Recap Of 7/15/2015 28 Board IMP Individual
Only 4 hands reached double digit swings today.
The swing was all in the bidding. Nothing to the play. Must lose 2 diamonds and 1 club, +200 and +790 for my team, win 14 IMPs. Bruce held extra values with spade shortness so he seems to have an automatic double. Here, with the duplication in spades (singleton in both hands), it left a lot of losers to deal with in 5♣X – 800 was there with 3 top tricks, 1 heart ruff, and 1 delayed diamond trick. So, Manfred’s decision (bid or pass?) made no difference, he saved 10 points by passing the double vs. bidding 5♣. I had already decided I was doubling 5♣, although doing that could clearly be wrong on some freak hands. Dan was faced with the 5♣ bid at the other table and decided to try for 11 tricks in spades but they were short one trick. Five level decisions are notoriously difficult. Watching the Bermuda Bowl and other high level competition, it seems they ‘take the money’ more often than ‘take the push’ but these are very difficult decisions and even the top players in the world get them wrong sometimes.
You can play bridge (and I have) for 50+ years and still low level, seemingly simple auctions come up that have never come up before. And they can be sufficiently awkward that there are really no rules or general principles that can be universally applied. This next example falls into that category. If anyone has developed a set of rules for auctions like these, I would love to know about them.
The better contract (for NS) was reached at the other table, since 2♠ makes 8 tricks, while there are only 7 tricks in 2♣ for down 1, had we been allowed to play in 2♣. But, reaching spades had the effect of allowing the opponents to reach an excellent 4♥ game contract which was unbeatable on any lead as the cards lie. Nine tricks were scored in 2♦ so we lost -110 while picking up +650 for the game (when a small spade was played off dummy from ♠Qxx, it seemed as though the only chance to defeat the contract was to duck the ♠AK, hoping partner held the ♠J. So, one of the sure spade tricks went away). Win 11 IMPs
It never ceases to amaze me how very small differences in bidding systems and bidding judgment lead to extremely large swings when comparing scores. Clearly our result was lucky, since our system had the effect of creating a problem for EW. But, when results like this happen, I think it is instructive to examine/establish some general principles that may help next time.
- I think it is universal that a double of an artificial bid (such as a transfer) shows values in that suit. That helped our teammates.
- Should a double of the natural 2♣ bid be penalty, by the one who opened, or takeout? Seems natural to be penalty since you have already bid the suit.
- Should a double of 2♣ in the pass out seat (West. partner of the one who opened 1♣) be penalty or takeout? I think I have some documented agreements with some partners that ‘the first double is always takeout’. But, with an individual movement with an unfamiliar partner, should you risk a double, not even knowing what it means? And, if a double is takeout, should partner (East) convert to penalty with the hand they held, or bid hearts? If if the East hand bids spades (had they held a different hand) in response to a takeout double, should West now bid diamonds, sort of implying diamonds and hearts? And is a double followed by a new suit forcing? How high do you want to get on a potential misfit and modest 10 count?
- On the actual hand, when West balanced with 2♦, should that new suit be forcing? Should East bid again? Obviously they have to bid if they are ever going to get to 4♥, but it isn’t obvious to me that bidding is clear cut.
The auction took a decidedly different turn at the other table. When 4♣ was bid freely, and then raised to 5♣, I don’t know if either partner felt the magic might be there for the slam. Clearly Dan and I were lucky – very hard to know if the fit is sufficiently perfect to score 12 tricks, but I have announced, by doubling 4♥, that I have support for all suits and a very good hand. Dan, by failing to bid the first time, decided he had some catching up to do (plus, I did pause prior to passing 5♥, so it is likely that a committee would have barred Dan and rolled it back to 5♥ undoubled, which would score quite poorly for us). The slam was 920 vs. 420, good for 11 IMPs.
Lots has been written about slam bidding, and most of us still have a lot to learn. On this auction, luckily, I thought partner’s 4♣ bid announced ‘no 1st or 2nd round control in spades’. In spite of that, I went along with a 4♦ cue bid, which probably SHOULD have shown that I held a spade control – that is, if YOU don’t have a spade control and I don’t have one, what are we doing? Anyway, when partner continued with 4♥, I was done.
On the ‘directed’ spade lead, the opponents scored the first trick. Now, to reach 12, you must have 2 successful finesses. Since you can handle ♥Qxxx only with the South hand (if North holds ♥Qxxx you are down), the normal way to play this trump suit is small to the ♥A, then small to the ♥J.
So, both declarers lost to the ♥Q, but found the ♣Q, so 11 tricks at both tables. I don’t have the auction at the other table, but they reached slam. It turns out slam has nothing to do with controls (where you have to avoid 2 fast losers in a single suit), but queens were the determining factor. The missing core suit queens in both hearts and clubs proved too difficult.
As a side note, this hand points out the danger when presented with hand records showing which contracts make. Seeing all the hands, 6♣ and 6♥ are both trivial. Just finesse both queens the ‘right’ way and you are home! Humans often don’t play as well as deep finesse.
Our +650 paired with teammates +100 got us 13 IMPs.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related