Recap Of 12/16/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

What a day.  8 double digit swings, but I’m only reporting 7 of them.  There were bidding issues all over the map: Open weak 2 or pass; open weak 1 or pass; takeout double or pass; slam try or sign off in game; lead directing Lightner double or pass…and more.  There were defensive problems, declarer problems, but only one opening lead problem…when partner did not make a Lightner double!  See how you would have done on the various bidding and play problems.  Here we go…

North, as dealer, felt that their hand was unsuitable for an opening 2♠ bid at both tables, so they passed (I agree, since I was one of the passers).  After East opened 1♥ my partner made a takeout double (not a classic perfect double, but I think that is the right call).  West raised to 2♥, I bounced to 4♠ and was doubled by East, who was looking at 3 aces and felt partner may contribute something.

Meanwhile, at the other table, South didn’t like holding only 3 spades so they did not double at their first opportunity.  When 2♥ was passed around to them, they reopened with a double, but North had no game ambitions opposite a partner who couldn’t double the first time, so NS subsided in 3♠.

What about the defense?  East started with the ♥A and then considered where 3 more tricks could be found.  Certainly, if partner has the ♦A, the defense will be well positioned to beat the contract, but what about a club ruff by partner?  East can see 8 clubs and can hope that the remaining clubs are split 3-2, but if declarer has a doubleton, leading clubs will just work towards allowing him to set up the clubs to dispose of any losers he may have.  However, if partner has a doubleton club (or singleton!), leading clubs is a path to defeat the contract, since partner could ruff the third round (assuming they have at least 2 spades).  So, while it is possible partner has the ♦A, that trick (or tricks) can wait, since you still have the ♠A.  So, the best shot to defeat 4♠ is, I think, to lead ♣A at trick 2 and then another club while watching partner’s cards.  If they do not have a singleton and fail to show a doubleton, try diamonds after winning the ♠A.  But if they do show a doubleton, try to give them a club ruff.   At the table, the trick 2 shift to the ♦Q allowed declarer to win the ♦A, draw trump, and play clubs for themselves, starting small to the ♣K.  When the ♣J showed up on the club continuation,  10 tricks were easy.  At the other table, the partscore also scored 10 tricks, so we were +790 vs. -170 to win 12 IMPs.

Essentially the same auction allowed both North players to play the same contract with the same lead.  Double dummy, there are always 9 tricks for declarer, but he has to find them.  The play to the first 4 tricks was the same at both tables – duck the ♥Q, win the ♥K, and then play the ♠A and ♠Q which was won by West with the ♠K – with sufficient hesitation that it was clear spades were breaking 4-2.  If the ♠K was doubleton, West would, of course, have to win it.  But if the ♠K were tripleton, ducking would be routine because declarer could use their 1 remaining entry to dummy to cash the winning spades if you mistakenly won trick 4 holding an original ♠Kxx.

At the other table, the lead to trick 5 was the ♣3.  Declarer won the ♣Q and led a small diamond which East won with the ♦J.  East continued with the ♣9 (not a heart, suggesting that they do not have an entry) and declarer won the ♣A.  Declarer crossed to dummy’s ♥A and West discarded the ♣K, suggesting that they need to hold onto both spades and diamonds.  So, declarer could play a diamond to the ♦Q, win the ♦A, and lead another diamond, endplaying West into leading a spade into dummy’s ♠J9 to score the last 2 tricks.  So, declarer won 3+2+2+2 for 9 tricks.

At my table, the lead to trick 5 was the ♦3.  I wanted to use the power of the 10 in dummy to help establish my 5 card suit, so I ducked – not fatal, but not good.  If I had played the ♦Q, I have a bit easier path to my 9 tricks.  Anyway, after ducking the diamond, East won the ♦J and cleared hearts while West discarded the ♣5.  I’m still in the running for 9 tricks, but I have to achieve the same spade endplay against West to do it (that is, DO NOT cash the ♠J to discard a club loser).  I did cash the ♠J, throwing a club loser and hoping that I might still be able to get 2 finesses via leading the ♦10 (not covered) and then a club finesse.  But, West did cover the ♦10 with the ♦K, so I won the ♦A and was down to requiring diamonds to be breaking 3-3.  They didn’t.  I played my diamonds and West won the 4th round to cash their spade for the setting trick.  My diamonds were established.  I didn’t need the club finesse.  But, I provided 5 tricks for the defense (2+1+2+0).  If I had not cashed the ♠J and simply led the ♦10 when I was in dummy with the ♥A, it would be covered with the ♦K and ♦A.  But, that gives me a diamond tenace over West (I would be holding ♦Q75 over the ♦96).  I could then play ♣A and a small club, forcing West to win their ♣K but allowing me to take the last 4 tricks via the established ♣Q and all 3 of my diamonds if West exited with a diamond (and I finessed), or the established ♣Q and all my 3 of my spades if West exited with a spade.  Or, if West unblocked the ♣K under the ♣A, I can cash the ♣Q and then play 2 diamonds, achieving the same endplay that happened at the other table.  I didn’t find those plays, since I had already cashed the ♠J and established the defensive 5th trick, so I was down 1.  Darn.  There is still a lot of guessing/finessing to do, and I think the diamond play at trick 5 was more challenging than the club play, but cashing the ♠J was a clear error – hoping for a late endplay was a far better shot at 9 tricks than what I tried.  So, we were -50 and our teammates were -400, lose 10 IMPs.

North-South passed throughout and the first 3 bids were identical at both tables.  At the other table, West decided that their hearts were so weak that they would just raise to game.  Gary thought he should at least offer a club cue bid to see what I would respond.  When I cue bid 4♦, Gary had a problem – he didn’t want to engage in table talk to find out whether 4♠ was natural or a cue bid or key card for hearts?  Or was 4NT a spade cue bid (necessary if 4♠ is key card) or key card for hearts?  So, he took the simple approach and just blasted to 6♥.  After the ♠Q lead, it was simply a matter of playing out hearts and learning that the 4-1 split was going to hold me to 12 tricks.  A club lead would be interesting, but I might as well take the finesse as ‘one more arrow in my quiver’.  Initially I was thinking why take the club finesse when I won’t need it if spades come in, but I DO need the club finesse if spades do not come in (or, if hearts break badly).  So I was able to score +1430 vs. -680 to win 13 IMPs.

What do you think of the 4♣ cue bid?  Of course I like it, because it worked to win 13 IMPs.  The weak trump support is certainly a factor (and might have been the downfall of the slam on a club lead).  Still, ♠AK 5 long and ♣AQ are some mighty strong slam cards and simply bidding 4♣ doesn’t force a slam (for sure, if partner cannot cue bid diamonds, you do not want to be in slam).  I think the failure to try the 4♣ bid is pretty pessimistic.  Thanks Gary!

East-West passed throughout and here again the first 3 bids were identical at both tables.  At the other table, South passed it out in game, but at my table, after some consideration, South cue bid their ♦AKQ104, North cue bid hearts and South bid the 6♠ slam.  But, the auction wasn’t over because I still had one more chance, in the passout seat, to double 6♠ for a club lead.  A double of a freely bid slam is referred to as a Lightner double, asking for a lead you might not normally make – often dummy’s first bid suit.  I reasoned (poorly) that with the red suit cue bids, partner might lead a club anyway.  And, since I had so many clubs, declarer might have a singleton or void.  But, there are too many IMPs riding in the balance to not try the double.  Had I made a double, the opponents might sit for it, partner would lead a club as they did at the other table, and the slam goes down 2 to score +500 and win 14 IMPs.  But North, seeing their exposed ♣K might pull 6♠X to 6NT which cannot be beaten as the cards lie.  Pass and hope for a club  lead, or double and hope they sit?  As you see, I passed and when partner found the lead of the ♦2, declarer had no problem wrapping up 13 tricks when spades behaved.

What about South’s first bid?  For years, many West coast players have adopted a ‘Walsh style’ in responding to 1♣ such that hands that are only worth 1 bid (less than invitational) bypass diamonds in favor of showing their major suit with their first and only bid.  Here, with a weak spade suit and an amazing diamond suit, bypassing diamonds to bid spades seems (to me) to be taking that principle a little bit far.  This is not a 1 bid hand.  South doesn’t have a game force, but he certainly has invitational values, so I think I would respond 1♦.  Both tables felt that 1♠ was the proper response to the 1♣ opening bid.  After South responds 1♦, it is possible to imagine a continuing sequence where North becomes declarer in spades and you reach a slam protected from the damaging club lead.  How about this auction?

Perhaps that is dreaming, but I like that auction better than the one at the table and no Lightner double can affect that slam.  But, I didn’t make the Lightner double.  Lose -1470 vs. +420, lose 14 IMPs.

Epilogue – if you positively knew that the opponents would run to an unbreakable 6NT slam upon hearing a Lightner double, then it can never be right to double.  Why send them to a cold contract when partner might find the right lead and beat the current contract?  But, this is trying to rationalize my poor decision to not double.  You can never know that 6NT is cold, nor that they will choose to run there even if it is.  Finally, I had to start thinking about the Lightner double as soon as South bid 5♦.  I need to make up my mind before the slam bid comes around to me.  It is extremely unethical due to communicating unauthorized information to pause after they bid slam.  Whether you double or pass when the Lightner situation occurs, it must be with a smooth tempo – so, I did pass in tempo!  Sorry teammates.

This is a very complex hand with issues galore for both the declarer and the defense.  The same contract with the same lead was played at both tables.  Double dummy, declarer always has 10 tricks, but they have to time the play carefully as the cards were dealt, and it is possible that a different lie of the cards would require different play.  After losing to the ♦K at trick 1, declarer still has a club to lose and a likely trump loser, so careful play is required to avoid 4 losers.  At both tables, declarer timed the play such that the defense could succeed, but only one defense was successful.  The power of West’s ♠87 was key to the defense (as well as key to successful declarer play – declarer must play trump early and often to neutralize the spade strength of West).

At our table, after winning the ♦K, partner continued diamonds at trick 2 with declarer winning their remaining high diamond.  Declarer then led a small spade towards dummy, winning the ♠Q as East dropped the ♠10.  At trick 4, declarer then led a heart to the ♥K (doesn’t seem crazy), and they can no longer make the hand as the cards lie.  Double dummy, declarer has many choices of what they could have played to trick 4 and still make 10 tricks: lead a high spade, lead a high heart, lead the ♦A or lead the ♣2.  There are many variations to arrive at 10 tricks depending on which is chosen, but after the actual heart to the ♥K, declarer continued with 2 more rounds of hearts, cashed the ♦A and led a club.  My partner (East), after winning the ♣A, is down to 1 diamond and 4 clubs.  The defense has 2 tricks.  A club play will force declarer to ruff in dummy and declarer cannot avoid 2 trump losers and be defeated.  The hearts are established, but West can overruff and trump cannot be drawn.  But, when partner exited with a diamond, declarer was able to score a small trump in hand while I followed suit and a heart was discarded from dummy.  Then, declarer ruffed a club in dummy with a low trump, ruffed a heart with the ♠A (while I underruffed with the ♠7), and dummy has ♠J9 left while I have the ♠K8, so I can only score 1 trump trick.

Should partner know to lead a club instead of a diamond?  If declarer has the ♣K, it doesn’t matter.  But, since declarer had already shown out of diamonds, the diamond play offered declarer a choice regarding where to ruff.  Scoring a small trump in hand was the only available route to 10 tricks and declarer took it.

At the other table, a heart was led at trick 3 (possibly suggesting hearts are breaking badly).  The same basic principle applies – declarer must extract trump in a successful way – by leading small to dummy and continuing with a high spade from dummy, preserving the ♠A.  But, there are many paths to success including winning the trick 2 heart lead in dummy and leading high spades off dummy.  West can duck or win, but the defense cannot come to 4 tricks if declarer handles trump correctly.  At the table, declarer won the trick 2 heart shift with the ♥K, cashed the ♠A (now he can no longer make the hand) and led another spade, ducked to the ♠9.  When another high spade was led from dummy, West could win the ♠K and, having seen partner’s signal (that they held the ♣A), knew that forcing a club ruff in dummy would establish the ♠8 as the master trump for down 1.  So, they led the ♣K and another club and the defense had their 4 tricks.

Both declarers gave the defense opportunities but we failed to capitalize at our table, so we were -620 and our teammates were -100 to lose 12 IMPs.

As dealer, East must decide whether or not to open.  Count all of the jacks, they do have a ‘rule of 22’ opening bid: add up quick tricks (2), HCP (11) and length of 2 longest suits (9) and they reach 22.  At my table, East did not open and when West opened their 4 card heart suit in 3rd seat, the auction unfolded in a way that did not appear to offer great game prospects.  North has a routine 1NT overcall and East can show values by making a penalty double.  As South, holding zero points, I redoubled to ask partner to bid clubs (seemed like as good a runout as any, leaving the opponents plenty of room to bid).  When North did bid 2♣ East finally supported hearts but West had no interest in going on to game.

Meanwhile, our teammates did open the East hand with 1♠, West had a normal game forcing response of 2♦ and when East rebid hearts, the game was easily reached.  With the club finesse working, diamonds splitting 3-3 (friendly diamonds is not necessary to make the game) and hearts 3-2, there were only 2 diamonds and a heart to lose, declarer scoring 10 tricks.  So, we were -170 while our teammates were +620 to win 10 IMPs.

Once again, there is an opening bid decision – this time in 2nd seat with everyone vulnerable.  This is a matter of style.  I prefer my 2nd seat preempts to be pretty standard/classic – this one doesn’t really match that description with doubleton ♥J, tripleton ♣J, and doubleton ♦QJ on the side of a broken spade suit.  In any case, at our table, West passed, partner (North) opened a routine 3rd seat 1♥ and East, with a powerhouse, has to double in spite of limited support for the unbid major.  I preempted with 3♥ and when West bounced to the spade game, the auction was over.

At the other table, our teammate decided to open 2♠ and a subsequent Ogust auction arrived in the same excellent 4♠ game with the same lead.  Double dummy there is no defense.  The play of the hand worked quite well for declarer, with the ♦QJ filling in the long diamond suit as a threat for scoring a number of tricks.  But, even though you can essentially establish diamonds with one lead (when they split 3-2), the inability to draw trump and THEN play diamonds created the need to get a heart ruff along the way, as well as pitch the club loser on the established diamonds.

At our table, after winning the club lead, declarer led a diamond to the ♦Q and ♦A.  Partner (North) continued with a heart to knock out that ace, but declarer could win the ♥A, lead a diamond to the ♦J, ruff a heart, cash the ♠A, and lead the ♦K.  I could ruff, but declarer simply overruffs and leads a club to the board for one more diamond lead, allowing him to pitch the club loser.  So declarer just lost a diamond and 2 trumps, 10 tricks for declarer.  The standard defensive ploy, when dummy threatens with a long side suit, is to attack the entries as early and thoroughly as possible.  The defense needs to get a lot of aces off of the board and there are only so many chances to try – it can’t be done.  

Meanwhile, the play at the other table was identical for the first 4 tricks: Win ♣A, Lose ♦A, Win ♥A, Win ♦J.  At this point, it seems to be time to ruff a heart to take care of that loser (as the declarer did at our table), but here declarer played to the ♠A and led another spade.  With the ♠KJ over the ♠Q10, there was no winning guess and declarer had to lose their 2 trump tricks along with the heart that the defense could now cash as well as the earlier ♦A that was lost for down 1.  That meant we were -620 and our teammates were -100, lose 12 IMPs.

One of the problems with the unsuccessful line of play that was chosen is that you might get your wishes (doubleton ♠K onside, no guess), but still lose on a diamond overruff (if South had held 3 diamonds and ♠Kx).  As long as trump break 3-2 (and, actually, many 4-1 distributions), the texture of your spade suit is sufficiently robust to just budget for 2 trump losers and take the heart ruff to dispose of that loser (and also pitching the club loser on established diamonds).  The recommended line (ruff a heart at trick 5) provides excellent chances for scoring 10 tricks.  Declarer had a blind spot.