Recap of 2/24/2014 28 board IMP individual

There were a few declarer/defense items of note that caused swings, but by far the majority of swings were the result of bidding and/or the opening lead.  Again I will be referencing the books on opening leads by David Bird.  Let’s take a look at some of the hands of interest.

Board 3

On this first hand, both the bidding and the lead played key roles.  The auction was pretty much forced to be the same at both tables through 3♥.  Then, South who opened 1♥ with weak trump and minimum HCP, but holding 2 doubletons, had to decide to pass or bid the non-Vul game.  Ed went on to 4♥, Dan, at the other table, passed.  David Bird didn’t simulate this auction, but had he done so, I am certain he would have favored the diamond lead.  It pickles partner’s ♦Q, but declarer might find that anyway (Ed did), and it doesn’t give up anything.  Mike chose the ♠3, giving up the setting trick in spades. At the other table, a small club was led which gave up the club suit for a possible spade discard.  I think there, declarer did not find the ♦Q, so bid 3♥, made 9 tricks for +140.  Ed bid 4♥, and made 4♥ when he lost his 3 trump tricks, but avoided the spade loser on the lead and found the ♦Q for 10 tricks.  Win 7 IMPs.

Board 7

Here I lost a double part score swing.  At the first chance to bid, Drury precluded a natural 2♣ bid with the south hand, and in the balancing seat over 2♠, Mike decided to not compete.  There has been much discussion lately about how to open 4-4 in the minors.  I was in 3rd seat, and I ‘solved’ that problem by opening 1♥, and soon the auction was over with clubs never being introduced.  Bruce, holding my hand at the other table in 3rd seat opened 1♣ with a plan to rebid 1NT had his partner responded with 1♠.  As it was, his partner was never going to stop competing in clubs and they eventually played 4♣, making for +130.  Losing the part score at both tables cost 6 IMPs.

I attempt, from time to time, to point out the critical need to discuss follow up bids and ‘what if…?’ situations before any convention is just slapped onto the convention card.  I have had some discussion with some partners that a 2NT bid by a passed hand responding to 1M opening shows clubs, invitational.  A fit jump shift bid of 3♣ would show a good 5+ card club suit with 4 cards in opener’s major – a fit jump shift by passed hand.  The fit jump shift applies whether 4th seat bids or not.  Here, had I opened 1♠, South has a hand with minimum HCP, but great playing strength, and could show that by bidding 3♣ showing the spade fit and the club suit – a much more descriptive  bid than a 2♣ Drury bid responding to a 1♠ opening bid.  But, I didn’t open 1♠, I opened 1♥, so there is no Drury and no fit (and, in competition, the fit jump shift applies), so neither 2♣ nor 3♣ is available the first time around.  But, in the balancing seat, a 3♣ bid is simply competitive and natural and shows clubs.  I think this hand is worth showing the clubs sometime and the passout seat is the first and last opportunity.  In any case, be sure to discuss with your partners the many variations that can occur in Drury ‘like’ situations.  What if 4th seat passes, or doubles, or bids x?  What if I bid 2♣, 2NT, 3♣?  And, adding to the complexity, what if we play 2-way Drury?

Board 10

 

Both tables missed par (5♣X) here by a mile.  Mike felt that his shape and 6 trumps warranted a game bid (I think so too), bounced to the game and played it there, making 10 tricks, +620.  I didn’t like my flat shape, seemingly full of losers, and when the opponents persisted to 4♣, our side sold out.  To add insult to injury, I could not read the ♠6 lead (I thought we played 3rd and low) and I returned a spade at trick 2, allowing 11 tricks to make.  But the 13 IMPs were lost on the bidding.  We lose no more IMPs if we let them make all 13 tricks.  Should EW take the save against the speculative game?  In this case, the insurance would have paid off handsomely.

Board 13

Not much to the play, lots to the bidding.

First, the opening bid.  Regardless of the wisdom of treating the north hand as an opening bid (I did) or a preemptive bid (Ed did), the momentum of the preempt had the effect of propelling the opponents into an unbeatable game.  I personally don’t think either choice can be greatly faulted and the result seems somewhat random.  You can choose a somewhat off beat preempt or a sub-minimum opening one bid (but it did meet the rule of 20 which I often apply on borderline hands).  Much more interesting is the auction at my table.  I don’t know how clearly the rebid actions have been specified by the takeout doubler in the direct seat (raise a simple response to 2-3-4 vs. cue bid, then raise)?  But, even if those actions are crisply defined, it becomes much more gray with a balancing double.  How much strength is reasonable for West to assume that East holds, given that South passed and North took no further action?  And, can East know what West is assuming?  Does East (in this case) hold extras (with their 5 HCP including an ace)?  Is the assumption ‘allow for zero HCP’ a starting point, and anything over that is bonus?  That is pretty much the standard  assumption when dealing with a direct seat double, where the non-jump response is usually 0-8 HCP.  Here, in the reopening/balancing double scenario, the non-jump response is still probably 0-8 HCP, but how likely is it to be zero when South passed 1♣ and North passed the double?

In any case, West (who doubled) attempted to show an invitational moose by cue bidding then raising to the 3 level.  East (responder to the double) decided they didn’t have enough extra and passed.  Furthermore, and more importantly, East felt that the cue followed by the raise showed possibly a very strong hand (even stronger than the actual hand?), but with only 3 trump.  East’s trumps are not going to play well opposite many 3 card raises.  Replace the ♠Q with the ♦K (with the shape 3=4=4=2)and it seems quite likely declarer will lose at least 2 spades a heart and a club and possibly 2 hearts.  With only 3 trump in dummy, 4♠ may fail even if they find 3-3 trumps.  A difficult auction to get right – I have sympathy for Mike/Bill who failed to get to game and for Ed (and his partner) who pushed their opponents to game.

Bottom line, it is good to have some discussion and general understanding about the values shown by various alternative sequences, but it is very costly to miss the red game and here, E-W paid out the usual 10 IMPs for failing to bid the game.

Board 14

With this hand we take a little comedy break.  Are you kidding?  Few IMPs (I lost 2 IMPs on the hand) were involved, but there could have been quite a few at stake.  Sometimes the pass card is a reasonable option to throw on the table.  Mercifully, neither final contract was doubled.  The two initial passes could hardly be questioned (as long as your stodgy weak 2 bids must be 6 cards in 1st and 2nd seat, which is what most of us play).  And the 3rd seat 1♦ opener is automatic.  What should North do in 4th seat?  I really like full support (even in the minors) for my takeout doubles, so 1NT seemed to me to be the least of evils.  Perhaps I could hear Stayman and we would find a suitable landing spot (but, I could double to find a major also?).  Ed doubled.  Both Easts now bid their heart suit (Bruce at the 1 level, Mike at the 2 level over my 1NT overcall).  South introduced spades at the minimum required level and then the wheels came off.  Bill (West at my table) ‘raised’ hearts to 3♥ on the singleton ♥Q, hoping to push us to 3♠.  We sold out and beat it 2.  Dan (West at the other table) sensibly bid 2♣ and heard 2♠ on his left, 3♦ by partner and 3♠ on his right.  The operation was a success.  We have pushed the opponents to the 3 level.  But, Dan continued with 4♦ and bought the contract there, down 3.  2 IMPs for the ones who only went down 2.

Board 15 

Interesting problem for opening bids.  I tend to fall in the camp of ‘anything that looks like 1NT is 1NT’ – Dan opened 1NT as would I.  At my table, Bill opened 1 and was soon dummy in 3NT.  So, the different flavor of the auction had the effect of a different side playing it, which often results in a different lead and totally different timing and play of the hand.  This hand was no exception.  

At my table, with South on lead, Jack chose the very aggressive and very successful heart.  Declarer won the 3rd round and was looking at a very challenging 9 tricks.  Even though there are two balanced hands, stoppers in every suit with 26 HCP, 9 tricks are elusive.  I believe there is little chance to score 9 tricks except to play for spades 3-3 with the ♠A onside (around 18%) or play for diamonds 3-3 with the ♦K onside (around 18%).  Pretty much a coin toss.  And there is no way to parlay both possibilities that I can see.  Mike opted for spades.  When they broke 3-3 with the ♠A onside, he pitched all of dummy’s diamonds (except the ♦A) on the run of hearts and clubs and ended up with 3+1+1+4 for his 9 tricks.

At the other table (Dan) West was declarer, with North on lead.  They chose the ‘obvious’ ♣10 and declarer was in hand after trick 1, winning the ♣K and needing to decide a path for 9 tricks.  Certainly crossing to dummy to pursue 3 potential spade tricks did not appeal.  He had limited transportation and his coin flip resulted in ‘try diamonds’.  You may as well lose the first diamond trick as long as you are playing for 3-3 with the ♦K onside, so he led a small diamond at trick 2.  The result was -2 when the diamond finesse, taken later, lost to the ♦K.  Seems like a random 11 IMPs lost on a coin flip.  Darn.

More thoughts on the coin flip…Mike, at my table, on lead after winning the 3rd round of hearts, has already lost 2 tricks.  Missing the ♦KJ97, it will take a very lucky specific lie of the cards and guess how to play them to keep LHO off lead.  To establish diamonds, you must lose a diamond.  If LHO wins a diamond, they have a heart to cash and someone has the ♠A to cash (down at least 1), so going after diamonds can’t possibly be as good as spades (which, at 18%, spades aren’t very good either).

Dan, on the other hand, truly had a choice of 3-3 spades (♠A onside) or 3-3 diamonds (♦K onside).  If he decided spades, he can (and must) continue clubs at trick 2 and 3 to make the hand.  He appears to be squeezing himself (but, as Mike saw, the 4 diamonds that are not the ♦A are easy discards on the play of hearts and clubs).  The run of the clubs also squeezes South.  Dan can continue with the 4th round of clubs, or, after cashing 3 clubs, lead a spade up.  He is threatening to take 4 clubs, 3 spades and 2 red aces while the defense has no threat to take their required 5 tricks.  Or, if South throws away diamonds while clubs are being cashed, Dan can revert to taking several diamond tricks.  South has great pressure on the 3rd and 4th round of clubs.  Whatever he throws, declarer is in control.

Now, back at my table, more double dummy…as noted above, declarer (East or West) has serious challenges making 3NT on this hand, not the least of which is transportation.  After 2 rounds of hearts, Mike (as the East declarer) has lost natural access to his ♥A, unless I continue hearts.  I did lead hearts at trick 3, which left him cold on the lie of the cards.  He decided to attack spades (his only real chance) and 9 tricks were there.  Had I switched to a neutral club after winning 2 heart tricks, we abandon the opportunity of setting up the 13th heart, but instead we start to attack declarer’s communication.  My heart lead gave him the critical entry to begin attacking spades.  If I get out a club, he can still win in hand and lead spades up, but when the ♠K holds, how does he get back to lead spades up again?  He cannot.  If he overtakes the ♣K, he squanders one of his few precious tricks and can no longer reach a total of 9.  Is that double dummy for me to switch to clubs at trick 3 (with such modest prospects in clubs)?  I sure didn’t see it until I looked more deeply into the hand.  The issue is not really going after my clubs as it is going after declarer’s few entries.  Had I led a club, declarer is down – no way to arrive at 9 tricks.  Double dummy, the heart opening lead has it set as long as I don’t continue hearts at trick 3 (a diamond lead at trick 1 also does sets it, as long as I find a difficult heart shift at trick 2).  

This just shows how tough double dummy is, and how tough bridge is.  Mike was down on the heart lead that he got, but he made it.  To defeat it, I have to abandon hearts at trick 2 – our strength and source of tricks.  Dan was cold on a club lead that he got.   But to make it, Dan has to run clubs (the suit the defenders  led and ultimately a source of a trick when the 13th club is established).  Tough game.

Board 17

One can hardly fault East for the non-vulnerable 2♣ overcall.  Many (Larry Cohen in particular) strain to not reopen with a double when void – due to no chance to lead even one round of trump through declarer.  I think there is likely a lot to that, but, on the other hand, I had substantial extra defensive values, so if partner wants to defend 2♣X, then I thought I did too.

At the other table, 3NT made with no problems, scoring 10 tricks.  At my table, I found the analysis of the play quite interesting..  It was quite peculiar that my partner, on lead with 13 cards to chose from to make his lead, including the impossibly ridiculous ♣K, can pick any one of them.  All 13 possible leads result in -3, +500 with best play after that.  Sometimes opening leads are over rated!  Anyway, the ‘obvious’ ♥J was led and covered by the ♥Q and ♥K.   At trick 2, all 12 of my remaining cards can be led (including a small heart to dummy’s ♥10!!?!?!), again resulting in -3, +500.  I chose a small spade which declarer won with the ♠K.  At trick 3, declarer has some choices and they are not all equal.  Any red card (he has 3 of them remaining) will arrive at -3, any black card will arrive at -4 with best defense.  Declarer chose the ♣A and we are now looking at a possible +800.  When tricks count +300 each, a huge number of IMPs are at stake with each play.  After winning the ♣A, Declarer continued with a small diamond to the ♦9 and I won the ♦Q.  Declarer could not get to dummy, but I still hated to cash the ♥A (one of my winning plays).  Also, if declarer held the ♦A, a diamond continuation could be fatal (although, if declarer could duck and win the ♦J, partner would have a doubleton diamond and be able to ruff out the ♦A).  Anyway, I played the ♠A and another spade.  Declarer was now back to -3 and the rest of the play was pretty straightforward.  Win 2 IMPs.  But, I win 9 IMPs if, after winning the ♦Q, I found a red continuation (that is ♥A or any diamond – a silly small heart at this point, allowing dummy to win the ♥10, doesn’t have the success that it would have had at trick2).

Board 22 

Everything is pretty automatic in the first round of bidding.  The second round is tough.  South has a great diamond suit and Bill expressed it by bidding 4♦.  Now, with VERY weak spots in hearts, North (Jack) was unwiling to risk a 4♥ bid and, with substantial values, raised to the (hopeless) diamond game.  Bruce, facing the same situation, rebid only 3♦.  Now, I have a problem.  I have the same weak suit and briefly considered passing 3♦!?!?  But, I simply have too much and even a singleton ♥10 could offer some play for 4♥, so I rebid 3♥ and was raised to game.

The ♣K lead at my table (and the fall of the ♥Q and 3-3 clubs) made the play quite easy for 10 tricks in hearts.  Interestingly, Jack is seriously endplayed at trick 1.  The ♣K or ♣Q are the only possible leads to hold me to 10 tricks (double dummy), all other 11 cards on lead allow me to score an overtrick!  Because the ♣K made the play so easy, we were thinking that some neutral lead (♥Q?) would make things more difficult to declare.  And perhaps they would have.  But against best play, 11 tricks are there in 4♥ after any lead but a high club.  We win 11 IMPs for bidding/making the heart game vs. down 1 doubled in the diamond game (a club lead achieves -2, but all other leads are targeted for 10 tricks in diamonds).  The 4♦ rebid made it difficult to get to hearts.

Board 23

I have mentioned on prior occasions that many players in this individual game are not regular partnerships.  We allow wide latitude to discuss methods real time.  So, at the other table, they played the ‘system’ preferred by one of the players (described and implemented at the table) and, with 2♠ forcing, South took the least of evils route to game.   That is, they already announced a double negative.  A bid of 3♠ would be slam going.  The bad break doomed the game and the result was -2, -200.  After ruffing a diamond, it seems like the precious single dummy entry might be used for a heart finesse (you won’t be getting back to dummy any time soon) rather than leading trumps.  That could have saved a trick, but it was never making.

At my table, Bruce and I are a regular partnership.  We have ‘Kokish’ on our card, but it is really ‘Tuttle’.  The ‘Kokish’ that everyone else plays is that 2NT in this sequence is a game force showing 25 and up, unlimited.  Bruce and I play a different structure (and all NT treatments that we play over 2NT still apply, whatever level we get to).  

2NT = 20-21

2♣-2♦-2NT = 22-23

2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT = 24-25

2♣-2♦-3NT = 26-27

2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-3NT = 28-29

2♣-2♦-4NT = 30-31

and so on…

Here, knowing I was precisely 24-25, some with Bruce’s hand might try 3NT.  Some might transfer to 3♥ or 4♥ and then pass.  Some might transfer to 3♥  and then try 3NT.  Bruce judged to pass it out in 2NT (a big position with a red game looming) but he was right, as 8 tricks was the limit of the hand.