Recap Of 9/26/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

Here we are again, 2 days later, playing again with a mostly different group (while watching the fascinating bridge in Orlando and reading the incredible research by Avon on Bridgewinners).  Six double digit swings today: 3 slams, a game, a wrong game and…a hand that will go unreported (no, I was not involved in the swing).  Three of the swings came the first round

The result was all in the bidding, but who got the favorable result depending on the location of the ♣K (if offside, a big swing goes the other way).  After the 1♠ overcall at my table followed by a rebid of 2♠, one might think the club finesse would be successful (what are they bidding/rebidding on?  Nothing but the ♠AJ long?).  At the other table, an immediate 3♠ overcall propelled them to slam when 3NT was raised invitationally to 4NT and the slam invite was accepted.  Note that North corrected the slam from 6♣ to 6NT where no surprise ruff could doom the slam.  On the other hand, had the ♣K been offside, 6NT is down 4 instead of down 1 in 6♣.  But, at 50 per trick, a small price to pay to insure no ruff.

North seems to have enough in reserve to try the same invitational raise to 4NT at my table, but 3NT was passed out.  Normally all jumps in NT show extras (there is no ‘fast arrival’ that declares ‘no slam interest’ implied after a jump in NT), so it seems that this jump (3NT over 2♠) should show extras.  Complicating the understanding of who holds extras is the fact that 2♣ wasn’t game forcing, and partner did reverse, albeit after a 2/1 in competition.  Many play that no extra values are shown by a reverse after 2/1 game force (I still think it shows some extra values, but many do not).  But with the intervening spade bid, I’m not sure all have discussed this particular case – how many extras are shown by the 2♥ reverse when 2♣ was not game forcing?  In any case, -490 vs. +990, win 11 IMPs.

Here, I almost overcalled 2NT, but fearful of hearing 4♥ I decided to simply overcall 3♣ and await developments.  What developed was 4♥ from partner!  I knew we were in trouble when North doubled.  On the diamond lead (and with the spade finesse and 3-3 clubs), declarer has 7 tricks in the side suits (2+-+2+3).  It seems like it might be possible to score 2 trump tricks even with those spots.  Indeed, double dummy shows 9 tricks are possible, but when the dust settled, we were down 2.  Very little IMP difference though, since we belonged in 3NT.  Double dummy, best defense allows 10 tricks in NT.  It helps with both minor suits splitting 3-3, but assuming that suits will break 3-3 is usually not a reliable source of tricks.  It is far from clear what the best defense is, or what the best offense is in the 3NT contract.  At the table against 3NT, the opening lead was partner’s suit.  The ♠10 won the first trick in dummy and, fearful of entry problems, declarer led a club to the ♣10!  I don’t know the rest of the play, but the result was 10 tricks, -630 for our teammates to go with our -500, lose 15 IMPs.  I think 3♥ is forcing over my 3♣.  Partner will find your way to 4♥ if that is the right destination, and if they correct to 3NT after bidding ‘only’ 3♥, live with it.

To balance or not to balance?  If this hand were given to a poll to a large enough audience, I’m sure there would be votes for pass, double and even 1NT.  I chose to balance with a double and soon, rather than defending a lowly 1♥ partscore, we were defending game and, instead of a bidding problem, it became an opening lead problem.  There are two actions in bridge that are so totally demoralizing that it is hard to overcome:

1. Doubling a hopeless contract only to have them run to a contract that is cold, or even worse, tell them how to play the contract that would never make, but because of your double they can now play double dummy and make it
2. Balancing a partscore contract into a making game contract

I’m currently reading a great book by Michael Lewis: The Undoing Project (aren’t all of his books great?) and it talks about decision making as well as ‘hindsight predictions’ (after you know what happens, you can go back and find all of the data that pointed to the fact that that was what was going to happen).  ‘Predicting’ things that have already happened is a pretty exact science.  So, as I write my blog, I make a serious attempt to not be a results commentator, but just assess what it seems like the right bridge answer is to the problem at hand.  Having said that…

It seems like hands that pass a 1-bid and then liven up later in the auction have been upgraded due to some helpful ruffing values (including in a newly found fit, but here the ‘fit’ remained the heart suit).  The upgrade can’t come from HCP, since they were staring at them when they chose to pass the first time.  If dummy has ruffing values, perhaps cutting them down with a trump lead is right?  Clearly this comment is based upon results and I apologize if it is off base, but I think I will use that ‘rule’ in the future if a trump lead makes any sense at all with the hand that I hold.  Here, a trump lead makes a 2-trick difference, win 9 IMPs vs. lose 10 IMPs.  Would you find a trump lead?  Should partner have found a trump lead?  Should I have not balanced?  How bad can it be to balance when the opponents hand you 9 IMPs… but instead they scored 10 IMPs.  As you see, 1♥ was passed out at the other table and, without a trump lead, declarer produced the same 10 tricks.  So we were -620 while teammates were +170, lose 10 IMPs.

If East had bounced to 2♠ over the redouble, might that have precluded getting to game?  We will never know.

Here dealer has a 3 loser hand which often means a 2♣ opener, but 5=6 in the minors is REALLY awkward starting with 2♣.  Therefore, both tables began with 1♣.  Like the last slam, once more the opponents intervened with a spade bid – a preempt at one table and a simple 1♠ overcall at the other.  This time the preempt resulted in the slam being missed, while the simple overcall produced a slam that was bid and made.  After a normal spade opening lead, with friendly trumps splitting 2-2, 13 tricks become available if diamonds behave.  But, the 4-1 diamond split forced a ruff to establish diamonds leaving no trump in dummy to take care of the losing spade at trick 13.  So, 12 tricks were scored at both tables, -620 vs. our teammates +1370, win 13 IMPs.

Should these cards be in slam?  If trump are 3-1, life is not good but there are chances.  If the long trump hand also holds exactly 3 diamonds, the spade loser can be discarded before the long trump can ruff in, so 12 tricks will score.  Or, if West has a singleton honor, the ♦K is in dummy for an entry for a restricted choice finesse if you want to go that route.  So it isn’t impossible to land 12 tricks even with trump 3-1, but then diamonds must behave.  Should the preempt have disrupted the slam auction?  Opener’s 3♦ rebid/reverse shows a very strong hand, since partner must return to the 4 level to support the first bid suit.  Still, by my calculations, this is less than a 50% slam, so not to worry about missing it.  Most bad trump splits will send the double digit IMPs to the defenders rather than the slam bidders.

One more slam to end the day.  A similar auction to start both tables.  One table said ‘I don’t like clubs’ and the auction quickly ended in 3NT.  But the other table judged ♣Kx was enough to say ‘likes clubs’ and when diamonds were bid to show a second suit, nothing can stop the NT bidder from proceeding to slam – their AKA in the majors will take care of side suit losers and their minor suit fillers should be enough to handle those suits.  Note that, whenever missing KJx(xx) and you hold A109(x) in one hand and Qx(xx) in the other, the percentage play is to lead the Q unless you have inside information about the lie of the cards.  Both tables did lead the ♦Q after trump were drawn and when it was covered by the ♦K, it was time to claim 12 tricks.  Yes, 25% of the time the ♦KJ(xxx) will be offside and you will lose 2 tricks (when you could have lost only 1 trick by leading to the ♦A and back to the ♦Q).  But a 75% slam is a mighty fine contract and both declarers played it correctly.

So, what does it take to ‘like clubs’?  My system notes with 4 different partners is specific: ♣Axx, ♣Kxx, ♣Qxx or ♣xxxx.  Should the answer to ‘like clubs?’ be up to the players judgment as each hand arises?  One hand should not prompt system changes, but I definitely want to discuss this issue with those 4 partners.  That is, is ♣Kx with 2 more side aces enough to respond ‘like clubs’?  It turns out the key to the slam was not the ♥K (wasted, useless) but the ♦109.  When partner bids 2♠ to transfer to clubs, there are basically 3 possible hand types (with a 2 suited minor hand being a fairly distant 4th possibility).

1. Weak, intending to play 3♣.  With this hand (♣Kx), bidding 3♣ has the advantage of the NT opener declaring the hand (often good, but not always best), but other than that, the final contract will always be 3♣ regardless.
2. Invitational to 3NT.  Holding 2 aces as well as ♣Kx, it seems that, if partner wants to invite 3NT, we likely want to accept that invitation.  Otherwise, he might sign off in 3♣ when 3NT is cold?
3. Invitational to 6♣.  Again, the ♣Kx with 2 outside aces is extremely ‘slam positive’ and when partner bids diamonds, your ♦Q87 are good cards.

Here, the winning call was ‘like clubs.’  If North had been 4=6 instead of 4=7, the ♥K comes very much into play  and saves the day.  But still the critical ♦109 is what makes the slam 75% rather than 50%.  If this hand were submitted to a poll of ‘4 suit transfer partnerships’ I feel certain there would be votes both ways (like and don’t like).  I’m not sure what the right long term answer is, but I am certain on this hand that ‘♣Kx’ qualified for ‘like clubs’!  The slam was safely bid in clubs (a spade lead will defeat 6NT), so our teammates were +1370 while we were -690, win 12 IMPs.