Recap Of 8/5/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

August 6th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

Only 4 double digit swings today.  All involved bidding judgment, but the largest two swings of the day involved a player that thought it would be wise to interfere in the auction with hearts.  Spoiler alert:  It wasn’t.

I strain very hard to “never” open 1♦ when I have 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, so I began with 1♣ thinking that I had an easy rebid of 1NT unless partner responds diamonds.  After I did rebid 1NT, partner showed a weak “pass or correct” hand with 2♥ (they would use new minor forcing if they held invitational values).  I had a routine preference back to 2♠ which ended the auction.  Early in the hand, the defense got their diamond ruff which held partner to 8 tricks, making 2♠ for +110.

At the other table, this deal involved a fundamental bidding misunderstanding.  North elected to make a minimum value off-shape takeout double.  When the auction starts (1♣)-X-(1♠)-X, the traditional understanding of the second double is that it is a penalty double showing spades.  It is possible to treat it as responsive showing the suits not yet bid (diamonds and hearts), but it is standard to treat it as showing spades.  Here, South thought they had some values, so they should do something, but didn’t want to choose a suit (why not just bid diamonds, the suit you have?), so they selected the double that ended the auction.  South couldn’t bid hearts with only 3 and they didn’t bid 1NT with no spade stopper (but they do have clubs stopped and partner likely has spades stopped, so bidding 1NT, or bidding the diamond suit that they had, were both certainly options if they didn’t want to pass).  Somehow, South concluded double would be DSI (asking North to do something intelligent). 

Looking at it from North’s perspective (with South already a passed hand), if South has 5 solid spades, the defense is up to 6 tricks with chances for down 1.  But, why is West passing when void in spades and they are already doubled?  Why is East bidding spades with a worthless 4 card suit?  At the end of the day, North decided to take South at face value – that they were showing spades with a penalty double.  When the defense failed to obtain their diamond ruff, they only had 4 tricks, 9 for declarer, which meant 2 doubled vulnerable overtricks for a score of -560.  Paired with our paltry +110, lose 10 IMPs.

If the defense did manage the diamond ruff, E-W would have been “held” to +360 and this hand would never have seen the light of day (in the blog).

At the time this seemed like a nothing hand.  We got to our best fit, took our 8 tricks, and got out with a plus score.  Lesson:  It is good to know their intentions if partner doubles a new suit after you make a takeout double.

At the other table, West cautiously (rightly) passed over the 1♣ opening bid and North-South had an uninterrupted auction to 3NT.  Both North and South had some left in reserve and might (should?) have found a way to keep bidding to the cold slam (12 tricks are there in 6NT without needing any finesse nor any suits to split).  If they had bid the slam, it would have greatly reduced their losses, but as you might have noticed, the hand was irretrievably lost at the other table.

When vulnerable vs. not-vulnerable, preempts should be rather sound.  It isn’t often you can get a trump split like the one you see here (this is probably the most extreme case I’ve ever seen!), but when you do, you will pay dearly.  And, when vulnerable vs. not, the price is steep, far beyond the non-vulnerable slam they could bid.  At least East came to the rescue with a redouble (nice bid, saving a lot of points), sending the auction a level higher, but with diamonds playing 3 tricks better, it was “good” to be in 3♦X down 4 for -1100 instead of 2♥X down 6 for -1700 (both of which are the double dummy best results possible).  So, we collected our +1100 while our teammates were -490 to win 12 IMPs.  In a diamond contract, declarer has 4 diamonds and a heart for 5 tricks.  Again, if the slam had been bid, this hand is not in the blog!

There were wildly different auctions at the two tables.  At my table, South didn’t open (I would have), so I was able to open 1♠.  North came in 3♥ and partner supported my spades with a sound raise to 3♠.  South competed with 4♥ and my 4♠ bid ended the auction.  Double dummy, there are always 10 tricks available in spades, with the preempt helping place the cards.  The South hand has problems with their length/strength in the minors with various squeeze and end-play possibilities depending on how the play (and defense) goes.  The actual defense started with the ♦8 ducked to the ♦Q and I played the ♦10 (not that it matters).  South switched to a heart and North won and continued hearts which I ruffed.  Then I played a top spade and a spade to dummy’s ♠Q in order to ruff the last heart and then draw the last trump.  In the end position, I still had a trump and ♦J7 and ♣A95 while dummy had  ♦A9 and ♣QJ72.  I led a small club to dummy and South, who had come down to ♦K5 and ♣K1086, had to win the club (or, if they ducked, be endplayed via 2 rounds of diamonds).  But, after winning the ♣K, they had no answer – if they led a diamond, all of declarer’s minor suit cards are winners.  They actually led a club and when I finessed the ♣9, it won and allowed me to cash the ♣A and I sill had the ♦A in dummy to get to my good ♣J to discard my losing diamond.

An alternative play for me would have been to cash my last spade prior to leading a club.  That would have forced South to get down to 3 clubs (but also dummy must reduce to 3 clubs).  Then, I lead a diamond to the ♦A and lead the ♣Q from dummy.  Whether South covers with the ♣K or ducks, they can be endplayed in diamonds to give up their ♣10 or their ♣K. 

An alternative for the defense would have been to revert back to diamonds (at trick 3) after winning the heart at trick 2, removing the crucial ♦A early in the hand.  I must rise with the ♦A, but as long as South has the key ♣10, a variety of alternatives are available for me to squeeze and endplay South such that they never score a trick with the ♣10.  Would I have gotten it right?  I think so, I hope so, but as the play went, I found my 10 tricks for +620.

At the other table, I don’t know if the opening bid by South caused East-West to be more cautious, but the bidding died quite early.  When partner raises my 6 card major, I will often just bounce to game and hope (rather than going through some convoluted game try), since often you won’t know the key question to ask or the key answer to give to sort out if game is a good prospect or not.  Then there is also the issue of “declarer’s advantage” – that is, defense is tough.  Declarer knows 100% of the assets that they hold.  The defense, via signals and inferences from the bidding and play, can sometimes overcome that advantage, but the reality is that declarer has an advantage and sometimes can wind up with 10 tricks when the defense had 4 tricks coming but failed to find them.  Anyway, West at the other table made a simple 1♠ overcall and when raised to 2♠, that ended the auction.  Declarer ended up playing for 3-3 clubs to get an extra trick (and failed), but since the contract was only 2♠, there was no difference in the scoring whether declarer found 9 tricks or 10.  Save your effort for a hand that matters!  Our teammates were -140, win 10 IMPs.

This last auction is a little difficult to explain at both tables.  Different players have different agreements and different styles.  For, me, after bidding an old-fashioned Jacoby 2NT and hearing that partner has a singleton, I would never signoff in 4♠ when I hold 2 aces and the trump Q – all valuable cards for a potential slam (simply rebid 3♠ and see what partner does).  The slam is actually quite reasonable.  If spades are 2-2, 12 tricks are easy.  If diamonds are 3-3, 12 tricks are easy even when trump are 4-0 (in the North).  However, we were not in slam, since the jump to 4♠ pretty much precluded slam interest unless I had WAY more than what I had shown so far.  I didn’t.  Luckily, when both spades and diamonds split poorly, 12 tricks aren’t possible.  But, in the actual play of the hand, when south kept clubs and discarded two diamonds while trump were being drawn (they were trying to find 4 tricks to defeat 4♠) I was able to just lose 1 diamond trick and my last diamond became good for 12 total tricks, +680.

That didn’t score well vs. the carnage in the other room.  I’m not sure what North had in mind when they entered the auction over 2NT.  They already know partner is void in spades and there may be handling problems for declarer, especially if they venture forth into slam.  In any case, the 3♥ overcall, vulnerable, persuaded South to “take an advance save” in 5♥.  After the defense starts with 3 rounds of trump, declarer is held to winning 3 trump tricks and 2 club tricks – 5 tricks in all.  But, since they had contracted for 11 tricks, that left them 6 short, down -1700, so we lost 14 IMPs on a hand that might have accidentally luckily won 13 IMPs when we stayed out of a decent slam that might have been bid at the other table.  We will never know.

Neither North’s decision to enter the auction with 3♥ nor South’s decision to compete to 5♥ make much sense to me – at equal vulnerability, a lot of tricks must be taken (9 to be exact) to have a worthwhile save.  Maybe some of those offensive tricks will be available in defense vs. 4♠.  Obviously, there would never have been a 5♥ bid if there hadn’t been a 3♥ bid.  So, the preponderance of the cause for the large loss has to fall on North.

I have to say not a lot of great bridge today, but still some interesting hands with some lessons to learn.

Recap Of 7/31/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

August 1st, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

We had 8 double digit swings today.  Bidding choices played a large role in most of the deals, but leads, play of the hand and defense were heavily involved in 3 of the hands.

Before getting into the blog, I would like to give a shout-out to Ed Nagy and Gary Soules (regular players in the game, but they play on Monday, not Wednesday so they did not play yesterday) – they finished 2nd in the recently completed LM Pairs in Las Vegas.   And, while I’m at it, a (very) long  delayed recognition to Cris Barrere and Mark Ralph who won the Sr. Swiss last summer in Atlanta (and finished 13th in Las Vegas this year in the same event) – both Cris and Mark played yesterday.  Congratulations to all 4.

Here, one partnership was using “Kokish game tries” after 1M-2M.  One step up asks responder to bid a suit in which he would accept a game try (or 3M to say there is no suit where he would accept, 4M to say I have a maximum raise and accept with any suit).  If opener bids any higher, they are showing shortness and making a game try – partner to evaluate game prospects in light of that shortness.  That pair, as shown, bid their diamond shortness and responder, with a possibly wasted value in the ♦K just signed off in 3♥.  At the other table, opener felt the best “game try” was the old fashioned game try: bid game and try to make it.

After winning the opening spade lead with the ♠10, our declarer cashed the ♥A and noticed the fall of the ♥Q from North.  If South held the remaining ♥K10, the 3 level could be in jeopardy.  Declarer played no further trump, but played the ♦Q.  North won the ♦A and shifted to a club which South won with the ♣A.  Another club was won with the ♣K and a club ruff brought down the ♣Q, so declarer could simply play hearts and when they broke 2-2, declarer was up to 10 tricks, losing a heart, and the 2 outstanding aces.  Even though the spade suit was there, after the opening lead, for lots of tricks, untangling those tricks with limited/no dummy entries was rather futile, so declarer’s 10 tricks only included 2 spade tricks.

I don’t have the details of the play/defense at the other table, but our teammates scored 10 tricks as well, but since they bid the game, they were +620 and we were -170 to win 10 IMPs. 

Unless declarer floats the ♠10 to lose a spade trick to the ♠Q, or gets to dummy to lead a club to the ♣J, it seems 10 tricks will automatically be scored with most reasonable lines of play.

At my table, East, the dealer, saw a hand rich in aces and kings, so they opened 2NT despite holding “only” 19 HCP (and no 5 card suit).  Many players play that, after hearing a favorable response to Stayman, bid the other major to confirm that they like the one that opener responded and have at least some interest in exploring slam.  Our E-W opponents then cue bid their way to the excellent slam (on a finesse for 7 with 12 tricks quite likely if trump split and nothing terrible happens in spades).  At the other table, the 2NT jump rebid promised a similar hand (18-19 HCP, balanced)  but that was enough of a difference such that neither hand developed slam interest with our teammates subsiding in the 4♥ game.  With the heart finesse losing, 12 tricks was the limit, but with trumps splitting, it was easy to ruff the spades good and reenter dummy with a ruff to score up the slam.  We were -1430 while our teammates were +680, lose 13 IMPs.

What about that 2NT opening bid?  K&R evaluates it at 19.75, so the hand rich in aces and kings, lacking queens, is closer to 20 than it is to 19.  Clearly the decision to open 2NT (rather than rebid 2NT) was the driving force to reach the excellent slam.

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=a8+aj75+k72+ak54

The same auction arrived at the same contract at both tables, but when my partner received a club lead, they correctly assumed that the opening leader did not have the ♣A, and they soon had 10 tricks (3+4+2+1). 

A diamond, a heart and a club had to be lost.  If spades break 3-3, you can reach 10 tricks without the club guess.  But, after the opening ♠J lead at the other table, declarer did not find the hoped for 3-3 spade split, so a club trick must be found to reach 10 tricks.  Sometimes a discovery play can aid in locating who has the ♣A and who has the ♣Q.  If East has both, you can’t go wrong.  If West has both, there is no winning play.  If they are split…you must choose.  About all declarer can discover on this hand is that West held the ♥KJ – is that enough to place the ♣A in the East hand?  It is truly a guess (without an opening club lead), so at the other table, declarer guessed to go up with dummy’s ♣K losing 2 red tricks and 2 club tricks for down 1.  That made our teammates score +50 to go with our +420, win 10 IMPs.

What about that lead?  I did not run it through Lead Captain, but I think David Bird would approve.  The doubleton ♠Jx is a safer lead than from ♣Qxx(xxx), since you may (and here you do) eliminate a guess for declarer on the club lead.  What about the club guess?  I think, on a spade lead, the club guess is strictly a guess, nothing to go on.

North, as the dealer, vulnerable, had to decide what to open.  At my table North started with 4♥ and that quickly ended the auction.  Should South explore further?  Slam could certainly fail if a black AQ were over either ♠/♣Kx.  The heart fillers that South has will certainly be welcomed by North (not to mention the diamond tricks), but is that enough?  It depends upon partnership style (this is a somewhat regular partnership), but eventually South decided to not move towards slam.  When I failed to cash the ♣A at trick 1, diamonds were established and declarer easily scored all 13 tricks.

At the other table, as you see from the auction above, North started with 1♥.  Once South supported hearts, slam interest was established and the N-S pair reached the heart slam.  Clearly, 6NT by South is where you would like to be with these N-S cards (in order to protect the ♣K from the opening lead), but South can’t be certain that North’s hearts are 7 long (to reach 12 tricks in NT, since it isn’t possible to ruff the diamonds good in NT!).  When East started with the ♣A, the danger was over and 12 tricks were easy.  That made our teammates +1430 compared with our -710 meant 12 IMPs for our side.

What about the opening preempt?  First seat preempts, especially at the 4 level, can be devastating to the opponents.  You are only preempting 1 partner, but 2 opponents.  But, preempts can be a double edged sword, taking partner out of the auction when you would like them involved.  Clearly this is not a 3♥ preempt, so the choice is to go high (4♥) or go low (1♥).  With partner having such useful cards, this deal worked best to start low.  On another deal, the preempt might have had greater success.

What about “transfers”?  Many play that when North opens 4♥ it is played (by the opponents) as a transfer to 4♠ – that is, when North opens 4♥ East (or West) is supposed to bid 4♠.  I almost did!  That would have been catastrophic, either pushing them into slam, or going for a very large number (1100).  I didn’t want to excite partner, and I thought partner would still have time to act if moving over 4♥ is the right action for E-W.

Once more, the identical auction at both tables resulted in the same contract, but different opening leads.  I reasoned that North might be 5=2=0=6 with 2 heart losers that might be discarded on diamonds unless hearts were cashed immediately, so I started with the ♥A.  Partner gave a suit preference signal for diamonds and I foolishly led my 5th best diamond (why not play the ♦J?!?!? to make certain declarer plays a high diamond from dummy).  Declarer played low on my ♦2 lead and partner was forced to play the ♦A.  When a club came back, declarer, banking on a 3-2 trump split, simply played the ♣A, cashed the ♠AK and led to the ♠Q.  With trump out, there were 5 top red tricks to cash in dummy, so all of the club losers could be discarded, declarer scoring 11 tricks.  Had I played a high diamond, declarer would still have 10 tricks, so with that start to the defense (and spades splitting), there was no way to defeat the contract.

The player holding my hand at the other table heard the same bidding, but selected a trump for their opening lead.  Declarer won in hand and, in hindsight, could not see anything wrong with leading a heart at trick 2 (seems right to me).  If East wins, 3 heart discards are established in dummy (and the defense must immediately cash a diamond trick or the diamond loser will be discarded on hearts).  If West wins the heart lead, only 2 heart discards are established, but the defense must now cash their diamond trick or lose it.  West did not have the ♥A, but if they did, once they won that trick, they would have to cash the ♦A (on air) or lead to East’s ♦A.  Whoever has the ♦A, the ♦KQ will both remain for 2 more discards.  Counting tricks (if trump split 3-2), declarer would have 5 trumps, at least 4 red winners in dummy, and the ♣A for at least 10 tricks.  I don’t know if the trump lead (reducing club ruffs in dummy) got declarer’s mind on club ruffs to establish his club suit, but in any case, declarer led a small club at trick 2 and subsequently the defense had 4 tricks and declarer was down 1.

Another option for the defense is to duck the ♥A, losing the heart trick but depriving declarer of 3 discards.  That defense seems to have no future, because declarer can just lose a diamond and 2 clubs.

If clubs had been 3-2 and East held 4 trumps, the line of play chosen (small club at trick 2) would be the way to make the hand, since you can ruff the 3rd club high and still have the ♠AKJ to draw trump (ruffing a red card low to reach your hand, draw trump and claim).  Perhaps leading the ♣A at trick 2 is a better way to pursue this attack.  When the ♣K falls, revisit your options (abandon hope of 3-2 clubs and revert to hearts – you will likely still only lose 3 tricks).  On this deal, a small club at trick 2 didn’t work.  We were -650 and our teammates were -100, lose 13 IMPs.

I had a ‘normal’ weak jump overcall of 3♦ (favorable vulnerability but I think this hand has enough playing strength even with unfavorable vulnerability).  But, I decided a 4♦ bid might create more problems for the opponents (either push them into a heart contract that would fail on the bad trump split or get the auction high enough fast enough that they don’t venture into hearts).  Had the opponents reached 4♥ over my preempt, I’m guessing my partner would have taken out insurance to reach a 5♦ “save” (possibly bidding a lead directing 5♣ along the way in case the opponents persisted to 5♥).  But, no “save” was necessary since my bid ended the auction.  On top of that, partner held a magical hand that allowed 10 tricks in diamonds!  When my opponents never led trump, I could ruff 2 spade losers in dummy to score a total of 8 diamond tricks and 2 clubs for 10 total tricks, +130.

At the other table, needing 11 tricks in 5♦ (not possible unless the ♣QJ were with East) the opening lead of the ♥K was ruffed and declarer switched to spades (needing spade ruffs in dummy).  East hopped up with the ♠Q and led trump.  When declarer led spades again, West won and led another trump, so only 1 spade ruff was going to be possible.  The power of the ♣1098 meant that 3 tricks could be available in clubs (finesse twice) to reach 10 tricks.  Declarer finessed on the first club lead (required to find 11 tricks), losing to the ♣J.   But they opted to play the ♣AK on the second and third rounds of clubs, so that left a spade to lose in the end for down 2.  Our teammates were +300 and our +130 provided 10 IMPs.

Every once in awhile a hand comes up where I played sooooooo poorly that I really don’t want to put it in the blog for public consumption.  To date (I’ve been doing this blog for 6 1/2 years), I have resisted the temptation (that is, all of my bad hands have been published for all to see).  Today I am tempted again (to leave out this hand).  But, there are two lessons in this hand worthy of viewing, so here goes…

The auction at the other table quickly arrived at 3NT and there were 9 easy tricks after the club lead.  Declarer took their 9 tricks and that was that.

I wasn’t sure what partner’s 3♣ bid was asking, but I correctly concluded that he only held 4 spades, had game values, and possibly wanted to hear me bid NT if I had a club stopper.  Of course I didn’t, but I had a sufficiently robust heart suit that I proceeded to 4♥ (thinking a 6-1 fit will play better than the 4-3 spade fit).  Partner’s ♥Q was a welcome sight.  It looked like I could easily score 3+6+1+0 and make my contract as long as trumps were not 6-0 or 5-1.  I ducked the opening club lead and ruffed a club at trick 2.  I led to the ♥Q and had to return to hand to finish drawing trump.  The obvious (and only sure way) to reach my hand was a spade to the ♠K.  But, not just any old spade – due to holding both the ♠9 and ♠8, I could (and did) lead the ♠J to the ♠K and later, I would have the ♠9 that I could lead (playing the ♠8 underneath the ♠9) and retain the lead in hand for a third spade lead.

When trump were 4-2, I had to lead 3 more rounds of hearts to fully extract the opponents trumps.  Discards from dummy were awkward, so I decided to throw away 3 diamonds.  Now I led the ♠9, which won.  I had budgeted to lose 1 spade, 1 diamond and 1 club – 10 tricks.  Perfect.  But wait!  I haven’t lost a spade.  I can make 11 tricks if I take 1 more spade finesse!?!?!!??!  Mark Ralph, sitting North, knew 100% from the bidding that I had 3 spades, and watching me carefully unblock the ♠J, could see that I was set up for the sucker play of him ducking my ♠9.  Obviously, on the third round of spades I can simply win the ♠A (spurning the finesse) and get my 10 tricks.  When the ♠Q drops, I have 11 tricks – an undeserved overtrick.  But, I wasn’t counting tricks (when you are in a vulnerable game – it is always good to count tricks…when you have all you need, TAKE THEM!).  I finessed the ♠10 on the third spade lead and my 10 sure tricks dropped to 9 when I only scored 2 total spade tricks.  Down 1.  Taking a finesse for the overtrick is simply losing bridge.  Nice play by Mark to find the duck of the ♠Q, but terrible play by me to fall for it.

We were -100 and our teammates were -600.  Instead of winning 2 IMPs (by playing the ♠A), we lost 12 IMPs.  Sorry teammates.

Defensive lesson – if you can see declarer has a 100% certain line for his contract if you take one action, look for another action that may lead him down a losing path.  Declarer lesson – when you have your contract made, make it.  When will I ever learn?

At my table, West looked at his hand and saw a 1♣ opening bid.  When I responded 1♠ he rebid 1NT.  I have heard players tell their partner to ‘never’ rebid 1NT with a singleton.  Personally, I have found that (rebidding 1NT with a singleton in partner’s suit) to be the least of evils on many hands and I like my partner’s choice on this hand.  I really don’t like starting with 1♦ and rebidding 2♣.  Partner will expect 9-10 cards in the minors with that start, not 8.  Anyway, I had a balanced game hand so I had an easy raise to 3NT.  No opening lead appeals, so North decided to try the unbid major which turned out to be declarer’s strongest suit.  Knocking out the ♣A provides 8 top tricks and when North shifted to diamonds after winning the ♣A, declarer was up to 9 tricks (1+4+1+3).  South won the ♦A and returned the ♦J as declarer won the ♦K and North pitched the ♦Q (unblocking hopefully).  In the end, South discarded down to a singleton ♠K, hoping that declarer would take the ‘obvious’ spade finesse and that diamonds would cash for the setting tricks.  Unlike my play on the prior hand, declarer did not finesse in spades, so they had 11 tricks when the ♠K went under the ♠A.

At the other table, West, looking at their robust heart suit, albeit 4 long, decided that 1♥ was the best way to start the bidding.  Soon E-W were in the heart game.  Double dummy, no lead or defense can defeat 4♥, but the declarer needs their guessing shoes on.  Sorry, but I don’t know the defense nor line of declarer play, but when the dust settled, declarer had only found 9 tricks and ended up down 1.  Since North has no entry to provide a second club ruff, the defense has trouble finding 4 tricks, double dummy.  So, with the ♦A onside, and solving the 2-way guess for the ♠K (finesse or ruffing finesse), declarer can manage 10 tricks against any defense.  3NT, proved to be a much easier contract than the 4-3 heart fit.   With our teammates beating 4♥ for +50 and our +460, we were able to win 11 IMPs.

Recap Of 7/15/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

July 16th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

For the 5 big swing hands today, bidding judgment was one factor that helped create the swings, but leads/defense and declarer play also played very significant roles.  In 4 out of 5 cases, improved defense/declarer play would reduce or eliminate the swing, and in one case create a swing the other way.

The bidding started the same at both tables, but at my table, East decided to take a shot at 9 tricks in 3NT while East at the other table raised to the spade game.  The way the cards lie, the same 11 tricks are available in both contracts, but declarer needs to play more carefully in spades.

Playing spades, there are a number of routes to 11 tricks, but the easiest, after the ♦Q lead, is to win the ♦K, draw 4 rounds of trump (pitching a heart and a diamond) and lead a club to the ♣10.  South will win their ♣Q, but will be forced to lead a heart around to the ♥Q, a club into the ♣KJ8, or a diamond into the ♦A10.  Depending on which suit they return, declarer will score 11 tricks in various ways – the defense has no answer.  Both North and South are subject to endplays that will help declarer once they win their club tricks, so the declarer only loses 2 clubs and wins the rest.  At the table, declarer was uncertain about their dummy entries and wanted to make sure that they got a discard on the ♦A, so after winning trick 1 with the ♦K, they cashed a high spade and entered dummy with the ♠10. Then they cashed the ♦A, taking a heart discard.  At this point, 11 tricks are still possible, but not easily.  At the table, declarer continued with a heart to the ♥A, ruffed by North.  North then led a club, finessed to South’s ♣Q.  South cashed the ♥K and led another heart, ruffed high by declarer.  But declarer still had to lose the ♣A for down 1.

On lead against 3NT, I felt certain that a heart lead would surrender an unnecessary trick, so, since spades hadn’t been raised, I started with a spade, hoping partner could get in and attack hearts.  Declarer simply won the spade lead in dummy, lost the club finesse at trick 2 and when I shifted to a diamond, declarer won with the ♦K and led another club.  Partner played the ♣A and declarer had a high club and the ♦A as discards for dummy’s heart losers, so 6+1+2+2 to reach 11 tricks.  We were -460 and our teammates were -50, lose 11 IMPs.

Similar bidding arrived in the same contract at both tables.  I didn’t think I was strong enough to force game (either bidding 4♠ directly or via a splinter raise to 4♣).  The player with my hand did try the splinter, but still they ended up in 4♠ like us.  Do you think this is worth a game splinter?

At our table, partner received the opening lead of the ♣Q which was won with the ♣A.  Back came the ♥8 covered by the ♥10, ♥J and ♥Q.  When partner led a small diamond off dummy to his ♦J, North won the ♦A and continued with another heart.  Declarer won the ♥A and continued with a small diamond.  South rose with the ♦K which was ruffed.  Now, as long as trump break 3-2, partner could (and did) cash the high spades.  After that, everything was high with the defense only allowed to score their outstanding high trump (♠Q) whenever they wanted (one red loser in dummy would go on the ♣K, the other red loser could be ruffed).  Declarer lost 2 aces and the ♠Q, but they could score 6+3+1+1 (-1 for the ♠Q).

At the other table, the opening lead was a small heart.  Declarer could duck the opening heart lead to their ♥10 (since the lead was away from the ♥J), but that could be very dangerous, losing a trick they could not afford to lose.  So, they won the ♥A and led a small diamond to the ♦J and ♦A.  Back came the ♦10, covered by the ♦Q and ♦K which was ruffed.  Had declarer not covered the ♦10, the ♦K would eventually ruff out (allowing the ♦Q to be a trick).  Still 10 tricks were available if declarer continued along cross ruff lines from this point forward.  There is danger of overruffs, but LHO has to follow to red suit leads from dummy (can’t overruff declarer) and RHO has to follow to club leads (can’t overruff dummy).  Declarer can score 2 hearts, a club, and 7 trump tricks.  

However, at the table, after ruffing the ♦K, declarer led a spade to the ♠J and ♠Q.  East returned a spade and declarer led dummy’s singleton ♣10.  East won the ♣A and continued with a diamond (his last spade would be a better defense at this point).   Declarer could ruff that (with his last trump), cash the ♣K, ruff a club and draw the last trump, but when hearts failed to break 3-3, 9 tricks was the limit.  That made our teammates +50 to go with our +420, win 10 IMPs.

Here, with everybody vulnerable, the bidding started the same at both tables, but at one table, South balanced/reopened with 4♣ after the 3♠ preempt, while the other table passed it out and let West play 3♠.  North, with some decent values, decided if partner can contract for 10 tricks on his own, then his hand should offer a play for 11 tricks, so he raised to the 5♣ game.

There wasn’t much to the play in 3♠.  Declarer had to guess if the ♥K was doubleton or the ♥10 was doubleton (lead the ♥J and smother the ♥10).  He guessed right, so there were only 3 minor suit winners for the defense, declarer won 10 tricks, so we were -170.

West led the ♠A against 5♣ and had a difficult choice at trick 2.  If declarer bid 4♣ with ♠Q6 (and partner had the singleton ♠10), it would be necessary to cash the ♠K at trick 2 or it was likely they would never get it.  If declarer had a singleton spade, it would be necessary to switch to hearts and hope to find 2 red tricks to defeat 5♣.  Or, switch to diamonds, hoping for a ruff.  When West continued at trick 2 with his high spade, declarer had 11 tricks (5 diamonds and 6 clubs), so our teammates were -600, lose 13 IMPs.

Does South have enough to compete over 3♠?  One South thought not, the other ended up in the game which could be beaten but wasn’t .  Defense is tough.  Anyway, results aside, I think the two passes after 3♠ suggests that North has something (but nothing convenient to bid) and competing further would likely be a net gain for South.

Here again, there was similar bidding (but not the same), to arrive in 4♠ at both tables.  However, West at the other table viewed their limited defensive prospects (hearing NS bidding both majors) and decided to compete with 4NT, asking partner to choose a minor.  This worked spectacularly well when partner not only held a minor, but also 3 aces!!  When the defense failed to cash the ♠A at trick 1, 13 tricks were easily scored by drawing trumps and running the club suit to pitch all spade losers.  How often are you cold for slam (assuming 2-2 clubs) and either never enter the bidding, or enter the bidding for the first time after several rounds of opponents bidding to a major suit game?

After the opponents open a weak two, I like to use an immediate 4NT as ace asking (not unusual for the minors).  Bid 4 of the major that was opened to show a minor suit hand.  With both sides vulnerable, there is certainly risk in coming in – either immediately (4♥ over 2♥) or delayed (4NT over 4♠).  But, as you see, there was risk in not coming in!  I’m sure you have heard “6-5 come alive” and this hand is an example of where that bridge ‘rule’ came from.  The balancing bid of 4NT does not come with a Lloyd’s of London money back guarantee, but I like it.  What do you think?  Also, what do you think of the “weak 2♥ opening bid”?  Both tables bid it.  I suspect many would – it is often helpful to jam the auction and leave the opponents guessing what to do.  Our opponents guessed right and we didn’t.

I failed to provide a heart ruff for partner, so we just got our 4 top tricks for down 1, +100.  With our teammates -640, we lost 11 IMPs.

Balancing with 4NT was a really big bid.  Could/Should West bid immediately over 2♥?  I don’t think any bid is available to describe this hand (2NT, 3NT are both natural, 4NT gets really high if you play that as unusual (vs. ace asking).  A 4♥ bid is available to show both minors, but that, too, gets high fast.  Anyway, assuming pass the first time is right, there is another option to enter the auction.  At both tables, at West’s second turn to bid, 3NT was available.  Having failed to bid 3NT previously, it seems as though this would unequivocally show both minors…just what you have!  And, if North then bids 4♠ as expected (at one table), partner is involved in the decision to go to the 5 level (and the 4♠ bid takes you “off the hook” assuming it comes).  Waiting to bid 4NT is quite unilateral and whenever partner can contribute to the decision, it is almost always a good idea.

Most tournament players play a system of “inverted minors” where 1m-2m shows either game or invitational+ values, and 1m-3m is “preemptive” – but there is a serious problem with that.  Some have developed other tools to deal with that problem after partner opens 1m:  use a jump to 2♠ to show a minor suit “mixed raise” (7-9 points, less than invitational) and use 3m to show a junk raise (less than a mixed raise) – suggesting that partner should not venture onward if they had 18-19 points, too much to open 1NT.  Here neither table had this tool available, so both tables treated their hand as a preemptive raise in clubs.  At our table, the auction ended at 3♣ (the par contract as the cards lie) making 10 tricks on any lead – we started with 3 rounds of diamonds, ruffing the third, but those were our only tricks and no other defense does better.

Note: if you had the potential to show two types of raises: mixed raise and preemptive raise, this would clearly be a mixed raise, and partner would automatically proceed to 3NT with their balanced 18 HCP.  It just turns out that the hands don’t mesh well – slow diamond tricks with insufficient major suit stoppers, but that happens sometimes.

The defense against 3NT is a somewhat unique situation.  Best defense will always beat 3NT, whether the defense starts with spades or hearts.  But, if they start with spades, they must later revert to hearts.  If they start with hearts, they must revert to spades.   What do I mean?

A normal ♠10 (top of interior sequence) was led against 3NT.  Declarer wins the ♠A and starts playing diamonds.  East wins the ♦K and would normally continue spades (partner’s lead).  Declarer would normally finesse the ♠J, losing to the ♠Q and, at that point, spades are not set up, but with no entry available to West’s spades, stop playing spades and revert to hearts.  Declarer still has another high diamond to knock out, and the defense needs to establish heart tricks while they still hold the ♦A.  Continuing spades after winning the ♠Q would be futile – it would establish the spade suit, but East would have no more spades to lead after they won the ♦A.

Conversely, if the defense started with hearts, declarer must duck twice, allowing the defense to score the first two heart tricks.  Hearts are not yet established, but to defeat 3NT, the defense must now switch and attack spades!  When diamonds are led, win the first diamond lead and continue to attack spades and the defense will be able to get 5 tricks before declarer scores 9.  Declarer starts with 8 tricks, but careful defense will hold him to 8 tricks.

At the table, the opening ♠10 lead was won by the ♠A and a diamond was led.  East rose with the ♦K (as declarer dropped the ♦Q) and continued spades.  Rather than finessing the ♠J, declarer rose with the ♠K (hoping the other diamond winner was with West).  When declarer continued with the ♦6, East inexplicably ducked and declarer claimed their 9 top tricks –  2+1+1+5.  Had East won the second diamond lead, a spade lead through declarer’s ♠J4 would allow West to score 3 more spade tricks and defeat the contract.

So, we were -130 while our teammates were +600, win 10 IMPs.

Good luck and have fun in Vegas.  I hope to see you there.

Recap Of 6/19/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

June 21st, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Bidding judgment determined all 4 of today’s swing hands.

First the bidding at my table:  I certainly usually take the opportunity, when in third seat, to make some sort of reasonable noise rather than passing and letting fourth seat take the first bid of the hand after seeing 3 passes – especially when not vulnerable vs. vulnerable opponents as it was here.  Given that philosophy, I was never going to pass.  My question, as East, was whether to open 1♠ or 2♠.  Preempts often present problems, but sometimes the presumed strength shown by an opening 1 bid can deflect the opponents from their best spot.  I flipped a coin and opened 2♠.  South has a routine (if flawed) double – flawed since partner expects to see 4 of a major when the other major is doubled.  Still sometimes you have to double spades when you only hold 3 hearts.  My partner, over the double, had a routine bump to 3♠ to continue to block the opponents bidding, and it was now up to North.  They didn’t have the greatest hand, but still with some nice shape including two aces, 5 trump and a singleton, they didn’t want to miss their vulnerable game, so they tried 4♥ which ended the bidding.

At the other table, South got to open in fourth seat after seeing 3 passes.  They started with 1♣ and West, who had passed originally, decided that they had enough strength and shape, as a passed hand, to make a takeout double.  The double can be an excellent way to enter the auction and compete for the partscore, but it can also backfire by telling the opponents how to play the hand.  North bid their heart suit, East showed spades, South showed 3 card heart support and East passed.  North thought (and so do I) that they only had enough values to invite game, so they jumped to 3♥.  Finally South, concerned about a possibly worthless K, decided they didn’t have enough  to go on to game, so they languished at the 3 level.

Looking only at the NS cards, this doesn’t look like a game you want to be in (when the ♠A is behind the ♠K).  But, on the lie of the cards, there are always 10 tricks due to the well placed club honors (♣K10 with East).  On this deal, declarer has two routes to 10 tricks – bring in the hearts and clubs with no losers, losing 3 spade tricks.  Or, more naturally, ruff a spade in dummy creating a heart loser, and then bring in clubs for no losers.  When the ♠Q opening lead was ducked, I continued at trick 2 with the ♠2 suggesting to partner that after they won the ♠A, a club return was safer than anything else (and hoping they had some spots to allow an eventual trick in clubs).  Declarer won the ♣Q over my ♣10, cashed the ♥K, finessed ♥J, ruffed their spade, crossed to the ♦A, cashed the ♥A and then led the ♣9, taking a finesse against my ♣K.  When that held, the only trick left for the defense was a power trump trick.  At the other table, after West’s takeout double of 1♣, North started clubs themselves by leading the ♣J and later finessing against the ♣10 for the same 10 tricks, but with no game bid, we were -620 while our teammates were +170, lose 10 IMPs.

Back to the bidding – might NS have missed their game if I pass instead of opening 2♠?  If I open 1♠, will they miss game?  Did the passed hand double by West (at the other table) prevent NS from reaching game?  As noted, this is not a great game to be in once the ♠A is over the ♠K, but it has the advantage of being vulnerable and unbeatable.

Wow, what a hand, what a result.  Lots of different bidding choices showed up here.  Playing 5 card majors, everyone in the East seat opens 1♣.  South might have opened a minor themselves, but really they have nothing to bid over 1♣, so they pass.  West can bid up the line (my choice of 1♦) or bypass the diamonds and show their 4 card major (the choice at the other table).  North passes and East has a choice for their rebid: start showing their 4 majors (which I would do), or show their balanced hand and point range with 1NT (which was my partner’s choice).  Now, even though I considered this hand worth an opening bid, I wasn’t ready to force to game with no known fit.  I could bid 2♥ (which would be a game force, since it is a reverse by responder), raise to 2NT inviting game there, or show an invitational hand with 4 hearts which was my choice.  When partner raised, I decided I had enough for game and continued to 4 which was passed around to South who entered the auction for the first time with a (Lightner) double, suggesting a club lead would be a good start to the defense.  With all of the prior passes by South, I was a bit shocked at the double and didn’t know how to interpret it – what cards did he hold besides strong clubs?

Next let’s look at the bidding at the other table.  As mentioned before, the West player with my hand responded 1♥ which his partner raised to 2♥.  South now doubled, since they had a classic 4=1=4=4 takeout double of 2♥ – they couldn’t bid the first time due to their length/strength in clubs, but when they heard the raise to 2♥, they could show their shape and values via a takeout double.  West, with a reasonable hand thought they had a chance to make 2♥ so they redoubled to let partner know that the hand belonged to EW.  Maybe partner raised with only 3 card heart support and the best EW result would be defending whatever contract NS landed in.  North, given a choice of clubs, diamonds and spades had a clear preference for clubs, but decided to pass.  However, if South’s double was simply a takeout of the other two unbid suits (clubs having been bid do not count as an option), then North has very little to choose between spades and diamonds.  If EW stop off to defend 3♣X, down 1 is the best they can achieve for +100, so they will do better by bidding more if NS do bid clubs.  Anyway, East has no reason to bid over 2♥XX, and it was now up to South.  South would like to re-redouble asking partner to please chose a suit, but since that bid is not allowed, they had to start choosing suits themselves, or assume that partner knows best and wants to defend 2♥XX.  So South passed and 2♥XX was the final contract.  Clearly North needed to take a view that clubs were part of the takeout and bid clubs, or else South needed to take a view that North has nothing worthwhile in diamonds or spades, so maybe clubs will be the best spot.  Both North and South cannot afford to pass – someone must bid clubs.

I often point out areas that you should definitely discuss and be in sync with  partner and the lesson on this hand involves passing the business redouble (a support redouble and a SOS redouble involve different decisions).  There are only two possible messages sent by the pass, and only one can be what partner intended:

1. I have nothing to say, no preference for your suggested suits, so you choose
2. I think they are in trouble and I want to sit for and defend this redoubled contract 

So, be sure to know your partner’s intentions.

Now, on to the play of the hand.  The declarer at the other table knew where the heart length/shortness was located.  I knew it was possible that when South finally doubled when we got to 4♥ that the double was due to shortness that would create a challenge to a hand that could only invite game.  Perhaps, on an auction that sounded more powerful, they would not have doubled.  Still, if the opponents are going down 2+ tricks, doubles can pay handsomely and the cost, if the opponents make it, is not that great as long as there are no overtricks.  In any case, South judged that there would be problems and doubled.  I knew they had good clubs, but I had an answer for that problem with my singleton ♣A.  I could win the first club lead and ruff the rest, so no problem.  My problem was how to find 10 tricks.  I needed to establish diamonds (or find successful finesses in spades and hearts).  I needed to lead diamonds from dummy (twice), and since I felt South had hearts, I started with a heart to the ♥K and a diamond up, disappointed to lose to the ♦K in North.   They continued clubs which I ruffed, then a spade to the ♠A and another diamond to the ♦A.  South continued with their remaining high club, forcing me to ruff again.  Double dummy, the best I could ever do was to win 9 tricks, and I was still on track for 9 tricks at this point (in spite of getting hearts wrong) if I continued with the ♦J.  When I continued, with a small diamond ruffed in dummy (establishing diamonds), North was able to discard their remaining spade and I was running out of tricks.  I could cross to my ♥A and now lead the ♦J, but North could ruff small, allowing my ♥J to score, but then I had no trumps and they still had the ♥Q and good clubs (so I never got to enjoy my ♠K).

The way I played it, if South had held 3 hearts to the ♥Q, they would have the only outstanding trump, they would have to follow to my ♦J lead and then it didn’t matter what they did on my last diamond, since I would discard both losing spades on the diamonds.  At trick 12, I would have the ♠K and ♥J in dummy, and the only trick that South could score in the last 4 cards would have been their high trump.  But, that wasn’t how the cards lay.

You would think, if you KNOW that South is short in hearts and North is long in hearts, that the play might be much easier.  I have tried lots of options (playing the hand double dummy on my computer, including starting hearts with a small heart to the 6 – truly a double dummy play), and scoring 9 tricks is still not so easy against best defense!  I don’t know how the play/defense went at the other table.  In any case, the declarer playing 2♥XX managed to score 9 tricks.  The overtrick for making 9 tricks instead of 8 in a 2♥ contract is, of course, 30 points.  However, redoubled vulnerable overtricks payout 400 points!  Plus the game bonus, plus, plus plus.  Bottom line, our teammates were -1240 while we were -300 to lose 17 IMPs!

Here, there was pretty simple bidding with the same 3 (pretty automatic) bids to start the auction at both tables. However, some players would consider South too strong for a weak 2 bid and open 1♥.  At the other table, those 3 bids ended the auction.  However, in 4th seat, I had no prospects of defense against 4♥ so I did what partner asked me to do with his takeout double – I bid my best suit.  South, with 2 aces providing much better defense than they might have had for a weak 2 opening bid, might have doubled, saving a couple of IMPs (but if the opponents have a heart void, it would reduce his defense to 1 trick, so the penalty double isn’t exactly automatic).  The play in 4♥ was straightforward, with 10 winners and 3 losers.  The play in 5♣ was also straightforward, with 3 aces to lose, but 10 tricks after that.  So, we were -100 while our teammates were +620, win 11 IMPs.

After 2 passes, how do you open the South hand.  Some might see a good hand with clubs and start with 1♣.  Counting a point for both the 5th and 6th club, your 18 HCP can get up to 20 points and start with 2NT (which is what happened at the other table).  At my table, they play ‘gambling 3NT a la Meckwell’ in 1st/2nd seat which shows a long solid minor with an outside ace or king.   But, in 3rd seat, a 3NT opening bid is … ‘tactical’ – as you can see, as West, I had great interest in just what was shown by the 3NT opening bid.  I had no clue what was right.  The opponents have no obligation to describe their hand, only their systemic agreements about what bids mean.  I was told it shows a good hand that is not confined to the restrictions of ‘one ace or king outside’ that applies to a first or second seat opening.

So, what does West do over 2NT?  Over 3NT?  I think whatever system you play over 1NT should also be played over 2NT.  Why not?  It doesn’t come up often, but since you have a system available, it seems you should use it.  If, over 1NT, 2♣ would show majors, then bid 3♣ over 2NT; if 2♦ shows majors over 1NT, then bid 3♦ over 2NT.  Anyway, the player with my hand, noting the vulnerability, elected to pass over 2NT and after a heart lead, the defense cashed 5 heart tricks.  Then a spade continuation allowed declarer to knock out the J and score the rest of the tricks for down 1.

Since 3NT opening bids can be all sorts of hands, I don’t think continuing the philosophy of using the same system over 2NT that you use over 1NT can be extended to include 3NT opening bids.  I briefly considered bidding 4♣ as a surrogate for Michaels – hoping that partner would not take 4♣ as natural and would bid their best major.  So, if partner held 5 hearts and no spades, my 4♠ call would not have been a success.  Eventually I decided upon the safety of the extra trump with spades being trump and, using 6-5 come alive mentality, bid 4♠.  I bought a fantastic dummy, with partner’s spade spots filling in my gaps and ♥Q9 allowing me to establish hearts (and if someone overruffs hearts on the third round, they are using one of the 2 natural trump tricks they have.  When hearts proved to be 3=3, it was time to draw trump and claim…well, not so quickly.  I still held 5 trump, but when I led the ♠10 off of dummy and South played low, I had to choose whether to play the ♠K (assuming South held the ♠A) or duck the ♠10 (assuming South had the ♠Q).  What did South hold to open 3NT?  What did North hold to double 4♠?  I was still thinking more ‘gambling 3NT’ than power.  I needed to play the ♠K (to make the hand, double dummy), but ducked the ♠10, losing to the ♠Q.  Now, the defense has the upper hand, but only if they continue tapping me out in clubs to make me lose control of the hand.  I still have 4 trump, but the tap  after winning the ♠Q reduces me to 3, and when I knock out the ♠A I’m down to 2 trump.  One more club tap (after winning the ♠A) leaves me with 1 trump to draw the last trump, but then I must establish my diamond trick and when the opponents win the ♦A, they can cash a club at trick 13 while I follow suit with my winning diamond.  However, North continued with a diamond after winning their ♠Q and I was back in control.

So, I was lucky to catch such a great dummy and lucky to misguess spades and still survive.  It seems that when I ignore 6-5 come alive advice, I regret it.  The trouble with using any sort of simulation to determine the wisdom/foolishness of bidding over 3NT depends upon defining a very vague notion of just what do you expect the 3NT bidder to hold.  I didn’t know during the bidding and I didn’t know during the play.  If North and East (both passed hands) exchanged their hands (so that the North hand was my partner and the East hand became the North hand), I would lose only 1 spade instead of 2, but I would also lose a heart and 2 diamonds.  Still, that would be a good save against the 9 tricks NS could score in their 3NT contract.  Warning: just because the 4♠ bid worked on the actual deal and the modified deal with North and East switching hands, it is not an attempt at proving it was a good bid, the right bid, …  Note also that getting partner to choose a major would likely result in an unsuccessful heart contract.

By my judgment, it is impossible to determine the ‘right’ bid in these situations.  Certainly some would view 4♠ as foolish, all would view the result as lucky, but, it turned out, my bid worked, scoring +790 while our teammates were -50 to score 12 IMPs.

Recap Of 5/20/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

May 23rd, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

Today there were 6 double digit swings, 3 of them fell into declarer play problems (with leads and defense also playing a factor), with bidding judgment the source for the other 3 big swings.

Both tables used traditional Jacoby 2NT in support of spades, finding heart shortness.  At my table, North then bid 3♠ to indicate a hand that could be slam suitable (it is minimum in high card, but it does have 3 key cards).  The 3♠ bid initiated a series of cue bids (4♣-4♦-4♥) with North indicating they had nothing more to say when they next bid 4♠.  They have a nice fit, all suits controlled, now what?  South decided that there would be 12 tricks available and bid the slam.  After partner’s heart lead, declarer had chances.  All he needed was to find trumps 2-2, diamonds 3-3, ♦K onside and he would be there: 7+1+3+1.  He got the ♦K onside, but that was all.  So, eventually he lost a trick in every suit but hearts for down 2, +100 for our side.

Our teammates cue bid diamonds after hearing heart shortness.  When that was doubled, South looked at their minimum values and, based on the bidding, one sure diamond to lose, so they were not seeing a route to 12 tricks with their minimum HCP so they simply signed off in 4♠, ending the auction.  When that contract came home, they were +420 to go with our +100 for 11 IMPs.  When you are at the 3 level in a game forcing auction, it is good to have agreements about what subsequent bids imply.  Many play a ‘fast arrival’ approach that suggests limited/no controls in unbid suits and zero slam interest.  Partner may proceed at their own peril.  I think North is too strong to immediately sign off in 4♠ over 3♥.  But whether they bid 3♠ waiting (the bid chosen at our table), 3NT non-serious slam try, or 4♦ cue bid of their cheapest control (chosen by our teammates) is somewhat a matter of style, judgment and bidding agreements.  Always good to have bidding agreements.  Here, I guess South just fell in love with his hand.

Both tables had the same auction with the same lead.  Now to find 9 tricks.  When the ♦Q holds the first trick, you certainly have 4+1+2+unknown opportunities in clubs as well as potential for additional diamond and heart tricks.  This hand was about the play (and defense).

At my table, I followed with the ♦7 at trick 1, showing count and saving the ♦10 which may be useful.  Declarer played a heart to the ♥Q (noting the fall of ♥9) and cashed 4 spades.  On the last spade, I played the ♣9, declarer pitched a fateful diamond while partner played their ♦2 (confirming a 5 card suit – often when forced to discard from the suit of your original 4th best lead, you want to play your original 3rd best (if the spot doesn’t cost you), leaving declarer in the dark as to whether your initial suit was 4 long or 5 long).  Next declarer led a heart, thinking a bit about ducking, but eventually played the ♥A, dropping the ♥J.  Declarer had a plan.  He decided my ♣9, in theory, showing nothing in clubs had been a false card ploy to deceive (and that I actually held the ♣A), so all he had to do was strip the last diamond out of my hand (by cashing his ♦A) and lead hearts.  He had taken the first 8 tricks and needed 1 more.  I could cash two hearts (the ♥K7), but would be forced to lead away from my presumed ♣A, giving him his 9th trick in dummy with the ♣K.  This would have worked quite well as the cards lie if he had kept all of his diamonds.  Yes, my spades, hearts and diamonds would be gone, forcing me to lead clubs.  If I had the ♣A, his plan worked.  But if my partner had the ♣A, his plan also works…as long as he keeps all of his diamonds.  Partner would be forced to either cash the ♦K and lead a diamond to his ♦J for his 9th trick, or lead a club to the ♣K in dummy for his 9th trick.  As it was, we took the last 5 tricks, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and a club.  So we were +100.

Meanwhile, our teammates (also playing 3NT by South) won the ♦Q at trick 1 while my hand followed with the ♦10 (upside down attitude).  Declarer continued with a heart at trick 2, ducked around to West’s ♥9 (a better way to come closer to assuring 2 heart tricks – but complicating getting those 2 tricks), and West exited with a safe spade.  Declarer cashed four spades (keeping all his diamonds, and so did West, both players pitching a club).  Next declarer led a heart to the ♥A, dropping the ♥J and continued with a heart to the ♥10 to force out the ♥K, establishing the ♥Q for the second heart trick.  On this trick West pitched the ♣Q, still keeping all his diamonds, thinking that the ♦10 played by East at trick 1 promised 3 diamonds and that declarer started with ♦AJ6.  My hand (East) won the ♥K and continued with their remaining diamond (♦7) which was covered with the ♦J and ♦K.  Nine tricks have been played (4 spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds) with dummy (North) following suit to all 9 tricks, leaving dummy with the 4 clubs they started with.  During those 9 tricks, declarer won 6 and lost 3, and he needs 3 more out of the last 4.  Declarer has a high diamond and high heart in their hand, but no way to get to them without help from the defense.  But with hearts and spades gone, West was down to leading diamonds (into declarer’s ♦A8) or their now singleton ♣A.  If East had started with 3 diamonds, a diamond lead at this point leaves declarer with only 2 more tricks (high red cards) – the defense will score the last 2 (high minor suit cards) for down 1.  Had West discarded 1 diamond and 1 club, the defense can abandon diamonds and score (at least) 2 club tricks for down 1.  West led diamonds after winning the ♦K, allowing South to score their ♦A8 as well as the ♥Q.  That brought declarer’s total to 9 tricks for +600 to go with our +100 to win 12 IMPs. 

At trick 9, if West had kept the ♣AQ (pitching 1 diamond and 1 club), declarer must not finesse in diamonds but use this opportunity to gain access to his red winners.  If declarer goes up with the ♦A, and cashes the ♥Q, West has no effective answer.  On the heart lead, they can throw their ♣Q, but then must surrender a trick to the ♦J at trick 13.  If they throw a diamond on the ♥Q, they must surrender a trick to the ♣K at trick 13.  Declarer must end up relying upon the ♣A being onside.

So, which diamond spot to play at trick 1 turned out to be critical (and, at our table, which diamond spot to discard was also critical – when West played their original 5th best diamond, declarer could be 100% certain that diamonds were 5-2).  I have always heard ‘if you can’t beat the J at trick 1, your attitude is already clear, give count.’  Here dummy didn’t play the ♦J, but the ♦Q.  So do I give attitude with the ♦10 or count with the ♦7?  It isn’t so much what I mean by the card I play, but rather how partner interprets what I play.  I thought that the ♦10 might be important/useful in the diamond suit, so I saved it.  But rules (known by and followed by both players) can be really useful.  Partner needs to be able to read your cards in order to have the most effective defense.  Of course declarer can read your cards too, and draw their own conclusions.

With most regular partners, I lead (Rusinow) ♥K from ♥AK.  This was not my regular partner, but somehow I still led the ♥K.  When I saw dummy, I shifted to diamonds.  Declarer won, drew trump and led the ♣10.  I made a reflexive cover play of the ♣Q (seeing dummy, that is impossibly bad –  playing the ♣Q can never be right!), partner won his ♣A, I got my ♥A and declarer had their 10 tricks, -620.  Due to my weird ♥K (accidental) lead, declarer wasn’t sure where the ♥A was, so he had no assurance that he could obtain a club discard on the ♥Q, so he was looking for the ♣Q to be onside.  It was.

At the other table, the defense cashed both hearts prior to shifting to a diamond.  Declarer drew trump and, with the ♥Q available in dummy for a club discard, they led a club to the…♣K!  The defense cashed their 2 club tricks to go with their 2 heart tricks for down 1.  North had doubled at his second bid, indicating values (and red cards), but North did pass the first time over 1♠ (as did I).  North holds a strong heart suit, but I think, with both vulnerable, the hand and suit are not strong enough to come in the first time.  Some thought West should get the club guess right based on North not acting the first time. Holding ♠xx ♥AKJxx ♦Jxxx ♣Ax – after the forcing NT by East and 2♣ rebid by West, this is a routine double (the hand may belong to us).  Is this enough to make an offshape double over 1♠?  A 2♥ overcall of 1♠?  You be the judge.  If the hand shown had to bid the first time (if they were that strong including the ♣A), then they cannot hold the ♣A.  If someone holding that hand might pass over 1♠, then the club play is a total guess.

Bottom line, I gave declarer no guess, and our teammate got the club guess wrong.  We were -620 and teammates -100, lose 12 IMPs.

Our bidding certainly got us to an excellent contract that had some chances even if my diamonds were not so strong (if we find 3-3 spades or 2-1 diamonds, that would have helped a lot, not to mention if my ♣KJ were the ♣A).  As it was, my high diamonds meant the opponents did not have them, so they could be squandered with ruffs and allow declarer to get back to their hand (ruffing high) and still be able to draw trump.  I like the first 5 bids by our side, up through 5♦, and I like partner’s raise to 6♦, but I think that bid may be less clear cut/automatic.  Bottom line, partner has a powerful playing hand with controls in all 4 suits and made a reasonable assumption that my hand would provide some useful fillers.  At the other table, the 3♥ got the auction higher faster, but actually it produced an auction quite similar to the one at my table.  As it was, South could have advanced  to 4♦ over 3NT and seen what partner did, just as my partner did.  If partner bids 4NT, give up, but if North raises diamonds, South’s playing hand definitely offers opportunities for slam.  Against 3NT, after a 9♥ lead, declarer cashed their 9 tricks making their contract.  The 9♥ was also led against 6♦, but all declarer had to do was draw 1 round of trump, noting that trump are 3-0, and get 2 spade ruffs to establish spades, and then draw trump losing a club at the end.  So we were +920 vs. -400, win 11 IMPs.

I’m not especially proud of the 1NT opening bid that I chose.  It could certainly backfire, but here the result was spectacular.  Yes, if partner responded 1♥ to my 1♣ opening bid, 1NT is a reasonable rebid.  Still I give myself a point for the 5th card in a suit (many only do that with a quality suit – this certainly fails that hurdle, since the opponents took 4 club tricks in their heart contract!).  1NT can act as a preemptive bid making the opponents auction awkward.  Many varied tools have been developed to try to get in and compete when the opponents open 1NT, since it seems the bad guys are doing it more and more.  Here North, using Meckwell, opted to show clubs and a major, East transferred to diamonds, and South thought their majors were good enough to compete to 3♥ (as pass or correct to spades, if the major isn’t hearts).  North had to guess whether to try for the vulnerable game and ultimately decided to pass.  At the other table, after my hand opened 1♣ and North overcalled 1♥, South bounced to the heart game.  With both rounded kings onside, 11 tricks were easily scored at both tables.  We were -200 while our teammates were +650, win 10 IMPs.

In the bidding, knowing partner has 6 diamonds, my 4 strong diamonds suggest we have a good non-vulnerable save against their vulnerable game.  We do, since we just lose 1 trick in each suit (-300 vs. -650).  But, no sense in prodding them into game if they are willing to play a partscore.

Similar auctions (but certainly not the same) resulted in the same contract by the same declarer at both tables.  At the other table, the J♦ was led, handing declarer their 9th trick.  In the end, North kept both the ♣Q and ♣10, so when a diamond was led, declarer also scored the ♣J at trick 13 for 10 tricks, -630 for our teammates.  After a club lead, I struggled (more on that later).  I have probably played this hand more than 80 times since Monday afternoon, using DDS – Double Dummy Solver, available for free (donations encouraged – I did) at http://www.bridgecaptain.com/downloadDD.html.  This program shows you, at each hand’s turn to play, the cards that will result in making the contract or which cards will lead to down 1, 2, … or which cards will lead to +1, 2, … overtricks if everyone plays double dummy from that point forward.  Some think using double dummy programs are cheating, but for me, it is a great learning tool.  Variations in the play (what might have happened if the defense did this or declarer did that) are fascinating and eyeopening.

What about the bidding?  All players in the group play a 2NT lebensohl relay after a double of a weak 2 opening bid.  If a bid is freely made at the 3 level, values are shown (typically 8+ HCP).  I judged that I did not have those values – a doubtful ♦Q, so even though I had a 6 card suit, I bid 2NT as a relay to clubs.  The player holding my cards at the other table thought they were too good for 2NT, so they bid a ‘value showing’ 3♣ in response to the double.  Their partner checked for a diamond stopper besides the one (♦A) they held and holding ♦Q93, West was happy to oblige by bidding 3NT.  My partner, dealing with my lebensohl 2NT but holding 7 solid tricks decided taking the relay to 3♣ was too wimpy, so they bid the NT game – I could hold the ♥J and ♠Q – definitely weak values, but those cards would create 9 tricks in NT.  3NT is a pretty good contract (“cold” on any lead – double dummy).  Where there are 8 tricks, there must be 9.

What do you lead against 3NT?  I have found that when your side bids, and the opponents, hearing your bid, go ahead and try 3NT, they are (more often than not) prepared for a lead in your suit and a ‘sneak attack’ lead is indicated.  The sneak attack is any lead other than your suit – here I thought the ♣10 was unlikely to be from ♣Q109 and that North was trying to hit their partner’s suit.  So, I went up with the ♣A at trick 1 and continued clubs with South showing out.  Darn!  Now what?  Plan the play. 

I made a (too) hasty plan that assumed North was 6=4 in the minors and had only 3 major suit cards.  If he, did, all I needed to do was extract those major suit cards and then lead a diamond.  Due to my ♦9, I had a 100% endplay against North after stripping him of his major suit cards (cover whatever South plays).  I was home!  So, I started to eliminate those ‘3’ major suit cards and crossed to the ♥A and then played the ♥ K – at this point, double dummy, it is no longer possible to achieve 9 tricks.

There are a number of ways to make the hand with this precise layout of the cards, but the ‘obvious’ one (duck a spade to ensure I can extract all of North’s major suit cards) becomes more double dummy than you might imagine.  Let’s say after winning the ♣A and ♣K, I lead the ♠2 and duck it.  Seems reasonable, and that is the play that I felt like I needed to have done at the table after the hand was over.  South wins the spade and leads his partner’s diamond suit through my ♦Q and, to make the hand, I must:

1. Win the ♦A (no other card allows 9 tricks)
2. Cash the ♠AK (no other card allows 9 tricks)
3. Lead the ♥3 to Norths singleton ♥J (no other card allows 9 tricks!)
4. North now must allow my ♣J or ♦Q to score a trick and that will be my 9th trick

But, there are other ways to make the hand.  At the table, I led the heart at trick 3 and saw the ♥J.  I could (must) revert to spades, playing 3 rounds (losing control of spades, but extracting all of North’s spades).  If, after winning the ♥A, I duck a spade prior to cashing the ♠AK, I can no longer make the hand.  This is what I was talking about when I said I could learn things from DDS.

My plan (100% certain to make the contract) was the right thinking – but I needed to include in the plan the potential that North was 3=1=5=4 and then find the right timing.  

There are so many variations on the play and defense (more than you can imagine), but they mostly come down to getting North down to all minor suit cards.  I didn’t bother discussing South’s discard at trick 2.  What does South play at trick 2 when they cannot follow to the club lead from dummy?  The actual play was the ♠4, but a heart discard will give declarer much greater problems.  If South discards a heart at trick 2, the only way to now bring in 9 tricks is:

1. Win the ♣K (no other card allows 9 tricks)
2. Lead the ♠2 (no other lead allows 9 tricks)
3. Duck the first or second spade (if you play ♠AK and another spade it does not work)
4. Win the ♦A after South plays a diamond through (no other card allows 9 tricks)
5. Cash the remaining high spade(s) ♠AK (no other card allows 9 tricks)
6. Lead the ♥3 to Norths singleton ♥J (no other card allows 9 tricks!)
7. North now must allow my ♣J or ♦Q to score a trick and that will be my 9th trick

The line of play to make the hand that is closest to ‘not double dummy’ is to win the ♣A and ♣K (noting the discard of a spade), and then lead a heart and notice the ♥J (assume it is a singleton) and then lead ♠A, ♠K and another spade.  That works on this lie of the cards, but this line fails if North had been 2=2=5=4 or 2=1=6=4.  Since I (incorrectly) ‘knew’ they were 2=1=6=4, I never thought about 3=1=5=4.  If South discards a heart on the club at trick 2, only double dummy play can bring it home with this lie of the cards.

You may be getting tired of all of these double dummy plays, but I have just a few more observations, for what they are worth.  To make the hand (double dummy), I did not have to play the ♣A (as table talk/post mortem suspected at the time).  In addition, after choosing to win trick 1 with the ♣A, 12 cards remain in dummy and, with double dummy play, I can lead any one of 11 of them and still score 9 tricks – the only fatal lead at trick 2 is cashing the ♦A (a crazy bad play).  After leading the ♦A, I will be unable to score 9 tricks, double dummy.  Any other card gives me a chance.  Given how complex this layout is, I feel much less embarrassed about failing to bring home my 9 tricks in 3NT.  I congratulate Bob on his sneak attack club lead.

One last epilogue – had North been 2=2=5=4, my play (cashing AK in both majors) works, but ducking a spade at trick 3 does not.  Bridge is a tough game.

Recap Of 5/8/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

May 10th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

Wow – today we had 8 double digit swings.  Not one of them was the standard 10 IMPs which usually come from a non-vulnerable game that was bid/made at one table, down one at the other or else a vulnerable game bid/made at one table, while not bid at the other.  Today, bidding judgment played a big role over and over: bid too much, bid too little, slams, as well as leads, defense, revokes – it was all there.

You can see the difference in bidding judgment on this hand.  Yes, I took a conservative view that worked.  Was that right, in principle?  Hxx and Hxxx ‘points’ are substantially overvalued.  Honors are worth more when they are paired.  I had no points in the suit that partner opened, so at least one of my honors had a potential of not being worth very much.  At least that was my thinking when I did not advance past 2♠.  At the other table, the bidding allowed the South player with my hand to know their partner held 4 trump and an opening hand.  For them, that was enough to bounce to game.  I could have certainly tried a natural 2NT, or possibly a spiral bid (asking about the length of partner’s trumps and the size of their hand), but I wanted to protect the plus score.

As a passed hand, it seems like West could double 1♠ as was done at the other table.  When West heard my pass of 2♠, they had the perfect shape for a balancing reopening double and reason to believe they could compete for the part score.  That left East with a problem – they can’t really pass 2♠X and they have nowhere to play that appeals.  With double dummy play/defense, 2NT, 3♦ and 3♥ all are down 1 (and 3♣ is down 2).  East’s bidding plan was to bid 2NT, and when that got doubled, redouble to say ‘partner, you choose’ but that plan was foiled by partner, who made their own redouble!  So, East had to start bidding 3-card suits up the line.  When 3♣ was doubled, they redoubled and when partner ran to diamonds (the suit that my partner opened!), they decided to quit trying to find a suit and just play 3♦X.

In the play of diamonds, the defense is entitled to 5 tricks on any lead (except the ♦6, which would actually allow the contract to make!).  The defense started with 2 rounds of spades, ruffed by declarer.  Declarer led a diamond to the ♦Q and ♦A and then successfully finessed in hearts and cashed 3 rounds of hearts.  That brings their total to 5 tricks with a certain trump trick yet to come as well as the ♣A.  Declarer led the 13th heart and can score 2 trump tricks and achieve down 1 if they ruff their heart winner, but they discarded a club instead of ruffing up with the ♦10 (which is sure to win, since North had opened diamonds and split their honors when diamonds were led).  So I ruffed the heart and…erred by allowing declarer another spade ruff with a small trump while they still remained with the ♦J and the ♦10x in dummy for another trick.  So, declarer got back to down 1.  But, if I had led a club, declarer has no answer.  Looking at the ♣J7 in dummy, I hated to lead from my ♣Q, but I needed to.  If declarer ducks my club, partner can draw trump.  If declarer wins my club, nothing they lead after that can get more than 1 more trump trick – we have all black winners.  So, the +500 that became available went back to only collecting +200.  Was that dangerous to double a vulnerable part score at IMPs, possibly giving them a game (when they were only down 1)?  I think it was dangerous not to double, but that is just my view.

Meanwhile, the South player with my hand at the other table had trouble finding 10 tricks in spades.  When both red aces lay over our red kings, there really are only 8 tricks possible in spades – a trick in each minor and 6 trump tricks.  I suspect declarer drew 1 too many rounds of trump and, in the end, only found 7 tricks for down 3, so our teammates were +300 to go with our +200 to win 11 IMPs.

This hand was interesting for bidding judgment, play and defense.  Starting with North, as dealer, do they have a suitable opening 2♦ bid, vulnerable against not, with a shoddy suit and a side 4 card major?  The North player at my table decided they did, so they opened 2♦.  I considered 2NT, but was definitely too strong, so I started with a double.  South raised to 3♦ and my partner bid 4♦ asking me to choose a major.  I certainly have (much) more than a minimum takeout double of 2♦ and undoubtedly should have found some bid other than naming my major with a simple 4♠ (perhaps bid 5♠ or even 6♠?).  My partner passed 4♠, but as he put dummy down, he indicated that he too had extra values that he hadn’t shown, so we were both fearful that a slam had been missed.

Meanwhile, at the other table, North did not open the bidding, so East got to open.  Playing 20-21 point 2NT opening bids, does the East hand warrant an upgrade?  K&R Hand Evaluator comes up with 19.55 (round up?) – http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=k754+a5+aj8+ak54

Anyway, East did open 2NT, and the auction proceeded rapidly to slam.  Now to find 12 tricks.  There was no bidding at the other table to warn the declarer about potential foul splits.  This is an excellent slam if trump are 3-2 with 12 easy tricks (5+1+1+5) – no finesses, no problem.  When trump were 4-1, there was a problem.  I think the actual play to score 12 tricks is quite double dummy (if you start by drawing trumps) and not that likely to be found unless declarer has a long time to analyze information as it becomes available and takes considerable time and effort to play the hand.  To score 12 tricks on the actual heart lead, declarer must play only 2 rounds of trump (winning the ♠AQ in dummy) and then score 2 diamond ruffs in dummy by crossing to hand in clubs (but at least 1 round of ‘crossing to hand’ involves leading a high club from dummy and overtaking in order to unblock clubs (assuming they break 2-2) so that the ♣3 can later be led to the ♣4 to draw trump!).  After the last diamond ruff, the small club from dummy leaves North with no answer.  If they ruff, declarer can win any return, draw trump and claim (winning the ♦A and good clubs).  If they don’t ruff, declarer wins the club lead and plays both trumps, eliminating the threat of a club ruff (of course this only works if the ♥K was a singleton, placing north with 4=1=6=2).  With only diamonds left, North must lead to East’s ♦A and their remaining club allows an entry to the established clubs in dummy so that they can pitch their heart loser on the 13th club at the 13th trick.  But, that is not how the play went at either table.

Bruce pointed out an easier plan to make 12 tricks (after reading my first draft).  The plan above assumes that, after winning the heart lead, you play trumps at trick 2 (learning about the 4-1 split).  But, there is zero risk to ruff a diamond at trick 2 and then play ♠AQ.  If trump are 3-2, you can draw trump and claim.  If trump prove to be 4-1, cross to hand in clubs to ruff your last losing diamond.  Cross to hand again in clubs: if North ruffs, hope that North is 4=1=7=1.  If they follow suit, win the club and play 2 more rounds of trump.  They must win and lead diamonds (assuming North started with a singleton heart).  With both losing diamonds ruffed in dummy and the heart discarded on the 13th club, you have 12 tricks.  This line of play (ruff a diamond at trick 2), eliminates the non-obvious requirement to lead a high club as you cross to hand, unblocking clubs so that the ♣3 can lead to the ♣4.

At my table, due to the 2♦ opening bid, South found the ♦Q opening lead (although it made no difference which diamond they chose).  I ruffed and played the ♠AQ.  Since I retained both red aces, I was in great position to get the ‘5+1+1+5 tricks’ mentioned at the start, although not as initially expected (that is, initially I thought 3 top trumps and 1 ruff in each hand, the classic ‘extra trick’ to get 5 tricks out of a 4-4 trump holding).  Instead, I can get 2 diamond ruffs in dummy to go with my 3 top trumps.  So, I crossed to my hand in clubs, ruffed my ♦J, and then crossed again in clubs (if they ruff, my club trick count goes down by 1, but my trump trick count goes up by 1).  Now I should play 2 rounds of trump (giving North their natural trick) and claim.  Only I didn’t – big blind spot (my ‘blind spot’ was based on the usual technique of ‘leave the high trump outstanding so that you still have a trump after they ruff’ – but it doesn’t apply when you have all suits controlled, a suit to run and cannot afford an untimely ruff).  Anyway, I just kept playing clubs.  Now, if North simply ruffs the 4th round of clubs, my 13th club is inaccessible and I only have 11 tricks.  But, North ruffed the 3rd round of clubs and I was back to 12 tricks.  But I wasn’t in slam, so the tricks made no difference.

Let’s move over to the play in the slam.  With no diamond bid from partner, South found the normal lead of the ♥Q which went to the ♥K and ♥A.  As mentioned previously, 12 tricks are available on any lead, but not easily.  Declarer erred by drawing 3 rounds of trump, leaving the high trump outstanding.  They then started playing clubs.  North was down to their high trump and all diamonds.  Since they were counting points (declarer had shown 20-21), they ‘knew’ that, in order to reach 20 HCP declarer had to hold the ♦AQ, so a simple finesse would allow declarer to win 2 diamonds when North is forced to lead a diamond after ruffing a club.  The way to avoid that finesse is to never ruff!  So, they didn’t ruff the 3rd round, 4th round or 5th round of clubs.  They let declarer cash all of their clubs and pitch the heart loser.  If North ruffs any club, both of declarer’s trumps will become tricks, so the defense will only score the high trump and a diamond at the end, down 1.  If declarer did have the ♦Q, there is nothing the defense can do.  Declarer will make 12 tricks when they finesse the diamond after North leads one.  Discarding on all of the clubs allowed declarer to score both of their trumps separately, and the diamond loser that they actually held was doubly lost as it was covered by South’s  ♦Q and ruffed by North’s high trump at trick 13.

So, not the best offense, defense or bidding on this hand.  We were +480 and our teammates were -980, lose 11 IMPs.  6♠ is an excellent slam and we should have gotten there even after the opening weak 2♦.  Making 6♠ is certainly easy after the diamond lead that I got – take 2 diamond ruffs as you draw 2 rounds of trump and then re-enter hand to play 2 more rounds of trump.  With all suits controlled, 12 tricks (5+1+1+5).

The bidding was nearly identical until it came time to call the East hand ‘minimum’ or ‘maximum’.  I judged it ‘maximum’ and my partner quickly ended the bidding with slam.  My counterpart holding my hand at the other table judged ‘minimum’ and his partner reasonably signed off in game.  Which is it?  Min or Max?  Relying on K&R Hand Evaluator, not available at the table, I learn that this hand comes out at 11.85!  While I’m shocked (I thought that with the ♦K supported by the ♦A and with both queens supported by jacks), that the honor combination moved the evaluation closer to 14 than 12.  I have know ‘forever’ that queens are overvalued, and the proper evaluation of this hand will help me evaluate better next time.

Still, we did reach a reasonable slam.  As long as trump aren’t 4-0, there are 12 easy tricks if the heart finesse wins.  If the heart finesse loses there is a chance in clubs (to dispose of your diamond loser).  First the club finesse must win, but also the ♣10 must be doubleton or tripleton so that the ♣9 is established for your diamond discard.  So, the slam is a little better than 50%, which is certainly enough to bid a slam, but with both finesses losing, there was nothing to the play.  Both tables scored 11 tricks, so we were -100, our teammates were -650, lose 13 IMPs.

Epilog – there are lots of flavors of ‘spiral asking bids’.  Some always start with 2NT as the asking bid whether trump is hearts or spades.  There is a ‘Dutch Spiral’ that has gotten a lot of press on Bridgewinners.  With most of my current partners, we are using 2NT as natural (always) and the next higher suit (2♠ over 2♥; 3♣ over 2♠) is the asking bid.  But, in addition to agreeing what the asking bid is, there are a variety of responses out there, so if you decide to play ‘spiral’ it is best to confirm with partner what all of the bids are.  Spiral also works best if you know how to evaluate a hand as min or max which I failed on this occasion!

Identical bidding at both tables to get this auction started.  I don’t like either auction, since, if diamonds are trump, 12 tricks are there on any lead with the club finesse available for all 13 tricks.  The preempt gummed up the works, which preempts are intended to do.  There simply isn’t room for opener to describe a real diamond suit.  At my table, when partner answered key cards to my intended natural/invitational 4NT, I still didn’t know what to do.  They could have been 4=4=3=2 and produced the same auction.  Even though I have a nice hand, my 3♠ bid aleady showed a decent hand and slam will take a perfect fit or extra values that partner could not conveniently show.  Bottom line, we wandered into 6NT and thanks to the power of the ♠10 and ♠9 (and the club finesse), 12 tricks were easily there (3+2+5+2).  The same 12 tricks were there in the 4NT contract, so we were +990 vs. our teammates -490, to win a lucky 11 IMPs.

The hand belongs in a diamond slam.  But I haven’t figured the auction that sensibly gets there, perhaps some readers can help?  Obviously you can just sit there and bid 6♦ like I bid 6NT, but I’m looking for an auction that can knowingly bid 6♦.

When I was 2nd seat, Vulnerable vs. not, I actually considered a 2NT opening (18 HCP plus a point for the 5th and 6th diamond = 20 – perfect!).  Only possessing nothing to stop 9-10 black suit winners convinced me to start with 1♦.  At the other table, North did start (and end) the auction with 2NT.  Who/how does E-W enter the auction after that start???  Now it came down to the lead.  David Bird instructs passive leads into a powerful 2NT opening hand.  Lead Captain didn’t have a lot of differentiation between the different choices – clearly the best lead will depend upon what partner and declarer hold in the various suits and you have no way of knowing.  Lead Captain has 2 ways of expressing the value of a lead: % set (how often the contract goes down with that lead) and # tricks (the average number of tricks that lead will produce for the defense over 5000-10,000 deals).  For IMPs, %set is all that matters (you don’t care how much they go down – well OK, you do a little), but you want to beat the hand.  By the definitions that I inserted into the hands, Lead Captain chose a ♠A (60.3%) as its first choice (allowing a 4 trick set), a small heart (59.6%) as their second choice (giving declarer their 8th trick), and a passive diamond (55.8%) as the third choice (the actual choice that East made at the table).  Declarer won the diamond lead and played another diamond at trick 2.  East, who was thinking about something else, played the ♥2, showing the ♥K.  They then noticed that they still held a diamond to follow suit, so they corrected the revoke, but the ♥2 was on the table.  So, at trick 3, declarer led a heart, East played their ♥2, and declarer had found their 8th trick!  Without the revoke, no line of play can get more than 7 tricks.

Back to the auction at our table.  East had a routine takeout double of my 1♦ opening bid.  Partner made a gentle raise to 2♦ (I doubt that a preemptive raise would have helped keep the opponents out of game – perhaps pass would help?) and West bid 2♠.  With no spade stopper, NT did not appeal for my second bid.  But, it appears we likely have the majority of the HCP (we did), so it felt like I should compete somewhere.  Had I chosen 3♦ we might have been able to defend 3♠.  Instead, I bid 4♦ and West reopened with 4♥ which East corrected to 4♠.  There is no lead or defense that can beat 4♠ and, in fact, amazingly, there is no lead or defense to defeat 5♥ in spite of the defense holding the ♥AQJ10x!  Against 4♠ declarer ruffed the opening diamond lead, drew 3 rounds of trump, crossed to the ♣K and drew the last trump and then ran clubs for their 10 tricks.  That left us -420 while our teammates were -120 to lose 11 IMPs.  We are still losing 8 IMPs even if they beat 2NT a trick (and losing 1 IMP even if the beat 2NT 4 tricks!), but, with 2NT down 1, at least this hand would not have made an appearance in the blog!  Against 2NT, the ♠A is an incredibly effective lead on this deal, but it can sure quickly give declarer a trick and a tempo on many other hands.  What a hand.

Another wild hand.  As dealer what should East open, nobody vulnerable?  One table decided to start the auction at 4♥ and it ended there.  At my table, partner started low.  As you can see, partner hoped that his best chance for a plus was using his clubs and hearts and my spades to prevent 9 tricks in NT, so when the opponents reached 3NT, he passed.  It turns out competing further to 4♥ would have worked better, since there are always 9 tricks in NT for N-S and always 10 tricks in hearts E-W (since clubs split 3-3).  Nothing to the leads, play or defense here at either table, it was all in the bidding judgment.  We were -400 and our teammates were -420, lose 13 IMPs.

But, going slowly might have worked – if East bids 4♥ over 3NT and can buy it for 4♥ (and not have the opponents compete to 5♦).  The opponents might think that, having contracted for 9 tricks in NT that it is more likely to score 4 tricks against the 4♥ contract than 11 tricks in diamonds.  At the other table, going fast might have failed.  North, who appeared to have substantial defense against 4♥, did not feel like contracting for 11 tricks in 5♦ (turn a probably plus into a probably minus).  Had North balanced with 5♦, East has to find the improbable lead of three rounds of their ♣KQxx suit instead of starting with their ♥KQJxxxx suit, or else the diamond game will come home.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I would find a club lead if I were East defending against 5♦.  But, I must say it is hard to get to 5♦, either the slow way (after first trying for the 9 trick NT contract and then bidding 5♦ over the opponents 4♥) or the fast way (balancing over the 4♥ opening bid).

Should North balance over 4♥?  Should East open 4♥?  Bob Richardson, author of Lead Captain, is working on a program called ‘Bid Captain’ – so here is a data point to add to the program.  Would Bid Captain balance with 5♦ after the 4♥ opening bid, or pass and go for a defeat of 4♥?

Another slam decision.  The auction started normally enough at both tables and West had to find a bid over the 2♥ reverse.  Often I will show my 5th card in my major, but that is not played as game forcing, so I chose to bid 3♣ which is game forcing and let’s partner know about the fit (do you and partner have an agreement about what forces to game after a reverse?  you should).  If partner has 3 spades to go with his 4 hearts and 5 or more clubs, I will hear about it next round.  When partner next bid 3NT, it virtually guaranteed that he was 1=4=3=5 with the ♦K.  So, playing in clubs, we have no heart losers, no diamond losers, but very likely a spade loser and the issue is how many of partner’s points are concentrated in clubs (to ensure no club loser) and how many points are wasted/useless in hearts.  Perhaps I should pull 3NT to 4♣ which should be key card for clubs.  But, I still won’t really know if one key card being shown by partner is the ♥A or the ♣K!?!  With the ♣AKQ, the club slam could be cold, or at least playable.  Missing any one of those (assuming a spade loser) and the slam will be dicey or hopeless.  On top of that, the ♣10 could be a critical card.  So, I decided to go quietly.  After the ♠Q lead, 11 tricks were straightforward in our 3NT contract.

At the other table, the player holding my hand had an answer for responding to the reverse – bid 6♣!  It could have worked if partner had the right cards.  He didn’t have the right cards.  In fact, if the defenders clubs were switched, there would have been 2 club losers to go with the spade loser and you can’t even make 5♣.  Slams pay well when they come home, but we were +660 while our teammates were +100 to win 13 IMPs.

Without the 2nd seat preempt, the auction at the other table was quite straightforward (as you can see from the auction listed second).  With both vulnerable, I was in second seat after South opened 1♦.  I certainly didn’t like the broken heart suit, and it was possible I would go for a large number, but bridge is a bidder’s game, so I entered the auction with 2♥.  North has an easy 1♠ response if West passes or bids 1♥, but 2♠ over 2♥ shows more values than this, and perhaps he will get another chance to bid, so North was forced to pass at their first turn.  When 3♥ came around to North, they balanced with 3♠.  South, who had had a 2NT rebid that they never got to show, decided that their spade fillers (and the potential for 3 heart stoppers) would allow NT to play better than spades, so they bid 3NT.  Playing NT, there won’t be a heart lead through their tenace, but in 4♠ the heart lead is coming right through the ♥AQ10.  My partner, perhaps expecting more for my vulnerable 2♥ call, elected to double 3NT!?!?  Wow.  We are in trouble.  If the opponents now run to 4♠ we have no defense and we are going -790.  But both North and South decided to sit for 3NTX.  As long as I don’t lead a heart against 3NT, declarer will be held to 7 tricks.  My actual spade lead was won with the ♠K and I won the heart shift with the ♥J.  At this point I can surrender club tricks or diamond tricks, but as long as I don’t lead hearts, declarer will only have 7 tricks.  I chose clubs (declarer did bid diamonds and I have help in clubs if partner has any values there).  That gave declarer the whole club suit for 4 tricks, but he can only manage 1 in each of the other three suits, so only 7 tricks for declarer.  We were +500 while our teammates were +620 in their unbeatable 4♠ contract to win 15 IMPs. 

Had partner not doubled, we would ‘only’ win 13 IMPs.  But, the double had the chance to lose 5 IMPs (net loss of 18-20 IMPs) if the opponents ran to 4♠ and we doubled that.  Although doubles can pay handsomely… warning: do not double if the opponents can run to a making contract – just sit and take your known sure plus.

Recap Of 4/8/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

April 9th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Today we had 4 double digit swings – 2 slam hands and the other 2 varied bidding decisions.

Most people who play both Texas and Jacoby transfers over 1NT opening bids use those tools to describe various hands with 5 or 6 card majors.  Typically, if all you want to do is play 4♥, you need to bid (Texas transfer) 4♦ and pass when partner accepts the transfer by bidding 4♥.   But, if you want to invite slam with a 6 card suit, you can start with (Jacoby transfer) 2♦ and when partner accepts the transfer by bidding 2♥, you can bid 4♥ showing a slam invitational hand with 6 trump.

Another way to invite slam with a suit that is only 5 long is to first use Jacoby transfer and then bid 4NT (4 NT is NOT key card, but a quantitative raise showing slam invitational values that includes a major suit that is only 5 long).

Here, North had a suit that was 6 long and wanted to invite slam – but they have a problem.  Partner has at most 1 ace and may not be encouraged to move beyond game.  At the other table the opponents, who were holding our cards, did start with a Jacoby transfer and then invited slam with a raise of 2♥ to 4♥, but they played it there when the invitation was declined.

At my table, partner decided to bid (Texas transfer) 4♦ which got doubled.  My system notes with most partners discuss “if a Jacoby transfer is doubled”…but, looking at my notes, the notes don’t cover “what if a Texas transfer is doubled?”  I think the same principle should apply.  That is, if the Jacoby (or Texas) transfer is doubled, you accept the transfer as long as you know you will have 8 trump and you DO NOT HAVE two fast losers in the suit that was doubled (here, that means you hold the ♦A or ♦K).  Partner can always redouble to re-transfer, but meanwhile partner can know if you are exposed (or not) in the suit that was doubled.  After I bid 4♥ my partner bid 4♠.  OK, what does that mean?  We had some table talk (perhaps it is exclusion key card showing a spade void; perhaps it is kickback asking key cards via 4♠ rather than 4NT; perhaps it is a cue bid checking on a club control?), but eventually we decided it wasn’t really fair to ask – if partner chooses to make a murky undefined bid, do your best to figure it out).  So, I did the best I could by bidding 5♣.  It was my longest strongest suit, it might show partner a club control, and it also answered 1 key card in case partner was playing 0314 key card with his 4♠ bid!  So, however partner took my bid (and however he intended his bid), I had it!  Partner assumed that I would not have accepted the transfer (after 4♦ was doubled) unless I had some interest in hearts – I could always wait and let him bid 4♥ or redouble to re-transfer.  So, he decided to just bid the slam over my .  After the diamond lead, it was all over when trump were 3-2, since a diamond winner allowed me to get rid of the spade loser in dummy.

Doubles to help partner on the opening lead can be very good.  Here East had nothing in any suit but diamonds and feared partner might blow a trick if they led a non-diamond on opening lead, so they doubled.  If West leads a spade, things are a bit more touchy.  If clubs don’t set up, you can always fall back on a diamond finesse.  Declarer will always arrive at 12 tricks with this friendly layout.  So, we were +980 vs. teammates at -480 to win 11 IMPs.

Here I was playing with a semi-regular partner where, after my strong 1NT opening bid, 2♣ could be a Stayman start to an invitational sequence heading towards 2NT with or without a 4 card major; 3♣ would be game forcing puppet Stayman which would allow us to find a 5-3 spade fit or a 4-4 heart fit.  But, partner elected to make an aggressive 3NT call (9 tricks might be easier than 10) and we played it there.  Lucky.  At the other table, they deployed Stayman, found the 4-4 fit in hearts and wound up with 7 tricks, down 3, +300 for our teammates.  Double Dummy there are 9 tricks available to declarer in hearts, but the poor split and some unlucky guesses only produced 7 tricks.

Playing 3NT, I had to find a way to win 9 tricks after the opening lead of the ♠K.  I ducked, of course, and North decided that the ♠8 played by South would make a spade continuation safe, so at trick 2 they led a small spade to the ♠J and ♠A.  I continued spades at trick 3, establishing my second spade trick – I was going for 2+2+2+3.  I had five top tricks in the minors (with a possible 3rd trick in diamonds), and with that start, I was up to two spade tricks.  If I could find either the ♥Q or the ♥10 with my RHO, I would be able to force 2 heart tricks.  When North won the ♠Q at trick 4, they led a heart.  The club and diamond suits did not look appealing to North at the start, and after seeing dummy and seeing the first 2 tricks, the minors still didn’t look appealing.  As it turns out, double dummy, no defense can defeat 3NT. 

So, at trick 4, when I captured the ♥10 with the ♥K, I had the power to keep leading hearts, losing 2 more tricks in hearts, but winning a second heart and get me to 9 tricks.  The vulnerable game scored +600, so we won 14 IMPs.

I don’t think I would have bounced to the 3NT game if I had held partner’s (West’s) hand.  It can be useful to check on major suit fits.  But, bidding 3NT sure worked for this hand.

The bidding started with the same three bids at both tables, but with the favorable vulnerability, my partner decided to push them level higher by immediately bouncing to 5♣.  West had some texture to their long heart suit and wasn’t sure how long/strong partner’s spade suit would be.  As it turns out, there is no defense to stop 11 tricks in spades, but the 5-0 split in hearts left declarer with only 10 tricks at both tables, losing the 2 red aces plus another heart trick.  That mean down 1 for us, +100 to go with +620 for our teammates, win 12 IMPs.

Once again, there was nothing to the play, it was all in the bidding.  Several lessons are available from the bidding.  Preempts work – they create problems and make the opponents guess.  Sometimes it is best to take the plus score that has been offered (5♣X would likely have scored +500) rather than risk a speculative bid at the 5 level (“The 5 level belongs to the opponents”?).  Arriving at a 5♠ contract was barely possible, but highly unlikely…unless South got greedy and doubled the 5♥ contract!  The extra 100 points gains 1 IMP, but if your double causes them to run to 5♠, the 12 IMPs you were winning by defending 4♥ without a double just became a 1 IMP loss.  There aren’t too many rules in bridge that have the words “always” or “never,” but I think it is safe to say “never double the opponents in a contract where they will fail if it is possible for them to run to a higher level contract that will succeed.”  You will turn a small (or even possibly large) win into a loss – this is losing bridge (and you might lose a partner along with it).

Another ‘lesson’ from the bidding revolves around the spade suit and Uvs.U.  Most players play that a 2NT overcall of an opening bid shows 2 suits (some always the minors, some the two lowest unbid).  On this hand, 2NT (known as “Unusual NT” bid at both tables) was clearly showing clubs and diamonds.  The side that opened the bidding can use the two known suits (♣+♦) shown by the opponents to create some useful bids for their side to show the other two suits (♥+♠).  This is known as “Unusual vs. Unusual” aka Uvs.U.  But, as is often the case, there is reasonable ground for reasonable agreements (disagreements) over what various choices mean, so be sure to discuss this with your partner.  When the two suits known to be held by the opponents are clubs and diamonds, some people play that cue bidding the lower suit (clubs) always shows a limit raise in partner’s suit while others play that cue bidding the lower suit always shows the lower suit (hearts).    Here, since West opened hearts, both ‘agreements’ would have the same meaning.  What about the 4th suit – spades?  There are two ways to show spades – one by bidding 3♠ and one by bidding 3♦.  Which is stronger?  Here again, there are different agreements, so you must discuss and agree with partner.  Some play that one bid is “less than invitational” and the other bid is “invitational or better.”  The ‘common’ understanding, used at both tables, was that 3♠ would be strong and game forcing, while 3♦ would show spades with invitational values.  I think this hand is about as close to prototypical that you could get for an invitational spade hand.  A suit that is 6 long, 10 HCP, doubleton support for partner’s initial heart bid.  Perfect. 

So, why didn’t E-W arrive in 5♠ that makes instead of 5♥ that did not make?  Well, the N-S bidding does not offer any clue into which suit is breaking 5-0!?!?! Very unlucky for E-W.  Had the hearts been 4-1, a ruff would likely beat 5♠ but you can score 11 tricks in hearts (by finessing for the ♥10).  But when the opponents have modest values and compete for a high level contract, it is often because they have some distributional values to make up for their lack of HCP.  So, beware – bad breaks will be lurking (if North is 5=5 in the minors as advertised, it is not possible for both majors to break 3-2 – it simply can’t happen).  Rather than guess, just double and collect what you can.

Here again, the first 3 bids were the same, but my partner’s second bid showed his second suit.  It was easy to raise diamonds (although I considered bidding 3♥ and supporting with the singleton ♥Q).  Usually honor doubleton is expected when you provide delayed support to a known 5 card suit.  Anyway, partner proceeded with key card and soon we were in the diamond slam.  It was easy to score 12 tricks – the hearts were so strong that it was not necessary for the ♣A to be onside as long as trumps broke 3-2 (2+5+5+0).  Fits that are 4-4 usually produce a 5th trick via a ruff in each hand – sometimes even a 6th or 7th trick can be scored with extra ruffing.  After the actual club lead, declarer won trick 2 with the ♣K and simply needed to draw trump and claim the balance of the tricks, scoring +1370.

The other table stopped in a safe 3NT contract.  When the ♣3 was led, North inserted the ♣9 which was won by the ♣K.  Declarer ran their red suit winners and, uncertain about the club situation, South abandoned spades and declarer was able to score all 13 tricks.  Still -720 for our teammates along with +1370 for our diamond slam allowed us to score 12 IMPs.

What about the bidding?  Certainly a lot of players, for purposes of opening bids, are treating many hands that are 5-4-2-2 as balanced and opening 1NT when they are in range in terms of HCP.  But, that is for opening bid purposes.  Also, in the second round of bidding in game forcing auctions, jumps in NT should show extras (“not fast arrival”) so that a 2NT rebid by responder (who already made a 2/1 game forcing bid) should show a minimum (13-14 HCP) so that a jump to 3NT would show 15-17 HCP.  With more than 17 HCP, you can start with 2NT, but then you must bid again after partner raises to 3NT.  Here with 17 (plus the strong 5 card suit upgrading to 18), if they are going to rebid NT, East probably should either jump at their second bid or else bid further after partner raises to 3NT, depending on how they evaluate their hand.  East chose the 2NT bid in order to become declarer and protect the ♣K on the opening lead.  But, in the end, West, who had opened the bidding, never knew that East had extra values nor that they had a second suit in diamonds.  Right siding the contract can be a useful tool in constructing the auction/making your bidding choices.  But, here, if partner raises 2NT to 3NT, with extra values and an awkward auction, what should you bid?  What would a 4♦ bid show?  I think just bidding naturally (3♦) for East’s rebid was easiest, best and certainly worked well on this hand.  The diamond slam is far superior to NT or hearts (even though they all make on this hand).  In diamonds, if trump are 3-2 (67.8% of the time), you can reach 12 tricks without the ♣A onside.  In both hearts and NT, you cannot reach 12 tricks without finding the ♣A onside.  Well, in hearts, you have one slim extra chance: with trump 4-3 and spades 3-3, you can ruff spades good for club discards.

In an email exchange with Jerry (who was East and bid 2NT), I learned that, in his regular partnerships, he plays 3NT as the weak hand (minimum game hand, a type of “fast arrival” treatment that I have never heard of) and uses 2NT for all ‘extra value’ hands.  If his partner knew this, he could have offered his 4 card diamond suit at the 3 level and perhaps proceeded to slam – who knows?  As it was, West was minimum with a little help everywhere and simply raised 2NT to 3NT ending the auction.

So, on all of the hands, bidding determined the result.  Lead, defense and declarer play had little impact on the final IMP result.  And all 4 swings went my way, although in each case it was my partner’s decision that created the good result (not mine).  

• Board 6 – moving past 4♥ 
• Board 10 – bidding 3NT and not checking on the majors
• Board 16 – taking the save in 5♣ and making the opponents guess at the 5 level
• Board 19 – bidding their second suit propelling us into the excellent diamond slam

Recap Of 4/3/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

April 4th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Today’s game only had 2 double digit swings (with a fair number of opportunities that failed to materialize).  Both were slam hands – see how you might bid these with your favorite partner/systems.

Diamond preempts over 1♣ opening bids are notorious for creating problems for the responding hand.  Although I had numerous comments in the bidding diagram, I will spend a bit of time on the struggles at both tables.

At my table, my partner bid (only) 2♦ and the opponents ended up in a confused auction that eventually landed in the hopeless (as the cards lie) 7♥ grand slam.  Many people play that a negative double after an auction that starts 1♣-(1♦)-X shows exactly 4=4 in both majors, but some play it shows at least 4 in each major with possibly more.  However, 1♣-(2/3♦)-X is different.  West doesn’t have the luxury of confining the specific meaning of the negative double to guaranteeing that they are 4 long in each major – the double shows values which will usually include at least 4 cards in at least 1 major, but partner doesn’t always know precisely what you hold.  For me, I would use the negative double with both auctions, even though West only held 3=4 in the major suits.  At my table, over 2♦, West elected to freely bid their heart suit even though it was only 4 long.  East cue bid 3♦ showing a strong hand and, at least temporarily asking for a diamond stopper.  West denied the diamond stopper and stalled with a 3♠ bid (interpreted by West as a hand that was 4=5 in the majors.  So, East launched into Key Card for hearts.  Upon hearing that partner had the two missing aces as well as the ♥Q, East checked on kings via 5NT (advising partner that all key cards were held) hoping that there might be a grand slam and…West ‘signed off’ in 6NT!  East was wrong when he decided 12 tricks would not be possible in NT, and when he tried to put partner in 7♥, they were not able to find 13 tricks playing in hearts.  The hands were too flat, too balanced (however a 3-2 trump split and a 3-3 spade split and a club finesse would have been enough to find 13 tricks in hearts- but it was not to be).