Recap Of 8/5/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

Only 4 double digit swings today.  All involved bidding judgment, but the largest two swings of the day involved a player that thought it would be wise to interfere in the auction with hearts.  Spoiler alert:  It wasn’t.

 

 

I strain very hard to “never” open 1♦ when I have 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, so I began with 1♣ thinking that I had an easy rebid of 1NT unless partner responds diamonds.  After I did rebid 1NT, partner showed a weak “pass or correct” hand with 2♥ (they would use new minor forcing if they held invitational values).  I had a routine preference back to 2♠ which ended the auction.  Early in the hand, the defense got their diamond ruff which held partner to 8 tricks, making 2♠ for +110.

At the other table, this deal involved a fundamental bidding misunderstanding.  North elected to make a minimum value off-shape takeout double.  When the auction starts (1♣)-X-(1♠)-X, the traditional understanding of the second double is that it is a penalty double showing spades.  It is possible to treat it as responsive showing the suits not yet bid (diamonds and hearts), but it is standard to treat it as showing spades.  Here, South thought they had some values, so they should do something, but didn’t want to choose a suit (why not just bid diamonds, the suit you have?), so they selected the double that ended the auction.  South couldn’t bid hearts with only 3 and they didn’t bid 1NT with no spade stopper (but they do have clubs stopped and partner likely has spades stopped, so bidding 1NT, or bidding the diamond suit that they had, were both certainly options if they didn’t want to pass).  Somehow, South concluded double would be DSI (asking North to do something intelligent). 

Looking at it from North’s perspective (with South already a passed hand), if South has 5 solid spades, the defense is up to 6 tricks with chances for down 1.  But, why is West passing when void in spades and they are already doubled?  Why is East bidding spades with a worthless 4 card suit?  At the end of the day, North decided to take South at face value – that they were showing spades with a penalty double.  When the defense failed to obtain their diamond ruff, they only had 4 tricks, 9 for declarer, which meant 2 doubled vulnerable overtricks for a score of -560.  Paired with our paltry +110, lose 10 IMPs.

If the defense did manage the diamond ruff, E-W would have been “held” to +360 and this hand would never have seen the light of day (in the blog).

At the time this seemed like a nothing hand.  We got to our best fit, took our 8 tricks, and got out with a plus score.  Lesson:  It is good to know their intentions if partner doubles a new suit after you make a takeout double.

 

 

At the other table, West cautiously (rightly) passed over the 1♣ opening bid and North-South had an uninterrupted auction to 3NT.  Both North and South had some left in reserve and might (should?) have found a way to keep bidding to the cold slam (12 tricks are there in 6NT without needing any finesse nor any suits to split).  If they had bid the slam, it would have greatly reduced their losses, but as you might have noticed, the hand was irretrievably lost at the other table.

When vulnerable vs. not-vulnerable, preempts should be rather sound.  It isn’t often you can get a trump split like the one you see here (this is probably the most extreme case I’ve ever seen!), but when you do, you will pay dearly.  And, when vulnerable vs. not, the price is steep, far beyond the non-vulnerable slam they could bid.  At least East came to the rescue with a redouble (nice bid, saving a lot of points), sending the auction a level higher, but with diamonds playing 3 tricks better, it was “good” to be in 3♦X down 4 for -1100 instead of 2♥X down 6 for -1700 (both of which are the double dummy best results possible).  So, we collected our +1100 while our teammates were -490 to win 12 IMPs.  In a diamond contract, declarer has 4 diamonds and a heart for 5 tricks.  Again, if the slam had been bid, this hand is not in the blog!

 

 

There were wildly different auctions at the two tables.  At my table, South didn’t open (I would have), so I was able to open 1♠.  North came in 3♥ and partner supported my spades with a sound raise to 3♠.  South competed with 4♥ and my 4♠ bid ended the auction.  Double dummy, there are always 10 tricks available in spades, with the preempt helping place the cards.  The South hand has problems with their length/strength in the minors with various squeeze and end-play possibilities depending on how the play (and defense) goes.  The actual defense started with the ♦8 ducked to the ♦Q and I played the ♦10 (not that it matters).  South switched to a heart and North won and continued hearts which I ruffed.  Then I played a top spade and a spade to dummy’s ♠Q in order to ruff the last heart and then draw the last trump.  In the end position, I still had a trump and ♦J7 and ♣A95 while dummy had  ♦A9 and ♣QJ72.  I led a small club to dummy and South, who had come down to ♦K5 and ♣K1086, had to win the club (or, if they ducked, be endplayed via 2 rounds of diamonds).  But, after winning the ♣K, they had no answer – if they led a diamond, all of declarer’s minor suit cards are winners.  They actually led a club and when I finessed the ♣9, it won and allowed me to cash the ♣A and I sill had the ♦A in dummy to get to my good ♣J to discard my losing diamond.

An alternative play for me would have been to cash my last spade prior to leading a club.  That would have forced South to get down to 3 clubs (but also dummy must reduce to 3 clubs).  Then, I lead a diamond to the ♦A and lead the ♣Q from dummy.  Whether South covers with the ♣K or ducks, they can be endplayed in diamonds to give up their ♣10 or their ♣K. 

An alternative for the defense would have been to revert back to diamonds (at trick 3) after winning the heart at trick 2, removing the crucial ♦A early in the hand.  I must rise with the ♦A, but as long as South has the key ♣10, a variety of alternatives are available for me to squeeze and endplay South such that they never score a trick with the ♣10.  Would I have gotten it right?  I think so, I hope so, but as the play went, I found my 10 tricks for +620.

At the other table, I don’t know if the opening bid by South caused East-West to be more cautious, but the bidding died quite early.  When partner raises my 6 card major, I will often just bounce to game and hope (rather than going through some convoluted game try), since often you won’t know the key question to ask or the key answer to give to sort out if game is a good prospect or not.  Then there is also the issue of “declarer’s advantage” – that is, defense is tough.  Declarer knows 100% of the assets that they hold.  The defense, via signals and inferences from the bidding and play, can sometimes overcome that advantage, but the reality is that declarer has an advantage and sometimes can wind up with 10 tricks when the defense had 4 tricks coming but failed to find them.  Anyway, West at the other table made a simple 1♠ overcall and when raised to 2♠, that ended the auction.  Declarer ended up playing for 3-3 clubs to get an extra trick (and failed), but since the contract was only 2♠, there was no difference in the scoring whether declarer found 9 tricks or 10.  Save your effort for a hand that matters!  Our teammates were -140, win 10 IMPs.

 

 

This last auction is a little difficult to explain at both tables.  Different players have different agreements and different styles.  For, me, after bidding an old-fashioned Jacoby 2NT and hearing that partner has a singleton, I would never signoff in 4♠ when I hold 2 aces and the trump Q – all valuable cards for a potential slam (simply rebid 3♠ and see what partner does).  The slam is actually quite reasonable.  If spades are 2-2, 12 tricks are easy.  If diamonds are 3-3, 12 tricks are easy even when trump are 4-0 (in the North).  However, we were not in slam, since the jump to 4♠ pretty much precluded slam interest unless I had WAY more than what I had shown so far.  I didn’t.  Luckily, when both spades and diamonds split poorly, 12 tricks aren’t possible.  But, in the actual play of the hand, when south kept clubs and discarded two diamonds while trump were being drawn (they were trying to find 4 tricks to defeat 4♠) I was able to just lose 1 diamond trick and my last diamond became good for 12 total tricks, +680.

That didn’t score well vs. the carnage in the other room.  I’m not sure what North had in mind when they entered the auction over 2NT.  They already know partner is void in spades and there may be handling problems for declarer, especially if they venture forth into slam.  In any case, the 3♥ overcall, vulnerable, persuaded South to “take an advance save” in 5♥.  After the defense starts with 3 rounds of trump, declarer is held to winning 3 trump tricks and 2 club tricks – 5 tricks in all.  But, since they had contracted for 11 tricks, that left them 6 short, down -1700, so we lost 14 IMPs on a hand that might have accidentally luckily won 13 IMPs when we stayed out of a decent slam that might have been bid at the other table.  We will never know.

Neither North’s decision to enter the auction with 3♥ nor South’s decision to compete to 5♥ make much sense to me – at equal vulnerability, a lot of tricks must be taken (9 to be exact) to have a worthwhile save.  Maybe some of those offensive tricks will be available in defense vs. 4♠.  Obviously, there would never have been a 5♥ bid if there hadn’t been a 3♥ bid.  So, the preponderance of the cause for the large loss has to fall on North.

I have to say not a lot of great bridge today, but still some interesting hands with some lessons to learn.