Recap Of 2/4/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

February 6th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Across all of the hands, we had record low scoring in the Monday game, and only 2 boards achieved a double digit swing.  Many other boards afforded missed opportunities, but I will only report on the two where the big swings actually happened.  One was all about bidding while the other was all about defense.

Here, essentially the same bidding resulted in the same contract and the same lead at both tables.  Declarer needs to find 9 tricks, the defense needs to find 5 tricks after the opening ♥Q lead against 3NT.  Clearly if declarer could see the singleton ♠K and the doubleton ♦J, there would be no problems in the play…simply win 5+1+3+1 for 10 tricks.  But, not knowing how those suits are distributed…

At my table, declarer ducked my ♥Q lead and I continued the suit in spite of declarer’s play of the ♥10 (suggesting that he still held the ♥AJ over partner’s ♥K).  There was no suit that was appealing for a shift, none that I wanted to break for declarer and perhaps the ♥10 was a false card?  Naturally declarer won trick 2 with the ♥A and floated the ♠Q, losing to the ♠K.  Now, a heart continuation would establish the heart suit.  But to what avail?  With no obvious entry, the established hearts would wither on the vine.  North (my partner, Jerry) made the excellent decision to switch to clubs and chose the ♣10.  I like that play a lot.  It caters to declarer having a minor suit holding of ♦AKx(x) and ♣Kxx(x) as well as the actual minor suit holding that declarer did hold.  Note that simply leading a small club might work poorly when declarer ducks (but, as the cards were distributed on this deal, a small club can produce 2 club tricks for the defense just as well as the ♣10 did).  When partner chose to lead clubs, the defense already had 2 tricks and needed 3 more.  By leading the ♣10, we might achieve 3 club tricks immediately, or perhaps 2 clubs and a diamond before declarer can find 9 tricks.  We did not have heart tricks coming, so looking for tricks elsewhere was a wise move.  The ♣10 was covered by the ♣J, so I won the ♣K and continued with the ♣9.  Declarer could save a trick by ducking the ♣9 and severing our communication in clubs, but he couldn’t be clear who had what – ducking would assure defeat since declarer still had to lose the ♦A before they could score any diamond tricks.  In any case, declarer won the ♣A and cashed spade winners, but when diamonds were led to the ♦K, I could win the ♦A and lead to partner’s long clubs to give the defense 6 tricks (1+1+1+3) for down 2.

At the other table, declarer won the first trick with the ♥A and finessed spades at trick 2, losing to the ♠K.  North cleared hearts (cashed the ♥K and led another).  So, the heart suit was established, but with no certain entry in the North hand, it did no good for the defense.  Declarer won the 3rd heart lead (throwing a club from dummy while South discarded a diamond).  Then declarer cashed 4 more spade tricks.  North had to find 4 discards and chose to part with a club and all 3 of their remaining hearts.  Declarer pitched 2 clubs and South pitched a diamond.  Now declarer led a small diamond from dummy, North playing the ♦9, declarer the ♦K, won by South’s ♦A.  South then exited a diamond  providing declarer with a 100% line of play – simply play small.  If South has the ♦J, the finesse will win and there are 9 tricks (4+2+2+1).   If North has the ♦J, the finesse will lose, but that will only be the 4th trick for the defense and there are no hearts to cash.  So, the defense is limited to 4 tricks (1+1+2+0) and declarer still has a diamond in hand to lead to the 2 established diamond tricks in the dummy.  With the defensive club shift found by my partner, declarer never had a chance for 9 tricks.  With the sequence of plays by the defense against my teammate, 9 tricks were assured.  So, our teammates were +600, making 3NT to go with our +200 to win 13 IMPs.

What about the bidding?  For starters, it is good to have a mutual understanding about Stayman – that is, make sure that whatever partner thinks and what you think match.  After the auction goes (2♥)-2NT-(P), some play that 3♣ is Stayman, some play the cue bid (3♥) is Stayman, and some play that the transfer into the opponents suit (3♦) is Stayman.  Amazing: 3 possible Stayman bids – 3♣, 3♦, 3♥!!!  But only one of those actually is Stayman – there is no right/wrong answer, just be sure you and partner agree.  And how do you show 5 spades with Jacoby (vs. 4 spades with Stayman)?  Some play a normal transfer (3♥) and some play transfer through the opponents suit (3♦) to show spades.  Assuming partner showed 5 spades, what is declarer to do?  There are two schools of thought: 1) if you have 3+ spades, the partnership has 8+ major suit fit, bid the spade game; 2) use judgment, sometimes bidding 3NT in spite of holding as many as 3 spades.  On this hand, there is reason to fear that your nearly certain 2nd heart trick (due to the power of ♥AJT) could be ruffed away (and that fear is validated with the card layout on this hand).  Plus 3NT requires 9 tricks instead of 10.  Plus the East hand is 4-3-3-3 with a stopper in every suit with minimum values, so 3NT might offer as good or better play for game compared to 4♠.  Bottom line, every hand is different (using this hand as an example is a poor basis for a long term plan) – 4♠ might work better sometimes, 3NT other times.  With a heart lead (as expected) and the ♠K onside (as expected), there are 9 easy tricks in NT on this hand, but 10 tricks in spades will be challenging.  I don’t think there is a clear cut right answer.  Do you?

What about the play – win trick 1 or duck?  My preference is to duck, because you need 2 heart tricks.  Ducking trick 1 all but guarantees your 2 tricks (you can lead later to the ♥J when you choose to).  If you win trick 1, your 2 heart tricks are still possible.  But, you’ve lost control of the suit.  Sometime they must be led again to establish your trick, but at that point you have no hearts left in dummy to lead to declarer’s hand to enjoy that trick.  So, some other entry must be found.  You have 1 sure entry (the ♣A), but you may not want to use it for that.  Communication can be awkward, and ducking trick 1 simplifies getting your 2 heart tricks.

What about defensive options?  Clearly the club shift at my table doomed declarer.  But at the other table, as spades are cashed, if North discards 1 heart and 3 clubs, keeping 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and a club, declarer has to have his guessing shoes on.  He can no longer enjoy a 100% play of finessing for the ♦J (after South won the ♦A and continued diamonds).  If he is wrong, he is down.  Furthermore, with the actual discards that North made at the table, if South plays a club after winning the ♦A, declarer once more is faced with a guess in diamonds.  After winning the ♣A, declarer is down to 1 remaining (losing) club and 2 diamonds.  Dummy is down to all diamonds.  If he guesses wrong in diamonds, the defense will reach 5-6 tricks depending on how he guessed and how the remaining clubs/diamonds are divided. Declarer can reach 8 tricks, but never 9 if they guess diamonds wrong.

This hand was all about bidding with very little to the play.  Both tables reached a minor suit game, one in the 5-3 diamond fit and one in the 4-3 club fit.  In diamonds, declarer can draw 2 rounds of trump and then play 3 rounds of hearts, ruffing in dummy.  If hearts are 3-3, no problem.  If hearts are 4-2 and the hand that is short in hearts is also short in diamonds (it was), the hearts are ruffed good and you can return to hand, draw trump and wrap up 12 tricks, losing a club at the end.  That is what happened at my table.  Our teammates were playing the weaker club fit.  The short hand is able to ruff the opening spade lead, but eventually declarer lost control and lost 2 clubs and 2 spades for down 2.  So, we were -420 while our teammates were -100, lose 11 IMPs.

South has a really strong 3 loser hand.  How should they proceed?  Michaels showed 2 suits initially and proved to be an effective bidding tool.  Even though 6♦ is cold, slam is not especially good (looking at the North-South cards), but the 5♦ game in diamonds is quite good.  Very strong 1 suited hands are often bid effectively by starting with a double and then showing your suit.  Partnership understanding is important as to HOW strong of a hand does that bidding show (I play that it is quite strong, others less so).  However, it is difficult to construct auctions that allow you to double and show 2 suits.  The cue bid (3♠) used at both tables is often considered ‘Western’ in these types of auction, stating that the values are there for possibly scoring 9 tricks if partner can produce a spade stopper.  Sometimes the cue bid is merely forcing, showing strength and ‘tell me more.’  Here it is hard for North to visualize the shape and strength of the South hand.  They are reluctant to introduce a second ‘suit’ that is only 3 long.  Double asked partner to bid their best suit and they did.  The cue bid forced another bid from partner and they simply repeated their clubs as the only suit they held.  It is certainly frustrating to have such a strong hand and arrive in a hopeless contract, but my opinion is that starting with Michaels is a more promising way to get this monster off your chest.  Yes, you do have at least 3 card support for all unbid suits, but your red suits are WAY stronger than your clubs.  What do you think?

Recap Of 1/14/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

January 16th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  7 Comments 

Six hands provided double digit swings in play on Wednesday including slam swings on 4 of the 6.  Between the two tables of play, there were also 5 more slams bid that were essentially push boards and not reported below.  Quite a lot of action throughout the day.  Of course bidding differences were involved in many swings, but leads, defense and declarer play were consistently playing a significant role in the final result.

In the first hand for today, some bidding issues arose that are worth discussing with your partner.  At my table, the North hand simply did the math: if partner has 25-27 HCP and I have 8 HCP, then we have at least 33 HCP combined, the classic requirement for slam, so they raised 3NT to 6NT.  At the other table, North initiated an exploration to find a 4-4 fit in a major and bid 4♣ intended (and received) as Stayman.  The 4♥ response was not the major they hoped for, and it was unclear how to proceed.  Would 5NT now be ‘Grand Slam Force (GSF)’ advising partner to proceed to 7♥ if they hold 2 of the top 3 honors in hearts?  Looking at their hand (♥AKQJ), South should be able to see that that cannot be what partner intends by their 5NT call.  However, North doesn’t know what hearts South holds.  What North wants to do is force slam, with a choice of 6NT or 6♠ contracts.  5NT perhaps should be that.  It certainly could be that.  But since North was unclear what bid would make partner choose (between 6♠ and 6NT), they decided to end the auction with 6NT, the same contract that was reached at the other table.  Stayman at a lower level would have simplified the auction (Kokish anyone? – although that still may not solve the problem).  When the auction begins with 1NT, there are many standard tools dealing with a “choice of game” (do we want to play 3NT or 4 of a major?).  Everyone knows if partner asks for a major, hears one, then jumps to 3NT, they were ‘obviously’ interested in the other major.  So, when the NT bidder holds both, they remove 3NT to 4 of the other major.  Here, the bidding tools with unfamiliar partnerships were not sufficiently refined.  With spades and diamonds behaving, 13 tricks (via 2 diamond ruffs in the South hand) are easy in a spade contract.  Bottom line, be sure you and partner know/agree as to the meaning of 4♣ after an auction that starts out 2♣-2♦-3NT (Gerber or Stayman?).   Also, have an agreement about the meaning of 5NT (GSF or ‘pick a slam’).  Through the years, most experts have evolved to where 5NT is almost always ‘pick a slam’ – that meaning comes up much more frequently and provides much greater utility.  Still, if partner is not on the same page, 5NT can be a very dangerous bid!

Now, on to the play/defense – both declarers were trying to find 12 tricks in 6NT.  The opening lead is automatic – you have a nice safe diamond honor sequence to lead.  Declarer plays small, and I…well, I think I should have taken more time before playing to this trick.  I owe partner a count card.  Trying to not tank forever, I played the (upside down count card) ♦7.  In the moment, I thought, even if unlikely, the ♦9 might be useful, so I will save it.  The lead of the ♦Q is almost certainly ♦QJ10, otherwise it could be too dangerous.  If partner holds ♦QJ10, my ♦9 has no use, so I should play it to make my count clear to partner.  If, unlikely, partner found the ♦Q lead from ♦QJ5 and declarer held ♦K108, my play of the ♦9 would provide a finesse for declarer to bring in the whole diamond suit for 4 winners and no losers.  But, in that situation, playing the ♦7 would possibly have the same effect, since, if I win a trick, I will then lead the ♦9.  All of that is extremely unlikely, but I didn’t work that out at the time and played the  ♦7.  You will soon see why that was significant.

Where is declarer going to find 12 tricks?  This hand has 11 top cashing tricks: 4+4+2+1 with virtually no chance for a 12th trick except for the ♣K on side (in the West hand).  Lead small to the ♣Q and hope.  At trick 2, that is what declarer did, and I won my ♣K.  When I led the ♦9 to trick 3, partner doesn’t know if my trick one play of the ♦7 was from the ♦97 or ♦976!?!  Of course declarer won the ♦A and cashed their 8 major suit winners, ending in dummy with a small diamond and small club remaining in dummy.  When the last spade was cashed at trick 11, partner was holding ♦J and ♣J10 and had to make a discard.  Who holds the ♦6?  If declarer started with 4=4=3=2, partner had to save their diamond.  If declarer was 4=4=2=3, partner had to toss their diamond, knowing I could beat the lowly ♦4 remaining in dummy!  When partner selected a club discard, declarer had found their 12 tricks out of thin air.  We were -990 while our teammates were -50, lose 14 IMPs.

I wish I had played my ♦9!  Meanwhile North-South wish they had found the auction to arrive in 6♠.

The same auction was used at both tables to arrive in 3NT.  Nearly all pairs would reach 3NT if this hand were played hundreds of times.  My partner chose to lead the unbid major (♠9) to attempt to locate our source of tricks.  My preference when leading from length without strength is second best (here, the ♠5).  I have two reasons for this preference.  First, it is possible, on a different layout, that the ♠9 could eventually be established as a power trick.  Second, partner knows, for certain, when a 9 is led, that partner’s suit will be 1, 2 or 3 long – never more.  It can help count the hand.  This is another understanding worth having with partner (but it made no difference on this hand).  After the spade lead, declarer simply needed to knock out 2 aces and claim their 11 tricks.  When I ducked trick 1, declarer won and led a heart.  When that won, they crossed to the ♣A and led another heart.  Partner’s doubleton ♥A won that and on the spade continuation, the defense was done.  Declarer had 3+4+2+2 for 11 tricks without a club finesse. 

At the other table, holding an entry and a 5 card suit, West made the opening lead of the ♦5, traditional 4th from longest and strongest.  This gave declarer a greater challenge. 

There are several ways to attack the hand, looking for 9 tricks.  Plan A: he could win the diamond in hand (preserving the crucial diamond entry if needed to reach the established hearts) and lead a heart towards the strength.  When that wins, cross to hand with the ♣A and lead another heart.  When West’s ♥A appears, it allows dummy to win 4 hearts to go with 2 each in clubs and diamonds.  Still when diamonds are continued after winning the ♥A, diamonds are established for the defense, so there is no time to go after spade tricks.  Declarer must take the club finesse.  When the ♣Q turns out to be on side, they have 10 tricks instead of the 11 won at my table.

Plan B: duck the opening diamond lead in both hands, winning trick 2 in dummy with the ♦A.  Ducking the first trick is rather standard technique when holding 5 cards including the A and K.  If the major suit aces are split, and if diamonds are 5-3, and if you guess which major suit ace is held by the long diamond hand, you can lock that hand out by ducking early.  After winning the ♦A, you could lead a club to the ♣A and a heart towards dummy.  If that wins, it seems best (Plan B1) to switch to a club finesse.  By ducking the diamond at trick 1 and the opponents ducking the heart, the heart suit is currently without an entry.  On this hand, if you do lead the ♣J at this point, you will both find the ♣Q and gain an entry back to hearts.  So, upon winning a club in hand, you can lead hearts again.  When the ♥A goes on air, the hearts are good and you only lose the diamond you ducked and 2 major suit aces, 10 tricks total.  What if the club finesse loses?  It is still possible to find 9 tricks, but only if both missing aces are with the short diamonds.  You will lose a trick in each suit, but score 2+2+2+3.  An alternative (Plan B2) would be to next try spades after winning the first heart lead in dummy.  Assuming they duck and your ♠K wins, lead another heart.  The doubleton ♥A must win the second lead of hearts, and they will stick you back in your hand with your ♦K.   You now have no real choice except to play clubs surrendering a trick to the ♣Q.  But, when that hand is out of diamonds, you only lose a trick in each suit and score 9 tricks for 3NT bid and made.  What about Plan B2: duck a diamond, win the ♦A, lead a spade?  This could work if diamonds are 5-3 and the ♠A had been with the long diamonds, but if they duck their ♠A, now what?  Lead a heart, winning in dummy, and lead another spade?  Now they might win that with the ♠A (again, assuming West had the long diamonds and the ♠A) and lead spades, getting the defense up to possibly 2 spade tricks and a possible trick in every other suit.  So, if allowed to win a spade and win a heart, it must be time to try the club finesse.  When that wins, a spade can force your 9th trick:  2+1+2+4.

What about Plan C:  at the other table, my  teammate/declarer won the opening diamond lead in hand with the ♦K (preserving the ♦A in dummy as an entry to hearts, but leaving the opponents with communication when diamonds were divided 5-3).  At trick 2, they led a heart to dummy, but when dummy won the high heart, declarer continued with a second high heart from dummy, hoping for hearts to be 3-3 or the ♥10 doubleton.  But, if that were the case, that would still be the case if they had bothered to first lead a club to the ♣A and then another heart up.  That sequence of plays would add the chance of the doubleton ♥A onside to their chances for tricks.  As it was, diamonds were continued upon winning the ♥A, establishing diamonds for the defense prior to establishing hearts for declarer.  Now declarer had no route to 9 tricks.  If he attacked spades, the opponents would win and cash diamonds.  If he took a winning the club finesse, he can only reach 8 tricks (0+2+2+4).  So, we were -660 while our teammates were -100, lose 13 IMPs.  Plan C was not a success.

Playing 20-21 HCP for a 2NT opening bid, one player looked at their balanced hand, counted 21 HCP and opened 2NT.  Responder counted their points.  Even with a point added for their 5 card suit, they only saw a combined maximum of 32 points, so they tried Stayman, found the 4-4 fit, and then signed off in 4♥.  At my table, the same South hand upgraded their balanced 21 HCP to reach 22 points, so the bidding started off 2♣-2♦-2NT.  North evaluated to 11 points, did the math, and tried for the 33 point slam in NT.  With weak hearts, a 4-4 heart fit might fail on a bad split when 12 tricks are there in NT, so I like the bounce to the NT slam (forgoing Stayman) assuming partner has their 22 points.  As it was, it was an excellent slam in either hearts or NT (although I prefer NT to avoid the potential of a defensive ruff).  NT is a clear 75% slam (win one of 2 50-50 finesses).  This is a slam you would always want to be in if you could examine both the North and South hands.  However, if you could also examine the East-West hands, you would decline the slam, since both kings were offside!  Very lucky for our side, unlucky for our opponents.  Our teammates were +650 in their heart contract, we were +100 defeating 6NT, win 13 IMPs.

Was South’s hand worth an upgrade?  The honors are clustered, touching and helping each other.  Offsetting that is a worthless doubleton in diamonds.  Still they arrived in a great slam.

Several years back, I became rather well known for the belief that 3rd hand should ‘never’ allow 4th seat to see 3 green pass cards.  That is, open ‘anything’ in 3rd seat.  As West, I would never open this hand in first or second seat (yes, many strong club players are opening all 11 point hands and nearly all 10 point hands, but that is a whole different structure).  I have mellowed some over the years (some hands simply aren’t worth opening – the downside exceeds the upside).  Still, an opening bid in 3rd seat can often prove disruptive to the opponents bidding (sometimes with undesired and unexpected consequences!).

Here, both West players concluded they should open the bidding in third seat.  I started with 1♠ and North tried Michaels (2♠) to show the other major and a minor.  My partner bounced to 4♠ giving North-South a serious problem.  How much defense do they have against 4♠ and how much offense do they have to try for 11 tricks in hearts?  At my table, South tried for the two way 5♥ bid – maybe it makes, maybe it is a save against a making 4♠ contract?  I doubled to make sure partner didn’t try to save – my flat hand suggested (to me) limited offense and better defense.  Clearly, I had no reason to think we could score 3 tricks against 5♥ but if they made it, I thought the loss would be less than if we went on to 5♠.

At the other table, the West hand chose 1♣ for their ‘opening bid.’  Then, after a simple 1♥ overcall, their partner (East) bid 1♠.  When South showed an invitational heart raise (via their 2♣ cue bid), West was sufficiently embarrassed about their initial light opening, that they did not raise spades!?!  North bid the heart game and ended the auction.

Even with the club honors in poor position for declarer, the 3-3 club split allowed a ruff to establish the suit so that the only losers in the heart contract were the 2 clubs and the trump ♥A.  That meant 10 easy tricks, but not 11.  We were +100 to go with +420, win 11 IMPs.

How does the 4♠ contract fare?  There are a variety of ways the defense can get 4 tricks including the unlikely start of two top diamonds and a diamond ruff to go with the trump ♠A.  However, there are ways that the play can go that would allow a club discard on a diamond, so that declarer would only lose 2 diamonds and the ♠A.  Barring the early ruff, the defense needs to lead clubs early and often (not obvious for South to lead into ♣AQ3).  It is clearly unlikely that declarer will find 10 tricks in spades, but bidding 4♠ over 4♥ seems like a worthwhile insurance bid – little potential of a big loss, and possibly a big save.  I especially don’t understand the failure to support spades early and let partner decide if they want to defend or save when 4♥ was reached.  Somebody needed to bid 4♠.

There were a number of different bidding decisions here.  As dealer, South gets to open a red suit.  One chose the longer diamonds and when the bidding came back around, they bid, opposite a passing partner, 3♥!  (yes, they are 6-5, but 9 working HCP seems a bit much when partner could not muster a negative double)  At that point, my partner hoped that I held some useful card(s) and bid the slam.  Unless all of my values were in the red suits (that South had been bidding), there figured to be some chance for 12 tricks (either long clubs to make them all good, or short clubs and ruff them good).  So, the slam was a bit unilateral, but had the benefit of being cold.

The other table opened the 5 card major, judging that the hand wasn’t sufficiently strong to reverse.  The black hand decided to show a 2-suited Michael’s bid, and when they heard a spade response, they kept cue bidding hearts, trying to get partner to show some life and encourage them to bid the slam.  In the end, they subsided in 5♠.

There was little to the play – after entering dummy with the ♣Q, lead spades.  When the ♠K shows up, play another round in case it was a false card.  When there is still a trump outstanding, declarer needs to review the situation.  If clubs split, 12 tricks are there for the taking.  But, what if clubs don’t split?  Whenever you are in this situation, you are faced with a 100% right play.  Play clubs and find out  if clubs split before drawing the last trump!  If clubs split favorably, draw trump and claim.  If clubs don’t split, and the opponent ruffs, you were not making the hand anyway.  If clubs don’t split, and the opponent with the long club has the long trump, you can ruff the clubs good with the  last trump in dummy, THEN draw trump, run your clubs, score your slam.

That is how the play went at the table that was in 5♠, scoring 12 tricks.  Sadly, after bidding the slam, partner drew trump and proceeded to lose a club to the ♣J, down 1.  We were -200 and our teammates were -680, lose 13 IMPs.

Note “100%” didn’t mean the slam is assured.  It just means that if it can be made you will make it, and if it could never be made, you are no worse off.  Heads you win, tails you tie.  Very important.

One more slam to end the day.  At our table, different bidding judgment drove our opponents into a 3NT contract.  There were lots of bids at both tables where both strain (♣,♥ or NT) and level (game or slam) was in serious question.  The only reasonable slam was in clubs, and our teammates reached the 6♣ slam which could be made with careful (double dummy?) play.  How do you score 12 tricks in clubs?  There are some layouts where you can score 12 tricks even with hearts 4-1 and clubs 3-1.  I think you have to assume that clubs are 2-2 or 3-1 and assume the ♣Q is with West.  You also might need to assume the ♠K is onside so that you can win 2 spade tricks.  The question is ‘how many arrows are in your quiver?’  What is the worst layout you can handle and still score 12 tricks?  How do you get 12 tricks?  And, if the actual layout is not as bad as the assumed worst layout, will you go down when the cards were normal, but you are playing the line of play required to make it with the worst layout?

Here is a line of play (Call it Plan A1: it handles 4-1 hearts and 3-1 clubs, ♣Q onside, ♠K onside): At trick one, play the  ♥A and (find out if hearts are breaking 3-2 or 4-1 right away) play another heart, losing to ♥J as you follow and West shows out.  After two rounds of hearts, it will take 2 more being ruffed before the last two are established, so you may need the spade finesse as well.  For now, assume that East continues with a diamond: Win the ♦A pitching a spade, finesse the ♣10, ruff a heart with the ♣A, finesse the ♣J (were they 3-1?), cash the ♣K (remember I’m assuming West held ♣Qxx in my worst case hand) and ruff a heart with your last trump.  Now you can ruff a diamond in dummy, cash the two good hearts and dummy is left with the ♠QJ to take the spade finesse and score 12 tricks: 2+3+1+6. 

That sounds good, and ends up working on the actual layout, except then, (assuming East returned a diamond after winning the heart lead at trick 2), you don’t even need the spade finesse (Call it Plan A2)!  That is because, on the actual layout, with trump 2-2, you have the luxury of an extra trump remaining in each hand (that extra trump was not needed for the 3rd round of drawing trump) and you are able to score 1+3+1+7.

What if East returns a spade?  I think this is a pure guess.   By leading a heart at trick 2, you have learned the bad news early that hearts are indeed 4-1.  But, as you can see from the scenarios above, if trump are 2-2, you don’t need the spade finesse.  If trump are 3-1, you do need the spade finesse.  Pick one – either you take the finesse or you don’t.

Is there a better line of play, a better parlay?  Let’s call this Plan B.  What about win the ♥A at trick 1 and draw trump, assuming a 2-2 split, and now you play a heart, learning that they were 4-1 as feared (this was the actual line of play chosen at the table)?  After this start, with best defense, there is no parlay, no line of play, no continuation that allows you to score 12 tricks on the actual lie of the cards.  The (correct) defense after winning the ♥J is to continue with a diamond which allows you to ruff in dummy and start setting up hearts, but when the hearts are finally established, there is no entry to use them.  After drawing trump there are two dummy entries (needed to establish hearts) but a third dummy entry is required to cash the hearts.  Even with the spade finesse and 2-2 trump, declarer can only score 2+1+1+7, but there is no 12th trick possible without establishing the hearts.  And no long heart can be enjoyed without entries. However, note, if East returns a spade after winning the ♥J, on the actual layout, that is the only way to allow you to make the hand using Plan B (getting helpful defense) – it gives you a crucial extra entry (you let the spade lead ride around to the ♠Q.

How does Plan B fair if hearts were 3-2 and trump 2-2?  Great!  Only 1 ruff is required to set up hearts, and one entry to cash them, and those entries are there after drawing trump (two trump remaining for diamond ruffs).  You score 1+4+0+7 – you don’t even need the spade finesse or the ♦A for a trick!  But Plan B failed on the actual deal.  

How does plan A fair if the hearts were 3-2 and trump 2-2?  OK.  You require the ♣Q to be with West, but you do not require 2-2 trump and, as with Plan B, you do not require the spade finesse when trump are 2-2.  The established hearts as well as scoring the trumps separately will be your source of tricks.

What about Plan C?  I can’t really find a line of play that allows for more chances – can you see a better way to play this?

As the cards were distributed, after the ♥A wins the first trick, declarer has to make a decision.  If hearts are 3-2, this shouldn’t be too hard, especially if clubs are 2-2.  But, would East double for a heart lead with only ♥KQ7?  East knows that it won’t take too many ruffs to establish hearts.  I think the double almost has to be based on KQJ7, and if the lead of the ♥6 is to be believed, it is guaranteed to be a singleton.  So, looking at the lead and the bidding, it would appear hearts must be 4-1.  If so, Plan B has no chance and Plan A has reasonable chances.  Well, that is how I’m seeing it.  I’m certainly interested if someone sees a better parlay that brings more alternative distributions into a successful line of play for 12 tricks based on this auction and lead.

What about the play in 3NT?  Partner led a diamond, but when declarer played clubs for 5 tricks and finessed in spades, 9 tricks were there.  So we were -600 defending 3NT and our teammates were -200, down 1 in 6♣X, lose 13 IMPs.

Enough on the play, what about the bidding on board 20.  Clearly the auction starts 1♥-2♣.  Opener has a 6th heart (is it a priority to show that?) as well as strong clubs with a side void.  If you raise clubs and partner immediately supports hearts, you know you have a 6-3 heart fit (they would surely find some probing bid for NT if they only held 2 hearts).   If you raise clubs and partner does not support hearts, there will be at most 2 hearts in his hand and a club slam starts to look reasonable.   I think it is right to raise clubs immediately, but others may have different opinions.  Anyway, you can see from the auction, the table that repeated hearts for their rebid roamed around awhile and ended in 3NT.  The table that raised clubs also roamed around awhile and eventually bid the slam.  Slam is excellent (cold) if clubs are 2-2 and hearts 3-2.  So, it certainly isn’t a terrible slam.  I think the double gives a pretty clear indication how to play the hand – lacking the double, Plan B will likely be chosen and the slam will fail.  With the double, declarer might have found Plan A and scored their doubled slam.  It is always nice to help partner on opening lead, but make sure you aren’t helping declarer, nor sending them from a failing contract into a making contract (as they run to something else).  Here there is no alternative contract to run to (but the double does provide information to assist declarer in playing the hand).

Full disclosure: Dan played the hand.  We rode together.  It was on the way home that, together, that we figured out how to make it.  Is it too much double dummy?  It is not, unless someone can find a better line that handles a more likely distribution. 

Epilogue:  I think the theme of this hand is a combination of counting tricks and shape.  If you know hearts are 4-1 (I think the bidding and lead confirm this), then Plan B cannot establish hearts, and you cannot possibly reach 12 tricks without establishing hearts, so Plan B fails. Even with the spade finesse, 2+1+1+7 is your maximum total and you are 1 trick shy.  You have to set up hearts.  And, the only way to do that is to start early…and ruff with the ♣A, hoping the ♣Q is onside for a later finesse.  One more variation of the play is possible: what if, using plan A, East leads a heart at trick 3 after winning the ♥J?  Since you know, and East knows that you know, you are not making the hand without establishing hearts, East shouldn’t be leading hearts to help you.  If they do, you ruff with the ♣A as you had planned before.  However, the heart lead (instead of a diamond) lost the crucial entry to hand (which was the ♦A, had they led a diamond).  So now, after ruffing that heart lead with the ♣A, you lead clubs to the ♣J (finessing the ♣Q), and you have a choice.  If believe clubs are 2-2, you can simply cash the ♣K, ruff out the last heart, and take your 12 tricks without bothering with the spade finesse.  Or, if you believe clubs are 3-1, you can (and you must) take the spade finesse to enter hand and take a repeat club finesse.  This variation is a flavor of the spade lead at trick 3: that is, do you finesse in spades or play the ♠A?  Count your tricks.  Guess the shape.  If clubs are 2-2, you have enough tricks without the spade finesse.  If clubs are 3-1, you require the spade finesse.  There is no right answer that will guarantee the contract.  Counting your tricks: when hearts are 4-1 and clubs 2-2, you have 7 club tricks and do not need 2 spade tricks.  When hearts are 4-1 and clubs 3-1, you only have 6 club tricks so you need 2 spade tricks.

Finally, there is one more critical variation on Plan B.  Plan B simply said ‘play 2 rounds of trump and then lead a heart’ – but, it didn’t say HOW you play 2 rounds of trump.  The ‘natural’ way is ♣A and small to ♣K.  That is wrong.  Since you can easily lead hearts from either hand to start the establishment, the right way to draw trump is to start with the ♣K.  Why?  If the ♣Q falls singleton, you need to lead hearts immediately (draw at most one more trump, but you cannot completely draw trump) and retain the ♣A in hand for the heart ruff  – only 1 heart ruff is required, but…you must retain at least the ♣10x in dummy for dummy entries to finish drawing trump and ruff a diamond while establishing hearts.  It is not possible to draw 3 rounds of trump and then set up hearts, even when hearts are 3-2 because you still have the need for 2 entries, one to ruff them good and 1 to use them.  If you first play the ♣A and the ♣Q falls singleton, 12 tricks can no longer be made, even if hearts had been 3-2!  The endless variations and complexities of bridge in general (and this hand in particular) provide fascination for a lifetime.  Plays you routinely make on one hand may not be right for this hand!  Play carefully!

Recap Of 1/9/2019 28 Board IMP Individual

January 10th, 2019  ~  bobmunson  ~  5 Comments 

Bidding judgment was key to all 4 of today’s double digit swings, but once the bidding was over, the opening lead made the big difference on one of these four hands.

When you deal, white vs. red, a first seat preempt is always appealing.  The opponents must start guessing what to do at a higher level and they will not have the luxury of slowly and fully describing their hands starting at the 1 level.  Here, I simply opened what appeared to be a normal weak 2♠ bid.  Soon I was on lead against 3♥X and when the dust cleared we had won 2+2+1+3, 8 tricks, -4, +1100.  The West player at my table, in spite of holding only 11 HCP and only 3 hearts, decided they would make a takeout double.  In the post mortem, some thought the West hand was not strong enough or shapely enough to make a takeout double of 1♠ (let alone 2♠).  I tend to agree.  What do you think?

Meanwhile, our teammates’ opponents chose to start with an opening 3♠ preempt.  The powerful North hand raised to 4♠ and 11 tricks were scored, losing just 1 spade and 1 heart trick.  That was -450 paired with our +1100, win 12 IMPs. 

Preempting ‘one more’ can definitely create problems for the opponents, but due to the aggressive takeout double of 2♠ (a double would not be considered over a 3♠ opening), the team dealing with the 2♠ opening bid had the bigger ‘problem.’

Here, after North passed, I was in second seat and thought I had an opening bid – what do you think?  Meanwhile, partner took me seriously and decided that his hand, rich in aces, should go ahead and contract for 12 tricks in NT even though the point range of the combined hands was about 30-32.  It seemed that an invite might be more appropriate, but there I was, committed to 12 tricks.

With hearts the only suit that was unbid, the opening lead vs 6NT was the ♥A followed by the ♥9.  With a miracle, 12 tricks could be possible.  After this start, I had 3 heart tricks.  If both the spade and diamond finesses worked, I would have 3+3+2+3 and had many chances for my 12th trick: 3-3 spades, ♦K falling doubleton, ♣J falling tripleton, finesse for the ♣J, or some squeeze to try to find the 12th trick.  At trick 3 I tried the diamond finesse.  When that lost to the ♦K, slam was lost.  Due to diamonds behaving 3-3, I could have been down only 1, but I ended up trying to drop the ♣J and then trying the spade finesse, ending up down 2.  Communication is quite awkward:  the only entry to my hand after the defense started with two rounds of hearts is the ♠K.  If I use that to find out if diamonds split, I have given up on the spade finesse.  The trouble was that, even though there were many options for more tricks, I couldn’t parlay them all (see if this works, if not, try this, if not…). 

At the other table, my hand not only failed to open, they responded 1♦ and then rebid 1NT.  In any case, without an opening bid by East, West was never interested in slam with no fit and 18 HCP.  The way the play went at the other table, 9 tricks were scored for -400 to go with our -100, lose 11 IMPs.

There was a lot riding on the opening lead here.  I’ll get to that in a minute.  Meanwhile, on the bidding, one South player added up their points, arrived at 17 and opened 1NT, ending the auction.  At my table, South added up their points (including 1 for the 5th diamond) and arrived at 18, enough to open 1♦ and rebid 2NT.  North noted the vulnerability and figured ‘might as well’ to arrive at the 3NT game contract.  What to lead?

In my estimation, leading a bid suit made no sense.  So, I had to choose between two 4 card suits headed by the K.  Clubs were bolstered by the ♣J10, while hearts spots were quite weak.  Nevertheless, I chose to go after the unbid major for disastrous results.  Declarer was able to gain an entry to dummy with the ♥J, use the ♦J to finesse diamonds and run diamonds (I eventually pitched a heart on the run of diamonds and partner pitched clubs on the run of diamonds/hearts, so declarer found himself with 10 tricks (as soon as I pitched a heart, he was up to 9: 0+3+5+1).

At the other table, after a club lead, 9 tricks were never happening.  Declarer ended up with 7 tricks so our teammates were +90 to go  with our -630 to lose 11 IMPs.  

Readers of this blog know about my fascination with David Bird’s books on opening leads as well as Bob Richardson’s implementation of those books via software in his product:

“Lead Captain”: http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html

What do you think Lead Captain had to offer for selecting the best lead on this hand?  Here are the results:

I was totally shocked to see a diamond lead at the top of the list, but it was really in a tie with the low heart lead (virtually a tie).  It shows how Hxxx is not only dangerous vs. suit contracts, it is a problem vs. NT contracts when leading into the strong hand on your right.  Lead Captain chooses every possible card in your hand (adjacent cards are considered equal, since the double dummy result of leading the ♥6 vs. the ♥5 will always be the same – they are the same card).  At the table, choosing between adjacent cards could create different results (partner reading spots, signals, counting, etc.), but double dummy players don’t have to worry about partner reading their cards – adjacent cards are equal.  I point this out to explain why the ♠9, ♥5 and ♣10 are not in the table.  Since a club lead is so devastating to declarer (on this exact deal) and a heart lead so friendly, one tends to look at the hand and conclude, ‘obviously, a club is the best lead.’  If Lead Captain is to be believed (and I do believe it), then a club is decidedly not the best lead based on this auction – it is decidedly the worst lead.  But, at the table, it was the winner on this hand.

Why does a simulation show a club lead to be so bad?  I think, with nearly half of the deck in declarer’s hand, the ♣Q will be there much of the time.  When it is, declarer is presented with a trick they could never achieve otherwise.  On the other hand, even when declarer’s assets include the ♥AQJ (as it did here), if the heart suit had been 3=3=3 around the table, you are one lead from partner away from establishing your suit (assuming the ♥A is with declarer) after an opening heart lead.  Meanwhile, declarer always had 2 tricks in the suit on their own power, so (in the case of 3=3=3 hearts) the heart lead gives away nothing.  Anyway, that was my thinking at the table and that is my thinking after seeing the Lead Captain results.  What do you think?  A major or a minor?  A weak Hxxx or a strong Hxxx?  Or a diamond?  The diamond, in theory gives away nothing, but it does provide the ‘entry’ for declarer to take the diamond finesse.  Lacking that easy entry, the declarer playing 1NT simply cashed the ♦AK after they won the ♣A.

Well, more bidding judgment issues did me in on this last hand.  At the table, I had various thoughts about ‘checkback.’  9 tricks are less than 10.   A 3♦ checkback bid could allow a lead directing double.  If partner had only 2 hearts, nothing would be learned by going through checkback.  If partner had 3 hearts, he may be able to use hearts effectively in a NT contract.  So I bid 3NT.  Wrong.  The opening leader found a diamond lead against 3NT anyway.  Partner did have a 3rd heart and could have used it to ruff the 3rd diamond.  After the diamond lead and a losing spade finesse, 3NT had no play whatsoever.  Meanwhile, our opponents holding our cards at the other table, did use checkback, found the 8 card heart fit that produced 10 tricks in their 4♥ game.  When partner only found 7 tricks in 3NT, we were -200 to go with -620 to lose 13 IMPs.

I must say, in general, I nearly always do checkback.  But somehow I got the idea that this was the exception and I should not do it on this hand.  Do you ‘always’ do checkback, or use judgment?  Does judgment depend on the total HCP?  Texture of the major suit?  Texture of the whole hand?  I clearly needed to use that tool here.  Just for the heck of it, I decided to do a poll on Bridgewinners to see if there were other crazies who thought 3NT (vs. 3♦ checkback) had any merit.  The response has been tepid (only 13 votes so far) but there are some votes for 3NT by some national champions, but also votes for checkback by some national champions: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-n97oscag76/

In hindsight, I believe checkback is the right bid, but it wasn’t the bid I made at the table and my choice of 3NT failed.

It feels like the content on today’s 4 swing hands didn’t have much to offer.  Board 3: either you open 2♠ or 3♠ and and then come in with a double or not.  Board 17: you open the East hand (or not) and then invite slam with West or blast to slam.  Board 21: you open South with 1NT or 1♦ and then lead a club or a heart.  Board 28: either you checkback or not.  Pretty binary choices.

Recap Of 12/19/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

December 21st, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  7 Comments 

Here we are again, 2 days later, playing with mostly a different set of players.  Eight double digit swings, essentially all based on bidding judgment.  Several hands that were not double digit swings as well as three of the 8 that will be reported were somewhat classical heart/spade duels where the winning answer, as is often the case, was ‘bid more.’  Obviously at some point you have to quit bidding – that is the beauty of bridge – figure it out!

Here is the first heart/spade duel.  My partner evaluated his hand as a weak jump overcall and I incorrectly sold out to 4♥ – I should have bid 4♠ – at least as the cards lie.  At the other table, our teammates dealt with a simple 1♠ overcall and the auction gradually crawled up to 3♠, allowing our opponents to play the hand there, making their contract at both tables.  So we were -420 to go with -140, lose 11 IMPs.

Reviewing the bidding at our table – if East had passed the 1♥ opening bid, South would undoubtedly have offered an invitational limit raise bid of 3♥ .  However, after East jumped to 2♠ South didn’t really have an invitational bid available.  They could bid 3♥ showing fewer values than they had, or force to game (via a 3♠ cue bid or simply bidding 4♥) showing more values than they had.  So, the 2♠ preempt had the effect of forcing our opponents into game.

Our teammates judged that neither side was making game, so they just passed it out in 3♠ hoping that they might be able to find 5 tricks to defeat the contract.  I felt that, with my sterile distribution, it made no sense to take a vulnerable save against a non-vulnerable game.  It would have been right this time, but since our teammates didn’t reach game in hearts, it wouldn’t have saved many IMPs.  You have probably heard “6-5 come alive” and “6-4 bid more.”  Hands with those shapes, especially when they find a fit, have a way of taking a lot of tricks.  To get better results on this deal, both tables (on my team) sold out too early and needed to ‘bid one more.’  But that is just one hand.  Given the same bidding with a different layout, going higher could clear by wrong.  Still, if we could start over, I would prefer a 1♠ overcall rather than the 2♠ that was chosen.  Perhaps we, too, could have bought the hand for 3♠?

Defensively, it might seem that we can score a spade, a diamond and 2 clubs.  However, we cannot knock out both the spade stopper and the club stopper on the opening lead.  Soon diamonds are established for the critical discard, so declarer always has 10 tricks.

I’m happy to jump raise my partner’s major suit response to my minor suit opening with 13 HCP and a singleton, so I have no problem with the 3♥ raise that happened at my table (14 HCP and a singleton).  The ♠KJx also increased in value after RHO made a 1♠ overcall.  West, having heard the jump raise, is looking at 16 HCP and a doubleton, so they proceeded to invite slam with 5♥, asking for a spade control.  With two aces and a trump to lose, they were already too high, so they were down 2 in the 6♥ slam. 

The heart fit was never mentioned at the other table.  With such a strong hand, West decided to simply respond 1♦ bidding their suits naturally, up the line, with 4-4 in the red suits.  After the 1♠ overcall, East rebid 1NT and it was easy for West to simply raise to the NT game rather than try to find a major suit fit.  At a regional lecture many years ago, Grant Baze suggested that when holding 29-31 points with 2 flat hands, just play NT.  Both the major and the NT contracts will usually score 11 tricks.  In matchpoints, when they both take the same number of tricks, that is a HUGE win to play in NT.  But, in IMPs, playing NT with 2 strong hands has the advantage of having a recourse to find other tricks if you run into a foul trump distribution.  Playing a suit contract, there is no such recourse.

I think East-West were a little unlucky to find such poor fitting hands with lots of wasted values coupled with a lousy trump split, but the old adage of going slow with strong hands (bid up the line) worked wonders for our teammates.  Once East rebid 3♥ at my table, West is really stuck for a bid to describe their hand.  Their choice of 5♥ didn’t work.  They could have simply cue bid 4♣ (denying a spade control) and hear partner cue bid 4♦ promising a spade control.  But, one player, in the post mortem, suggested that 4♦ is not a diamond cue bid, but instead is ‘last train’ (but, it was noted, that a ‘last train’ 4♦ does promise a spade control, otherwise, just signoff in 4♥).  Last train is another long discussion I don’t want to get into:  did you and your partner discuss it, agree to play it, know when it applies, …  In any case, that is not the auction that happened.  East showed extras with the jump to 3♥ and you (West) have extras and need to find a way stop in 4♥ or you will be going minus.  The 5♥ slam try left 4♥ unattainable.  There aren’t many bidding tools available to allow you to arrive in 3NT once you have found a strong 4-4 heart fit.  Result: partner cashed their 2 aces against the slam and I still had a trump trick coming for down 2, +100 while our teammates took 11 tricks in 3NT for +460, win 11 IMPs.  (I’m not sure what the defense was, but they were never going to defeat 3NT.)

At my table, West judged to open 2♣, East responded 2♦ waiting, and West showed a spade suit.  East next showed positive values, choosing to show diamonds cheaply while leaving room for partner to offer hearts.  When West rebid spades, East felt that 2 trump, a singleton, and two 5 reasonable card suits offered play for slam and made a quantitative invitational 5♠ bid that typically asks about the quality of the trump suit.  In spite of outstanding trumps, West did not pursue the slam.  Partner made the only lead to challenge declarer – a trump.  12 tricks are possible, double dummy, with any non-trump lead, but 11 tricks are the maximum after a trump lead.  Declarer won trick 1 with the ♠A and led a heart…to the ♥J.  Once I won the ♥Q at trick 2, the hand can no longer be made.  At the table, I returned a heart.  Declarer discarded their diamond loser as partner won the ♥A to make another good lead – the ♦K, killing dummy’s late entry to the established hearts.  Declarer won the ♦A to start cashing hearts and was disappointed to see me ruff.  They overruffed and led a trump to the ♠9, hoping the remaining trumps split 1-1 and that they could discard club losers on the remaining good hearts.  The remaining trumps were not 1-1, so declarer knew I could ruff a heart lead.  Declarer didn’t bother leading hearts, but took a winning club finesse.  But, they still had 2 clubs to lose, down 2.

At the other table with a radically different auction that stopped in game, a trump was not led, declarer guessed well, and they managed to score the double dummy optimum 12 tricks that are available without that trump lead that my partner made.  Nice lead partner!  We were +200 and our teammates were +680 to win 13 IMPs.

Most 4♠ opening bids show a decent hand able to score around 7 tricks if partner has no help whatsoever, meanwhile hoping to make it difficult for the opponents to enter the bidding for the first time at the 5 level.  Often, the 4♠ bidder will have 7-8 trumps.  But, here, when partner opened 4♠ they only had 6 trumps with a nice 5 card suit on the side.  But, the high level opening bid had the desired effect of removing the opponents from the bidding.  Even with the bad trump split, 10 tricks were easy when the clubs behaved, just losing a trump and both red aces.

At the other table, the auction started lower with a simple 1♠ opening bid, the opponents entered the auction, and by the time the bidding got back to the opening bidder, the auction was at the 5 level!  Reasonable enough, North continued to 5♠ but declarer could only score the same 10 tricks, so we were +420 while our teammates were +50 to win 10 IMPs.  In fact, 5♠ was a necessary save!  Due to a singleton in each black suit for East-West, 11 tricks were going to come home in the 5♦ contract assuming declarer played to finesse South for the red honors during the play of the hand!

Even with both sides non-vulnerable, the 4♠ opening bid made it very difficult for either East or West to enter the auction.  It would have been right on this hand, but I cannot imagine it being winning bridge, long term, to come in with a 5♦ bid over the 4♠ opening bid.  What do you think?  I think preempts are tough…bridge is tough.   Here the opening 4♠ bid made it really tough on the opponents.

At the other table, when East saw 3 passes, they were able to open a reasonably standard 2NT.  Partner’s signal (singleton) to the opening ♣Q lead looked encouraging, so clubs were continued at trick 2 and soon declarer had 9 tricks.  So, our teammates were -150.

At my table, once North opened 1♠ the bidding took a very different turn.  I had too much to overcall 1NT, so my first bid was double.  I thought my next double was also takeout, but I wish I had bid 2NT.  If partner took 2NT as natural, we quickly go down 1 (after a heart lead), but that would save over half of the IMPs that we lost.  If partner took 2NT as ‘takeout, pick a minor’ we could have gotten to a makeable  3♦ contract.  That would have held the losses to 1 IMP.  Of course, if my second double was interpreted as takeout, we also would have gotten to 3♦ and just lost 1 IMP if partner brings it home.  Sadly, partner decided, since my first double ‘showed hearts’ my second double was taken as a penalty double of hearts, so they passed,  We had 5 easy tricks against 2♥X but we needed 6.  So, we were -670 to lose 13 IMPs.  Darn.

Although this is a very different situation than my last blog which talked about 1 partner thinking the double is takeout and the other thinking it is penalty, it is the same principle.  If you are not certain you and partner are on the same page, making a penalty double that may be taken out or a takeout double that may be left in for penalty will result in very poor results.  If there can be any doubt, don’t make a disastrous low level takeout double that may be taken as penalty, turning the opponents partscore into game.

With practiced partnerships, I use the ‘Larry Cohen list’ – a short list of what low level doubles are penalty.  If it is not on the list, it doesn’t exist.  It is takeout.  Still, to avoid the disaster, I should have tried 2NT.  https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/berk-co-exceptions-to-low-level-doubles

Had we been in 3♦ partner needs to play carefully.  If the opponents haven’t helped with a spade opening lead (perhaps they led a singleton club?), draw trump, play a high club the first time clubs are led and a low club on the second club lead (key play), forcing your club loser to happen on the second round, but retaining a club that can lead to the last high club so that you can ruff the 4th round (or possibly lose the 4th round of clubs), but establishing the 13th club for a trick.  Depending on how the defense goes, you might lose a heart, a spade and 2 clubs or various other combinations, but if you establish the 13th club you will win 0+1+5+3 for 9 tricks, +110.  Of course you also must guess which major suit ace is onside, but the opponents play might help.

I really hate to offer 3 passes to the 4th bidder, so I will often strain to ‘open’ with almost anything.  For me, this hand easily clears the hurdle, but at the other table, our teammate sitting North looked at the vulnerability and opted to not make the light opening bid.

Considering East didn’t hold 4 card spade support, they had a rather light takeout double of 1♥ but I still think it is the right bid – and both tables did double the 1♥ opening bid.  South made an attempt to jam the auction with a jump to 4♥ but I had an easy 4♠ bid.  When North and East passed over 4♠ South decided to offer a penalty double – rare after a preemptive action.  North, with 2 aces, thought 11 tricks might be a stretch in hearts, so they decided see if they can find 4 tricks vs. the spade contract.  Sometimes partner (South) will hold 5 good spades after preempting in hearts when the takeout double hand only had 3 spades – that happened Monday this week (prior blog) and the defense scored +800.

Anyway, I was playing 4♠X after the ♥A lead won trick 1 with South playing the ♥2, North was hoping that South held ♣Kx and could obtain a club ruff.  So, North continued with the ♣2 at trick 2.  It is unusual to underlead aces, but in this situation, the ♣2 MUST promise a high club (or else show a singleton).  South feared that I held the ♣A, so they did not rise with the ♣K and my ♣Q in dummy won trick 2.  I drew trump and just lost the 2 red aces, 11 tricks, +690. 

To achieve 4 defensive tricks North must lead a diamond to the singleton ♦A while they still have an entry.  South can win the ♦A, return to the remaining entry, and then ruff a diamond.  That defense was tough to find.

At the other table, North heard an ‘invitational or better Jordan 2NT’ over East’s double.  North competed to 5♥ over 4♠ and correctly, concluding that North-South were scheduled to make 11 tricks in their vulnerable game, West took the cheap save in 5♠X.  Our teammates, on defense, took their 3 aces for +100 to go with our +690, win 13 IMPs.  Our North-South teammates also could have found 4 defensive tricks via 3 aces and a diamond ruff, but they were most interested in ensuring that the contract went down.

Again, as it happened on board 3, the losing side in this competitive heart/spade auction quit bidding too soon.  That is not to suggest that these are simple problems and that you should always just keep bidding.  But, it certainly is a recurring theme where it is often right to bid more in case you can make your contract or they can make theirs.  Bidding more is right in either case (you make or they make), and only wrong when both contracts are going down.

I understand South’s jump to 4♥ (sometimes you can buy the hand and keep the opponents out of the bidding), but I like the choice of Jordan 2NT better.  Had East not doubled, but passed instead, I would want to treat this hand as a limit raise.  Not a simple raise to 2♥ or a preemptive raise to 4♥.  I would make a routine limit raise of 3♥ showing an invitational hand.  So, after the double, 2NT describes the South hand rather well.  At the other table, North judged well to bid 5♥ over 4♠ and West judged well to bid 5♠ over 5♥.

Our ‘bridge club standard’ 1NT opening bid is “15-17” but we will open 1NT with a ‘good 14.’  Personally, I count a point for the 5th card in a suit and there aren’t many other 14 point hands that I upgrade.  If a hand has great spot cards and is rich in aces/kings with a lack of queens, that could be a cause to upgrade.  Here, North is dealing and they are looking at a balanced 14 HCP with the ratio of aces to queens 1:1.  Both jacks are bolstered with higher honors nearby (one AJ, one KJ) which could make the jacks more valuable than the 1 point assigned.  But the ♣Q is all alone and hardly worth the full 2 HCP that normally is accredited to that holding.  As mentioned on board 25, this is a regular partnership which has 14+ to 17 on the card.  Subsequent discussion with Cris indicated that he didn’t ‘upgrade’ but just chose to make a tactical bid of 1NT.

The ‘gold standard’ of hand evaluation is the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator (knr):

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=aj76+kt+kj2+q974

This is a computer evaluation that is extremely complex (and provides a number evaluating the hand to 2 decimal places).  It evaluates a “7” as being barely more valuable than a “6”!  It is not possible to utilize this tool at the table.  Still it can useful to get another opinion to try to hone your hand evaluation skills.  The number for knr evaluation of this hand is 12.95.  This is quite a bit shy of the 15-17 range associated with a 1NT opening bid.  Still, when North opened 1NT, they created an extremely easy auction for South.  South checked on a 4-4 heart fit and simply bid the NT slam.  There are 11 easy tricks (2+3+5+1) with 2 chances for the 12th trick (but you cannot try both – pick 1).  With a certain loser of the ♥A, you cannot afford a spade or club loser.  Either finesse the ♣K (it was onside) or find the ♠Q (2-way finesse, so the slam is ‘cold’ if you could only see who has the ♠Q!).  Best line, I think, if the opponents don’t give you the spade guess for free at trick 1, is to cash red tricks and see who has the most red cards (West does).  That leaves more room for East to hold the key black cards that you need to find to score your contract.  But, transportation isn’t that easy.  Running the red cards leaves you knowing that odds are in favor of East holding the card you want to find, but you are in dummy after you learn that.  So, if you took that line of play, it is best to cash the ♠K, then ♠A.  If the ♠Q doesn’t fall, take the club finesse.  With East holding both critical black cards, they are squeezed on this hand when the red cards are cashed.  If you cash the top spades after running red winners you won’t go wrong.

Let’s revisit the bidding.  If you agree that North does not warrant an upgrade to 1NT, how should the hand be bid?  I think South, with 17 HCP and a good 5 card suit should offer a raise of 1NT to 4NT, invitational.  If partner has the minimum 12 HCP, 6NT is unlikely to succeed.  But, if they have a max, there should be some play (of course, the hands fit incredibly well – you could construct plenty of maximum 14 HCP hands which offer poor play or no play for 12 tricks in NT).  Still, I think it is worth an invite and let partner decide.  When South simply raised to 3NT over 1NT, the slam auction was over.  I led a spade vs. 3NT at my table and declarer claimed their 12 tricks.  Clearly a spade is not what you want to lead vs. 6NT – it makes life easy for declarer.  Here the question is ‘passive or aggressive?’ – lead a black suit where you have Hxxx or a red suit where you have nothing.  Often against a slam, you want to avoid presenting declarer with his 12th trick, but aggressive leads can payoff too.  The actual lead against the slam was a small club.  This made the play end very quickly.  There is no option to rise with the ♣A and later worry about finding who has the ♠Q.  You MUST play hearts, the defense will win the ♥A, and if they have a club to cash, you are down. So, there is only one play at trick 1 – hold your breath and finesse the ♣J.  Either the ♣K is onside or it is not, but there is no decision/choice about what to play or how to play it.

Both tables took 12 tricks in NT.  We were -490, our teammates +990, win 11 IMPs.

The last hand of the day was a different flavor of heart/spade battles.  The auction was somewhat similar, but at our table, North waited to double after the signoff in 2♠ was passed around to him.  At the other table they doubled the Drury bid of 2♣.  It seems that there is an endless stream of “you better discuss this bid (and agree) with partner” and here is another one.  Typically, if a player doubles a Jacoby transfer bid, it merely shows a request to lead (or, depending on the hand partner holds, possibly bid) the suit that is doubled.  It is not normally treated as a general takeout of the suit being transferred to.  That is: (1NT)-P-(2♦)-X shows diamonds, not a takeout of hearts.  Here, North doubled the Drury 2♣ bid.  Some might play that the double merely asks partner to lead clubs, or possibly bid clubs if their hand warrants.  Another option (I’m not sure which is the most standard) is to play that the double of Drury is a takeout bid of the major that is being shown.  Here North-South are a regular partnership and they had the specific agreement that double of Drury here is a takeout of spades.  Yes, you and partner are both passed hands.  Still, you can see the result.  Voids are magical when you have a fit.  With trumps splitting 2-2 and without a diamond lead, there are 12 tricks in hearts.  0+7+1+4 – easy peasy.  There is nothing to the play or defense.  So, with no diamond lead at either table, we were -230 at our table defending 3♥ while our teammates in 4♥ were +680, win 10 IMPs.

Which is better – double of Drury shows clubs or shows a major suit takeout?  I think to avoid the opponents stealing the hand, the takeout is superior, but what matters is that you and partner are on firm footing with a common understanding.

Epilog: talking later with Bruce, the South player that bid the 4♥ game:  “Since Cris and I play a double of Drury as a takeout double of the major, it made things somewhat simple. I did not leap to 4♥  fearing the opponents would go for the non-vulnerable save, so I was “walking the dog” by bidding 3♥  over 2♠ and then 4♥ in the passout seat. It looks like 4♠ is only down 1 (possibly 2), losing 0+2+1+1/2 – a cheap save, but the opponents did not save (mission accomplished).”

Best defense vs. 4♠ looks like it would involve leading the doubleton diamond (possibly after cashing 2 hearts) and ducking the ♦A.  Now, with a diamond ruff threatened, declarer must draw all trumps, leaving themselves with only 1.  Now when they knock out the ♦A, the defense can go back to hearts, removing declarer’s last trump and prevent declarer from scoring a trick with the ♣K.  In practice, this might be a tough defense to find.  Anyway, no one played spades, this hand was played in hearts.

Recap Of 12/17/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

December 18th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  6 Comments 

There were a lot of IMPs flying around today, but only 5 hands that cleared the hurdle of ‘double digit.’  The opening lead determined the result on one hand, but bidding decisions created all of the other swings.  It all started on the first board…

With identical auctions at both tables, this hand came down to the opening lead.  On this auction, no lead is especially appealing, but a heart is probably the last choice, and a weak holding with length in dummy’s first suit suggests there is unlikely to be any future there.  If you got that far in your choices for an opening lead, you are down to a couple of black queens – the unbid spade suit that is only 2 long (♠Q10), or dummy’s second suit where you are 3 long (♣Q76).

My partner tried the ♣6 which I read as 4th best on this auction.  When I covered the ♣9 with the ♣J, declarer could win the ♣A and try 4 rounds of diamonds.  My partner won the ♦10, but when partner continued with the ♠Q ducked to declarer’s ♠K, declarer could finesse the ♣10 and bring in 10-11 tricks.  At the table, they discarded a club on the ♥A, so only 10 tricks were scored, -430.

Playing the same contract with the same bidding at the other table, our teammate was faced with the lead of the ♠Q.  If they could see all of the cards, they could duck the spade at trick 1 and then pursue various double dummy line of plays to arrive at 9 tricks ‘knowing’ that East held a doubleton spade, so there would be no danger to let them on lead.  Some lines of play involve throwing East in with a heart after cashing exactly 2 diamonds so that a diamond lead allows a finesse of the ♦9 to bring in 5 diamond tricks!  There are many double dummy variations, but single dummy, declarer had to allow for the possibility that the opening lead looked more like the ♠Q from ♠AQJxx so that ducking would result in zero spade tricks if West ever gained the lead.  By winning the first trick, declarer had the potential to score 1+1+5+2 for their required 9 tricks.  Sometimes the ♦JT would be doubleton or the ♣QJ would be doubleton providing the necessary tricks without a 3-3 split.  Alas, diamonds did not come home, and East still had a spade to lead when they gained the lead, so declarer took 1+1+4+2 while the defense gathered in a diamond trick to go with 4 spade tricks for down one.  So, our teammates were -50 combined with our -430 resulting in losing 10 IMPs to start the day.

When I put this hand into Lead Captain (http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html), a diamond lead was the best non-spade lead.  The ♠Q was 3 times better than a diamond and even the ♠10 (impossible in practice to start with the ♠10!) was more than 2 times better than a diamond lead.  Of course no one would ever start with the ♠10, but Lead Captain methodically tries out every card as a possible lead against thousands of random hands that could have been dealt that are consistent with the actual hand on opening lead as well as N-S bidding.

When facing favorable vulnerability, I will often preempt ‘1 higher’ than my shape calls for (e.g. jumping to 3M over 1m when holding only 6 cards in my major).  Preempts were made to create problems for the opponents and Marty Bergen would certainly approve.  Here at my table, East (not vulnerable) opted to use his first bid to jam the auction to the 5 level opposite vulnerable opponents (1 higher than standard).  If the opponents can score their vulnerable game, it is unlikely that the penalty in 5♦ will greatly exceed the value of the game.  “Make ’em guess.”  However, here there was no game above 5♦X so the opponents simply made a penalty double and took their 5 tricks (2+1+2+0) and scored 500 points.  In fact, on this layout, there is no contract above the 1 level that N-S can make!  Par (best possible result for N-S and E-W) is to let East play 2♦ and make it!  At the other table, East made the more pedestrian 4♦ preempt.  South thought that negative doubles only went through 3♠ so they made what they thought was a penalty double.  North thought that they had more offense than defense, and, they also thought, that partner was asking them to bid.  Since North ‘knew’ that there was no heart support in the South hand, they tried 5♣.  South ‘corrected’ to 5♥ and West had no trouble finding a penalty double.  Double dummy declarer play as well as double dummy defense can hold declarer to just 6 tricks, making their book but down 5 tricks.  That is what happened, so we were +500 to go with our teammates +1400 to score 18 IMPs! 

This swing was based more on partnership agreement about what level of bidding constitutes a negative double vs. a penalty double.  As I have reported many times in the past, we do allow discussion at the table regarding what certain bids mean, but it is a bit awkward to ask ‘is a double of 4♦ a negative double or a penalty double?’  That question kind of gives the hand away.  Therefore, I should possibly throw this hand out based on a misunderstanding…but it is still instructive – make sure you and partner are on the same page when it comes to “when do negative doubles no longer apply?”

Recap Of 11/7/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

November 8th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Today’s game featured 5 double digit swings with one challenging play problem along with 4 bidding decisions (2 slams) creating the remaining 4 big swings.

There was nothing to the lead, defense or play of this hand – draw trump and establish hearts so that one diamond loser can go on the 13th heart and 1 diamond can be ruffed for 13 tricks.  It was all in the bidding.  This vulnerability (white vs. red) provided me the opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the opponents auction, so my first bid of 5♣ left little room for the opponents to explore.  East had the perfect cards for West’s long spade suit, but they were unable to sort that out and guessed to let the bidding die at 5♠.  When my hand bid only 4♣ at the other table, East-West were able to express their solid controls of the minor suits with cue bids and almost bid the grand (but few extra IMPs would have been paid out had the grand been bid and made when the other table failed to reach the small slam).  This (failure to be in slam at the other table) is what makes the IMP odds for bidding the grand slam quite perilous – you need to have a high degree of certainty for 13 tricks to take the plunge and bid the grand.  When the other table has not bid the small slam, you are gaining 4 (additional) IMPs when you bid/make the grand with a chance of losing 26 IMPs (the 13 you would have gained for the small slam bid/made vs. the 13 you lose for going down in the grand against their game bid).

Another reason to not bid the grand – when the opponents are bidding at a high level with extremely weak hands, they have some extreme distribution.  Always.  Here, had the unusual NT been 6-5, or if their shape was 2=1=5=5, then 7♠ has no play.

What about West’s initial bid over 2NT?  It is quite common for many established and new partnerships to play “UvsU” – that is, when the opponents bid unusual NT (or other bids that show 2 suits), use those 2 suits as anchors to show the other 2 suits (in this case, use clubs and diamond cue bids to show hearts and spades).  Often, that is how far the discussion goes, but, as with virtually any ‘system’ bid, much much more discussion is required.  Which variation do you play?  Some play that the cheapest bid (in this case 3♣) shows support for partner’s suit, some play it shows the lower suit (in this case, partner’s suit is hearts, the lower, so the ‘system’ would be the same regardless).  Also, if 3♦ is going to show spades, does an immediate 3♠ bid (which obviously also shows spades) show a better hand than 3♦ or is 3♠ a non-forcing competitive bid?  At out table, it was an established partnership and both understood 3♦ to be a stronger spade hand than had West bid 3♠.which would have been non-forcing competitive.   Our teammates were not an established partnership, and with no discussion, West bid 3♠ assuming it was forcing (and stronger than 3♦) and carried on from there.  Memo to all partnerships: be sure to nail down what bids mean and be sure both partners have the same understanding!

Out teammates were +1460 vs. our -710 to win 13 IMPs.

The bidding started the same at both tables – pretty automatic to open 1♠ and respond 1NT.  At East’s first chance to bid, he has a very awkward hand.  If they had dealt, undoubtedly they would open 1NT.  But what does East do after RHO bids 1NT?  At the other table, holding nice values but limited support for the unbid red suits,  they tried a takeout double.  They soon found themselves as dummy playing their 4-3 heart fit in 4♥ doubled.  At my table, East overcalled 2♣ with their modest club suit.  At both tables South who had opened 1♠ rebid 2♠.  But, at my table 2♠ ended the auction.  Partner was able to find 5 tricks opposite that miserable dummy for down 3, -300.  Our teammates somehow managed to find 9 tricks in their 4♥ game contract, but they needed 10 tricks, so they finished -200 to lose 11 IMPs.

Bridge is a tough game.  Given the exact same problem, different players come up with different solutions.  That is what makes the game so fascinating.  East has a very tough bid at their first opportunity.  Bouncing to the 4♥ game in response to the double may have been a bit exuberant, but if partner held short spades (as advertised by the double) and some fitting diamonds (little wasted in clubs), game may have been just right.

Here I violated one of my oft mentioned ‘rules’:  never bring back a red +170 to your teammates.  I was really close to making a game try, but Mike Lawrence wrote a book about 50 years ago about the principle of ‘in and out evaluation’ – ‘in’ being points in your suits and ‘out’ being points in the opponents suits.  Specifically, queens and jacks are good in your suits (for offense – poor for defense) but queens and jacks are very poor values in the opponents suits (for offense, but good for defense).  The queens and jacks don’t come into play until the 3rd or 4th round of the suit and by then partner could possibly ruff it, providing no offensive value at all.  On top of that, those points that you hold are points that not held by the opponents, yet the opponents are bidding, so they have compensating values elsewhere to make their bid.  Those ‘other’ points they hold could be your downfall.  Of course singleton kings in the opponents suits may take a trick on defense, but they will rarely be useful for offense.  In reality, my ♥QJx paired with partner’s ♥A10 to make a good holding in that suit.  When considering the option of making a game try or not, the overall spade suit was weak.  So, even though I had 15 HCP, I discounted the heart and club values, taking me down to 9 ‘working’ HCP.  Since partner had provided a simple raise to only 2♠, I decided to preserve the plus rather than risk a game try that might result in playing 3♠ going down when only 8 tricks were available.

With 3 top losers in the black suits, everything else had to work.  The heart finesse has some chance of success (of course the finesse must succeed in order to make game).  LHO showed heart length with his double, but opener (RHO) has more points (both opponents are bidding on light values, but you don’t know who is light during the auction – it could be partner).  figured to be successful, but unless the ♥A captures the ♥K, there is still a heart loser that must be ruffed.  And, unless diamonds are 3-3, there is a diamond loser that also must be ruffed.  If trump are 3-1, it won’t be possible to obtain 2 ruffs in dummy.  Alas, diamonds were 3-3, so no problem – 10 tricks were scored at both tables.  Our +170 vs. our teammates -620 cost us 10 IMPs. 

It is pretty common in standard bidding to play a jump cue bid as a mixed raise – a raise that shows some offense, some defense, 4 card trump support and about 6-9 HCP – a bid which pretty well describes the South hand.  Partner wanted to do a ‘mixed raise’ with a jump to 3♣.  But, other than playing in this game, we have never played together and he wasn’t comfortable throwing that bid in the mix.  Still, South at the other table made the same simple raise to 2♠ and my hand found the game try that allowed them to reach and make the reasonable game.  Charge this one to me.  Even though the game was somewhat lucky, vulnerable games have to be bid due to the 10 IMP payoff.

This hand was the play problem for the day.  With slightly different bidding, both tables arrived in 3NT with the same ♠10 lead.  With the club finesse on, after the diamond ♦A is knocked out, declarer has 3+0+2+3 ‘top’ tricks – one short.  Spades may split 3-3, diamonds may split 3-3, the ♥A may be onside, or an endplay may be possible.  Or, perhaps a finesse in spades or diamonds will make it possible to pick up the suit for the extra trick when those suits break 4-2.  For instance, if the opening leader held ♠1097x and their partner held ♠Jx, the ♠8 is there to finesse West out of their ♠9.

Playing for the ♥A onside is pretty scary with that heart suit.  At my table, partner won trick 1 with the ♠A and proceeded to knock out the ♦A.  West won and persisted with spades, won in dummy, and then declarer led the ♣Q to the ♣K and ♣A.  Hoping for a favorable split in spades or diamonds, declarer cashed his winners ending in dummy and in the end position, knowing that East had the last spade, led a spade hoping for an endplay.  They may have a club to cash, but then, if they held ♥Ax, they would have to surrender the 9th trick to dummy’s ♥K.  Alas, as they won the ♠J, their partner threw away their ♥9, leaving them with the ♥A and a good club and and a good diamond.  5 tricks for the defense, down 1.

Play at the other table started the same, but when West won the ♦A, they shifted to clubs which went to the ♣Q, ♣K and ♣A.  But, declarer, noting the fall of the ♦98 on the first 2 rounds of diamonds elected to finesse the ♦7 on the 3rd round of diamonds and that play brought them to 9 tricks.  I think this falls in the category of restricted choice plays and it sure worked for this hand.  Our teammates were -400 and we were -50 to lose 10 IMPs.

What about the response to 1♣?  I chose 1♦ and Gary chose 1♠.  Traditionally, I have responded in my 4 card major with less than invitational values, but just bid up the line with good hands.  The actual choice had no bearing on the result, but it is worth discussing with partner.

What about the lead?  It was the same at both tables, once when spades were bid, once when no major was bid.  I like the spade lead, either way.  With clubs bid on your right, the ♣9xxxx hardly looks like a place to go looking for tricks.  If you rule out clubs, ♦Axxx satisfies ‘4th from longest (remaining) and strongest’, but David Bird’s book and experience have indicated that a lead from a suit like that is often helpful to declarer (on this hand it would have shown the way to 9 tricks via a finesse against the ♦10) and rarely (but sometimes) fruitful for the defense.  Although the ♥A could hit partner, they didn’t bid the suit, so it is unlikely to help and it gives up a valuable tempo in the hand (it proved to be the entry to the setting tricks late in the hand).  The ♠10 seems to offer the best prospects of safety (avoid giving away tricks) and attack (partner might have good spades over the spade suit that was bid by dummy at one table).  And the ♠9 to go with it provides some texture to help fill in partner’s suit.

This is a tough hand to judge.  With the bidding starting the same at both tables, my partner unilaterally trotted out RKCB and, finding me with both missing key cards, bid the slam.  At the other table, South advanced with a club cue bid and, with weak diamonds (no cue bid possible there), North simply rebid hearts and that ended the auction.  In the context of having made a limit raise showing 10-11 HCP with 4 trumps, what do you think of the North hand?  Clearly holding 2 aces is slam positive.  But the ♣Q is soft and the hand is flat.  Perhaps they should offer a 4♠ cue bid back to partner and see what they do?  That might have allowed them to reach the slam, but when I gave the hand to another strong player, they still didn’t get to slam after a 4♠ cue bid in response to the 4♣ cue bid.

If my ♣Q had been a ♦Q or ♠Q, I would have bid the same and the slam would have had virtually no play.  But if my entire club/diamond suits were switched, so that I had ♣xx and ♦Qxxx, 12 tricks might have been possible with the ♦K onside.  Obviously there are many many hands that I (North’s limit raise) could have held, some which make slam hopeless, and some which make slam cold.  The bidding challenge is to find out which of those hands I do have and end up in the right contract.  Partner had very solid hearts and nice controls outside of hearts.  This time, his  approach (RKCB) worked.  We were +1430 vs. -680 to win 13 IMPs.

Recap Of 10/24/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

October 26th, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Here we are again, 2 days later, with a different cast of 7 players plus me.  Again 8 double digit swings mostly based on bidding judgment, but some leads, play and defense opportunities were present on some hands.

No one in my game plays a strong club on a regular basis – all bidding is pretty standard.  With the prevalence of strong club players at the top levels of bridge, many experts are opening balanced hands with only 10-11 points in 1st and 2nd seat.  They always open 4-3-3-3 hands with 12 HCP.  As for my bidding style, I try to use judgment – looking at hand evaluation – some 4-3-3-3 12 point hands are openers, some are not (my opinion only, not shared by all).  Here, my partner judged to pass in second seat.  He had 2 aces which are strong indicators of opening.  But, he had 2 unsupported queens of doubtful value.  I have no problem with his decision to pass, but the favorable result went to our opponents who decided to open the South hand.  As you can see, from the comments on the auctions, our opponents reached a well-judged 3NT rather than playing in their known 8 card fit in spades.  The only opening lead to give declarer a problem is 4th from longest and strongest – a small diamond from ♦KJ96.  Not a likely lead into the suit that declarer opened.  But, double dummy declarer play can still make 3NT even after the diamond lead, since the lie of the spade suit allows, with careful play, to never allow the East hand to gain the lead for a diamond through the ♦10.

Declarer still must be extremely careful to land 9 tricks after the actual club lead.  I don’t know the card-by-card timing of the defense or declarer play, but the slightest misstep by declarer could allow the defense to defeat 3NT, even after a club lead.   For instance, if declarer, somewhat naturally, wins the club and plays 3 rounds of spades, a diamond shift (from ♦Q85) will defeat 3NT.  Again, that is the suit they bid, so that defense is a bit hard to find.  But, partner’s lead of the ♣J indicates limited future there.  Dummy’s diamonds are quite weak.  Perhaps partner had strong diamonds but didn’t lead them due to the opening 1♦ bid on his right?  A club continuation would be safe, but a diamond could be (and would be) right.  3NT is very touch and go, but when the smoke cleared 9 tricks were in the bag.

My play in 4♠ was a bit boring.  Assuming spades are 3-2, I must lose a spade, a heart and a diamond, and I must lose 2 hearts unless there is an ♥Ax and I can work out which hand has the doubleton ♥A.  As the play unfolded, it appeared no one had a doubleton ace and that was the case, so I was limited to 9 tricks.  Our -100 paired with -600 for our teammates, lose 12 IMPs.

But what about the bidding?  My 4♠ bid was quite unilateral.  I did want to accept the game try, but I could bid 2♦ on the way showing a legitimate hand with some game interest, and later explore with 2NT if partner merely bids 2♠.  I reported on this exact auction from Monday’s game earlier this week where one table arrived in a hopeless 4♠ and the other table played a cold 3NT.  Here, 3NT is far from cold.  And we don’t have a diamond opening bid to dissuade a diamond opening lead if we are in 3NT.  Still, my 4♠ bid was poor and my contract was hopeless as the cards lie.

Here we go again with another ‘light’ opener.  Jerry Helms talks about the rule of 22 – quite similar to the rule of 20, except you add quick tricks to high card points and the length of your 2 longest suits.  Using that rule, I have an easy opener!  3 quick tricks plus 11 HCP plus 8 cards in my 2 longest suits equals 22.  So, I opened the hand and soon we were in 3NT.  Of course, with the spade finesse on, I can use my powerful diamonds to ruff spades and still draw trump later in the hand, allowing 12 tricks in a diamond slam.  We did not explore the diamond slam.  And, with 6 top diamonds and 3 aces, I simply took my 9 tricks, no spade finesse to risk going down in a cold contract.

At the other table, our opponents, holding our cards, did not open the North hand and soon found themselves playing a partscore in diamonds.  Should North make a stronger move after passing as dealer?  If so, what?  Should South bid on after partner’s raise to 3♦?  It turns out on this hand they should.  They found their 12 tricks playing their diamond partscore, so our teammates were -170 to go with our +600 to win 10 IMPs.  Very little going on here in the way of leads, play and defense – it all came down to bidding judgment…and the points that N-S held were the right kind of points (aces with running diamonds) to gather in their tricks.

What about my 1NT rebid with zero stoppers in both unbid suits?  I think the modern style, when you have a balanced hand out of range for a strong 1NT opening bid, is to strain to rebid 1NT to show a weak balanced hand and let partner take care of the stoppers if needed.  It doesn’t always work, but I think it is the way most players are bidding these days.

Kudos to the opening lead of the ♥Q.  Leading 3 card suits, especially with the nice texture of this one, targets hitting partner’s 5 card suit (he did!).  If East leads one of their 4 card black suits, declarer is able to take the spade finesse for the extra trick without worry.  But, on the heart lead, a losing spade finesse could be fatal so it won’t be taken.  Not that it mattered in IMPs, but I still thought it was worth noting.

Well, I considered omitting this hand from the blog.  Wow, what a hand!.  My partner judged to start with a weak 2♥ bid and I had to find a way to respond to that opening bid.  I have a great hand and certainly could have started with a forcing 3♦ which would almost certainly hear a 3♥ rebid from partner.  Then I could offer spades and, on this hand, we would have arrived in 4♠ and still lost a bushel of IMPs.  But, I thought the chance of a 2♥-3♦-3♥-3♠-4♠ auction was sufficiently low that I decided to just blast 3NT and see if I could find a way to score 9 tricks.  Partner could hold the ♦K, making 9 tricks trivial in 3NT…wishful thinking.  3NT was not a good choice as it turned out.  I won the club lead in dummy with the ♣Q and took a diamond finesse, losing to the ♦K.  It seems unlikely that declarer holds the ♥A and is messing around with diamonds, but I suppose it is possible.  At this point a heart lead and club return would have scored 6 tricks for the defense.  Anyway, North continued with a spade.  As I cashed my four spade winners, North had to find 3 discards.  They knew to keep all of their diamonds and hated to part with potential club winners, so they ended up throwing all of their hearts!  So, when I played ♦A, ♦J and another diamond, they were able to win the ♦10, but then had to lead clubs, allowing me to regain the lead, cash my remaining diamonds and score 10 tricks.  Had they kept 1 heart, the defense would still score their 6 tricks for down 2.

The other table had a rather different auction.  Fearing the danger of missing the spade suit, East passed rather than open with a weak 2♥.  After the jump shift in spades, their hand looked like a key card hand – completely solid hearts missing the ace, 2 singletons, long strong trump support.  So, they launched a key card auction and quickly arrived in 6♠ off two aces (as noted a 3014-1430 confusion).  With the ♥A over the solid heart suit and partner void, it was a simple matter of drawing trump and then ruffing out the ♥A to score 6+5+1+0, 12 tricks and -1430 for our teammates.  Paired with my +630, lose 13 IMPs.

Here is another hand that is all about bidding judgment.  Both tables started the same, but one player opted for a simple 2♥ rebid while the other blasted all the way to 4♥.  Using losing trick count (LTC), the 1♥ opening bid is looking at a routine 7 loser hand (the classic LTC for a minimum opening bid) and, therefore, this hand seems more like a minimum 2♥ rebid.  The jump to 4♥, I think, should show close to 20 points or a 5 loser hand.  The South player, thinking he had a few more tricks to offer partner than his simple 1♠ response had shown, raised to the 6♥ slam.  On the standard ♣Q lead, only 10 tricks are available to declarer, so we were +100 while our teammates were +420, win 11 IMPs.

The auction took extremely different routes at the two tables.  Playing ‘good 14-17 HCP’ that all of us play, many 8 point hands should quietly pass, or transfer and pass.  That is what the player holding my cards elected to do at the other table.  I had the extra problem of the (most likely) single suited minor to contend with (although South’s double could also have suggested both majors).  But, holding some help in both minors, I decided to transfer and then invite with 2NT.  My 8 HCP included a 5 card suit headed by the ace as well as a side king – usually those are more useful points than a bunch of isolated queens.  Partner held minimum high cards, but with stoppers in both minors and the heart suit 5 long and bolstered by the ♥109, partner accepted my invitation (and he is vulnerable, so strain to bid all games).

Against 3NT, South made the normal lead of the ♦10 (top of an interior sequence in their longest suit).  Double dummy, the only lead to hold declarer to 9 tricks is an unlikely (impossible) spade.  So, declarer, double dummy, has 10 tricks on the diamond lead and that is what he scored!  But, the play and defense wasn’t exactly double dummy.  To get 10 tricks, declarer must win the ♦J for one of his precious dummy entries so that he can start playing hearts.  Instead, he won the ♦K in hand (perhaps hoping to fool the opening leader about the location of the ♦Q?).  Now he needed to get to dummy to start attacking hearts and made a potentially fatal play of a club to the ♣K.  After a heart to the ♥ J won, he played a spade to the ♠A and led another heart.  North split their honors and the ♥A won followed by the ♥10 to the ♥K.  With no diamonds to lead, North must now play a black suit.  A club would have allowed South to cash 3 club tricks and the ♦A to set the contract, but North, with no entries, played a spade instead.  Now, on the play of the major suits, South, trying to defeat the hand, kept their clubs and pitched down to the singleton ♦A.  When declarer next played diamonds, South had to win and return a club, allowing declarer to enjoy their second club trick and second diamond to go with four hearts and two spades – 10 tricks in all.

At the other table with no interference bidding, my hand opted to play a quiet 2♠.  The extreme spade split meant that the defense had 3 trump tricks as well as a trick in every other suit, so 2♠ was defeated 1 trick.  That gave our teammates +100 to go with our +630 to win 12 IMPs.

It may not be obvious, but the club suit on this deal is extremely complex.  Given where the ♣9 is located, and the ♣J, and the ♣8, amazing things happen.  The suit is semi-frozen, meaning the side that first leads the suit gives up a trick they would otherwise gain if they were not the first side to lead the suit.  It is ‘semi’ frozen since, the way the cards are distributed, declarer can actually safely break the suit (and keep it frozen) if they guess the layout of the cards.  Declarer can (and must) lead the ♣10 (or ♣Q) to start the suit.  That way, if South plays the ♣A on the ♣10, 2 tricks are there and problems are over.  If they play the ♣A on the ♣Q, South’s entry to their diamonds is gone and the club suit remains frozen – neither North nor South can lead clubs effectively.  If South ducks the ♣10, declarer can duck and win the trick.  And if South covers with the ♣J, declarer can win the ♣K in dummy and the ♣8x remaining in dummy still leaves the suit frozen – North cannot effectively lead the ♣9 or underlead the ♣9 to gain tricks for the defense as long as declarer reads the position accurately.  All of this (about how to play the club suit) is a bit double dummy, but still I found it interesting.  And, as it turns out, necessary (after failing to win trick 1 with the ♦J) to bring home the contract with double dummy declarer play against double dummy defense.

Here, the bidding was the same, the lead was the same, and it all came down to the play of the hand.  Double dummy, the only lead to defeat 3NT is a small spade (the shorter major, but a suit with more texture).  The heart suit, however, was 5 long and headed by the king, so that offered the most promise and that is what was led at both tables.  With the heart lead, declarer, hoping clubs will produce 3 tricks, is looking at 1+3+1+3 – one trick short.  Other than stripping a hand to throw them in to lead diamonds at the end, there is no real chance of the 9th trick except for the ♠10.  Not that the opponents are going to ever lead diamonds, but I next cashed the ♦A and then went after spades.  As the cards lie, double dummy, leading spades at that point is the only way to reach 9 tricks.  Upon winning the ♠A, South, as expected, continued hearts (if a spade had been led at that point, I can only make the hand if I rise with the ♠Q and go about getting my other tricks, eventually scoring the ♠10 at trick 12 and a long club at trick 13).  On the heart return, I finessed with the ♥J and North won the ♥K.  They can safely lead hearts, but since South can never regain the lead, declarer’s ♠10 is going to eventually score a trick.  North’s actual continuation after winning the ♥K was the ♣Q.  This gave me a different route to 9 tricks.  I won with the ♣A, cashed a heart (noting the 5-2 split), and led the ♣10!  This presented North with Hobson’s choice – he could win with the ♣J for the third and final defensive trick (since the ♣9 would provide an entry to dummy to run the diamonds), or he could duck, giving up his ‘sure’ club trick, but presenting me with a 4th club trick and the game going trick (1+3+1+4).

If, after winning the ♥K, North exits with a heart instead of the ♣Q, I cash my hearts, cash my clubs, and when I lead the third club, North wins the club and has a heart to cash (while I throw my losing spade), but at trick 11, North must lead away from ♠J9x into my ♠Q10 with a good club remaining on the side to reach 9 tricks and make the contract.

At the other table, declarer won the opening heart lead (presumably cashed the ♦A) and then led 3 rounds of clubs with North winning the ♣Q.  This got the 3rd club trick in the bag, but left the 2nd spade trick on the sidelines.  North exited with a small spade – very important.  After attacking one suit (hearts) and later shifting to a second suit (spades), the size of the shift is critical.  A high card says ‘I’m not interested in this suit, so if you/partner win a trick revert to my original suit.’  A low card says ‘I’m no longer interested in my original suit, if you/partner win a trick, return this suit.’  This is fundamental defensive carding that all players should adhere to.  So, upon winning the ♠A, a spade was returned and 9 tricks are no longer possible for declarer.  The defense scores 3+1+0+1.  So, +50 for our teammates and +400 for our 3NT making, win 10 IMPs.

As a side note, 6♦ by West (impossible for West to play diamonds unless you play transfer preempts) is cold, but 6♦ by East goes down on a heart lead.  Since partner’s preempt suit is often not nearly as robust as this particular 3♦ bid, even pursuing 5♦ (vs. the 3NT chosen by me and the player with my cards at the other table) seems inferior.  What do you think?  Finding 9 tricks is often much easier than finding 11.

Many recurring themes were back again on this hand.  Fundamental is the 3NT vs. 4M – should you look for an 8 card major suit fit?  If you find one, should you play in the 10 trick major or 9 trick NT contract.  The other ‘theme’ is opening bids.  What do you “open” in 3rd seat Vul vs. not with the East hand?  “Light openings” would be an understatement to describe the modern style.  Few people, especially me, like to allow 4th seat a free rein to bid anything they want.  Whatever you open prevents them from opening the bidding (all they can do is overcall or double).  Your bid can inhibit (or help) their hand description.

At my table, they chose a simple 1♦ opening bid.  The other table tried a 2♦ opening bid.  Here you have a weak suit 5 long with a decent 4 card major on the side.  The preempt prompted a 2NT overcall and responder didn’t bother with Stayman – simply raised to 3NT on their balanced 8 HCP.  

3NT is no piece of cake after the diamond lead.  If declarer has to lose 2 club tricks, the diamonds will be established and the defense will reach 5 tricks before declarer can find 9.  As you can see, the heart suit is good for 4 tricks, but declarer can’t see that (there are only 4 heart tricks if they take a deep finesse the first time they lead towards ♥AJ87).  In any case, the diamond lead was won with the ♦A and a club was led towards the ♣K.  When East rose with the ♣A, the play was over, declarer had 2+2+2+3 without risking the heart finesse.  Since East had the doubleton ♣A, it really didn’t matter what they played – if they played the ♣10, declarer was set with 3 club tricks by winning the ♣K and ducking the club continuation to let East’s ♣A catch air.

Meanwhile, I was trying to find 10 tricks in my 4♥ contract.  I won the ♦K with the ♦A, then won the ♥K and a heart to the ♥J.  Good news/bad news – the finesse for the ♥Q won, but I’m losing a heart, plus a diamond plus the ♣A, so I, too, need to find a doubleton ♣A.  But, when diamonds proved to be 5-3, I was seeing the only chance was a singleton ♣J or ♣10 with East (since West had opened, clearly they ‘had’ to have the ♣A – I wasn’t considering the fact that it was a 3rd seat opener).  If they had ♣Ax, they would have to be 5=1=5=2 and would have opened 1♠, so I hoped for 3=1=5=4.  East did have the ♣10, but they had the ♣A to go with it.  Down 1.  Double dummy, 11 tricks were there for the taking, but I could only find 9 of them.  Our -100 paired with teammates -600 to lose 12 IMPs.  Once diamonds are established and the clubs produced 3 tricks, a heart finesse (or deep finesse) could have produced overtricks at the risk of going down, so no heart finesse was taken in 3NT, just 9 tricks to make the 3NT.

Even though 3NT and 4♥ are both cold on this deal, double dummy, neither contract rates to be a great success, but both contracts are reasonable.  Simply looking at our hands (and what the ‘bidding’ told us?), I don’t know that I have a great preference for one contract over the other.  Both contracts succeed easily with ♥Qxx onside.  In the case of ♥Qxx onside, in NT, you have 2+4+2+1 and in hearts you have 2+5+2+1 (losing a diamond and 2 clubs).  In NT, it is best to try clubs first (which Mark did).  If you are able to find 3 tricks there, no need to risk the heart finesse (2+2+2+3).  Where as, in NT, if you try the heart finesse first and it loses (prior to testing clubs), the opponents will establish diamonds and still have the ♣A to then run diamonds and defeat 3NT.  If the ♥Qxx is onside, the 4 heart tricks will still be there later.  So, in 3NT, if clubs fail, fall back on hearts.  In hearts, if you have a heart loser, fall back on clubs.  Finding WHO has the ♣Ax is certainly key, so that you start clubs from the proper hand to produce 3 club tricks (or you could guess to lead a high club hoping to find AHxx opposite a singleton ♣J or ♣10).  

The reality is 3NT worked.  What do you think of partner’s takeout double rather than a 1NT overcall of 1♦?  Or what do you think of the 2NT overcall rather than a takeout double of 2♦?  I think it is very close and can’t argue either way.  With only a doubleton, you can’t hold up to isolate the suit when it splits 5-3.  But, if partner has ♦10xx, the power of the ♦J provides a double stopper.

What do you think of North’s raise to 2♥?  Many play that that simple raise shows 4 card support with ZERO extra values.  This is not a regular partner and I didn’t ask, I simply took him as making a game invitation, saying that if I was close to the 9-11 HCP that would have allowed me to jump to 2♥, then 4♥ should have play so I bid 4♥.  I was close (8 working points) and 4♥  did have play, just not the way I played it.  Plus, I never considered 3NT and neither did partner.

But, after the hand, East who had passed as dealer heard RHO double after his partner opened 1♦ in third seat.  He remarked that he almost bid 1♥.  Not only would we then arrive in 3NT, not 4♥, but we would also have a road map for the 4 tricks available in the heart suit and not need to find who had the doubleton ♣Ax!  Always keep in mind that bidding is a double edged sword.  When bidding, you can be helping partner/messing up the opponents, or you can be giving the opponents the clues they need to both find the right contract and find the right line of play.  Bridge is a bidders game, but silence can be incredibly effective sometimes as well.

This hand contained a comedy of errors, except it wasn’t really all that funny, especially for my side.  Declarer only has 8 tricks in a heart contract, but one side contracted for 9 tricks, the other 10.  I normally make my leads face down and wait for acknowledgement before turning it face up.  Here, I managed to turn a lead out of turn face up and South who should have been declaring put their dummy down while partner is trying to lead.  Partner is confused about what is going on.  Eventually, my ♥J lead was accepted and South became dummy.  Declarer ducked, of course, winning the ♥K with the ♥A.  They then led the ♠J, won by West with the ♠A.  At this point, partner has 4 diamonds to choose from (♦10832).  If they lead the ♦10 or ♦8, we get our 5 tricks, defeating 3♥.  But, when they led a small diamond, declarer isn’t forced to finesse the ♦Q, they can play the ♦6, forcing me to win the ♦7 and saving their ♦Q for later.  When I got out with a heart, they won the ♥Q, cashed their spades and exited with a heart to my ♥9.  Having no more major suit cards, I am now endplayed in the minors to provide declarer their 9th trick, either in diamonds or clubs.  But I can’t blame partner – keep your face down lead face down.  Even better, pay attention to the auction and know whose lead it is.  

Meanwhile, our teammates ventured a game contract in hearts, played by South.  The opening lead of the ♠A won the first trick followed by a diamond shift where the ♦Q lost to the ♦K.  The ♥J was covered by the ♥Q, ♥K and ♥A.  But the defense already had 2 tricks with 2 trump tricks and 2 club tricks yet to come, down 3.  So, we were -140 and our teammates -300 to lose 10 IMPs.

Recap Of 10/22/2018 28 Board IMP Individual

October 23rd, 2018  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

A lot of action today with 8 double digit swings, mostly bidding decisions with a couple of opening leads thrown in to make the bidding differences impactful.  One of the 8 hands was a slam swing caused by a key card mixup that I won’t bother reporting, so that leaves 7 hands in today’s blog…

An automatic 1♥ opening bid was followed by a weak jump 2♠ overcall at one table and a simple 1♠ overcall at the other table.  In both cases, the bidding was already to 4♠ when the auction returned to the opening bidder.  But, since my partner didn’t move over the 2♠ bid, I thought our chances of beating 4♠ were greater than something good happening by coming in vulnerable at the 5 level with my second suit.  So, defending 4♠, we got our two red aces, declarer took the spade finesse and made 11 tricks.

At the other table, the East hand had a routine heart raise after hearing the 1♠ overcall.  So here, the opening bidder has heard from partner and decided the opponents might be stealing (or, if they are making, perhaps there is a good save available).  As the play unfolded the defense (our teammates) managed their  3 black winners, 2 diamond winners and a trump trick, down 4 for +1100 vs. our -650 to win 10 IMPs.

What about passing 5♦?  Well, if you knew 100% that it was a serious offer to play diamonds vs. a lead director in case the opponents persist to 5♠, then perhaps the diamond fit would play better than hearts.  Not knowing that, East returned to the known heart fit.

This turned out to be a great hand for playing standard/somewhat natural ‘help suit’ game tries rather than some spiral structure (the ones that I am familiar with would clearly set hearts as trump – finding the spade fit is off the table).  At my second turn to bid, I asked partner if we were playing spiral and he replied ‘standard’.  That allowed me to bid 2♠ naturally and see what partner does.

It also is a great hand for ‘6 key card ask’ when 2 suits are supported, the kings of both suits count as aces, and the queens just take your bidding even higher.  So, if we were playing 6 key card ask, and if partner was on the same page and considered my ‘help suit’ as a suit and viewed his hand as holding 2 key cards and 2 queens, the reply to 4NT key card ask would be 5NT showing 2 ‘aces’ and both queens.  With that, the far superior 6♠ slam could be reached with 12 tricks as long as spades are not 5-0 (that is, 4-4 fits can often be superior to 6-4 fits because a ruff (here a club ruff) can turn 4 spade tricks into 5 tricks to go with the 6 heart winners and the ♣A.  But I was not with a regular partner and didn’t know a bid that would say ‘is all of your ‘stuff’ in ‘my suits?’ (other than bidding the 6 key card ask which I can’t really invent for our 1 time partnership at the table).  So, I stuck with my long suit and signed off in 4♥ after partner accepted my game try.  Obviously I was always going to game, so why bother with a game try unless I make a move towards slam if partner likes my game try?  I really can’t answer that!  I can only say that I wanted to bid 6♠ but feared there would be no play if partner’s values were in the minors instead of all values in the majors.

That is, if partner held a maximum with nice 4 card fits with both of my suits, which they promised when they raised to 3♠ and if they had help in both of my suits:

♠ Qxxx  ♥ Qxxx  ♦ AQx  ♣ KJ

I don’t even want to be at the 5 level if partner had this hand even though they do have one key card.

At the other table, the auction started the same and the player with my hand simply bid key card and reached the nearly 50% slam (the ♦A is onside or it is not).  When the ♦A proved to be lying over the ♦K instead of in front of the ♦K, 11 tricks were scored at both tables allowing +650 for us and +100 for our teammates for a random 13 IMP win.  The spade slam was much better than 80% with the only failures happening when trump are 5-0 or an opening lead is ruffed.

As I side note, with N-S non-vulnerable, you can see that, in a club contract, they only lose the 3 outstanding aces and score 10 tricks.  So, even a 7♣X contract will show a profit against any making vulnerable game.  Obviously, no need to bid 7♣ if the opponents are going down in 6♥.  Of course the spots in South’s club suit are pretty miserable, but partner’s fit makes the club contract worthwhile.  N-S did not enter the bidding at either table.

Here, the auction began the same for the first 3 bids, but our North opponent simply raised 2NT to 3NT and played it there.  After a heart lead, declarer cashed their 11 tricks and gave us the last 2 tricks.  Our teammate made a reasonable bid to show their second suit (expressing concern about hearts) and when opener came back with 3♦ North thought hearts were a problem for NT and showed their ♠Jx with a 3♠ bid.  South then, unfortunately, raised to the spade game.  The hearts proved to be a bigger problem in the spade contract since the opponents could draw two rounds of trumps and then start playing hearts to score 5 tricks (3 top spades and 2 heart winners) for -200 to go with our -660, lose 13 IMPs.

I think showing your hand by bidding the second suit makes a lot of sense.  But the result should still have been 11 tricks in a NT contract or a minor suit contract and not 8 tricks in a spade contract.