Recap Of 11/9/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

November 11th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

Election conversation filled the day as we resumed our monthly (at least we try to  meet monthly, sometimes twice) 2-table bridge game.  Bidding judgement was the primary driver for all the big swings (throwing 9 IMP swings into the double digit category).

Board 2

You could call this first one an opening lead problem, but why would North lead a diamond?  Unless South bid 1♦?  Why would South bid 1♦?  Beats me.  I did not overcall, but Manfred did overcall 1♦ at the other table.  He was able to then receive the diamond lead which established the setting trick for the defense.  The ♣A and 2 trump tricks will “always” be scored (see below) by the defense, but the diamond losers can easily be discarded on clubs without a diamond lead.  At my table, North led the ♥2, won by the ♥A followed by the ♣K.  I won my ♣A, but at that point, there is no longer a chance to defeat the contract with the diamond losers discarded on the established clubs.  Should I have bid 1♦?  It appears so on this hand.

When the diamond was led a trick 1 at the other table, the defense chose to give declarer a “Grosvenor gambit” – an interesting psychological ploy in bridge.  For those readers not familiar, I quote from Wikipedia.

In the game of bridge, a Grosvenor gambit or Grosvenor Coup is a psychological play, in which the opponent is purposely given the chance to gain one or more tricks, and often even to make the contract, but to do so he must play for his opponents to have acted illogically or incorrectly.

Thus, the opponent likely ends up blaming himself for not taking advantage of the opportunity presented, even though to do so would have been irrational. The benefit of the Grosvenor gambit is supposed to come on future hands, due to a loss of concentration by the player who was taken in by the gambit.

The gambit was named after Philip Grosvenor, a fictional character in a short story by Frederick B. Turner published in The Bridge World,^[1] who first discovered the gambit accidentally, and over time developed its theory and deployed it deliberately. The story depicts Grosvenor as often frustrated by opponents who are too obtuse to fall for his ruse. Grosvenor’s lifeless body is eventually found bludgeoned to death, his fingers broken, shortly after a bridge tournament in which he used his gambit against the wrong opponents.

So, back to the defense – after winning the ♦A at trick 1, declarer played the ♠A and another spade.  North, upon winning the ♠K, failed to lead a diamond to cash the setting trick (along with the remaining ♠Q and ♣A).  Instead, they played a heart.  Declarer could have ducked the heart to the ♥10, and then played more hearts discarding his losing singleton club, losing only 2 trumps and the high diamond.  But, to take the heart finesse would likely result in an extra undertrick for -2, -100.  Why do that?  So declarer rose with a high heart and proceeded to lose his remaining trump loser along with the ♣A and diamond loser for -1, -50.  With no diamond lead at trick 1, I was -420, lose 10 IMPs.

Board 4

This next hand is, again, an opening lead problem, but more so (I think) a bidding problem.  As South, I was on lead vs. 3NT by East, the same contract that was played at the other table.  In a weak hand with no suit of my own,  I would ‘always’ lead a short unbid major, hoping for length in partner’s hand, and perhaps I should have led the unbid major here.  But with both length and weakness in spades, it made me think that spades was not the right start.  Instead, I went for length/strength in my minor by leading the ♦5 and presented declarer with his 9th crucial game fulfilling trick.  At the other table, North chose to open 1♠, providing a roadmap for the opening lead and the defeat of 3NT.  With a spade lead, declarer only has 1+0+1+6 tricks available.

Should North open 1S?  I think so.  It satisfies the rule of 20, it has 3 quick tricks, and it is SPADES.  I love bidding spades, the boss suit, because the opponents have to go to NT or else 1 level higher to compete for any contract.  But, still, I could have led a spade anyway.  Darn.  Lose -600 to go with -100 and lose 12 IMPs.  I hate starting out the day 22 IMPs in the hole.

Board 9

Bidding had nothing to do with the swing on this hand.  Both tables had the same auction arriving at the same contract.  The difference came from the timing of the declarer play.

At my table, upon winning the ♣A at trick 1, declarer immediately set about to draw trump.  Trick 2 was ♠3 to the ♠A, and then the ♠5 was led off dummy and RHO played the ♠9.  Time to think. If RHO held ♠QJ9x there would be 2 certain trump losers (if the ♠K is played now) to go with 2 red aces, down 1.  Is this time for a safety play, insert the ♠10?  That certainly seems reasonable, but in this case, the “safety play” cost the contract.  Declarer did play the ♠10 and when I (East) won the ♠Q, I knew partner had another spade and at most a singleton heart (2+ hearts with the NT bidder and 10 more hearts in my hand and dummy), so it was a simple matter to cash the ♥A (and ♦A, just to make sure partner didn’t accidentally return a club) and then provide the setting trick with the heart ruff.

At the other table, after winning the ♣A at trick 1, declarer led a heart.  Here East rose with the ♥A and gave partner a heart ruff.  When  a diamond was returned to the ♦A for another heart ruff, West ruffed with the ♠9, allowing declarer to overruff with the ♠10, draw trump and lose just the red aces and a single trump trick.  Had West ruffed up with the ♠J, declarer must overruff with the ♠K and then can only succeed by leading the ♠10, smothering the ♠9 if he is to bring home 10 tricks.

Is it best declarer play to play hearts first?  Is it best to take the safety play?  Beats me, but here the divergent lines of declarer play resulted in +50 and +420 for my side, win 10 IMPs.

Board 11

The bidding was the same at both tables through the first 6 bids.  I felt, with my shape and modest strength, it might be reasonable to respond to the takeout double with 1♥, 2♥, 3♥ or even 4♥ (6-5 come alive).  I’m still not sure of the best tactical bid.  Had I chosen to respond to the double with 4♥, I’m sure Dan (South at my table) was going to bid 4♠.  4♠X is the par spot for the hand.  In any case, both East’s responded to the double with 2♥.  The big difference in the auction was when North passed at my table with their second bid, while our teammate (Manfred) supported spades at the 3 level.  When Dan heard no spade support, he competed to the 5 level in clubs and then North converted to 5♠.  So, their ‘save’ was certainly preferable to defending 4♥, but it would have been better to take the save in 4♠.  There was nothing to the play nor defense – the defense will score 2+0+2+0, limiting declarer to 9 tricks, down 2, +300 for our side.  Our teammates collected their 3 aces for down 1 vs. 5♥X, but that was all they could get.  +100 resulted in 9 IMPs for our side.

Cris has a tough bid over 4♠.  Might 5♥ make?  Might 4♠ make?  That’s why people bid – it creates problems.

I think Dan may have felt he bid so strongly the first time, he better go quietly (over 4♠X) and hope 4♠ goes down.  Since I passed the first time, it was easy to bid when partner made the takeout double of 4♠. 

The ♠A might not have been the best start for the defense against 5♥, but with the ♣K onside, I was never in danger of failing to score 11 tricks and, when the defense continued with a club lead into my ♣AQ after ruffing a diamond, 12 tricks were available for +480.

The defense has 6 tricks against 4♠ (1+2+1+2) for +500 and a 1 IMP pickup.  But the defense started with the ♣A and went downhill from there, scoring only 4 tricks for -1, -100.  So we netted +380 to score 9 IMPs.

As usual, there were other interesting hands with either lessor swings or missed opportunities, but it is easier to just focus on the largest swings of the day.

Recap Of 10/5/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

October 6th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Well, it has been awhile.  I’ve been traveling, so it has been over 2 months since we played, but finally played again on Wednesday, October 5th.  I can’t complain much (well, a little), but it seems to me that most of the swings involved careless play/errors rather than any brilliant bidding, declarer play or defense.  Here we go.

Board 6

As you can see, the bidding resulted in the same contracts at both tables, but far from the optimum contract.  At both tables, as the bidding developed, the optimum contract, would have been 3♦X for +800 for N-S (at first glance, it seems as though declarer can only score 3 long diamonds and 2 aces for -1100, but 6 tricks are available for ‘only’ -800).  But declarer must play carefully to avoid -1100.  He has to use the power of the ♥9 by leading a small heart away from dummy’s ♥J after winning the ♥A.  But, if the opening lead is the ♥K, declarer must first draw at least 1 round of trump.  So, there are many paths to down 4, but best play will always score 6 tricks.

Against the actual contracts of 5♣X, the defense ended up less than optimum, a lot less at one table.  It is always good to defeat a doubled contract, so starting with the ♠A seems indicated and that was indeed the opening lead at both tables.  At my table, Cris continued with the ♥A and noting the fall of the ♥K, inexplicably continued hearts rather than providing a spade ruff for partner to achieve down 2.  So, eventually he scored his trump trick for -1, +100.

At the other table, looking at that dummy and knowing partner held a lot of diamonds, East played the ♦J at trick 2, the ♥K was discarded on the second high diamond and from that point, there was only 1 trump trick to lose for 11 tricks.  -550 to go with our -100 to lose 12 IMPs.  Disappointed.

If E-W don’t get involved in the bidding, the par contract is 3NT, 3 tricks for the defense, 10 for declarer, +430.  But when +800 is available, playing for +400 is losing an opportunity to score 9 IMPs.  My partner suggested I should bid 3NT over the 3♣ bid.  That certainly would have worked a lot better than what eventually happened!  But I thought 6-7-8 tricks for us defending a 3 level club or diamond contract might be easier than 9 tricks in a NT contract – my RHO did open 1NT!?!?

Bruce certainly did good to run from 1NTX, since +1100 is pretty easy on defense – the same 10 tricks we would get on offense if we declared 1NT.  But, since my double was penalty, a redouble normally asks partner to bid 2♣, after which he can convert to 2♦ to play and stay one level lower (if we opt to defend) and then he would lose only -500!

Hand 13

Our E-W teammates had no opposing bidding and arrived at a mostly unbeatable (as the cards lay) 3NT.   Only a trick 1 diamond lead succeeds.  I don’t think many would try a diamond if the hand were given to The Bridge World Master Solvers.  With no N-S bidding, and all 4 suits ‘bid’, a spade seems rather normal and a diamond rather double dummy.  Since the defense started with a spade to the ♠A and another spade, there was no time for declarer to go after club tricks.  The heart suit had to be the source of tricks.  With limited entries, Declarer is required to assume hearts are 3-3 or else ♥Kx onside.  Not a great contract, but 9 tricks were there on the spade lead (2+5+2+0) for a red game of +600.  Win a fortunate 11 IMPs.

One flavor of defense gets into a quite complicated end game.  If the defense ducks the opening spade lead (leaving declarer with no spades and only 1 spade trick (for now)), and then the defense plays a diamond after winning the ♥K, declarer must win the diamond in his hand and run hearts.  On the run of hearts, South is strip squeezed into either giving up the diamond suit, or else creating an end play resulting in declarer scoring 3 diamond tricks.

Meanwhile, in my spade contract, I had to lose 2+2+2+0 for -1, -100, win 11 IMPs.  This swing was more like most swings of the past – all based on varied bidding judgment (and lucky lie of the cards to correspond to that bidding).  So, as I see it, no real blunders (by the opponents at my table failing to reach 3NT).  But this was the only hand of the day where that was the case.

Board 16

The bidding at our table was short a sweet, arriving at the par contract.  We had 4 losers, 9 tricks were easy in 3♣ for +110.

I like Bruce’s responsive double.  Sometimes, when you overcall 2♣ you have one 4 card major but are short in the other major, so you are unable to start with a double.  The responsive double protects against that possibility with a later retreat to 3♣ if partner fails to offer a major.  Bruce effectively issued a speeding ticket to Cris for his ill-advised 3♦ bid (N-S were scheduled to collect +500 and win 9 IMPs), but once Dan bid again over the double, it became N-S that had gotten too high rather than E-W.  So, my side received 9 unexpected IMPs from what seemed like a nothing flat hand at our table.  Technically 9 IMPs is not a double digit swing, but ‘win 9’ vs. ‘lose 9’ seems like a double digit swing to me.

RE: 6 defensive tricks vs. 3♦.  If N-S draw trump, the defense will score 2+2+1+1.  If they don’t draw trump, allowing a spade ruff in dummy, the ♦10 can be promoted into the 2nd undertrick (heart overruff).

Hand 26

So, the same 3NT contract to be played at both tables, but reached from different sides.  With 25 HCP and stoppers in every suit, it doesn’t seem crazy to reach 3NT.  In fact, there appear to be 9 tricks after the double finesse in diamonds: 1+1+3+4.   The problem is, there is no way to unblock and enjoy all 4 club tricks.  Entries to the West hand are required to take 2 diamond finesses (in order to enjoy 3 tricks there).  Meanwhile, the opponents are going about setting up their major suit winners.  All-in-all, 3NT is pretty hopeless.  Well, that is what it seemed.

When East played the hand, the heart lead set up 4 winners there, so the split honors in diamonds wasn’t enough.  The opponents got to 5 tricks quickly before 9 was remotely possible (lose the diamond finesse and cash 4 more heart tricks.

When I (West) played the hand, the ♠2 lead marked the suit as 4-3-3-3.  So, before they could take a few in one major and then start taking tricks in the other major, I immediately won trick 1 with the ♠A and took the diamond finesse.  The opponents then cashed their 3 spade tricks (North pitching a club on the 13th spade) and continued hearts, forcing me to win the first round with the ♥A and continue diamonds.  I was already booked and needed the rest of the tricks.  But, with the second diamond finesse working, I was up to 3 diamond tricks and then ‘all’ I needed was to cash 4 clubs.  On the 13th diamond, rather than throwing the ♥K, North threw yet another club, allowing my ♣A to overtake the ♣J and then cash the ♣8 at trick 13 for my 9th trick.  Declarer’s 2♥ cue bid (suggesting clubs), South’s small heart lead (suggesting heart values), South’s Michael’s bid (suggesting heart values) and declarer’s failure to finesse the ♥Q suggested that he didn’t hold the ♥Q.  So, keeping four clubs and discarding the ♥K on the last diamond was needed to defeat the contract.  +600 and +100 allowed a lucky 12 IMPs for our side.

Reviewing the dealer’s choice of opening bids – I was surprised by both tables choosing 1♣.  I think Cris did it on purpose, but Mark, as he put down my dummy, indicated he made a mistake and did not actually intend to open 1♣.  Not only is it normal to open the longer suit (1♦), but often 4-3-3-3 hands with 12 HCP don’t really qualify for an opening bid (I know, ‘everyone’ is opening almost all 10 point hands these days – at least the big club guys are.  But no one in our group plays a big club).  So, does this specific hand qualify for an opening bid?  All 3 jacks are suspect in value and, as the cards lie, all 3 jacks are actually worthless.  That gets the hand down to a 4-3-3-3 9 count and even the big club guys don’t open those hands as dealer.

Another way to evaluate the hand is the Kaplan and Rubens Hand Evaluator:

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=j85+j92+a972+kqj

This is an extremely complex method of evaluating a hand that no person could perform at the table.  It computes the value to 2 decimal places (perhaps suggesting that a hand of 10.07 points is better than a hand of 10.04?), but it is a valuable tool to see if a hand is worth upgrading Work points (4-3-2-1) to a higher number, or downgrading to a lower number.  As you will see if you click the link, K&R evaluates this hand as 10.00.   This web site also provides the evaluation of Danny Kleinman which comes out at 9+.  Perhaps that is why 3NT is not a wise contract, even though partner’s hand evaluates at 13.1 K&R points (or 13- per Kleinman’s evaluator).  Both of these evaluation tools downgrade rather harshly for 4-3-3-3 hands, as they should and as we should at the table.

So that was all for the double digit swings.  There were 6 more 6 IMP swings – 2 were white games bid/not bid, while the other 4 were double plus positions on part score hands.

Recap Of 8/3/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

August 4th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Wow!  Only 4 double digit swings today…and I lost them all.  On to the details…

On this first one, I should have reasoned that my 3♣ bid showed extras, and if partner won’t move towards slam, then perhaps I shouldn’t either.  But I did.  The result was a slam that was quite close to 50% on a successful club finesse (a little less than 50% because it is possible the defense can obtain a first round ruff, or a ruff after winning the ♥A, then the slam would be down even with a successful club finesse).  And, without the ♣10, the slam is quite poor.  But, partner did have the ♣10, so, with no ruffs available, if the ♣K is onside, we win 13 IMPs.  It wasn’t. -100 vs. -650 and lose 13 IMPs.

Should I have pushed on?  Should partner have accepted?  Not with the ♣K offside!  But not the worst slam ever.

Undaunted, we faced this hand on the very next board.  Again, I felt I had too much to simply sign off in game, so I offered the 3♣ ‘game try.’  When partner accepted, I envisioned a possibly magic hand with ♠Kxxx and ♣Kx.  If partner only had ♠Kxx along with the ♣K, I could survive if trumps were 2-2. Or if trumps are 3-1 with a singleton honor, I can still bring it home as long as I guess correctly whether dummy or my hand should win the first trump trick.  So, I trotted out ol’ Black and when partner owned up to 1 key card, I was there, bidding 6♠.  It turned out the ♦A was his key card, but he held suitable trump honors to give decent play.  As I figure it, this is very close to a 75% slam (you can tell me if I have miscalculated).  If either black king is onside, I am in pretty good shape.  But, the order of which black finesse you try first matters.  I think I played it wrong, now that I have given it more thought.  Darn, I hate it when that happens.  

I led the ♠Q at trick 2 because I had the illusion that trying spades first gave me a ‘two-fer’.  If they ducked, I could then try clubs.  If they covered, I was very nearly home, and if it lost, I still had a high spade to then try clubs.  But, that thinking is flawed because ‘then try clubs’ means that after I cross to the remaining spade honor, trump likely need to be 2-2, and more critically, I not only need my RHO to hold the ♣K, I need it to be exactly ♣Kx or ♣Kxx, since I get only 1 finesse, then I must play the ♣A, then ruff, and the ♣K must fall, or else I still have a club to lose and the slam goes down.

So, back to what to play at trick 2 after the ♦A wins trick 1?  I’m convinced (now) that the right answer is to play clubs first.  If the club finesse wins, I cash the ♣A and ruff a club.  If the ♣K doesn’t fall in 3 rounds, I enter my hand and ruff my last club.  Now, I’m in dummy and I can still try the spade finesse for a chance for all 13 tricks.  If the club finesse loses, I win the return (whatever it is), cash the ♣A, ruff my remaining losing club (high) and then start taking spade finesses.  This fails if either opponent held only 1 club (so that they then they ruff my ♣A) or if RHO has only 2 clubs so that they overruff the third round of clubs.  It also fails if my RHO has all four outstanding trumps ♠Kxxx.

Normally, a slam needing 1 of 2 finesses is considered a 75% slam.  This certainly falls short of 75% because it needs a bit more than just 1 of 2 finesses.  There are other considerations in handling various scenarios.  Most importantly, all lines fail when LHO holds both black kings.  They did, so the slam, like the prior board, was down.  Since it was non-vulnerable, -50 vs. -450, lose 11 IMPs.

Note to self – don’t play so fast when a 22 IMP swing is looming for make/down in a slam.  Consider the possible layouts more carefully before embarking on a plan.  Here, my play didn’t matter, but finessing in clubs first after winning the ♦A (rather than spades first) handles many more situations of ‘at least 1 black king onside.’

48 IMPs difference on those two slams vs. the opposing players on the other team.  Win 13, win 11, total of 24 IMPs, vs. lose 24.

So, here we go again.  Another slam (only this time it was bid by our opponents at the other table).  Here it was all on the lead (sort of).  As you can see, the opening leader holds 12 cards that can be led to defeat the slam.  But, they also hold 1 card (♦A) that can be led that allows the slam to come home.  They (our teammate) found that 1 card!!!!!

But on the auction that they heard (no key card ask), the opponents are flying blind.  They could be off two cashing diamond tricks, but those (potential diamond winners) may only cash if they are led and cashed at tricks 1 and 2.  David Bird says to ‘never lead a singleton against a slam’ when you hold an ace, because the chance that you hit partner with an ace is zero, and you may locate a critical card for declarer by leading the singleton.  So, here the singleton works, actually any card works but the ♦A!  But, I think our teammate made the right lead based on the information available.

We played a mere 4♥ at our table and the singleton spade was led.  The beauty of the singleton is that partner can have either ace – the ace of the suit you led or the trump ace – and you get a ruff.  So, as it turned out, partner did not hold the spade A, but they did hold the trump A and provided the ruff to hold us to 11 tricks.  However, they ruffed one of our losers that could never go away anyway due to partner opposite the singleton leader holding the ♠QJT7.  Declarer has no place to dispose of his 3rd spade and no squeeze.  So, we were never scoring 12 tricks, but we were only in game anyway.

At the other table, in slam, after the ♦A was led and ruffed, declarer must lose the trump A, so they have to figure a way to dispose of the spade loser.  It is standard, for those who lead A from AK, to lead the K from AK at the 5 level or higher (this is because it is more likely that you might lead an unsupported A at that level and it is helpful to partner to know).  Anyway, declarer doesn’t know that the opening leader plays that ‘standard’.  Who has the ♦K is huge in the planning of the play of the hand.  As the cards lie, RHO has the ♦K and the only legitimate play to make the hand is to take a ruffing finesse in diamonds.  This is incredibly complicated because declarer only has 1 sure entry to dummy (♠K).  The ♥K could be an entry.  Or club ruffs could be an entry (yes ruffing your good AKQ of clubs!).  It is almost double dummy for declarer to play ♣A at trick 2, ruff a high club at trick 3, and then float the ♦Q, hoping for RHO to hold the ♦K.  But 2 entries are required for the ruffing finesse in diamonds.  You could try to force the ♥K to be an entry by first leading a high heart from hand (since you have no ‘need’ to ruff a club).  If everyone plays low, the ♥K is an entry only by ruffing a club.  Then use the ♠K as the entry, later, to discard your spade loser on the established high diamond.

At the table at trick 2, declarer led a heart to the ♥K and ♥A.  Now the spotlight switches to East.  What do they return after winning the A?  It turns out, on the run of hearts and clubs, they will become squeezed in spades and diamonds, so a spade return (at trick 3) is required to break up the squeeze.  If declarer wins in dummy, they have lost the late entry to the diamond threat, and if they win in hand, they have lost their entry to the spade threat, so after running clubs and hearts, East will have the luxury of discarding after dummy and the slam goes down.

But wait – declarer can win the spade in dummy, lead the ♦Q, taking a ruffing finesse, and then, if covered, enter dummy with a club ruff and discard his losing spade on the established diamond.  But, that line of play is the only way to make the hand at this point as the cards lie.  Declarer might take the view that his LHO has the ♦K (so the ruffing finesse is a losing cause) and simply win the spade in his hand, draw trump, run clubs and hope to squeeze LHO at trick 11.  If LHO is the only one that can guard spades (he is hoping) and has the ♦K (he is hoping), then his last 2 cards cannot include both the ♦K and a spade guard.  Dummy’s ♠Kx will take the last two tricks, 12 tricks in all.  But, as the cards lie, that line will fail.

Now back to reality – East did not return a spade at trick 3, so declarer had a double squeeze available (spade transportation intact).  He didn’t care who held the ♦K if they also held the stopper in spades, they would be squeezed.  And they were.  On the run of hearts and clubs, declarer has won 9 out of 10 tricks, losing the trump A, but winning 3 clubs and 6 hearts.  Needing the last 3 tricks,  Dummy comes down to their last 3 cards ♠K9  ♦Q.  Declarer’s last 3 cards are ♠A85 and East…has no answer.  If they keep the ♦K, they can only keep 2 spades and declarer’s last spade is good.  If they throw the ♦K, then dummy’s ♦Q is good.  This is what happened and this is how declarer brought home 12 tricks.  Not a good slam (looking at the 2 North-South hands you would have virtually no play).  But, +650 vs. -1430, lose another 13 IMPs.  Disappointed.

What do you think of the 2♣ opening bid?  What do you think of no search for slam after opening 1♥? Certainly the 4♥ rebid shows a very strong suit in a strong hand, so with some hands that will make slam, I might have made a move over 4♥.  I almost did with the actual hand!

It is so embarrassing to put in this last hand that I almost didn’t include it.  While I lost 37 IMPs on the first 3 reported hands, I wasn’t embarrassed about my actions on any of them (well a little embarrassed about my play in 6♠ when I tried the spade finesse first instead of the club finesse).  But this hand shows a classic beginner lesson that you can get wrong every time if you are not paying attention (and I wasn’t paying attention).  First, the bidding.  Not a thing of beauty at our table.  I was 100% certain of playing a 5-2 fit, but fell victim to thinking 10 tricks are easier than 11.  I should have been thinking “I can take heart taps ‘forever’ if diamonds are trump, but if spades are trump, heart taps could present a problem.”  With that proper thinking, I should pull 4♠ to 5♦ and we would either push the board (if our opponents doubled) or lose 4 IMPs if we took our 11 tricks undoubled (since our teammates had doubled 5♦ making).  Anyway, we were playing 4♠ so the objective is to make the bid we are in. 

I won the opening lead with the ♣A in dummy, cashed the ♠A and led a spade to the ♠10 (thinking the takeout doubler likely had length in spades).  Boy did he.  But, no problem.  Draw 4 rounds of trump, let him ruff a diamond, then cash a winning heart and a winning club and claim the rest for 10 tricks.  What could go wrong?  Well, diamonds are likely 3-1 (if they are 4-0, I’m hopeless).  If they are 3-1, I need to discard a diamond from dummy while playing spades to get the ♦7 out of the way of my ♦32.  Failing to do that will result in round 4 of diamonds being won in dummy (for my 9th trick) with no way back to my hand to score my good 13th diamond.  This is not even intermediate play.  This is basic beginner bridge that ‘no one’ could get wrong when presented as a problem on a piece of paper, but, at the table, I was careless, failed to throw away a diamond as I played spades, and therefore went down in 4♠ when it was cold on the club lead (yes, they could have started with hearts and I would have had no chance because I am tapped out at trick 2, but they didn’t).  That goes back to the bidding, where I said I should have bid 5♦ over 4♠ and then I would not have to be reporting this embarrassing hand.  -50 and -550, lose 12 IMPs.

Slight revision to blog of Board 21 from May 18

July 25th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

While I (Bob Munson) am typing this, the content below is actually via cut/paste from an email dialog with Mike Schneider who played in the game on May 18.  Mike’s specific point of interest involves the auction on board 21 (this board was not mentioned in the original blog).

Except for the final call by East, the bidding at both tables was identical.  At his last turn to bid, Dan advanced to 3NT.  Lew passed for his last bid and I played 3♣.

Here are the hands that created that auction:

Recap Of 6/20/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

June 21st, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

Three big swings on Monday – twice a game made at one table, down at the other; once a slam made.  Details to follow.

Board 4

Looking first at the bidding at the other table, Does East have a vulnerable weak jump overcall of 2♥?  It seems that North must have a reopening 2NT bid over 2♥.  With 18 HCP and 5 quick tricks, there must be something to bid.  What South does next (assuming North reopens with 2NT showing 18-19) is anyone’s guess.  5♣ seems reasonable.  6♣ seems a real stretch.  3NT might be bid, but very doubtful 3NT would make (double dummy, 3NT by North is down on any lead but the ♥Q).  If South ventures forth with an immediate 3♣ over 2♥, then it seems North-South should reach game or slam in clubs.  3♣ is a bit of a stretch, but South at the other table judged to make a 2/1 game forcing 2♣ bid over 1♦.   Our teammates defending 2♥ undoubled was a disappointment to us, but the reality is, what they did mattered at most 1-3 IMPs.  The problem was me – my lead.  My lead was a big disappointment as my lead allowed 6♣ to make!!!!

Beating 3NT is not that obvious/easy though.  A spade lead (double dummy down 2) is possible, but not likely.  On a heart lead, declarer must win the ♥A (not win cheaply in dummy), saving the ♥J for a later entry.  It is crucial that West never ‘signal’ with a spade card – it is West’s length in spades that allows 3NT to be defeated.  Declarer, after winning the ♥A, cashes the ♣A and leads a small heart towards the ♥J.  Now, East must win the ♥Q and play a high spade.  Any other continuation/line of defense brings in the club suit for declarer without 5 tricks for the defense.  But, if East does play a high spade after winning the ♥Q, the defense will score 3+1+0+1 and defeat 3NT.

Enough on the 3NT that didn’t happen.  The South hand seems more oriented to suit play.  But all of this discussion about what didn’t happen at our teammate’s table really doesn’t matter.  If they bid 3NT and make it, or bid 5♣ and make it, we still lose 13 IMPs because of my lead against 6♣!  If they manage to arrive in 2♥X and score +800, we still lose 11 IMPs!

So, what about my lead?  I thought the auction sounded like spades were being ruffed in dummy.  And, I thought a club lead would reduce the spade ruffs.  When I led a trump, declarer had 2 excess trumps (besides the 5 needed to draw mine) – those two trump were used to ruff diamonds good and 12 tricks came home.  -1370 vs. +300, lose 14 IMPs.  That was a 23 IMP swing on the lead (win 9 or lose 14), which is often the case with vulnerable slams.  What would Lead Captain or David Bird lead?  It is hard to say.  The problem with that analysis is that you have to make assumptions about what the bidding has indicated what the North-South holdings are in the various suits.

The Bridge World magazine has a monthly problem H – what do you lead?  Often people answering the problem construct a hand where their lead successfully beats the contract, while any other lead allows it to make.  So, that got me thinking more about my lead – something that I should have done at the table!!  For a trump lead to be necessary, one of 2 conditions must be met:

1. Declarer needs to ruff 1 spade in dummy to reach 12 tricks, but a trump lead prevents that one ruff
2. Declarer needs to ruff 2 spades in dummy for 12 tricks, but a trump lead holds him to 1 ruff, 11 tricks.

Example of 1 ruff needed:

With this construction, a spade lead allows 12 tricks (2+2+1+7) because dummy can ruff spades after a spade lead.  A trump lead kills the ruff and declarer will come up a trick short.  But, this is the only reasonable construction I could create where a trump lead is the winning lead, and it doesn’t come close to fitting the auction – would Dan really bid both 4♣ over 3♠ and 6♣ over 5♣?  Not a chance.

Example of 2 ruffs needed:

Example 2 is even worse.  Yes, a trump lead defeats the contract, but, again, the hands do not fit the bidding; and, a spade lead also defeats the contract.  I’ve spent enough time on this to realize one thing: next time spend more time at the table instead of in the post mortem.  This was not that hard to realize that a trump lead cannot be the necessary lead to defeat the contract.

One final closing note – the players involved thought that 6♣ was cold, even on a spade lead, since declarer can win the ♠A, cross to the ♣A, cash the ♦AK throwing their spade losers away, and ruff a diamond to enter their hand to continue drawing trump.  The catch is, when I win my ♣K, I simply play a spade, forcing a ruff by declarer.   So it turns out the opening lead must be a spade in order to tap declarer in spades (much later).  That spade ruff, plus drawing my trumps, exhausts declarers trumps with none left to ruff diamonds good.    Down 1.

Board 7

We had the exact same bidding, contract, and lead at both tables.  It was all over at trick 1.  At my table, declarer feared a club shift, which could knock out the crucial entry to diamonds, so he decided to play (me) the opening bidder to hold the ♠A.  So, at trick 1, he won the ♥A, led a spade to the ♠J and ♠A.  The heart continuation allowed me to cash out for down 2.

At the other table, declarer couldn’t see the harm in ducking the heart (standard play holding AJx in a suit unless a shift will be fatal).  Here, declarer felt that if the defense shifted to clubs, he would duck and play for split club honors, and reach 10 tricks via 0+1+6+3.  After winning the opening lead, the defense had no answer.  Any continuation by South left declarer in the driver’s seat.  After ducking trick 1, declarer eventually took 11 of the remaining 12 tricks.  +660 and +200 win 13 IMPs.

Find the minor suit queens.  Our teammates, with no opposing bidding, found them both and brought home 5♣.  North, at my table, won the spade lead and led trump, watching the ♦Q show up on the way to the ♦A.  Declarer then led spades, needing to ruff their last spade in dummy before drawing trump.  After cashing 2 spades, I led a heart.  Declarer ruffed, and knew that drawing trump would mean he had no more trump left, so decided to try clubs immediately before drawing the rest of the trump.  He played partner for the ♣Q. and then I gave partner a club ruff for down 2.  Declarer found out I had exactly 4 spades and 1 diamond.  That meant I most likely held 6 hearts and 2 clubs, or 5 hearts and 3 clubs.  Of course that would still be the case if I had not doubled.  Anyway, for whatever reason, they lost to my ♣Q for +100 to go with +400, win 11 IMPs.

Recap Of 6/15/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

June 18th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

Lots of swings on Wednesday, but only 4 that cleared the hurdle of double digit swings for including in the blog.  All four swings were 11 IMPs (and, for once, all in my favor!).  

When my teammates stopped in game, 3 non-vulnerable slams of varying soundness were reached, all failing.  One slam (less than 50% to begin with), could have been made, but declarer didn’t find the winning line.  Another would have been 90+% in the right strain, but NT didn’t fare so well.  The 3rd slam was way less than 50%.  The other swing was  a red game.

Board 2

Well, the swing on this one was all in the bidding.  East has an easy obvious 1♠ opening bid.  South can choose to enter the auction or not.  One did, one didn’t.  At my table, when partner ventured forth with 2♦ and then rebid 3♦, I felt compelled to try the red game.  +150 when vulnerable is always disappointing.   East recognized that this was not the time for ‘fourth from longest and strongest’.  With clubs our weak suit, the ♣K opening lead would have given me pause, but when the ♣K is ducked and East cannot continue, there is no problem for declarer.  On the actual ♥J lead (sneak attack in an unbid side suit), I played the ♥Q and then played diamonds from the top.  On the run of diamonds, East is forced to eventually allow me to score my ♠10 for 11 tricks (2+2+6+1).  No lead can beat 3NT, but the ♠K would have likely given me the biggest problem, knocking out my easy/sure entry to diamond tricks.  When the 1♠ contract failed by 3 tricks, our teammates were -150 to go with our +660 for 11 IMPs.

Board 5

I don’t think the bidding receives any style points.  Yet, East had a suitable fitting minimum and it turns out a makable slam was reached.  When Mark led his singleton ♣Q, Mike took a considerable amount of time considering his continuation – how to tackle the hand after winning in dummy?  He must lose the ♥A, so he cannot lose any other trick.  But, as long as trump are 3-2, it appears he is looking at 12 pretty certain tricks.  2+4+2+4  Play 2 rounds of spades, pitching his club, to avoid the threat of the pending club ruff, draw trump and claim, ruffing a club high if his RHO rises with the ♥A when hearts are led.

But, appearances can be deceiving.  Assuming trumps split 3-2, WHO has 3, who has 2?  Missing the ♥1098 makes a bit of a problem.  If North ducks the ♥A when trumps are first led from dummy, declarer must win and continue hearts.  Declarer must assume that RHO held exactly ♥A8 doubleton and not play the ♥J on the second lead of trumps (letting the ace catch air).  If he does play the ♥J, “forcing” the ♥A, a club continuation promotes South’s trump to the setting trick.

Of course, if RHO had held ♥A98, then declarer actually has no play/guess when he leads towards the ♥J. Since declarer’s black cards are gone, the ♥J is the only possible entry to the club winners.  Declarer can play the ♥J on the second lead of hearts to force the ♥A (so he doesn’t lose to the lowly ♥9), and that will handle heart losers, but all RHO needs to do, in that case, is win the heart and return a heart.  Dummy is dead and declarer is left with 2-3 diamond losers.  If RHO errs (when holding ♥A98) and returns a club for partner to ruff, knowing partner doesn’t have a trump left, dummy’s clubs are revived and the slam comes home!

All of this guessing (who has 3, who has 2) eventually led declarer to decide to hope that LHO held the ♥A or that the ♣Q was not a singleton.  That hope didn’t happen as I rose with the ♥A and gave partner a club ruff for -1.  

I think there is limited downside to cashing the ♠AK (pitching the club) prior to leading trump.  If, as you hoped, LHO holds the ♥A, pretty much the only damaging return after LHO wins the ♥A would be a spade uppercut (if LHO held 6 spades, RHO 2, which they did).  That is, on a different layout, if South had held ♥A109 and I (North) held ♥85, when South wins the ♥A on the first trump lead, a spade continuation allows me to ruff with my ♥8, forcing the other high trump from declarer and turning the remaining ♥109 in the South hand into a power trump trick (with only the ♥J7 remaining in dummy opposite ♥432 to draw trump).

Perhaps this ‘what if?’ has gone on too long, but there is one more interesting way to beat the hand if declarer does lead spades at tricks two and three, taking the club discard.  If LHO (South) had held ♥A109, rather than go for the trump promotion, South could simply duck hearts twice.  If South thinks declarer will not play the ♥J on the second trump lead (‘needing’ the ♥A to be doubleton with North), by ducking the second time, South can win that trick and still have the ♥A for the setting trick.

When the ♣Q made its appearance at trick 1, it gave me the impression that an excellent slam was reached because your problem of how to find 4 club tricks is immediately solved.  The comments above show that all problems are not solved.  Spots matter.  Here, if East-West held all of the heart spots, it would have taken very foul distribution (4-1 trumps or some unlikely ruff at trick 1 due to a void in the North hand) to defeat the slam.  It is too hard for me to figure out, given the actual 2 hands, what is the best line of play and the % of success for that line.  But, without the ♣Q lead, this slam requires things too friendly and too many guesses for the slam to reach the desired 50+% likelihood of success.

Since our teammates did not bid slam, we scored +50 and +450 for 11 IMPs.  Lucky declarer didn’t guess the line of play to make it, but at the end of the day, glad our teammates did not bid it.

Board 9

As you can see, again, bidding is the difference.  With the opponents passing and the first 6 bids identical at both tables, I decided I had nothing extra and passed.  Mike decided he had the right cards and ventured into the diamond slam.

Even if diamonds are 3-3, there are still spade/heart losers that must be dealt with, but the power of the club suit deals with both of those losers quite nicely.  Or the ♦J10 could have been doubleton.  When there was a diamond to lose and the ♣Q was offside, no miracle occurred and the slam failed.  Certainly not the worst slam ever bid, but not a contract you want to be in looking at both hands.

Meanwhile, in 3NT, I ducked the spade lead, winning the ♠J.  After cashing the ♦K, I crossed to the ♥A and played diamonds.  Upon winning the 4th round of diamonds, they cashed the ♥K and the rest were mine.  +460 and +50 for 11 IMPs.

Board 17

Recap Of 5/23/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

May 25th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

Well, a mostly different group played again Monday and…no whining from me for once.  I can’t complain, most of the swings went my way, not from any brilliance, but often a missed opportunity by the opponents.  But, the theme of “bid the games and let them try to beat you” that has been mentioned before was often the theme of the day.

Board 6

Wow.  We thought we lost 11 IMPs when we failed to enter the auction.  We were cold for 11 tricks in 5 of either major (+650 with a simple heart finesse (that fails) to make a slam).  Meanwhile we were letting them play a quiet 5♦ with no double, down 2 for +100!!?!   Instead of losing 11 IMPs, we were stunned to win 12 IMPs when our opponents found the unfortunate opening lead of the ♥A, allowing our teammates to score up +510 in their 4♣X contract as one spade loser went away on the ♥K, losing just a spade and 2 diamonds.

East has a difficult opening call.  Pass? 1♥? 1♠? 2♥?  All bids, including pass, seemed (to me) flawed, but I think 2♥ is the worst of the lot and I don’t know what I would have chosen at the table.  One favorite partner called this an ‘easy 1♠ bid’ – clearly below reverse values (so not 1♥), but it clears the hurdle for an opening bid.  It satisfies the ‘rule of 20’ (11 (2 long suits) +9 HCP), but the hand does not hold 2 quick tricks and ♦Q5 is a soft 2 point contribution to your meager total of 9.  As dealer, both players chose pass and, talking with them after the hand, they both thought ‘well, I can just enter the auction later’.  One did enter later, the other didn’t, but neither found their way to 4 or 5 of a major suit.  Should West come in over the opening bid of 4♣?  West holds nice HCP, but sterile distribution and partner is a passed hand, so both Wests passed over the 4♣ opening bid.

Partner must have shape for the reopening double at this level after an initial pass.  Should West bid over 4♣X?  Or ‘pass and take the plus score?’  On this hand, bidding was clearly right, and perhaps that is the percentage action whenever this strange auction might occur again.  If you do bid over partner’s reopening double, I’m sure the opponents will bid 5♣(perhaps North should bid 5♣ immediately, preventing the balance over 4♣?).  Bidding 5♥ will be very hard (over 5♣).  It looks like the answer is that East needs to open 1♠.  If you pass 4♣X, then you have to find the lead!  That makes another reason to bid over the reopening double.  I thought this was a tough hand, lucky result.  Win 12 IMPs

Board 11

East-West hold modest HCP with no 5 card suit and a bunch of 4-3 fits, but the spots (10s, 9s, 8s) allow the hand to play quite well in NT.  As you see, one tried 2NT, the other 3NT.

Start with the bidding – does South have a 2♦ opening bid in first seat?  Probably not, with such a terrible suit, but I did open 2♦.  If South does open 2♦, should West penalty pass partner’s reopening double?  Probably.  Best defense vs. best offense will net +500 and it is often good, in IMP scoring, to take the plus score, even if you don’t get optimal defense.  However, West, responding to the reopening double, bid 2NT (often treated as lebensohl over a weak 2, and specifically over a weak 2♦, 2NT would often indicate limited values (less than 8 HCP) and a desire to play 3♣.  Here, 2NT was bid as natural, not lebensohl.  East, deciding partner can’t be THAT good or they would have just passed the double, decided to pass 2NT.

At the other table, when South did not open 2♦, North opened 1♥ in third seat. East has an awkward hand.  It is certainly a sound opening bid, but far from an ideal takeout double with a singleton in an unbid suit.  Here East decided to double anyway and South, with a big misfit for hearts decided to stick in a 2♦ bid (after a double, this bid is weak, but usually a stronger suit – however failure to open 2♦ suggests that this 2♦ bid is likely flawed in some way).  Now, with the ♦Q as a bonus card to help with the diamond suit in NT, East raised 2NT to 3NT.  Both tables got the opening lead of the ♦J, covered by the ♦Q and ♦A.  From here, double dummy and single dummy play diverged quite significantly.  At double dummy, a spade or heart lead at trick 2 is required to hold declarer to 10 tricks.  A club or diamond at trick 2 allows 11 tricks.

Against 2NT, I chose to continue diamonds at trick 2 rather than break another suit.  Declarer made the optimal play of the ♦8, throwing a club from dummy.  How should declarer continue?  If they cash their 2 diamond winners, not only is dummy squeezed out of possible length tricks, but they would be setting up 2 diamond winners for South in case South held one of the black kings.  At this point declarer is cold for 11 tricks, but only if they are seeing all the cards.  To score 11 tricks they must take only two heart finesses and then lead a spade honor and force North to cover.  Then a spade to the ♠8 will bring in 3+4+3+1 for 11 tricks, since, at this point, transportation is available and they can untangle their tricks.  But, this requires knowing that South holds exactly ♠9xx.  Still, continuing a third round of hearts (after winning two finesses) is fraught with danger.  Our declarer did take the third heart finesse and then cashed the ♥A, throwing a club.  Next, a spade to the ♠10, losing to the ♠J.  Now, when North cashed the ♥K declarer is seriously squeezed.  At the table, they threw away another club.  Now if North exits with the ♣K, it squashes declarer’s now singleton ♣Q, removing the vital entry to the diamond winners.  However, partner guessed to get out a small club which rode around to the ♣Q so declarer achieved the needed entry to cash diamonds and score 10 tricks, -180 for our score.  At the table, we thought we actually would defeat 2NT had partner found the ♣K exit (no entries to the diamonds), but as long as declarer throws away their diamond winners, the power of the ♠Q8 over the ♠9 still allows declarer, in the end, to reach 8 tricks since the defense has no long suit to cash.  Saving all my black cards, I had thrown all of my remaining diamonds on the 4 rounds of hearts when I could not follow suit to the heart leads.

At the other table, our teammate, in 3NT had the opportunity for a white game swing.  After winning the ♦A at trick 1, the defense tried clubs, the other continuation that allows declarer to score 11 tricks (leading spades or hearts to ‘hold’ declarer to 10 tricks is hardly obvious at the table, but both club and diamond continuations by the defense at trick 2 allow 11 tricks when subsequent play by declarer follows the best line).  The ♣4 was covered by the ♣10, ♣K and ♣A.  Now, if the heart finesse is onside (North did open 1♥), declarer is up to a minimum of 9 tricks (1+4+2+2) with other chances for 1 or 2 overtricks.  However, declarer didn’t count their tricks and lost their way in the play of the hand to finish with 8 tricks.  -50 to go with our -180, lose 6 IMPs.  If declarer brought home 3NT, we would win 6 IMPs, so I counted this as a double digit swing (win 6, lose 6), since the bidding, the play, the defense and the double dummy opportunities were interesting (to me, anyway).

You could say I got what I deserved here (losing IMPs after opening a very poor 2♦), but, with the friendly lie of the cards, we kept them out of a decent 3NT.  When faced with a borderline decision to preempt, or not, I will usually choose to preempt – often it leaves the bad guys with a problem.

Board 14

I don’t exactly have reverse values in terms of traditional high card points (on 4=5 hands I want 16 good working points as my bare minimum), but I sure like to open my 6 card suit when possible, so if the auction stayed low, I intended to reverse into 2♥.  One regular partner suggests this is still worth a reverse without the ♣K.  I’m not sure I would go that far, but clearly the minimum to reverse with 5=6 is lower than with 4=5.  I did a quick search on Google to see what could be found about the minimum values for a reverse.  The Bridge World opinion polls talk about it a lot, but only in the context of ‘a minimum hand too weak to reverse’ but I didn’t find any attempt to define/judge ‘minimum’.  Everyone judges their own, and that is part of what makes bridge such a great game.

The auction did not stay low.  So, partner, who thought they had a NT bid in reserve (for their next bid) when they overbid slightly with 2♣, had to deal with my ‘reverse’ at the 4 level.  They passed, and there we were in 4♥, needing to find 10 tricks.

The opening lead was the ♠10, covered by the ♠K, ♠A and ruffed.  A glance at dummy shows we have 2 sure trump losers and the ♣A, so no other tricks can be lost.  At trick 2, I had a choice (either works) of establishing clubs for diamond discards, or establish diamonds and making my hand good.  There are entry considerations (how can I get to the good clubs?), but I thought trying for 3-2 clubs seemed better than 3-3 diamonds.  At trick 2 I led the ♣K which was won by the ♣A.  In the post mortem, we thought possibly ducking the ♣A would help cut my transportation, but as the cards lay, I can actually score 11 tricks if the ♣K is allowed to hold!  Also, in the post mortem, we thought continuing clubs after winning the ♣A, severing my link to dummy’s long strong suit, might give me trouble.  But double dummy analysis shows there is no defense able to beat best offense.  The actual defense, after winning the ♣A was another spade, which I ruffed, saving my ♠Q as a possible stepping stone entry (a suit the opponents lead for you) and/or a late stopper.  I then led a small heart which the defense won and led yet another spade with the ♠Q winning.  But, I was in control.  I could simply cash the ♥A (trump breaking 3-2, leaving 1 trump outstanding) and lead my remaining club to dummy.  The opponent with the high trump could ruff clubs whenever they wanted, but dummy’s heart could provide the entry and dummy’s clubs would provide all the necessary tricks to fulfill the contract.

What if the defense continued clubs after winning the ♣A, removing my last club?  At this point, 3 tricks have been played, 10 cards remain.  Amazing (to me), I can lead any of dummy’s ten remaining cards and still make the contract.  If I lead a high club, the long trump hand must ruff and I remain in control of the hand.  If they don’t ruff, I can go about setting up diamonds (via the ruffing finesse).  Since RHO had preempted with 3♠, I thought they likely had little outside of trump, and since and LHO overcalled 1♠ with no top spades, I felt it was likely they held the ♦K and they did.  So, I had started with plan A (set up clubs), but I can revert to plan B (set up diamonds) if they lead clubs at trick 3 and remove my remaining club.

This is a very common trump situation where you start the suit by losing 1, then cash the trump A, hoping for a 3-2 split and just leave the remaining high trump outstanding.  A similar, but more difficult holding of Axxx opposite xxx requires you to lead low trumps twice prior to cashing the A, hoping for 3-3, or, if they are 4-2, just leave the remaining high trump outstanding and go about your business taking other (hopefully) good tricks.  Beginning bridge players are taught to draw trumps, and sometimes that is best.  But I think the vast majority of hands require handling trump differently – there is too much important work to do, either with dummy’s trump or your own, to spend them drawing all of the opponents trumps.

What did declarer do to go down at the other table?  Sorry, I don’t know.  But +420 and +50, 10 IMPs.

Board 15

I’m not a very big fan of weak jump shifts, but I must admit that is what my card says (when in competition).  But, you need the right hand.  And a weak hand.  I have seen a lot of games missed due to a ‘weak’ jump shift that was too strong, partner passed, but game was available.  On this board, the ‘weak’ North hand proved to be too strong when the contract ended in 3♥, while at my table, my partner, hearing me rebid the suit where he was void, decided it was best to mention his hearts one more time and I raised him to game with my partial fit (singleton in their suit, doubleton ace in partner’s suit).  Unfortunately, I don’t have the auction for this board at the other table, but someone said something about a weak jump shift so I assumed that was the cause for the missed game.

There is no defense against 4♥.  Even though declarer has 4 diamond losers remaining after losing the opening diamond lead, there are opportunities for discarding those losers on clubs and spades and even ruffing one.  At our table, the actual defense started with the lead of the ♦Q, overtaken by the ♦K to shift to the ♠2.  East won the ♠A and led a diamond to tap dummy.  Declarer cash the ♥A, ♣A, ♣K and when the ♣Q fell, continued with the ♣J, ruffed and overruffed.  Then cashed the ♥K, leaving one high trump outstanding and played spades, pitching the remaining diamond.  So, there were only the pointed suit aces and the high trump to lose, 10 tricks, +620.  The other table managed 11 tricks, but since they only reached 3, our teammates were -200, win 9. 

Board 17

Well, the North hand, what there is of it, is prime (ace, kings) with 2 quick tricks and satisfying the rule of 20.  So, terrible as it is, I am certain I would have opened 1♠.  Once opened, how can South stay out of this terrible slam?  South has a fit, a source of tricks, controls, HCP, what more could you want?  Well, you could check on key cards.  Missing 2, the slam would normally not be bid.  The resulting slam has very little chance of success.  While you could alter your play, double dummy, to handle a few rare distributions, but the basic chance (after losing the ♣A on the opening lead) is to find the ♠K onside.  But, that is not nearly enough.  Missing the ♠10, declarer has to find a doubleton ♠10, either ♠K10 doubleton onside, or ♠10x doubleton offside.  Or, there is the additional chance of Any Kx onside and the defender mistakenly fails to cover.  If you guess that correctly, your chances improve somewhat.  Unless there is something I am missing, if I have done the math right, the legitimate chance of success is barely above 10%.  Not the sort of slam you want to be in.  Unless, this is one of those 10% hands.  And it was.  So, thanks to my teammates, we won a very lucky 11 IMPs on this one.

Board 20

Once South balanced, we were losing IMPs.  I (East) needed to pass 2♥ and they would have played it there, for -170 for us.  Instead, I bid, and that propelled them into the cold vulnerable game (-620) while our opponents at the other table were able to play 1♠ and make it, -80 for our teammates and lose 12 IMPs.

I must confess balancing 1NT would not have occurred to me, but it was sure the winning action on this hand.  It seems as though a double is an alternative balancing action (vs. 1NT).  It is minimum (I think of 10 HCP as the bare minimum bottom of a double), and it lacks 4 hearts, but you do have strong 3 card heart support which proved to be the key to making the game.  I think I would have doubled.

Back to my initial third seat action (pass) – I have seen top players in world championships respond 1NT with hands like mine, more as a blocking bid against the opponents than any kind of constructive bid for partner.  That hasn’t been my style, but it looks like I better start looking at that more closely.  Thoughts?

Board 23

This hand was not a double digit swing, but it could have been if I guessed right at the table.  Preempts are tough.  Since we can make 5♦, 6♣X down 1 is the par contract.  If I had doubled 6♣ instead of bidding on, we score +200 to go with +500 and win 12 IMPs.  But, I was drawn in to the fantasy of making our slam.  Since there are 2 kings offside, we must lose them both, and, in a heart contract, an opening diamond lead allows 1 more trick for the defense by ruffing, and still scoring the ♦K and ♠K later.  High level decisions are tough.  Are they making 6♣?  Are we making our slam?  Are both/neither making?  That is why preempts are so popular.  So, only 10 tricks at both tables in 6♥, but with the double by our teammates, we won 7 IMPs.

Board 24

Same auction, same contract, same lead at both tables.  Assuming the ♥K is onside and ♦A is also onside, I have 2+2+1+4 if I can find the ♣Q (2-way finesse).  This may seem like wishful thinking, but I have to start somewhere with assumptions about how I can come to 9 tricks.  There is also the problem in spades – while I have the power (with a lead into my spade holding) to force 2 spade tricks, they may come rather slowly.  I decided, at trick 1, to fly the ♠Q and see if I can get my spade tricks quickly.  The ♠Q won.  Because it looked like LHO might have 4 spades and RHO 2 spades, I decided to play RHO for the ♣Q (I understand – I still I need them to be 3-3 if I am going to get 4 tricks in clubs).  I can lead a club to the ♣K and run the ♣10 (winning play), but I led a club to the ♣10 which lost to the ♣Q.  Now, after some thought, LHO laid down the ♠K, dropping his partner’s ♠J and making my remaining ♠97 opposite the ♠8 a power trick by forcing out the ♠10.  When LHO won the ♠10, they led a diamond to the ♦A, and RHO returned a club.  So, now all I had to do was lead the ♥Q.  When LHO covered with the ♥K, I was home.  My 3rd spade trick allowed me to total 9 tricks for +400.

At the other table, they did not fly the ♠Q at trick 1, so the ♠J forced the ♠A.  Still, since a diamond wasn’t led early, the same 9 tricks I was counting on (find the ♣Q) were available to this declarer.  Lead up to the ♠Q to score 2+2+1+4 (again, assuming the ♥K is onside and ♦A is onside).  I don’t know what line of play was chosen, but our teammates were able to defeat this contract (possibly due to misguessing clubs) for +50.  Win 10 IMPs.

Board 25

Does North, as dealer, have an opening bid?  I think so – I love to open spades and even though the rest of the hand is quite weak, there is distribution as well as some defensive potential.  At one table, North opened and they quickly got to an unbeatable game (with both red aces onside, declarer just needs to score the red kings, the ♣ A, and get a heart ruff in dummy, eventually establishing his last heart.  Declarer can choose to fully draw trumps and lose a second heart, or partially draw trumps and lose an overruff in hearts.  Either way, 10 tricks.

At the other table, the auction was more subdued after North didn’t open 1♠.  I’m not positive about the auction – I’m still working to find someone who recalls for sure what happened, I know the final contract was 3♦.  So, lose -420 and -130, lose 11 IMPs.

I need more BBO games (to blog) because then I have a complete record of every bid, every lead, every declarer and defensive line of play chosen.  Here, it is often difficult for me to get an accurate record of the bidding, let alone the declarer play and defense, reducing the quality of the comparative aspects and learning process.  Sorry readers.

This hand was particularly difficult to capture for the blog (end of a long day?) – When I inquired, I got 3 different auctions advising me of what auction had occurred at the other table, but I finally got agreement regarding what the auction was.  It is the auction I published above (the second auction).  For the first auction, I was THERE, and I still don’t recall the auction!  Embarrassing!  Darn!!  The first 4 bids were definitely what happened at my table, I just don’t know for sure after that.  But, what I found especially interesting was the general form of the auction:  opening 1 bid not Vul; Next hand, Vul, makes a takeout double; Partner of opening bidder redoubles; and…trouble is brewing.  The first of these auctions was reported 2 blogs back: +1400 was available (vs. 400 for 3NT), and 1100 was scored at one table.  The next 2 times this happened, nothing remarkable happened.  Here, 2♣X could achieve +800 if EW sit for it, clearly they do better if they know to run to diamonds.  Diamonds can score 7 tricks (Best offense/best defense), but somehow, at the other table, the diamond contract scored 10 tricks!!!  Go figure.  The point of mentioning this (Vul opponents entering an auction against non-Vul) is two-fold.  1 – Very large penalties might be available, have your antennae up to seek out these opportunities.  2 – Very large losses might be looming, have your scramble agreements/structures well understood to minimize your losses.  As West, would you run from 2♣X?  As East, would you run if West passes?

Board 26

This hand is the classic – bid a red game and let them try to beat you.  I like my partner’s choice of a game transfer instead of the invitational transfer.  Of course with 2 tricks to lose in both black suits, the game has no chance, double dummy.  But with empty aces over the NT bidder, how can South possibly lead (or underlead!) one of his black aces.  Even if that happened.  The defense would have to know to cash exactly 2 in one suit and then switch to the other black suit, or 10 tricks will be scored.  At the part score table, a diamond was led to the Q allowing 2 black discards and making 11 tricks for +200.  At my table, a trump was led, so I drew trump ending in dummy, finessed the diamond, got 1 discard and scored 10 tricks.  +620.  Win 9 lucky IMPs.

Board 27

Here, I was playing with a regular partner so we could use our regular convention over NT – Modified Hamilton.  Partner made a trusting pass (could have bid 2♥ as a transfer to 2♠ but you can see that would not have worked out as well).

There are various ways to achieve a 4 trick set for the defense and even possible to get down 5 if the defense guesses well and declarer does not.  I started with the ♦A (attitude) and partner played the ♦8 (upside down, does not like diamonds).  So, I shifted to the ♥K, declarer won the ♥A, banged down the ♣A and then another club.  Here partner does best to win the 2nd club after I give count, showing a doubleton, but he held up until the 3rd club, forcing me to make a discard.  I was fearful that if I threw away the ♠Q, it could look like a dramatic signal to ‘please lead spades’.  Of course, had I thrown away the ♠Q and gotten a spade lead, I would be down to a singleton ♠A and potentially end played out of some red tricks that I was due to win.  Not knowing if declarer had ♦Qx or ♦Qxx, I threw I high heart (♥8) asking partner to go back to my first suit (diamonds) instead of my second suit led (hearts).  As I played the 3rd and 4th diamond, declarer had to make 2 discards.  One was a heart, so my last heart was good, but I still needed to surrender a trick to the ♠K at the end for down 3, +500.

At the other table, not playing penalty doubles, my hand showed diamonds and a higher suit and played 2♦, just making for -90 for our teammates.  Win 9 IMPs.

Recap Of 5/18/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

May 20th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

Well, at least the Warriors won in basketball last night…I have had a hard time getting started on this blog from our game yesterday because it didn’t seem that many of my choices (bids, play, defense) were out of line and, for the most part I did the same as my counterpart at the other table.  Yet, after 3 boards to start the day, I was already 74 IMPs behind and the losses kept piling up!  How do you lose 74 IMPs in 3 boards?  -12, -14, -11 = -37, and the 4 players on the opposing team are +37 – all of them will later be teammates sometimes (in the remaining 6 rounds, half of the time they will be opponents, half of the time they will teammates/partner).  When they are on my team, they will be winning or losing whatever IMPs I win/lose (which means no catching up in those rounds).  It seems more and more of my blogs start out whining about my results.  Sorry.  On with the bridge.

Board 1

Here, all action depended upon North’s second  call.  The first four calls at both tables were identical.  After West bids 5♦, it was time for North to pass or double – one passed, the other doubled.  If North doubles, does South sit or bid?  If North passes, should South reopen with a double, or bid their second suit (5♠)?  As you can see, at the table, South chose to pass when North doubled, and South reopened with a double when North passed.   After South reopens with a double, the attention is back on North.  North at my table tried 6♣ and reached a slam that could not be beaten.  One heart to lose, ruff all the spades.

With friendly hearts, there are really only 3 aces to lose in 5♦ X, -100.  The actual result was -300, but the extra 200 points lost only cost 1 IMP because the slam brought in 920, lose 12 IMPs.

Is 6♣ the right bid after partner reopens?  I don’t think I would have made that bid, but it sure worked on this hand.

Board 2

The literature is full of recommendations to not double low level contracts when you have a fit with partner, but I always thought that that meant suit contracts, since the opponents will be short and can ruff.  If the opponents want to play NT and you have a fit, your long suit can be a source of tricks that contribute towards defeating 1NT.  I don’t have the wherewithal to run a simulation to determine the best bid here, but clearly over 1NT, West must choose to raise spades, or double.  I chose double and after declarer cashed the first 8 tricks, he surrendered the balance to us, -380.  The player at the other table, holding my hand, raised spades.  When it was all over, they arrived in 4♠X with no uptricks.  -590, lose 14 IMPs.  Was my double that bad?  It was on this hand.  But I cannot imagine we were getting to game if I made a simple raise to 2♠ and partner (with a dead minimum) never bid again.

There are several points of bidding here worth discussing with your regular partner.  With most of my partners, I’m playing modified Hamilton in all positions, including after 1NT overcalls, but some play only when 1NT is overcalling a minor suit opening.  With Modified Hamilton:

• Double is penalty.
• 2♣ shows diamonds, or if you pull it, a major and a minor
• 2♦ shows majors
• 2♥ shows hearts
• 2♠ shows spades

So, with that structure, should West bother showing hearts with spades, simply raise spades, or penalty double?  Should East sit for the double?  With the great heart/spade fit, there are a lot of tricks on offense for E-W without many on defense.  The end result was a very sad result for our side.

Board 3

As you can see, at my table, as dealer, South passed and later checked on a heart stopper.  When North delivered the needed stopper in hearts, N-S arrived in 3NT.  With the ♣A onside (as it figured to be on the bidding), declarer flew the ♣K at trick 1, cashed 2 spades and 6 diamonds and the rest were ours, -400.  Our teammates arrived in 5♦.  After a heart lead (partner would be able to read the ♥6 as showing exactly 3 when leading 3rd best (not true if leading 4th best)), they could win the ♥Q, cash two aces, down 1.  But, the actual lead was a spade vs. 5♦.

As noted above, any heart lead will set the contract.  It turns out that any non-heart lead allows the contract to make with careful card reading and play.  On the actual spade lead, win the ♠A, cross to dummy in trump, lead a club up forcing the ♣A to win, ruff out clubs, run diamonds, coming down to ♠KJ and ♥K.  East has no answer if declarer is able to read the cards.  Either the spades cash, or the lead of the heart forces a spade lead away from the ♠Q into the ♠KJ.  Wow, that would have been some play!  Thanks to Bruce Tuttle for pointing this out.

In practice, declarer tried the ♠J at trick 1 and eventually led hearts to finish down 1, -100 and lose 11 IMPs.  

That was my start to the day.  Played 3 boards, -37 IMPs.  

Board 4

Finally, some IMPs coming our way.  I was getting ready to reverse with a bid of 2♥ (dead minimum for a reverse, but that still seemed like the right bid to make) when my RHO bid 2♥ in front of me!  I had to pass (double would show 3 card spade support), but partner was there for me.  He doubled in the reopening seat and I had an easy pass.  If I work out early that partner has the ♥A (not expecting the Vul overcall to be missing that card), we get an easy +800.  Even with the defense I chose (when in with the high diamond at trick 2, I cashed the ♣A and got out a club, playing partner for the ♣K), +800 was still available if, when in with the second high diamond, I exit with a seemingly valuable ♥8 (to avoid an endplay) – then declarer is stuck with spade losers if I play 4 rounds of hearts.

In reality, that defense (exit with the ♥8 instead of the ♥3) is only necessary if declarer is clever enough to dump his ♥Q109 under the ♥AKJ.  That isn’t happening.  So, we should have gotten +800 by me simply realizing, when partner did not have the ♣K, he had to hold the ♥A for the reopening double.  In any case, I was happy to finally post a plus score on the card with down 2, +500.  At the other table, our N-S teammates defended diamonds, -130, win 9 IMPs.

Technically, this was not a double digit swing, but could have been if I defended to get down 3 for +800.  Anyway, close enough, and with that we cut the first round deficit to -28.

Board 5

Here we have another hand that was not a double digit swing, but it really was, since I had an easy bid to win 10 IMPs instead of losing 8 IMPs, so it was really an 18 IMP swing opportunity.  Partner obviously bid aggressively with the jump to 3♣, and I think my values dictate a game bid (either 3♠ trying for 3NT from partner’s side, or a direct 3NT).  3NT will play immeasurably better from partner’s side if he happens to hold ♠Kx.  But what if my LHO doesn’t double 3♠ allowing partner to pass?  Now, 3NT may still be the best contract, but partner can’t bid it and we will have missed 3NT, since partner will have to bid 4♣ if they have no spade stopper.  But, here the double of 3♠ saved me.  It gave me another chance to bid 3NT on my own.  But, I failed to stop and consider the full implications of the double of 3♠.  

That double normally shows the ♠A or ♠K, so, at the table, I felt my ♠Q was in danger of not holding up as a stopper, so I abandoned 3NT.  Wrong!  Since my LHO had not raised spades, it is highly unlikely that he holds ♠Kxx or ♠Axx unless he has nothing else in his hand.  If short spades are on my left, my ♠Q will hold up as a stopper and I have the values (opposite the jump to 3♣) to bid 3NT.  Instead, I chickened out and bid 4♣.  Partner, hearing a game forcing auction, raised to the hopeless 5♣.  Trick 1 was the ♠J to the ♠K, then a diamond to the ♦A, ♠A and spade ruff.  Down 2 before we got started.  The rest of the tricks were ours, but when our teammates defended a club partscore (different defense) for -150 to go with our -200, we had a loss of 8 IMPs.  We win 10 IMPs if I merely bid 3NT, either immediately, or when partner passed the double of my 3♠ bid.  Yes, I might need the heart finesse, but the opponents have to lead something and I have opportunities for tricks in all suits besides the 6 cashing tricks in clubs, and my RHO did bid, helping to place some cards.  I like my partner’s aggressive 3♣ call – it gave us the opportunity for a red game and I blew it.  I should have bid 3NT instead of 3♠, and I should have bid 3NT instead of 4♣.  I had 2 chances for a red game and missed them both.

Board 6

On this hand, I’m back to being out of the loop (in terms of causing the loss of IMPs).  I still lost IMPs, but  there was defense and declarer play that was out of my control.  The same straightforward auction happened at both tables, with the same (good) lead at both tables.  

A spade lead doesn’t give declarer an immediate 9 tricks, but they are well on their way to 9 tricks on this hand after a spade lead.  Dummy’s entries have not been attacked, so whether declarer pursues clubs or diamonds for their 9th trick, they will succeed.  David Bird and Lead Captain definitely prefer a heart lead over a spade lead, quite contrary to the good old ‘fourth from longest and strongest’ maxim that pre-dates bridge (from the days of Whist, way before bridge).  Why am I saying to lead hearts instead of spades?  Because it increases the probability of hitting partner’s 5 card (or longer) suit (the more you have, the less they will have, on average).  Because the solid heart sequence is safer than the broken spade sequence (as demonstrated on this hand). After the 1NT-3NT auctions, you almost always want to lead a major unless you hold AKQJx of some minor.  If the opponents didn’t pursue a long major suit fit, you likely have one – find it and lead it.  After 1NT-3NT, with a 3 card major and a 4 card major, consider the 3 card major.  One hand doesn’t prove a case, and leading the 3 card suit won’t work on every deal, but I think a heart is the percentage lead on this hand.

So, a heart was led at both tables.  At our table (I was on lead), partner won and returned the ♥2 – definitely indicating a strong interest in hearts (lead low, you like it and want it returned, lead high says I probably started with  a suit only 3 (or 2) long and the rest is up to you (the opening leader).  Normally you return original 4th best after winning trick 1.  I’m not sure if partner was trying to be deceptive or just wanted to send a clear message that “I like hearts”.  Declarer won trick 2 with the high heart in dummy and then cashed the ♣AK.  Both my partner and I signaled high/low, upside down count, showing we were 3 long.  Should we have signaled?  Beats me.  Knowing the count helps the defense a lot, but it helps declarer a lot too.  Here just because clubs are 3-3 (not very likely a priori), declarer still needs an entry to establish clubs and then an entry to cash the clubs.  With the ♦A onside, the ♦Q became an entry.  Clubs were established and 9 tricks were there.  2+2+1+4.  It seems strange with 12 HCP opposite 15 HCP, double stoppers for any suit led, a 5 card suit to work with, to have so much difficulty finding 9 tricks.  What was the parlay that this declarer required?  It seems like 3-3 clubs (36%) plus the ♦A onside to allow the ♦Q to be an entry (50%).  Requiring both of these is 18%.  What other opportunities were there?  Well, had the ♦Q lost to the ♦A, the club suit is now dead and hearts are going to be established by the defense.  But, 3-3 diamonds with the ♦J onside or 3-3 spades with the ♠Q onside (pick one – you only have one entry to dummy after the hearts are dislodged at trick 1 and 2) can still see you to 9 tricks.  If you successfully pursue diamonds, that gives you 2+2+3+2.  If you successfully pursue spades, that gives you 4+2+1+2.  But, you cannot try both diamonds and spades.  Bottom line, if the clubs had not come home for 4 tricks, there were other chances that probably amount to another 18%, or a total of 36%.  But that’s not all.  A doubleton ♣Q would have also provided 4 club tricks, but again, the ♦Q must be an entry be able to enjoy the 13th club.  If not, you have the other options already mentioned in spades and diamonds to try to arrive at 9 tricks.

Let’s move over to the other table where a heart was also led.  Here North ducked their ♥A, so declarer is in dummy after winning trick 1 instead of after winning trick 2.  They are still faced with a pretty similar dilemma – where can they find 9 tricks?  They can try clubs like the successful declarer did against me, or try some combination of spades and diamonds.  You could try a diamond to the ♦10 at trick 2, or a spade to the ♠J at trick 2.  The other declarer never tried clubs, but tried to find 5 tricks in spades/diamonds to go with 4 tricks in hearts/clubs to reach 9.  With both spades and diamonds behaving quite poorly for this declarer (my teammate), he only found 7 tricks, -200 to go with my -600, lose 13 IMPs.

I think the chance of a doubleton ♣ Q makes the winning line (on this hand) the better line (attack clubs first with various fallback options – well done JoAnna!), but confirming that is the best percentage line of play is a complex analysis that I don’t feel up to right now.

I’ve been writing this blog for three and a half years.  This is the first time I have reported on boards 1 -2-3-4-5-6, capturing all six boards to start the day.  I’m going to stop with those.  Even though there were other interesting hands, I lost IMPs on most of those that were not pushes, but none were double digit and I’m weary from wading through these 6 hands.  Comments/suggestions/upgrades are welcome.  

Update to prior post dealing with proper play holding Ax opposite Q109xx

May 3rd, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

There was further discussion and research regarding hand 3 in my prior post.

Recap Of 4/25/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

The issue was the correct way to attack the club suit.  One declarer succeeded by leading the ♣Q with the combination below, the other failed when they tried the ♣A, then small.

With inadequate research, I suggested that ♣Q first was correct.  Actually, as pointed out by Mark Ralph in a comment to the original blog, ♣A first is correct.  It is a long story, so if you just wanted to know the answer, you can quit here.

I (incorrectly) based my assessment of the best lead based on a faulty recollection of a prior article, but my recollection was mostly correct, it is just that the problem to be solved was different.  While similar, the problem on this hand and the problem I recalled were actually different.

For this problem, one declarer received a threatening diamond lead knocking out 1 of 2 stoppers.  So, he needed to find 2 fast club tricks without losing the lead twice (he only had 1 remaining diamond stopper).   So, the first side to win 2 tricks in this suit was going to be the winner – if declarer won 2, he was home with 9 tricks in 3NT.  If the defense won 2, they would have 5 tricks and defeat 3NT.  This suit always has the power to win 2 tricks by forcing out the ♣K and ♣J, but that isn’t good enough.

The declarer who had both diamond stoppers intact, was merely playing the hand to avoid losing a trick to the danger hand, so he led the ♣Q – best in the context of his situation.  But the other declarer, with one diamond stopper dislodged, had to find 2 club tricks without losing 2 club tricks.

I used the odds tables to find the answer.

http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm

The diagram below shows the analysis.  If the ♣K is on the left, leading the ♣A and small to the ♣Q (column 1) always works.  If the ♣K is on the right, leading the ♣Q first (column 2) always works.  The special cases of singleton ♣J, doubleton ♣Jx and ♣KJ allow for both lines of play to succeed.  But, the final special case of singleton ♣K, leading the ♣A first works whether the ♣K is singleton on the left or on the right, where leading the ♣Q first succeeds only if the singleton ♣K is on the right.  While this only occurs 1.211 % of the time, it is still the better line of play.

Now back to the problem that caused my confusion.  The similar problem was:  What is the best line of play to win 4 tricks with this holding:

While similar, the problems are different.  There are 4 possible lines of play.

1. ♣A, then small to ♣Q (option 1)
2. Lead the ♣Q first, letting it ride if not covered (option 2)
3. ♣A, then small to ♣10
4. Lead the ♣10 first, letting it ride if not covered

With a 3-3 split, each of these have their success depending on Kxx on the left or right, or correspondingly Jxx on the left or right.  They offset each other such that each choice of a line of play  (out of these 4) has an equal chance of success or failure depending upon the lie of the cards.  I’m only going to focus on the first 2 options of how to play the suit, since it can be shown option 3 and 4 are inferior.  

With a 4-2 split, ♣KJxx means you can never succeed (remember, the objective is 4 tricks – the defense should not cover).  With ♣Jx (or ♣KJ) in either defender’s hand, both option 1 and option 2 succeed.  With ♣Kx on the left, no option succeeds.  With option 1, you will score your ♣A and ♣Q, but the ♣Jxxx will win a trick making 4 tricks impossible.  With ♣Kx on the right, option 1 also fails, but option 2 succeeds!  Whether RHO covers the ♣Q or not, the ♣J is the only club trick the defense can score, making 4 tricks for declarer.

With a 6-0 split, no option can score 4 tricks.  With a 5-1 split, no option works if the singleton is small (‘x’).  Both options work with a singleton ♣J.  Option 1 works with a singleton ♣K.  Option 2 works only when the singleton ♣K is on the right.

In summary, the option 1 advantage over option 2 only occurs when the ♣K is singleton on the left (1 case).  The option 2 advantage over option 1 occurs when ♣Kx is on the right – that means ♣K3, ♣K4, ♣K5, ♣K6 – 4 cases!!  So, leading the ♣Q is the superior way to play this suit.  The diagram below shows this difference:

Note the percentages changed (compared to the initial problem at the table) because the objective changed – in the first case, win 2 tricks without losing 2; in the second case, win 4 tricks.

So, if the reader got this far…this was interesting to me if no one else.  Why did I remember wrong/get this problem wrong?  It was because the situation between the problem I remembered was quite similar, but the conditions/objectives of the two problems were sufficiently different that the winning play was different.  Can you work this out, real time, at the table, as declarer next time this comes up at the table?  I hope that, by going through this tedious analysis, I can.  I further hope, if faced with this, that the better play works.  It comes with no guarantee, simply a higher percentage of success.

Recap Of 4/25/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

April 29th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

For the first time we got in two games in a month, mostly with different players.  While bidding judgment played a definite role, leads, declarer play, defense and even right/wrong siding the contract all contributed to the largest swings of the day.  We had 7 double digit swings and numerous other interesting hands that I probably won’t find time to report.

There will be more on the subject of leads, but I have mentioned previously my fondness for David Bird’s 2 books on opening leads and for the program written to essentially have ‘David Bird’s books in a can’ via the software developed for Lead Captain.  We will look at that more later.

http://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html

Board 3

On this first hand, the main component of the cause for the swing was ‘siding’ but, looking at only the two hands that were bidding, it is far from clear which ‘side’ you would want to be declarer.  As it turns out, declarer needs to be such that the opening lead is not a diamond.  In this case, South is best to declare because West will almost never lead a diamond and East will.  I was East, my partner led a heart on the auction shown.   I have seen 4=5=2=2 hands that opened 1NT, but this is the first time I’ve seen a 5=4=2=2 hand that opened 1NT.  As you can see, the result was playing from the ‘right’ side, since Lead Captain as well as human players would never find the diamond lead from ♦J85.   My partner chose the old trusty 4th from longest and strongest, hitting my void and declarer’s strongest suit.  David Bird avoided leads of 6 card suits in most situations and I think would lead the ♠Q on this hand.   David Bird was heavily biased towards leading a major vs. 1NT-3NT auctions.  (snide remark – of course David Bird has never seen someone open 1NT when they were 5=4 in the majors!  Sorry Mike, couldn’t resist)  Since the West hand is so weak (to have a chance of beating 3NT), I had trouble getting meaningful data from Lead Captain.

Still, the lead wasn’t the only issue here.  The play of the club suit entered into success/failure.  Our declarer won the ♥A at trick 1 and led the ♣Q at trick 2.  When that found the ♣K, declarer had 9 certain tricks (by establishing another club trick on power) and due to no diamond danger, was able to score 10 tricks via the 13th club, -430 for my table.  1+4+2+3

Meanwhile, after the (to me) more normal 1♠ opening bid, 3NT ended up being played by North, with East on lead and diamonds were the unbid suit and natural lead.  Still, after ducking a diamond and winning a diamond, declarer could have crossed to the ♥A in order to lead the ♣Q, same as at my table.  As the cards lay, that would have ensured 9 tricks and only lost 1 IMP (after the diamond lead, 10 tricks were not possible).  But, declarer tried the ♣A and small to the ♣Q.  With the ♣KJ over the ♣Q, that provided the necessary entries to the long  diamonds and 3NT was defeated a trick, -50 for our teammates, lose 10 IMPs.

While may seem a bit strange to lead the ♣Q without the ♣J towards a doubleton ♣A, there was a famous hand written up in The Bridge World 15-20 years ago where declarer worked out that the right play with a slightly different holding (Q1098x opposite Ax) was to start with the Q (shocking many observers at the time until they analyzed the possibilities).  If the K is onside, you have already brought the suit in for 1 loser (assuming not 6-0 or 5-1).  If the J is doubleton in either hand, you have also succeeded in bringing it in with one loser.  If the suit is 3-3 with the honors split, you are on a complete guess when you try A, then small towards the Q.  Leading the Q takes the guesswork out of it. 

Here, when the honors weren’t split, but both the ♣K and ♣J were over the ♣Q, doom for playing the ♣A and then small towards the ♣Q.  If, on the actual hand above, the ♣KJ had both in the West hand, the play of the ♣A would have worked well and I would not be losing 10 IMPs.  Bottom line, leading the ♣Q first is obviously not always a winner, but I believe it has been proven to be the best percentage play due to winning on all doubleton jacks.  Since diamonds had not yet been touched, the declarer at my table could have withstood both the ♣KJ in the other hand – losing 2 clubs, but having time to power 2 club tricks and bring his total to 9 before the defense got 5.  My teammate did not have that luxury, so when the clubs were wrong, he was down.

A factor in MIke (declarer at my table) choosing to lead the ♣Q at trick 2 is the safety of his LHO winning the trick – a spade return (should the ♣Q lose to the ♣K) immediately establishes the 9th trick due to the power of the ♠J and ♠10.  And, a red suit return is no problem, since there are plenty of entries between the two hands.  Just cash the ♣A and reenter dummy to force a club winner.  Whenever you have 8 tricks, looking for 9, look for the safest way to find #9.

Looking simply at North-South hands, I don’t think there is any obvious ‘right’ siding as to who you would want to declare without knowing the East-West hands (and who will/will not lead diamonds).  So, bidding, leads, declarer play and luck all factored into this 10 IMP loss.

Board 6