Recap Of 2/12/2020 28 Board IMP Individual

Today there were 5 double digit swings that involved bidding judgment, leads, defense, declarer play – and a ‘little’ luck, pretty much every aspect of the game.

Grant Baze argued at one time that he was not the inventor of what is know as the ‘Baze’ convention, but many players use this gadget (and call it Baze) after a fit is found in a Stayman auction.  It is used to establish trump, declare shortness somewhere and explore slam potential.  For anyone unfamiliar, I found this explanation online that seems to capture the essence of it.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5127d3d2e4b0b304f0b6db24/t/51cdedb4e4b0d519d0ba6c4b/1372450228942/4+%2849%29+Slam+Tries+-+Shortness+%28Reverse+Baze%29.pdf

Here South players had the maximum 17 HCP for their 1NT opening bid and North used Stayman to uncover the 4-4 spade fit.  Both North’s judged their hand worth suggesting slam (I agree), so they confirmed spades via bidding the other major at the 3 level, showing a fit with shortness somewhere.  Typically, the NT bidder will ask which suit is short (I did at my table).  When I learned that the short suit was my powerful side diamond suit, I figured there were too many cards in partner’s hand that were not diamonds that I would be unable to establish and arrive at 12 tricks unless partner unilaterally continued on to slam based on his power.  So upon learning that the shortness was diamonds, I signed off in game.

At the other table, rather than ask shortness, South showed their side strength and when partner signed off in game, they continued with a key card ask and, without checking on the trump ♠Q, bid the spade slam.  Had they checked and found that partner did have the ♠Q instead of the ♠J, slam is still a poor proposition (well below 50%) due to the diamond strength opposite shortness.

How good is this slam?  ‘All’ you need is a doubleton ♠Qx to fall (either LHO or RHO) which happens 27.13% of the time…PLUS the ♥A with West PLUS either find clubs 3-3 or hearts 3-3, since only 2  of dummy’s losers can be discarded on the ♦AK.  That additional requirement comes out at 26.619%, but needing both conditions (doubleton ♠Q plus favorable side suits) to bring the slam home makes it a 7.22% slam.  It is actually slightly worse than that, since the defense, on a different layout, could score 2 quick tricks with an unlikely club ruff on opening lead or a heart ruff after winning the ♥A.  For anyone interested, I use this tool to determine ‘what are the odds?’

http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm

If it isn’t clear how to use the tool, send me an email and I can walk you through it.  Of course, this is only useful after the fact – it has no practical value at the table, but still it provides interesting information.

Enough about the bidding.  The play in the slam was straightforward.  With a certain heart loser, declarer had to win the club lead in dummy, cash ♠AK and find the ♠Q falling, lead a spade to the ♠J to finish drawing trump, cross to hand with the ♣Q to lead a heart up finding the ♥A onside, and then ‘only’ need either clubs or hearts breaking 3-3.  When clubs suits broke evenly, no problem, 12 tricks, chalk up +980.  If West ducks their ♥A, dummy will win the ♥K and continue hearts.  The defense will prevail only if both hearts and clubs fail to break 3-3, and declarer will have time to find out which, if either, are breaking whatever the defense returns after winning their heart trick.

Since I needed to find 10 tricks (not 12), I did not pursue this line, but I think using the same start  as suggested for the slam would have been better than what I did.  I wanted to ruff my 2 diamond losers in dummy, so I started by doing that.  But, had trump been 4-1, problems would have developed that possibly could not be overcome.  Starting with the 2 top trump and then ruffing diamonds if the ♠Q is still outstanding is better.  When the ♠Q does fall, I can adjust the play and score 12 tricks the same way they did when playing the slam.  Bottom line, I scored 11 tricks (not that it mattered) for +450 to lose 11 IMPs.  When our teammates came back to compare, we thought they were joking when they said -980, showing us a false scorecard…but they weren’t!

In second seat, partner (North) decided to open a preempt.  Second seat vulnerable is the most dangerous position to preempt (there is 1 partner and only 1 opponent to preempt), but with the 8 card diamond suit, the 3♦ bid certainly seems reasonable to me.  The 3♦ opening bid propelled East into a cold 3NT contract (when I chose a diamond opening lead, 10 tricks were possible, but only 9 were scored).  In the play, declarer won the diamond lead, played 2 hearts which I ducked (trying to prevent declarer from enjoying a third trick in hearts), and then played 2 clubs which I won with the ♣K.  I then belatedly led spades (an opening spade lead holds declarer to 9 tricks).  After my spade, lead, declarer can win the ♠A and play another heart to get his 10th trick, but my ♠10 was ducked all around and now declarer ‘only’ has 9 tricks.  We were -600.

North decided not to preempt at the other table and East, too strong for 1NT, opened 1♣.  South bid 2♣ showing a Michaels bid with both majors.  Somehow, this had the effect of getting North-South into the cold 3♦ contract.  Only the black aces and 2 top trumps must be lost.  The trump suit that was 8 long took care of the rest when the South hand provided the perfect cover cards for North’s losers.  So, our teammates were -110, lose 12 IMPs.

Back to the bidding – should I ‘save’ over 3NT and bid 4♦?  As the cards lie, absolutely.  But, partner did open vulnerable and sometimes the 3NT call is stretching/hoping to catch a fitting dummy (they did).  I felt I had enough stuff that 3NT might fail and it is silly to take a phantom save (why should I go down when they were going down?), so I passed 3NT.

Should East-West be able to arrive in 3NT after the Michael’s bid by South and the diamond bid by North?  East has diamonds doubly stopped, but the major suit stoppers are more suspect unless partner can produce some major suit fillers.  The 2NT rebid showed the 18 HCP that East held, but West’s modest values make it hard to advance to 3NT.  I think there are very interesting/challenging bidding judgment issues by every seat at the table at each turn to bid.  It is easy, looking at all 52 cards, to see who should bid what.  At the table, everyone can only see their own 13 cards and has to judge what is best.  So, at the table, I failed to bid 4♦ and our teammates failed to bid 3NT, so 12 IMPs away.

Once again, preemptive opening bidding judgment altered the destination of the final contract.  As dealer, West at my table opened 2♠, while at the other table West opened 3♠ (I think I would show the 7 card suit and start with 3♠, but often 2♠ shows more values which West clearly had).

So, I had to come up with a bid after 2♠ was passed around to me.  My choice (2NT) may seem like a typo, but that is what I bid!  When spades weren’t raised by East, I felt certain partner had a spade stopper.  If I bid 3♠ it would ask for a stopper (allowing us to reach 3NT slightly more legitimately), but I wanted to keep my hand hidden.  Also, I thought there were some hands where partner would provide 2 tricks, but may not convert a more normal 3♦ call to 3NT.  But, if I bid 2NT, he would raise to 3NT if he had what was needed.  Also, if he had hearts, perhaps he would offer Stayman and we could arrive in 4♥.  But, 7-4-1-1 hands often play better in the 7 card suit – you run out of trump too soon!  Anyway, however silly my 2NT bid was, we arrived in 3NT and had 12 tricks after the spade lead (I went up with the ♠K).  Of course, ’12 tricks’ were only possible due to the incredible lie of the club suit.  Using the same tool as before, I learned that a doubleton ♣KJ onside will happen .119% of the time.  That is barely more than once in 1000 deals. 

Meanwhile, South at the other table was faced with a different problem when the 3♠ bid was passed around to him.  Having 7 tricks in his own hand, he decided to go for the 11 trick game with a 5♦ call.  Partner, who couldn’t take a joke, raised to 6♦.  If the 7% slam looked bleak on board 3, that slam had great prospects compared to this slam.  On a heart lead, no lie of the cards can produce 12 tricks – technically a 0% slam.  But, after the ♠A lead, the same 12 tricks that I scored in 3NT are there in the diamond slam (a .119% slam).   After cashing the ♠A, West made the excellent shift to the ♣J which had the psychological effect of convincing declarer that West could not hold the ♣K.  What are the odds!?!  When declarer went up with the ♣A, the slam failed by a trick, so our teammates were +50 to go with our +490 to win 11 IMPs.  We dodged a big loss.

It isn’t clear how you can get there after a 3♠ opening bid, but 3NT is clearly the desired target contract looking at the North-South cards.  Finding 11 tricks (let alone 12) would be impossible in many layouts when playing in diamonds (lose a spade and 2 hearts).  Depending on the opening lead, there is a chance to score 11 tricks (on a different deal, different distribution of the East-West cards) if declarer can judge the heart layout correctly.

There was nothing to the play on this hand, it was all in the bidding.  North has a clear cut 3♥ opening bid as dealer, vulnerable.  South, with a key filler (♥K) and other scattered points in each suit has to choose to pass (deciding that their values are too soft), try 3NT (only 9 tricks required) or raise to the heart game.  At the other table, South bid the heart game – solid trumps with 1 loser in each side suit (and no defensive ruffs) made the 10 trick game easy.  My partner chose 3NT.  The opening spade lead doomed the contract.   However, when East won the ♠K at trick 1 and returned the ♠J, West didn’t know who had the ♠9, so they returned a passive heart.  After declarer ran hearts and tried to win a club trick, the defense was able to take 5 tricks, so we were down 1, -100 compared to -620, lose 12 IMPs.

If my ♣Jxx had been ♠Jxx, 3NT would have been perfect and 4♥ likely would have failed.  But my weak spades doomed 3NT.  Does partner have enough to advance past 3♥?  Is the correct advance 4♥ or 3NT?  Here it was 4♥?

Here the bidding judgment difference (open 2NT or open 2♣ and rebid 2NT) had no bearing on the final result.  However, if a 5 card suit is ever worth more points, the ♠AKQJ10 surely qualifies as a quality suit worth something extra.  And the North hand has 22 HCP besides, so I don’t understand the downgrade, but as I said it made no difference.  My passive spade lead was the same at the other table and declarer had to find a path to 9 tricks.

The club suit is extremely favorable for the defense, unfavorable for declarer.  Double dummy, the only defense to defeat 3NT is a heart lead won by the ♥A followed by a club shift (and then a club return ducked to the ♣A).  Then the defense has 0+1+1+3 tricks for down 1.

Watching the hand play out, double dummy, is pretty amazing.  As card by card is played…with the spade lead, 10 tricks are ‘cold’; oops, now declarer can only score 8 tricks; oops, now they can score 10 tricks… now declarer is down against best defense; and so it goes, depending upon what cards are played by each player.  Bottom line, even though the bidding judgment was different, this was a hand that was all about: (leads), defense, declarer play and judgment as to how the cards are falling.

At my table, declarer took the spade lead and cashed all 5 spades, pitching diamonds (it turns out that the lucky lie of ♦J10 doubleton was the only way to score 9 tricks – declarer needed to save all of dummy’s diamonds and toss clubs).  East discarded 2 hearts on the 4th and 5th spades, while West discarded 2 hearts and…a diamond on the 5th spade (potentially fatal).  West wanted to be able to duck hearts to isolate declarer to 1 heart winner, so they did not want to pitch down to the singleton ♥A.  But, once declarer abandoned diamonds in dummy, West needed to keep the threat of the ♦8 to beat declarer’s ♦7.  So, once again, declarer can make it if they pound out diamonds (because diamonds are now 2-2-2 around the table).  But, declarer led the ♥J, ducked (to legitimately beat the contract, West must win the ♥A and play clubs).  After the ♥J won, declarer can still make it if they switch to diamonds, but they persisted in hearts.  West won the ♥A, played a small club to the ♣Q and ♣K.  East returned a small club ducked to the now bare ♣A.  Now, declarer was down to all diamonds.  When declarer played diamonds, West could win and cash 2 club winners for down 1.

At the other table, declarer won the spade lead (can now make 10 tricks) and played a heart to the ♥K (can now make only 8 tricks… if West wins the ♥A and plays a club, the defense has 5 tricks).  But West ducked the ♥K.  Then declarer played a diamond to the ♦K which held (noting the fall of the ♦J).  Now, again, 10 tricks are possible by continuing diamonds, or playing spades, then diamonds.  Declarer cashed 2 more spades (West pitching a fatal club) and then declarer led the ♥J (If East holds the ♥A, 9 tricks are assured – either they duck for the 9th trick or they win with no good return).  However, West won the ♥A and led a club to the ♣Q and ♣K.  A club return was ducked around to the ♣A.  Now declarer played his last 2 spades and led a small diamond.  In the 3 card ending, East held ♦10 and ♣94, dummy held ♥K ♦9 and ♣10.  West held ♥9 ♦A and ♣J.  So, the diamond lead was won with the ♦A, West cash the ♣J and, in the end, West led a heart to dummy at trick 13 for declarer’s 9th trick.  So we were +100 and teammates were +600 to win 12 IMPs.

Can the defense get this ‘right’?  I don’t think so.  On this particular deal, a heart opening lead and club shift will defeat 3NT.  East makes a passive lead, and he holds the HCP that West would hope for (a side K and a side J).  But, if East’s KJ values are the ♦KJ10x, the right defense after winning the heart lead is a diamond shift, not a club.  If, after a heart lead, East’s values (♠KJ10x) are in spades, the right shift is a spade – but, 5 tricks are unlikely here since declarer can duck the spade shift (East can’t continue spades) and later win the ♠A and cash 9 tricks easily (since, if declarer didn’t have the spades that he held, he would have red suit tricks to cash).  Bottom line, the defense to beat 3NT on the go is double dummy for this deal, not obvious, not something to ‘get right’.

What about defense getting it ‘right’ in the middle of the hand?  In spite of the spade lead, both Wests were presented an opportunity to beat 3NT outright if they won the first heart lead by declarer (and shifted to clubs), yet both ducked.  I think ducking makes sense – declarer may hope the ♥A is onside and lead up to the ♥Q later in the hand.  The defense cannot stop declarer from winning 1 heart trick, but ducking could prevent declarer from winning a second heart trick.  At our table, a heart wasn’t led until 5 spades were cashed.  If West wins the ♥A (♥J led and ducked to West) and leads clubs, declarer is down.  When West ducked so that declarer’s ♥J won, declarer can switch to diamonds and make the hand – but declarer continued hearts and then the club shift defeated 3NT.

What about declarer – can they get this right and score 9 tricks (assuming no double dummy heart lead at trick 1 and club shift)?  After a spade lead, they have 8 pretty certain tricks.  They can power 1 trick in each red suit by knocking out the ace of diamonds and ace of hearts.  That gives them 5+1+1+1 – they need 1 more trick.  What they need is for East to hold a red ace (they didn’t) and figure out which red ace, and then put them on lead (protecting your club holding).  Since West held both red aces, that option wasn’t available.  The 9th trick can come via hearts (with help from the opponents), via clubs (with the ♣K onside), or via diamonds (with the ♦A onside or with any 3-2 split).  How should declarer proceed after winning the spade at trick 1?  Play more spades first?  Knock out the short suit (♥A) or the long suit (♦A)?  It is easy to be blinded by the layout of the cards in the actual deal (what works on this hand), and not see what is the most likely route to 9 tricks.  I think I might have played 3 spades (no discards required from dummy) and then tried the ♦Q – if LHO has the ♦A, no return hurts and most returns help.  BUT, if RHO wins the ♦A, you are pretty much left with 1 chance to make the hand – doubleton ♦J10 (after a losing club finesse and club return).

Running all the spades early has the advantage (as well as disadvantage) of forcing the defense to make some early discards (some of which may be helpful signals).  It also has the disadvantage of forcing dummy to make discards, as well as telling the opponents how many spade tricks declarer owns.  One declarer played all 5 spades to the first 5 tricks.  The other won the spade, then red suits, then 2 more spades,  then red suits, then 2 more spades.  Best?  I don’t know, but it was successful in getting the 9 tricks needed.

Obviously the objective is to parlay as many potential sources for your 9th trick as possible.  Setting up a long diamond, after losing 2 diamond tricks is not a panacea, since you haven’t yet scored your heart trick and, meanwhile, the opponents may be poised to cash clubs when they win the first heart lead (giving them 0+1+2+3).  Perhaps the best chance is hearts first, hoping they duck, then diamonds, which is what Cris did.  The doubleton ♦J10 is a pretty thin reed to base your hopes on, but that isn’t the only option for success – it is just the only option that works on this layout (and nothing works if the opponents figure out what to do).

Bottom line, this was a complex hand where the cards lie quite poorly for declarer.  Single dummy defense is hard, single dummy declarer play is hard.  Both defense and declarer play are much easier if you look at all 52 cards.  What is right, double dummy, on any given deal may be very wrong on a different layout of the cards.  I’m unable to draw any definitive conclusions about the ‘right’ defense or ‘right’ declarer play.  This was a hard hand for everyone to play but the dummy.  And, it was hard to discuss in the blog, since the best play (for any lie of the cards) may not be the winning play on this particular deal.