Recap Of 7/15/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

For the 5 big swing hands today, bidding judgment was one factor that helped create the swings, but leads/defense and declarer play also played very significant roles.  In 4 out of 5 cases, improved defense/declarer play would reduce or eliminate the swing, and in one case create a swing the other way.

The bidding started the same at both tables, but at my table, East decided to take a shot at 9 tricks in 3NT while East at the other table raised to the spade game.  The way the cards lie, the same 11 tricks are available in both contracts, but declarer needs to play more carefully in spades.

Playing spades, there are a number of routes to 11 tricks, but the easiest, after the ♦Q lead, is to win the ♦K, draw 4 rounds of trump (pitching a heart and a diamond) and lead a club to the ♣10.  South will win their ♣Q, but will be forced to lead a heart around to the ♥Q, a club into the ♣KJ8, or a diamond into the ♦A10.  Depending on which suit they return, declarer will score 11 tricks in various ways – the defense has no answer.  Both North and South are subject to endplays that will help declarer once they win their club tricks, so the declarer only loses 2 clubs and wins the rest.  At the table, declarer was uncertain about their dummy entries and wanted to make sure that they got a discard on the ♦A, so after winning trick 1 with the ♦K, they cashed a high spade and entered dummy with the ♠10. Then they cashed the ♦A, taking a heart discard.  At this point, 11 tricks are still possible, but not easily.  At the table, declarer continued with a heart to the ♥A, ruffed by North.  North then led a club, finessed to South’s ♣Q.  South cashed the ♥K and led another heart, ruffed high by declarer.  But declarer still had to lose the ♣A for down 1.

On lead against 3NT, I felt certain that a heart lead would surrender an unnecessary trick, so, since spades hadn’t been raised, I started with a spade, hoping partner could get in and attack hearts.  Declarer simply won the spade lead in dummy, lost the club finesse at trick 2 and when I shifted to a diamond, declarer won with the ♦K and led another club.  Partner played the ♣A and declarer had a high club and the ♦A as discards for dummy’s heart losers, so 6+1+2+2 to reach 11 tricks.  We were -460 and our teammates were -50, lose 11 IMPs.

Similar bidding arrived in the same contract at both tables.  I didn’t think I was strong enough to force game (either bidding 4♠ directly or via a splinter raise to 4♣).  The player with my hand did try the splinter, but still they ended up in 4♠ like us.  Do you think this is worth a game splinter?

At our table, partner received the opening lead of the ♣Q which was won with the ♣A.  Back came the ♥8 covered by the ♥10, ♥J and ♥Q.  When partner led a small diamond off dummy to his ♦J, North won the ♦A and continued with another heart.  Declarer won the ♥A and continued with a small diamond.  South rose with the ♦K which was ruffed.  Now, as long as trump break 3-2, partner could (and did) cash the high spades.  After that, everything was high with the defense only allowed to score their outstanding high trump (♠Q) whenever they wanted (one red loser in dummy would go on the ♣K, the other red loser could be ruffed).  Declarer lost 2 aces and the ♠Q, but they could score 6+3+1+1 (-1 for the ♠Q).

At the other table, the opening lead was a small heart.  Declarer could duck the opening heart lead to their ♥10 (since the lead was away from the ♥J), but that could be very dangerous, losing a trick they could not afford to lose.  So, they won the ♥A and led a small diamond to the ♦J and ♦A.  Back came the ♦10, covered by the ♦Q and ♦K which was ruffed.  Had declarer not covered the ♦10, the ♦K would eventually ruff out (allowing the ♦Q to be a trick).  Still 10 tricks were available if declarer continued along cross ruff lines from this point forward.  There is danger of overruffs, but LHO has to follow to red suit leads from dummy (can’t overruff declarer) and RHO has to follow to club leads (can’t overruff dummy).  Declarer can score 2 hearts, a club, and 7 trump tricks.  

However, at the table, after ruffing the ♦K, declarer led a spade to the ♠J and ♠Q.  East returned a spade and declarer led dummy’s singleton ♣10.  East won the ♣A and continued with a diamond (his last spade would be a better defense at this point).   Declarer could ruff that (with his last trump), cash the ♣K, ruff a club and draw the last trump, but when hearts failed to break 3-3, 9 tricks was the limit.  That made our teammates +50 to go with our +420, win 10 IMPs.

Here, with everybody vulnerable, the bidding started the same at both tables, but at one table, South balanced/reopened with 4♣ after the 3♠ preempt, while the other table passed it out and let West play 3♠.  North, with some decent values, decided if partner can contract for 10 tricks on his own, then his hand should offer a play for 11 tricks, so he raised to the 5♣ game.

There wasn’t much to the play in 3♠.  Declarer had to guess if the ♥K was doubleton or the ♥10 was doubleton (lead the ♥J and smother the ♥10).  He guessed right, so there were only 3 minor suit winners for the defense, declarer won 10 tricks, so we were -170.

West led the ♠A against 5♣ and had a difficult choice at trick 2.  If declarer bid 4♣ with ♠Q6 (and partner had the singleton ♠10), it would be necessary to cash the ♠K at trick 2 or it was likely they would never get it.  If declarer had a singleton spade, it would be necessary to switch to hearts and hope to find 2 red tricks to defeat 5♣.  Or, switch to diamonds, hoping for a ruff.  When West continued at trick 2 with his high spade, declarer had 11 tricks (5 diamonds and 6 clubs), so our teammates were -600, lose 13 IMPs.

Does South have enough to compete over 3♠?  One South thought not, the other ended up in the game which could be beaten but wasn’t .  Defense is tough.  Anyway, results aside, I think the two passes after 3♠ suggests that North has something (but nothing convenient to bid) and competing further would likely be a net gain for South.

Here again, there was similar bidding (but not the same), to arrive in 4♠ at both tables.  However, West at the other table viewed their limited defensive prospects (hearing NS bidding both majors) and decided to compete with 4NT, asking partner to choose a minor.  This worked spectacularly well when partner not only held a minor, but also 3 aces!!  When the defense failed to cash the ♠A at trick 1, 13 tricks were easily scored by drawing trumps and running the club suit to pitch all spade losers.  How often are you cold for slam (assuming 2-2 clubs) and either never enter the bidding, or enter the bidding for the first time after several rounds of opponents bidding to a major suit game?

After the opponents open a weak two, I like to use an immediate 4NT as ace asking (not unusual for the minors).  Bid 4 of the major that was opened to show a minor suit hand.  With both sides vulnerable, there is certainly risk in coming in – either immediately (4♥ over 2♥) or delayed (4NT over 4♠).  But, as you see, there was risk in not coming in!  I’m sure you have heard “6-5 come alive” and this hand is an example of where that bridge ‘rule’ came from.  The balancing bid of 4NT does not come with a Lloyd’s of London money back guarantee, but I like it.  What do you think?  Also, what do you think of the “weak 2♥ opening bid”?  Both tables bid it.  I suspect many would – it is often helpful to jam the auction and leave the opponents guessing what to do.  Our opponents guessed right and we didn’t.

I failed to provide a heart ruff for partner, so we just got our 4 top tricks for down 1, +100.  With our teammates -640, we lost 11 IMPs.

Balancing with 4NT was a really big bid.  Could/Should West bid immediately over 2♥?  I don’t think any bid is available to describe this hand (2NT, 3NT are both natural, 4NT gets really high if you play that as unusual (vs. ace asking).  A 4♥ bid is available to show both minors, but that, too, gets high fast.  Anyway, assuming pass the first time is right, there is another option to enter the auction.  At both tables, at West’s second turn to bid, 3NT was available.  Having failed to bid 3NT previously, it seems as though this would unequivocally show both minors…just what you have!  And, if North then bids 4♠ as expected (at one table), partner is involved in the decision to go to the 5 level (and the 4♠ bid takes you “off the hook” assuming it comes).  Waiting to bid 4NT is quite unilateral and whenever partner can contribute to the decision, it is almost always a good idea.

Most tournament players play a system of “inverted minors” where 1m-2m shows either game or invitational+ values, and 1m-3m is “preemptive” – but there is a serious problem with that.  Some have developed other tools to deal with that problem after partner opens 1m:  use a jump to 2♠ to show a minor suit “mixed raise” (7-9 points, less than invitational) and use 3m to show a junk raise (less than a mixed raise) – suggesting that partner should not venture onward if they had 18-19 points, too much to open 1NT.  Here neither table had this tool available, so both tables treated their hand as a preemptive raise in clubs.  At our table, the auction ended at 3♣ (the par contract as the cards lie) making 10 tricks on any lead – we started with 3 rounds of diamonds, ruffing the third, but those were our only tricks and no other defense does better.

Note: if you had the potential to show two types of raises: mixed raise and preemptive raise, this would clearly be a mixed raise, and partner would automatically proceed to 3NT with their balanced 18 HCP.  It just turns out that the hands don’t mesh well – slow diamond tricks with insufficient major suit stoppers, but that happens sometimes.

The defense against 3NT is a somewhat unique situation.  Best defense will always beat 3NT, whether the defense starts with spades or hearts.  But, if they start with spades, they must later revert to hearts.  If they start with hearts, they must revert to spades.   What do I mean?

A normal ♠10 (top of interior sequence) was led against 3NT.  Declarer wins the ♠A and starts playing diamonds.  East wins the ♦K and would normally continue spades (partner’s lead).  Declarer would normally finesse the ♠J, losing to the ♠Q and, at that point, spades are not set up, but with no entry available to West’s spades, stop playing spades and revert to hearts.  Declarer still has another high diamond to knock out, and the defense needs to establish heart tricks while they still hold the ♦A.  Continuing spades after winning the ♠Q would be futile – it would establish the spade suit, but East would have no more spades to lead after they won the ♦A.

Conversely, if the defense started with hearts, declarer must duck twice, allowing the defense to score the first two heart tricks.  Hearts are not yet established, but to defeat 3NT, the defense must now switch and attack spades!  When diamonds are led, win the first diamond lead and continue to attack spades and the defense will be able to get 5 tricks before declarer scores 9.  Declarer starts with 8 tricks, but careful defense will hold him to 8 tricks.

At the table, the opening ♠10 lead was won by the ♠A and a diamond was led.  East rose with the ♦K (as declarer dropped the ♦Q) and continued spades.  Rather than finessing the ♠J, declarer rose with the ♠K (hoping the other diamond winner was with West).  When declarer continued with the ♦6, East inexplicably ducked and declarer claimed their 9 top tricks –  2+1+1+5.  Had East won the second diamond lead, a spade lead through declarer’s ♠J4 would allow West to score 3 more spade tricks and defeat the contract.

So, we were -130 while our teammates were +600, win 10 IMPs.

Good luck and have fun in Vegas.  I hope to see you there.