks the spade 10 continuation to the K.
Declarer can play on hearts (A, then Q) or diamonds, taking exactly 2 top diamonds.
Then lead the club 10 from dummy – avoidance play to keep West off lead. If West covers the 10, the whole club suit comes home. If West ducks the 10, so does declarer.
In either declarer line (hearts or diamonds then clubs), East regains the lead holding no spades and must provide a helpful lead. If declarer played hearts first (A then Q won by East’s heart K), the best defensive continuation is the club Q or a diamond. Since the club Q is unlikely, assume a diamond. Declarer can either play 2 rounds of diamonds then the club 10; or play 4 rounds of diamonds. Assume 4 rounds of diamonds. Now East is down to clubs and hearts allowing North to score more heart tricks, or more club tricks when East breaks the suit.
There are SO many variations…if the defense does a, then declarer does b…or c. Then if the defense does d, declarer does e…or f!!! Best is to acquire the double dummy program and watch the play unfold. It is a great program, worthy of a substantial donation, although technically it is free.
http://www.bridgecaptain.com/downloadDD.html
#1. For what it’s worth, West very likely has the Ace of spades else East might well have overcalled holding the AQJxx or even the AQJx or AQJ10 of spades. But it is still not clear that you will make 3N except dble dummy.
Good point Mark. I think that point makes ducking the right play. True, you pay off big time if RHO will gain the lead and if RHO initially held a doubleton small spade. But, if you do duck, you have a number of ways to still be successful. If declarer grabs trick 1, you are a big favorite to go down.
I don’t usually take the time to read Bob’s interesting blog, but did a bit this morning over coffee. On Board 5, regardless of agreements, I think that responder should pass 4D. The problem with doubling based on trump tricks rather than general values is that opener, who you know is looking at a shapely hand, will be eager to put some useful points in responder’s hand and keep bidding. Even if double is “penalty” (not negative), interpreting it as showing general strength rather than strictly penalty is most useful, I think. Doubling with scant offensive values is too likely to lead to a disaster. Pass and hope partner can reopen with a double.
Grant, I don’t disagree. At the table, I think the player that doubled thought ‘clearly penalty, no problem’ and the player that took it out thought ‘clearly negative, no problem’. So, with familiar partners, know your agreements. With unfamiliar partners, tread cautiously, as you suggest.