Recap Of 4/6/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

April 7th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Reno made March too crowded for a date for our game, so after a two month delay, we finally played again.  First timer Gary Soules won.  Once again, I’ll focus on the double digit swings with a couple more thrown in.

Bidding (not necessarily good bidding) resulted in all of the IMPs won.  Here we go.

Board 6

Here it was all about getting to game.  It seems as though 15 opposite 10 with some long suits and strong suits might result in getting to game.  Both because of extensive tools available after a 1NT opening bid and the preemptive effect of 1NT bids, I tend to open virtually all hands in range with 1NT and would have here.  I’m certain, if the hearts and diamonds were reversed (such that opener is 2=4=5=2) they would have opened 1NT at both tables (but, I’ve learned that Ed/Gary have a specific agreement to not open 1NT with a worthless doubleton in a major – perhaps they open a 4 card heart suit if the hearts/diamonds are reversed?).  Here, both dealers started with 1♥.  The auctions continued identically for awhile, then diverged.

After partner has bid both red suits, the ♣J is a doubtful value.  Still the ♠10 is a mighty nice card and it seems that an invitational (vulnerable) 3♠ rebid is not crazy.  Yet both tables rebid 2 only spades with Bill deciding to take one more bid with the East hand while Ed decided to pass out 2♠.

With the auction I saw, I thought there might be a club ruff coming in dummy, so I started with a trump lead and lost my club trick as declarer’s club loser was later pitched on a diamond, making 5 for -650.  Our teammates played 2♠ making +170, lose 10 IMPs.

Board 7

Once more an identical start to the bidding at both tables, but then a divergence that led to disaster for North-South.  The general consensus was that North (at the other table) should double 4NT suggesting a hand unsuitable for play at the 5 level (a pass over 4NT invites partner to bid on).  The ♥Q must be a very good card, but the minor suit queens are more likely defensive values than offensive values when West comes in with 4NT.  In any case, when there was no double, South competed to 5♥ over 5♦.  Against best defense (diamond lead), 5♥ has no play.

Since there was discussion (at the time and in later emails) about “how was there an overtrick in 4♥?” I assumed that a diamond was led and did extensive analysis about how to play (for 10 tricks) after the diamond lead.  After writing all of that up, I have learned that the ♠9 was led at both tables!   

The ♠9 is not an unreasonable opening lead.  Partner implied spades with the takeout double of 1NT and you do have a potential 3rd round ruff.  The effect of the ♠9 lead was remarkable (not good for the defense at our table).  After winning the ♠J, declarer led two rounds of trump ending in dummy and then finessed the ♠8.  Then he ran all of his trumps, coming down to a 4 card ending (winning the first 9 tricks with 2 spades and 7 hearts) and forcing East to hold 2 spades and 2 minor suit cards for their last 4 cards.

If East keeps 2 clubs and no diamonds, the ♦Q becomes a winner as well as the ♠A.

If East keeps ♦AK and no clubs, a diamond lead by declarer allows East to cash 2 diamonds and then provide the spade finesse for 2 more tricks for declarer, 11 total.

If East keeps ♦A and ♣K (and dummy keeps ♦Qx ♣Qx), a diamond play by declarer at trick 10 allows East to chose how to take 2 tricks and give 2 to declarer.  Declarer can score 2 spades and no minor suit tricks, or 2 minor suit queens and no spades depending on how the defense chooses to play.  In any case, 11 tricks are there against any defense after the ♠9 lead.

In any case, in 4♥, my partner made 11 tricks for +650 and in 5♥, our teammates defeated it by 2 tricks for +200, win 13 IMPs.

Bear with me for the following commentary – I spent too much time analyzing a diamond lead (that didn’t happen at either table!) to let it all go to waste.  I thought the diamond lead (that I assumed happened at the other table) created a very interesting declarer and defensive problem.

On a diamond lead, 10 tricks are available, but declarer must be VERY careful.  Three lines of play (to avoid 2 spade losers after a diamond lead) are successful.  

Option 1 (assume LHO has the ♥10 and RHO has the ♠K) – lead a heart to the ♥8, finessing West for the ♥10.  This (plus a later lead to the ♥Q) provides 2 dummy entries for two successful spade finesses, resulting in losing only 1 trick in each off suit.  

Option 2 (assume trump are 2-2 and spades 2-4 with LHO having ♠10x or ♠9x) – lead the ♠Q early, losing to the ♠K prior to drawing trump, then cash the ♠A, draw trump ending in dummy, and use that entry for a spade to the ♠8, finessing East out of their ♠10.  

Option 3 (so obscure, this could only be found via double dummy! – an extreme variant of option 1 with some of option 2 thrown in) – After diamond is lost at trick 1 and ruffed at trick 2 (or pitch a club loser on trick 2 and ruff at trick 3), lead the ♠8!  Then things get really tricky.  When they win and force a second ruff, declarer can only succeed by ruffing high.  Usually you ruff high to avoid an overruff.  Here you ruff high to save your low trump.  Declarer’s low hearts are the key to making the hand.  If you take 2 ruffs with low trump, there is only 1 remaining trump in declarer’s hand that is below the ♥8 in dummy.  So, when you now lead (your last) low heart towards the ♥Q8 to finesse the ♥10 for your (needed) 2 entries to dummy for spade finesses, LHO can rise with the ♥10.  You are in dummy for the last time (no more small hearts left in hand) , so only 1 spade finesse is available and down you go.  So, to be successful with this option, you ruff for the second time with a high trump, preserving your critical ♥43 for leads towards dummy.  Finesse the ♥8, then finesse the spade, then a heart to the ♥Q drawing trump, then another spade finesse and you are up to 10 difficult tricks.  Since this requires a parlay of components of both Option 1 and 2, this is clearly an inferior line of play, but I still found it interesting, specifically because of the opportunity (if declarer ruffs low twice) for the defense to foil declarer’s plan by playing second hand high, the card declarer is getting ready to finesse (♥10) and ruining the transportation critical to succeed in the contract.  These plays are rare, but what fun to see it and cause declarer to fail if you find it.

So, even though 10 tricks are available with best play/defense, it is far from clear declarer would have found any of these options on a diamond lead.  There are many ways to go down in 4♥ after a diamond lead.  But the spade lead made 4♥ easy to make at our table and 5♥ was possible.  I don’t know the line of play/defense chosen that resulted in 5♥ down 2.  So, learning belatedly that the ♠9 was led at both tables, I now have an editorial change – bidding didn’t determine the swing on every hand as I previously stated.  

Board 10

Well, if you can’t be good, it helps to be lucky.  For what it is worth, my thinking was that, in a heart contract, we might have 2 heart losers (how ‘bad’ is partner’s suit?), but he might have enough scattered values outside of hearts to allow 11 tricks outside of hearts.  Not likely, but it seemed to me to be an extra arrow in the quiver.  If hearts come home, both 6NT and 6♥ should be successful.  If the heart suit requires 2 losers, 6♥ will always fail and 6NT might have a chance.  Anyway, that all didn’t matter when the opening lead was the ♦J.  With a club opening lead, I have to find the ♥Q.  No other option.  As it turned out, I didn’t find the ♥Q and made only 12 tricks, good for +1440.  The other table had a kickback/blackwood accident and managed to scramble 11 tricks in the inelegant 4♠ contract.  13 IMPs for our team.

Given a bit more thought, the idea that partner would hold all of the required specific cards needed to bring in 12 tricks in NT (while having 2 heart losers) is too extreme, so the percentage is clearly to hope for no more than 1 heart loser and try the slam in hearts.  I dodged one there.  

Board 14

Our bidding helped the opponents get to a decent club game which was doomed to fail only if I gave partner a heart ruff at trick 2.  If we were defending 5♣, I don’t have a whole lot of choices at trick 2  (assuming I win the ♦A at trick 1) looking at a singleton diamond in dummy.  I would never lead a spade, and neither a club nor diamond is attractive.  But, a heart looks scary too until you think about it – partner might have led a heart if he had a singleton.  So a heart for a ruff at trick 2 would lead to -1.  Eventually a spade trick would come our way.  

I decided my hand held such little hope for defense against 5♣ that I would take insurance and bid 5♦.  With the Stayman (? – did the double just show clubs?) action at our table, South thought the ♠Q would be a good start to the defense.  Most likely I am down if any of the other 12 cards are chosen for the opening lead, but on the ♠Q lead, I was feeling no pain with dummy quickly being established, losing only 2 black aces.

Meanwhile, our teammates bounced right to 3NT with no interference from West.  Having none of partner’s suit to lead vs. 3NT, West led a diamond.  After cashing the first 6 tricks, the rest were conceded for  down 2.  +550 and -100 resulted in winning 10 IMPs.  A lucky result all the way around.

Board 16

Bidding seems to be the main contributing factor to this swing, but play also entered in.  At our table, the auction suggested a problem in spades, so after the opponents cashed two spades to start the defense, partner had little option but to play for 3-2 hearts with split honors.  They were.  +620.  Certainly few would play that the 2♥ rebid (at both tables) showed a 6 card suit.  But when I rebid 3♦, the 3♥ bid definitely promised 6, so I abandoned NT and went for the game in hearts.

At the other table, the auction arrived in 3NT.  East chose a 2NT rebid (vs. my 3♦) and West simply raised to 3NT (rather than repeating the heart suit for the 3rd time).  It turns out that there are lots of issues involved in the play of 3NT.  After a spade is led and the ♠10 inserted by North at trick 1, the ♠J wins trick 1. Declarer doesn’t know if spades are 4-4 or 5-3.  If spades are 5-3, going after heart finesses (split honors) guarantees going down.  There are 8 tricks on top after winning the ♠J.  1+1+3+3.  Diamonds could be 3-3.  The ♣J could fall in 3 rounds (or finesse).  Declarer decided to not risk the 5-3 spades and pinned all hopes for 9 tricks on something good in the minors.  When that didn’t happen, 8 tricks were the limit, -1, +100 for our teammates to go with our +620, win 12 IMPs.

Board 18

I had a maximum negative double and Gary needed all of it to succeed in 4♥.  His thinking (which I like) was to bounce quickly to game (even though he doesn’t really have the values for it), hoping that the opponents don’t work out to bid 4♠.  It worked.  

Against best defense, 4♥can be beaten, but even with a normal forcing defense, declarer must play very carefully.  And he did.

Best defense: overtake the ♠Q at trick one with the ♠K and shift to a diamond.  At this point, you have established the threat of a diamond ruff to go along with the ♦K and 2 black aces.  If declarer draws trump to prevent the diamond ruff, he can manage a spade ruff to go with 4 top hearts and 4 diamonds, but that is only 9 tricks.  There is no way to 10 tricks.

Actual defense: spade at trick 1, another spade (ruffed) at trick 2.  With losers coming in both clubs and possibly diamonds, declarer must start losing those tricks early while there is still some semblance of transportation and trump control.  Declarer led the ♣K at trick 3, won by the ♣A (I think ducking the ♣A one round is probably a stronger defense, starting to cut transportation).  Upon winning the ♣A, a spade tap would have given declarer more problems, especially with the known (to the defense, but not declarer) 4-4-4-1 split of trumps.  The actual lead after winning the ♣A was a trump, but declarer is still not out of the woods.

After the trump lead, if clubs are 3-3 (they were), declarer is home via 0+5+1+4.  But, if declarer draws trumps and clubs don’t split, the only hope would be a singleton ♦K, since declarer can’t get to dummy to finesse diamonds after attempting to run clubs (and it would be a losing finesse besides).   It is rarely good play to rely upon 3-3 splits when other alternatives are available.  So, declarer won the trump in dummy and played another to hand, observing the 4-1 split and leaving one trump left in hand.  Now, time to knock out the ♦K.  Declarer led a small diamond towards ♦QJ1053 in dummy, South won the ♦K and now played a spade to make declarer use their last trump.  But a diamond entry to dummy allowed the declarer to draw trump and then finish with top clubs/diamond.  In the end, 0+6+2+2.

Note, if a diamond is lost after trump are gone, the defense claims the rest via running spades. 

With trump 4-4-4-1, there are often many complex considerations, especially when there is a tap suit, even if the tap involves a ruff/sluff.  Declarer must go about losing their side tricks early to maintain trump control prior to drawing trump.  What if the defense simply continued the spade tap at every opportunity?  Trick 1, win a spade.  Trick 2, force declarer with second spade.  Win the ♣A and force declarer with a third spade.  Now if declarer tests two rounds of trump (and learns that they are 4-1), his only play is to hope for 3-3 clubs – it is too late to work on diamonds because declarer would have no more trump and the spade ruff (after losing a diamond) would come from dummy promoting a trump trick for North.  But, if instead of playing trump, declarer continues with the theme of losing the side suit losers by leading a diamond, the defense can tap him for the 3rd time.  But declarer can now cash his remaining trump, cross to dummy with a diamond, draw trump and claim.

Note the diamond entry is critical – declarer cannot afford the luxury of overtaking a high heart as the entry to dummy to draw trump since dummy’s ♥8 would lose to the ♥9.  After ruffing 3 spades, declarer must cash his remaining high trump, then enter dummy with a high diamond to draw trump.  If diamonds are 4-1, too bad.

In any case, tap at every chance or not, the only successful defense involved a diamond shift at trick 2 and a trump trick for the defense and that was not found.

For our teammates, there were 9 winners in the spade contract, so 4♠ finished down 1, -100 and +420 resulted in winning 8 IMPs.

Board 20

As you can see from the footnotes, an awkward auction where East and West floundered and were on different pages most of the way through the auction, but managed to land in a makeable slam that wasn’t bid at the other table.  No problem with making 12 tricks after trumps were 2-2.   Certainly not a terrible slam, but not one you have to be in and it was not reached at the other table.  Win 13 IMPs.

At the other table, the bidding was:

A push board where both tables missed the lay down (assuming a normal trump split) slam.  After the normal club lead, 13 tricks were there since the heart loser goes away on the high club.  But how should the hand be bid to reach this slam?

I have told my partners to ‘never’ bid 4NT with 2 fast losers in a suit with no known control.  Here, partner tried doing that and, after learning that 1 key card was missing, decided to subside in 5♠ (the usual rule for 4NT auctions – missing 2+ key cards, stop at 5, you may already be too high – missing one key card, go on to slam).  Here, with uncertainty about hearts, my partner was afraid to bid the slam.  At the other table, my hand (South) had the opportunity to jump rebid diamonds after 4th suit game force.  Then he offered 3NT indicating a partial club stopper.  They too continued on to 5♠ but then the auction died.  The first 3 bids in the auction are automatic.  Then, depending on system (2♣ as game force, or 2♦ as game force), the auction will vary.

The auction is challenging (for me, anyway, at our table) because North doesn’t know about the extra playing strength and high card strength and heart control of the South hand, and South doesn’t know about the strong trumps and both club controls held by North.  How might the auction go?

In the post mortem, everyone agreed North should have bid 5♣ (control bid) rather than 4NT.  South needs to decide if diamonds (source of tricks) or hearts (is partner looking for a heart control?) is the right continuation over 5♣.  Partner cannot know your diamonds are this good.  But there is no bid to really tell that at this point.  Since you have already shown diamonds, it seems the right continuation must be 5♥ over 5♣.  Now, North doesn’t know about the ♠Q, but will likely continue to 6♠ since South has been cooperating in the slam investigation all along.

Another suggestion in the post mortem (for the auction at our table) was for North to bid 5♠ over 4♦, suggesting ‘no problem in clubs, but problem in hearts’.  However, often jumps like that ask about trump quality, unless the opponents have bid and then it often asks about a control in the opponents suit.  It is easy to say on paper, but hard to say at the table, that a 5♠ bid by north is a ‘control asking bid’ in my first bid suit, hearts!?!

What about the auction at the other table?  It seems clear that North intended 5♠ as some slam invite, but exactly what he was looking for was unknown to South.  Strong trump?  He didn’t have it.  Club control?  Nope!  So, both tables played 5♠.  A big missed opportunity for 13 IMPs for the side that could solve the puzzle on how to bid slam.

Recap Of 2/3/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

February 4th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  1 Comment 

Well, when you are down 36 IMPs after the first 4 boards, it will be a long day.  And it got worse.  I’m leaving tomorrow at 5:30 am, so this blog report will be quick.  These first 3 boards reported  below accounted for 37 IMPs, but since we won an IMP on the other board, my team was ‘only’ down 36 IMPs after 4.

Board 1

Not everyone will judge to overcall with the East (my) hand (at the other table, North didn’t even open, so there was no issue about an overcall or a bid with the East hand at the other table).  With my 1♥ overcall, my partner was happy to advance to 4♥, whereas at the other table, West overcalled 1♥, and my hand (their partner) bounced to 4♥.  Sounds like a push, but then things diverged, -300, -500, lose 13 IMPs.  It’s a bidders game, but here my team bid too much and paid with speeding tickets.

Board 3

Here the issue was how high to overcall:  a simple 2♣ or a jump to 3♣?  Vul vs. not, I was content with bidding only 2♣, but my counterpart at the other table tried 3♣ which became much more successful.  At my table, North was interested in a diamond slam, but settled for game in hearts.  As you can see, our teammates didn’t handle the preemption well.  I led my singleton diamond in hopes of a later ruff, but partner had no entry and declarer had no trouble scoring 11 tricks, pitching their spade loser on a top club.  Likewise, declarer, in 3♣, had no trouble with 9 tricks, losing 1 trick in each suit.  -450 and -670, lose 15 IMPs.

Board 4

About half of us that play in this game are adding a point for a 5 card suit when performing hand evaluation.   Playing 20-21 HCP for opening 2NT, 19 HCP plus a 5 card suit adds up to 20 the way we count them.  Others are looking at High Card Points, and seeing 19, open a suit.  Here, arriving in 3NT worked well when a) ♦A was onside, and b) declarer correctly guessed that the ♠A was offside, but only 3 long, so he kept ducking spades.  So, when my partner switched to the ♠Q after winning the ♦A, we cashed our 3 spades, but then the rest of the tricks belonged to declarer.  0+3+4+2 for 9 tricks and 600.  Declarer at the other table, with our cards, managed 5 tricks in 1NT for -200, lose 9 IMPs.

Board 16

I really hate to report this hand.  Embarrassing.  The opening lead was the ♣K (in case of catching a singleton ♣Q, even if that singleton is with partner, partner could not continue clubs if you started with a small club instead of the ♣K – yes, a small heart lead at trick 1 would have been more effective).  I ducked the ♣K and won the club continuation.  I did not like the blockage in diamonds, but I needed to give the diamond suit more thought.  But, seeing the blockage and seeing a ‘solution’, I led the ♦J at trick 3.  Curtains.  Now RHO must win a diamond trick, clear clubs, and when the opening leader wins the ♠A, they have me set.

Bruce (declarer at the other table) told me that he also noticed the diamond blockage and considered leading the ♦J.  But, in the end, he played right, leading a small diamond, allowing him to pick up the whole diamond suit, and when the ♠A was onside, he arrived at 10 tricks 2+1+5+2.  -100 and -630, lose 12 IMPs.  The reason the ♦J is the wrong way to start this suit is shown on this hand.  Assuming RHO, who did not preempt, has long diamonds, you always have 5 diamond tricks with a spade entry for the repeat finesse and a heart entry to reach the 13th diamond.  The diamond blockage created an illusion (there is no issue, but it seemed like an issue) that cost big time.

That is the end of the big swing hands for today.  But, since I have time, I’ll report one more (at Bruce’s request) to see if you can do better than the players at the table.  We had the same bidding, same play, push board, no swing, but there could have been…a big one.

Board 19

5♣ is a very wide ranging bid, anywhere from a stab in the dark that hopes to not get doubled and not go down too many, to a hand that is almost worth a 6♣ bid.  Here, since only 11 tricks were required, both declarers saw a potential danger in entering dummy with a heart for a club finesse that might lose to a singleton ♣K, followed by a heart ruff to go down 1 in a cold vulnerable game.  So, both played the ♣A and then played hearts, finding them splitting favorably for 11 tricks, losing the opening spade lead and the ♣K.  But, lets go back to the bidding.  On this lie of the cards on this hand, there are 10 tricks in spades, so even 7♠X -3 is ‘only’ -500 against the vulnerable opponents game/slam.  So, should South, who started the preempt, or North, who raised to game, find the 5♠ bid to save over 5♣?  That would be a very cheap save of -100 against -600 for 5♣ making.

But, if they do bid 5♠, should East now bid 6♣?  Or should West bid 6♣?  By simply entering dummy in hearts to take the club finesse, 6♣ is cold, +1370!  Now it is REALLY important, if you decided to save in 5♠, and ended up pushing them into the cold slam, to continue saving and bid 6♠.  It will be very cheap insurance (-300) on this hand, and very costly if you do not.

High level (5 level, 6 level, even 7 level) decisions are notoriously difficult and that is what often differentiates the top players from the rest of us.  But, as already noted, nothing happened on this hand, from a scoring standpoint, when both tables followed the same path in both bidding and play.

Recap Of 1/13/2016 28 Board IMP Individual

January 15th, 2016  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

Wow, I don’t think it was our best day of bridge for the group as a whole (I’m talking about all the hands, not just the ones reported on here).  Many potential swings (that didn’t happen because of similar errors at both tables) and other swings (not reported because they failed to clear the hurdle of double digits) were not pretty bridge.  And, on the 3 swings that did reach double digits, I lost them all!  Enough whining.  Onto the bridge.

Board 8

There was nothing to the lead or the play here – all of the action was in the bidding.  Perhaps the eventual NT ranges being shown was the biggest factor in this swing, or else the East’s view of the slam potential of the hand.  East’s slam view should include the 6th trump and the singleton, but with no aces and no kings, opposite 24-25 HCPs, I have some sympathy for his decision to merely do a Texas Transfer.  The East/West pair that did not bid slam are my most frequent partners at regionals and nationals.  We discussed this some afterwards and concluded that, since a transfer to 3♥ followed by 4♥ is only a mild slam try, that sequence could/should have been chosen.  Another option is to add a point for the 5th diamond, bringing the opener to the 26-27 point range and leveling the playing field in terms of ‘points shown’ by the 2♣ bidding sequence.  In any case, -980 vs. +480 by teammates cost 11 IMPs.

Board 12

Another slam invite position (taken by me) – since this came on the heals of my loss on the prior round, I think that had significant influence on my choice here.  Once more, there was nothing to the lead or play, all the action was in the bidding.  Did I have my invite?  I guess not!  When the diamond was led against 4♠, 12 tricks were easily scored with one club loser discarded on the ♦A.  When the club was led against 6♠, the opponents cashed their ♣AK and the rest were mine.  -50 vs. -480, lose another 11 IMPs.

There are lots of ‘rules’ in bridge.  ‘Never play me for the perfect cards because I don’t have them’ would have worked well here.  In the bidding, I projected the ♦AQ with my LHO and the ♦K with partner.  I also projected shorter (than 4) spades and longer (than 3) clubs.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a jump to 2NT with 4 card trump support.  But, with a totally balanced hand, I think that bid makes some sense.  When I checked back, partner admitted to holding enough spades to play spades, jumped to the spade game and I got excited.  Wrong!  In hindsight, I not only needed the perfect shape and perfect placement of points to score 12 tricks, I needed partner to know what those perfect holdings would be.  Bad choice.

I knew he would not have slam card in hearts (I had them).  I projected the ♠AK (for the jump) and the ♦K for the eventual acceptance of my slam try.  That left 8-9 more points elsewhere.  Oh well, that isn’t how it was.

Board 15

I think my (North) hand is a classic responding hand to a 1NT opening bid (when the opponents pass).  Most players have learned to pass when holding 8 HCP with 4-3-3-3 distribution opposite 15-17, or the more common ‘good 14-17’.  Only here, the opponents did not pass.  Now, what do I do?  I am not embarrassed by my bidding, but we could have doubled to save 3 IMPs (lose 8 instead of 11).  I have very soft defense, but more important, I didn’t have a penalty double available even if I had chosen that option.  A takeout double with 4-3 in the unbid red suits didn’t seem right, and it would not have ended well.  Since the opponents have a misfit (although I don’t really know that), nothing will play well for us.  And partner, in the balancing position, decided to go quietly.

At the other table, the bidding took a wildly different turn and the lead vs. 3NT did not attack spades.   The actual ♣K lead established 3 club tricks for the declarer, and when the lead of the ♥Q dropped the ♥J, 10 tricks were in the bank (1+3+3+3).

There have been many growing trends in the world of bridge for many years.  Disturbing the opponents NT opening bid has always been popular, but it has gotten much more so.  Look at the problem for the North hand after either a 2♣ or a 2♠ bid?  What do you do?  I chose pass and they played a quiet 2♠ down 2 tricks for +100.  My counterpart at the other table had an even tougher problem (over 2♠) and soon they were in the ‘hopeless’ 3NT.  When the opponents bid over 1NT, it greatly alters the available NT tools and train wrecks often happen.  But the ‘train wreck’ actually happened for the defenders when 3NT was not defeated.  That brings up another bridge bidding ‘rule’ from the beginning of time – ‘just keep bidding vulnerable games and let them try to beat you’.  Sure worked here.  +100 vs. -630, lose another 11 IMPs.

Recap Of 11/18/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

November 19th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Wow, has it really been 4 months since we last played?  August involved a mostly miserable performance in Chicago, then I was busy, then I was gone two months, so we finally had a 2-table game Wednesday, 11/18.

During all of this time, since I last posted a blog 4 months ago, there have been horrible developments of cheating scandals that have rocked the bridge world.  I’m greatly saddened to learn how pervasive cheating has been for a very very long time.  Words escape me.

But, back to the blog.  For once, almost all of the big swings went my way.  There were six double digit swings.  I can’t say they were earned, but here they come…

Board 4

Two things going on here with my double of 5♥.  One – it may have been our hand, they may have seriously misjudged, and I am tired of collecting 100, 200, 300 when 200, 500, 800 is available (and, it seems like I do have 1 trick on defense that I might not have!).  Two – the double might have the effect of throwing declarer off the right track, whether it should accomplish that or not.  Here, # two came into play.  As you can see, if declarer gets the rounded suits right (both kings are in the slot, in front of the AQ), 12 tricks are there.  Our teammates only collected +500 vs. 4♠X, so if our opponents score 12 tricks without being doubled, -680/+500 we lose 5 IMPs.  But, since I doubled, if they score 12 tricks, it becomes -1150 vs. +500, lose 12 IMPs!  So, in theory, the seemingly bad double that I made will cost 7 IMPs extra.  But, in reality, both kings were misguessed and the resulting -1, +200 combined with our teammates +500 to win 12 IMPs vs. losing 4-5 IMPs had 5♥, undoubled, been made.  What happened?

Partner, of course, led their singleton ♦8.  Declarer, ducked in dummy, winning the ♦9 in hand.  Fearful of losing a heart finesse, followed by an underlead in spades that would then result in a ruff in diamonds, declarer simply banged down the ♥A, then a small heart to my ♥K.  I was in and led my ♠Q, thinking I would tap dummy with a second round of spades, not that that would do any good.  But partner (Mike Schneider), seeing what is going on, overtook my ♠Q with the ♠K and led the ♣2.  Declarer is now at the crossroads with a two way finesse for the ♣K – either insert the ♣Q now (to pitch one of the losing spades and then ruff the other), or take a ruffing finesse in clubs by leading the ♣Q after winning the ♣A, playing me for the ♣K.

But here, there is an easy clue.  Since I showed declarer the ♠Q, there are too few HCP left for partner if they do not hold the ♣K.  That is, if they did not hold the ♣K, it would mean they opened on 8 HCP and then bid again freely at the 4 level with the same 8 HCP and only a 5 card spade suit (I have to hold 4 spades for my jump raise).  Even if I don’t show the ♠Q, partner still has to have the ♣K to have his bids.  But, declarer, not thinking along these lines, decided that I had my bid (I did double 5♥), so he played the ruffing finesse, and lost 3 tricks.  A lucky down 1.

Board 8

Virtually all players that I play with/against play Smolen.  Smolen applies in a failed Stayman auction (you bid clubs, partner bids diamonds).  Playing Smolen, when you hold 5-4 in the majors and partner denies a 4 card major, you introduce your 4 card major at the 3 level, game forcing, implying 5 cards in the other major (with 6 in the other major, you transfer at the 4 level).  It allows you to have the effect of the transfer when that is what you want to do.  After the Smolen bid, the NT opening bidder gets to place the contract, either in NT, or choose a suitable major (even the 4-3 fit if that is what they judge to be best, but now the contract with the 4-3 fit would be wrong sided).  For some reason, Manfred chose to not answer Stayman with the normal 3♦, so Smolen was not available and they played a quiet (successful) 3NT.

Here, the singleton ♥7 vs. 3NT at my table gave away my ♥Q10 and brought declarer to 11 tricks (when South was endplayed out of the ♦K at trick 12), -460.  Our teammates arrived in the unfortunate spade slam when only game was available,  going down 2, -100, lose 11 IMPs.  What happened?  

Here, Bruce was thinking the diamond bid was a punt, essentially a relay/transfer back to spades, allowing partner (strong hand) to finally become declarer in 4♠, since no one had bid spades yet.  If Bruce bids 4♠ as a signoff, he becomes declarer.  With Mark’s monster hand, he wanted to express slam interest for spades over the Smolen 3♥ bid by cue bidding 4♣.  When Mark heard the 4♦ bid, he took that as showing the ♦K and, had that been right, a slam would have been reached that likely had decent play.  But not today.  Clearly the 2♣ opening bid is blessed with 24 prime HCP including all 5 key cards, but with 3=3=4=3, there were not enough tricks with 2 club losers and 1 heart loser in a spade contract.

Board 12

Here, a significant variance in the auction resulted in my team playing a contract at both tables.  After the same first 3 bids at both tables, Bruce (my teammate at the other table) in 4th seat and holding 9 cards in the suits that had already been bid by the opponents decided he would introduce his beefy four card spade suit at the one level.  With this bid, he undoubtedly tied the course record for introducing a new suit after the opponents have already bid suits that accounted for 9 out of the 13 cards held in hand.  He soon found himself in the phantom sacrifice bid of 5♠, but when the dust had cleared, he was chalking up +650, win 12 IMPs, since I was down one in 5♦, -50.

We had a quiet uncontested auction to, I think, a normal 5♦.  Although the ♣K is in the slot, it is not possible to draw trump, get to dummy twice, finesse clubs twice, ruff a club, and then reenter declarer’s hand to cash clubs.  So, a spade, a diamond and a club must be lost in 5♦, -1.

What happened in 5♠?  The singleton ♥Q lead trivially defeats 5♠, assuming the defense wins the ♥A, provides the heart ruff, and then scores a club trick at some point.  However, the opening lead was the ♦A which was ruffed.  After cashing the ♠AK, declarer led a club.  Upon winning the club, it would seem that the ♦Q could hardly be wrong.  But West tried the ♥Q (the ♥Q had been destined to score the setting trick later in the hand).  Declarer, who was going to finesse against the ♥Q (by leading the ♥J and letting it ride), now had the whole heart suit solid only losing the ♥A (and the club trick) to score 11 tricks and make 5♠!

Board 17

Technically not a double digit swing, but it felt like one to me.  Diamonds were played at both tables, 11 tricks at both tables when a trump was not led (since there are two black aces and 9 cross ruff trump tricks with all 9 trumps scoring separately).  But at my table, the contract was 5♦X and at the other table, they stopped in 3♦.  5♦ was bid over 4♠ which was going down.  We have 4 top tricks to cash (2 diamonds to go with our 2 black aces) and at least one more in the wash, since declarer can’t handle the 4-1 trumps along with uneven club/heart splits.  So, yet another phantom sacrifice turned into a making game!  What about the bidding?

I certainly prefer a 6 card suit to come into a live auction at the 2 level, but since LHO might hold only 2 clubs, I felt my offense potential (5-5) warranted a 2♦ call.  With the ♦J now likely useless, North’s opening bid has been reduced to an aceless 11 HCP.  Even though reversing values may become slightly less in a pinch in a competitive auction, it seems to me that the principles of a reverse are still in force in this situation.  Nevertheless, North rebid 2♠ and South, seemingly also expecting a substantial hand opposite, bounced to the hopeless spade game.  But, my partner was there for them, balancing with 5♦.  South, presumably still expecting a substantial North hand, decided it was time to double.  But, as noted above, on the spade lead, 11 tricks were there for the taking when South was unable to overruff as dummy ruffed clubs.  Since 11 tricks requires scoring all trumps separately, a trump lead beats 5♦, but the contract also goes down after 3 rounds of hearts which brings the ‘worthless’ ♦J into play.  The ♦J will either be an overruff trick at trick 3, or, if declarer ruffs high, North discards a spade and will later score a spade overruff with the ♦J.

So, +550 for making 5♦X, vs. -150 for 11 tricks in the part score resulted in winning 9 IMPs.

Board 21

I don’t know if my partner’s double affected the auction or not (causing our opponents to stay low at our table).  With both of the pointed kings in the slot, 12 tricks become easy in 6NT with a spade lead, even with the bad club split – 2+0+7+3.  A heart lead also makes 12 notrump tricks easy (with the diamond finesse on).  But, this is not really a great slam, offering no play if the diamond finesse loses.  Still, bidding a slam on a finesse isn’t crazy.  But, with the spade lead vs. NT, you need 2 finesses (spade and diamond, which both happen to work on this hand).  And with a heart lead vs. a diamond slam, you need the diamond finesse plus you need the hand with the ♥A to not hold 5 clubs.  Here, there were 5 clubs with the ♥A, but the club ruff was not found and the diamond slam came home.  

So, at my table, we defended 3NT on a spade lead.  Declarer finessed spades, finessed diamonds, then claimed 13 tricks unless clubs didn’t split, so only 12 total tricks.  We were -490.  Our teammates, avoided the club ruff after a trump lead (?) against the slam, so they scored +920 for their diamond slam, winning 10 IMPs.

Board 27

This is an awkward hand to bid, play and defend.  Both tables arrived in 4♥ by South.  I scored 10 tricks for +420 and our teammates scored 5 tricks for +100, win 11 IMPs.

I have a rather minimum responding hand, and the value goes down with my ♦Q being doubtful.  However, partner has clearly made a forcing bid of 3♠ and I have to choose.  3NT or 4♥?  Both contracts, double dummy, are due 10 tricks, but if I bid 3NT (not knowing partner’s diamond strength), I thought I could lose the first 5-6 tricks before I got started.  So, I placed the contract in 4♥.  The diamond lead seemed natural given that the suit was bid and raised, but it made my handling of the diamond suit much easier.  No lead is especially effective or attractive.  No lead does better.  A diamond was led at both tables with the ♦Q winning trick 1 and a heart finesse at trick 2, losing to the ♥A, then a diamond return to the ♦A.  Both tables were the same through trick 3.

At this point, I crossed to the ♠A, finessed again in hearts getting the bad news about the 4-1 split.  Now I cashed the ♠K, ruffed a spade (when the ♠Q fell, I had a parking place for my last diamond on the ♠J).  Now I decided to try the ♣J to ‘finesse’ but when LHO showed out, there was no finesse.  I had to rise with the ♣A and lead the ♠J to throw my diamond while LHO ruffs.  They led a diamond, but I could ruff, draw the last trump and give up a club, but RHO only had a club to lead back to me at trick 13.  So, I won 2+4+2+2, losing 2 trump and the ♣K.  It might seem as though the defense can gain by ruffing when I lead the club.  But, they are ruffing air.  Then they can lead the ♦K to force me to ruff with dummy’s ♥K, setting up their ♥Q.  But that ruff takes care of my diamond loser, and now I can throw my one remaining losing club on the ♠J, leaving the defense with 3 trump tricks, but no other tricks.

What if a diamond isn’t led at trick 1?  Because of the trump length held by opening leader, a diamond appeals because diamonds were raised (!?) and perhaps it will be possible to tap out declarer and gain control of the hand.  No lead can beat best declarer play.  But, as opening leader, you sure hate to underlead a K at trick one only to see declarer win their Q while dummy remains with just the ace.  If you do not a diamond, then probably a spade is the next choice – how could a heart be right on this holding?!  Amazingly, leading any of the 13 cards result in 10 tricks for declarer.  You can even lead the impossible ♠Q or even ♥Q and still score 3 tricks for the defense, no overtricks for declarer!  Very strange hand.  But, I have played with Double Dummy Solver with many varied lines of defense and declarer play and nothing special needs to be done (such as you don’t need to finesse the ♠J in order to make the hand).

At the other table, in dummy at trick 3, declarer tried the effect of the ♥K at trick 4.  Not good.  I think they were thinking if trump are 3-2, lose 0+2+0+1 and arrive at 10 tricks after ruffing the last diamond with dummy’s last trump.  And maybe the club finesse will work.  When trumps were 4-1,  with the ♣K offside, things collapsed.  +420 vs. -100 resulted in win 11 IMPs.

I write this blog to learn, to review the causes of the largest IMP swings in the matches.  What can be learned from these?  

• 1 swing happened when the same contract with the same lead at both tables, but different declarer play.
• 1 was a decent slam (needed a finesse which worked, unlikely to go down, but could have been defeated as the cards lay) winning IMPs vs. 3NT.  
• 1 was a terrible slam, losing IMPs vs. 3NT
• 2 were phantom saves that were allowed to make
• 1 was a declarer play that went astray after my strange double

So, bidding judgment again played  a major role, but I think the actual swings were based more  on declarer play and defense.  That is what really drove the large swings for this session.  The bidding created the opportunity for the defense to win big, but often declarer won out.  All-in-all, pretty uneven play for the day.  And lucky results for me.

Recap Of 7/15/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

July 16th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

Only 4 hands reached double digit swings today.  

The swing was all in the bidding.  Nothing to the play.  Must lose 2 diamonds and 1 club, +200 and +790 for my team, win 14 IMPs.  Bruce held extra values with spade shortness so he seems to have an automatic double.  Here, with the duplication in spades (singleton in both hands), it left a lot of losers to deal with in 5♣X – 800 was there with 3 top tricks, 1 heart ruff, and 1 delayed diamond trick.  So, Manfred’s decision (bid or pass?) made no difference, he saved 10 points by passing the double vs. bidding 5♣.  I had already decided I was doubling 5♣, although doing that could clearly be wrong on some freak hands.  Dan was faced with the 5♣ bid at the other table and decided to try for 11 tricks in spades but they were short one trick.  Five level decisions are notoriously difficult.  Watching the Bermuda Bowl and other high level competition, it seems they ‘take the money’ more often than ‘take the push’ but these are very difficult decisions and even the top players in the world get them wrong sometimes.

You can play bridge (and I have) for 50+ years and still low level, seemingly simple auctions come up that have never come up before.  And they can be sufficiently awkward that there are really no rules or general principles that can be universally applied.  This next example falls into that category.  If anyone has developed a set of rules for auctions like these, I would love to know about them.

The better contract (for NS) was reached at the other table, since 2♠ makes 8 tricks, while there are only 7 tricks in 2♣ for down 1, had we been allowed to play in 2♣.  But, reaching spades had the effect of allowing the opponents to reach an excellent 4♥ game contract which was unbeatable on any lead as the cards lie.  Nine tricks were scored in 2♦ so we lost -110 while picking up +650 for the game (when a small spade was played off dummy from ♠Qxx, it seemed as though the only chance to defeat the contract was to duck the ♠AK, hoping partner held the ♠J.  So, one of the sure spade tricks went away).  Win 11 IMPs

It never ceases to amaze me how very small differences in bidding systems and bidding judgment lead to extremely large swings when comparing scores.  Clearly our result was lucky, since our system had the effect of creating a problem for EW.  But, when results like this happen, I think it is instructive to examine/establish some general principles that may help next time.

1. I think it is universal that a double of an artificial bid (such as a transfer) shows values in that suit.  That helped our teammates.
2. Should a double of the natural 2♣ bid be penalty, by the one who opened, or takeout?  Seems natural to be penalty since you have already bid the suit.
3. Should a double of 2♣ in the pass out seat (West. partner of the one who opened 1♣) be penalty or takeout?  I think I have some documented agreements with some partners that ‘the first double is always takeout’.  But, with an individual movement with an unfamiliar partner, should you risk a double, not even knowing what it means?  And, if a double is takeout, should partner (East) convert to penalty with the hand they held, or bid hearts?  If if the East hand bids spades (had they held a different hand) in response to a takeout double, should West now bid diamonds, sort of implying diamonds and hearts?  And is a double followed by a new suit forcing?  How high do you want to get on a potential misfit and modest 10 count?
4. On the actual hand, when West balanced with 2♦, should that new suit be forcing?  Should East bid again?  Obviously they have to bid if they are ever going to get to 4♥, but it isn’t obvious to me that bidding is clear cut.

The auction took a decidedly different turn at the other table. When 4♣ was bid freely, and then raised to 5♣, I don’t know if either partner felt the magic might be there for the slam.  Clearly  Dan and I were lucky – very hard to know if the fit is sufficiently perfect to score 12 tricks, but I have announced, by doubling 4♥, that I have support for all suits and a very good hand.  Dan, by failing to bid the first time, decided he had some catching up to do (plus, I did pause prior to passing 5♥, so it is likely that a committee would have barred Dan and rolled it back to 5♥ undoubled, which would score quite poorly for us).  The slam was 920 vs. 420, good for 11 IMPs.

Recap Of 6/3/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

June 8th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  4 Comments 

For our game (held on Wednesday for the first time), we had numerous swing opportunities that were missed.  I’ll only cover the 5 that achieved double digit swings.  Duplicate bridge sort of means it doesn’t matter who gets the cards, but on the 5 swing hands presented below, our opponents had the cards (and our teammates at the other table).  I can’t find much in the way of leads, defense or destructive bidding opportunities where partner and I can alter the result at our table.  Suggestions welcome.  The main reason I bother doing the blog is to learn and share things I learn along the way.  

Unfortunately, many of the swings were not so much bidding judgment as they were bidding ‘agreements’.  Since this is an individual event, you are often playing with a very unfamiliar partner.  So, we allow some discussion at the table to sort out bidding understandings.  You’ll see how some of these (mis)understandings affected the results.   As such, they aren’t so much about what can be learned about bridge as they are about how important common bidding agreements are between both sides of a partnership.

To those who read the early version of the blog – there was an error in reporting.  My table (forgotten over time) had the bidding as currently shown above.  Mark chose to close out the bidding by showing his values with 3NT (of course, with a different hand, Ed, who is unlimited, could override that decision).  As the cards lie, 9 tricks was very easy in 3NT – more tricks are possible, but Mark saw 9 and took them.  -400 for my table.

I can’t flaw Bruce’s decision to try the known 8 card fit.  The harsh trump split and trump spots made 4♥ a challenge.   Bruce struggled for 10 tricks and couldn’t find them, -50.  Lose 10 IMPs.

Deep finesse can see all of the cards.  He is able to score 11 tricks in hearts via a finesse of the ♥8 and ♣Q, losing only 2 top hearts while pitching dummy’s diamonds on the high spades.  That scores 3+3+2+3 tricks.  But, not seeing all the cards, the heart contract turned out to be too tough.

Another bidding ‘judgment’ hand, and this one seems like #11 to me.  A tossup.  There could be 12 tricks.  There could be 11.  No action seems questionable to me, but the result was clear.  Without a heart lead by South or two spade discards by North, 12 tricks will never come home.  Against 4NT, Ed led the ♥J and declarer already had their 12 top tricks.  Against 6NT, of course, a heart was not led and there was no way to find 12 tricks.  Lose 11 IMPs.

There was nothing to the play.  A club was lost.  12 tricks were scored.  -620 and +1370 for 13 IMPs for my team.  So, I didn’t have bad luck on ALL 5 hands I’m reporting…

I think this hand does have some lessons to learn from the bidding.  For starters, don’t assume a convention that you and partner have not discussed/agreed.  And, when you hold 2 fast losers in a side suit, cue bidding is often the way to arrive in a good slam and stay out of a hopeless slam.  RKCB is a great tool, but should not be deployed when you have 2 fast losers in an unbid suit.  Even with 18 HCP and a nice fit.

Should opener rebid their robust 6 card spade suit or support diamonds?  You would like a 4th diamond, but you do have a great hand for diamonds.  And, by bidding 3♠ over 3♦, partner can redirect the auction back to spades if they had a 3 card spade game raise for their 2♦ bid.  I’m certainly fine with either bid (raise diamonds or rebid clubs), but some may have strong feelings.

After the raise to 3♦, what should responder now bid?  Certainly a cue bid of the spade void is not an option.  That sounds like support.  And two fast losers in hearts is a problem, so RKCB is out.  I would hate to give up on slam so readily and I think I would choose a 4♣ cue bid as my next step.  But a 5♦ “signoff” certainly isn’t crazy.  Here, partner had so much extra, he forced slam with 5♥ in spite of no club control, and pard, with nothing in the majors and only 7 points in diamonds, provided the needed club control for the 12 tricks required for the small slam.

This is a hand that a practiced partnership should always get right.  If it was submitted to The Bridge World in their ‘Challenge the Champs’ bidding contest, they would clearly reject it as ‘too easy’.

Another hand with nothing to the lead, nothing to the defense, nothing to the play.  7NT and 7♣ both have 13 top tricks.  So 7NT is superior since no ruff is possible at trick 1.

Arithmetically, this was not a double digit swing.  It was scored as 10 at the time, since the game vs. small slam and small vs. grand is usually 500 points which computes to 11 IMPs.  But when the game is in a higher scoring denomination (NT vs. major) the extra points knock it down to 10 IMPs.  But, when the grand is a minor and the small slam is a NT slam and both score all 13 tricks, the 500 point bonus is reduced to 420 which, on the IMP scale just scores 9 IMPs.  So, lose 9 IMPs.

Recap Of 4/27/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

April 28th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

I’m gone all of May, so we had our ‘May’ game on 4/27,  There were four big swings.

First up was a game that didn’t get bid by our teammates.  After opening the bidding with the obvious 1♥, West must find a rebid over the forcing 2♣.  Our teammates rebid the anemic heart suit and the auction died in 3♥, just making for +140.  At my table, Ed noticed the strong club support (♣AK), but since clubs were not suitable for a raise with a doubleton, he invented a 2♦ rebid to await developments.  Manfred, Ed’s partner, took note of his spade stopper and bid the NT game.  When clubs behaved, there were 11 top tricks (1+1+3+6), and when partner got involved in a pseudo squeeze (making no IMP difference), declarer ended up with 12 tricks for -690, lose 11 IMPs.

This next hand illustrates the luck of the game.  With no firm agreements available, our teammates took a shot and bid to the cold (on a finesse) grand.  The IMP odds don’t suggest trying this.  Here, if the finesse loses, you are down 6, -600, lose 18 IMPs against the diamond slam bid and made at my table.  Nevertheless, the team that ‘won’ the auction (got to the best contract) still paid out 13 IMPs when the NT grand came home.  Perhaps I was a bit cautious with my pass over 3♦.  6-6 hands can play very well, but the doubled vulnerable undertricks can add up pretty fast.  Here 6♥ is a ‘good’ save over 6♦ since it only goes for -1100.  But, if you somehow prod them into the grand slam, now you have to take the more expensive save of 7♥ for -1400.  The small slam in diamonds is the more prudent contract, but some days…

I think I was way too cautious on this hand.  I can’t blame partner for missing this red game.   You know what they say – “Never bring back a red 170 to compare.”  I bid a timid 3♠ which ended the auction.  But, I felt rewarded when it looked like I could lose 1+0+1+2 – 10 tricks looked challenging unless the ♣A is onside.  The ♣A wasn’t onside.  The defense at my table made the only play to allow me to score 10 tricks.  I hoped our teammates might provide the defense to defeat 4♠ if game was bid at the other table.  But the same defense led to the same 10 tricks.  The play vs. 3♠ and 4♠ went exactly the same.  East led the ♥Q, declarer won the ♥A, then the ♥K, followed by a heart ruff/over ruff.  At this point it seems as though West can see declarer will be hard pressed to enter dummy to take a diamond finesse.  I can’t construct a hand for declarer where the spade lead by West at trick 4 gives declarer the contract, but a diamond play at trick 4 is the necessary card for West to lead at trick 4 to beat the contract.  There may be such a hand, but I’m not seeing it.  In any case, both tables led a diamond at trick 4, declarer took the obvious finesse, drew trumps and lost the 2 club tricks for 10 total tricks.

True, if declarer holds ♣Qx (Or singleton ♣Q or ♣J10 and guesses correctly), you will be forced to lead diamonds later (or allow him the dummy entry so he can lead diamonds later).  But, there is no need to lead diamonds now, and with the actual ♣Jx held by declarer, declarer has no way to ever get to dummy to take a diamond finesse unless you allow him to take it by leading diamonds after the overruff at trick 3.

An interesting side note – if declarer foresees the potential heart overruff.  At trick 2 declarer can take the diamond finesse, using the only sure entry that he has to dummy (after winning the ♥A at trick 1).  But this line loses when diamonds are 4-1 (28.3%), while protecting against 6-2 hearts (17.1%).  So, while it is the only sure way to make this particular hand as the cards lie, the diamond finesse at trick 2 may not be the best play for 10 tricks.

Bottom line +170 vs. -620, lose 10 IMPs.

Here the bidding is screwed up.  Editing the blog has proved challenging to me (no way to remove a bidding chart and start over, and no way to add lines to the bidding once it is posted).  So, missing at my table is a final double by me of the 5♣ contract.

Here we have yet another red game bid at one table and not bid at the other.  I doubled the final contract based on…beats me!  Well, the auction seemed slow/strained like they were trying to get to 3NT but couldn’t do it, so I hoped the 5 level might be seriously too high.  Or at least down 1.  11 tricks were there for both tables when the ♦Q was in the slot.  My double only cost 2 IMPs since game wasn’t bid by our teammates.  -750 vs. +150, lose 12 IMPs.

Recap Of 4/6/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

April 8th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  3 Comments 

Only 3 double digit swings this time.  Two red games bid/not bid and one slam bid/not bid.  All swings this time were in bidding judgment – this seems to be my usual conclusion as I review the results.

‘Everyone’ knows ‘bid red games’ – but the IMP odds really only make it advisable when you are down only 1 if the contract fails and the likelihood of making is 38% or better.  With 25 HCP and stoppers in every suit, 3NT seems reasonable – certainly can’t fault the bidding.  But with both hands balanced, where do you get tricks?  I’m not exactly certain how to compute the likelihood of 9 tricks, given the NS hands with EW passing throughout.  

If clubs are 4-4, you still figure to lose 3 club tricks plus a heart and one or more spades.  On a different layout, you might get a heart lead and lose 3 hearts a spade and a club.  But, when a club is led in this layout and the ♣AQ are in the slot, and spades are 3-3, and you guess the spade layout, 3+0+4+2 gets you to 9 tricks before the bad guys get 5.  This game doesn’t seem to clear the 38% threshold, but…it made.  So, lose 10 IMPs.

Well, what can I say.  I don’t like partner’s “1NT forcing” and I would like to blame this disaster on him…but I can’t.  What can he have?  Either some hand with 3 card support that he considered a limit raise (but then my club bid improved his hand) or else he had some game hand that decided to bid go through 1NT anyway.  If the former, the ♣KQ and ♠Q are not enough to bid like that, and even if that was all he had, the 5 level is rather safe.  I can’t come up with any reason why I failed to apply RKCB other than I was asleep at the switch.  Sorry partner/teammates. 13 IMPs away for missing this cold slam.

Game for NS didn’t have to work as well as it did (5♦ 4♠ and 3NT are all reasonable).  

In 5♦ – cross ruff your way to 11 tricks, perhaps trying a few finesses along the way

In 4♠ – draw trump and either lose 1 trump and 2 diamonds or 2 trump (depending on how the opponents cards are divided) and then guess the diamonds for one loser

In 3NT (find 9 tricks somewhere – rather easy when 3 kings are all onside)

I don’t know which game is superior, all provide reasonable shots at game, and all make game.  Do they clear the previously mentioned 38% hurdle for a red game?  I think so, but hard to compute.  

There can’t be much to recommend my 1♥ bid other than it was my turn to bid.  EW never bid at the other table and it is hard to say how/why my bidding got my opponents to game and/or how no EW bidding kept my teammates out of any game at the other table.  In any case, our opponents got to game, our teammates did not, lose 10 IMPs.

In summary, all 3 swings had nothing special to the play, lead or defense – bidding was everything.

Recap Of 2/9/2015 21 Board IMP Individual on BBO

February 11th, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  No Comments 

We played 7 rounds, 3 boards per round.  After 3 rounds, 9 boards, we had 4 pushes, 4 1 IMP swings, and 1 4 IMP swing.  Normally, I confine most commentary to the double digit swings, but the first hand I’m going to review is the 4 IMP swing on board 3.

Everybody loves to bid, but sometimes passing is the best action.  Here, at my table (not shown), as West, I passed 2♥ and NS played it there, just making.  At the other table, shown above, West (Mike) decided to come in 3♣.  Why?  Beats me.  A good bridge player always makes book, and with most any reasonable defense, book is all West can make in 3♣.  A penalty double by North seems impossible, but with the fine defensive hand held by South, -3 for +300 or +800 (unlikely) is there for NS.  But, not only did Mike like to bid, Manfred liked to bid too, so his 3♥ bid took Mike off the hook and South took the same 8 tricks that the 2♥ bid did at my table, so my team lost 4 IMPs (-50, -110) due to our teammates ‘being pushed’ to 3♥.

It is a bidders game, and you will see bidding take center stage on the next 4 hands, all double digit swings involving high level diamond contracts.

As you can see, Manfred judged to bid ‘only’ 6♦ and easily made 12 tricks.  He would have 12 tricks even without the ♥A.  At the other table, 

Jerry put maximum pressure on Bill, and, with little room to enquire/probe Bill decided to take a stab at the grand.  If West held the ♣A instead of the ♥A, it would have made a huge difference in the IMPs.  My team won 14 IMPs for +980 and +100.

Next up, Manfred and I felt we ‘stole’ the hand in 3♥, going down 3 undoubled non-vulnerable tricks for -150 compared to the 2 choices of vulnerable games available – 4♠ or 5♣, both of which make.  

But as you see here

The game chosen (5♦) was not a success.  We lost 10 IMPs for -3 at both tables, -150 and -300.  Several interesting points as the auction unfolded.  Even practiced partnerships with lots of notes can have vague ideas about what the double of 3♥ shows.  Rarely is it strictly penalty, but I think it suggests a misfit (no great fit for either suit shown so far) with unclear direction and willing to defend.  But in fact, either suit shown by North fits reasonably well with the South hand, since game makes in both of them.  However, the auction diverted into choosing South’s suit, a diamond game contract which was not successful.  Should North bid 4♦ over the double?  Should South raise to 5♦?  Not on this hand.

Next up, two different unmakable games (assuming best defense) were bid.  Both games did not get best defense, so both could have been made.  But only one did.

At my table, I liked my singleton club, support for diamonds, allowing ruffing in the short hand, so I bounced to the diamond game.  When West led a spade at trick 3 after winning the ♥A, declarer is home, since they can hold their spade losers to 1, pitching the other spade on the ♥Q.  However, the timing must be right after winning the ♠K.  Declarer must cash a high diamond, ruff the club, cash the ♦A, cash the ♥Q pitching the spade, ruff a heart back to hand, draw trump and claim.  When declarer basically played for 2-2 trump (led to the ♦A without first getting the club ruff in), the power of the outstanding trump threatening an overruff doomed the contract.  He couldn’t get off dummy twice without an overruff.

Both auctions started exactly the same.  After opener’s jump rebid of 3♦, Manfred judged the South hand worth a 3♥ call (where I just  bounced to 5♦).  That resulted in North (Jerry) jumping to the spade game.  When in with the ♥A, the singleton diamond finally got led, setting up a ruff for the setting trick.  However, when East won the ♠A, capturing the ♠K, instead of the diamond ruff for partner, he tried to lead to partner’s club trick (partner hadn’t tried to cash the club when in with the ♥A, so the club at this point doesn’t feel right).  Because the ♠9 was spent on the first trump lead, declarer now only had 1 more trump to lose and plenty of tricks to bring home the spade game.

The weak spade suit is what “dooms” both 4♠ and 5♦, but defense provided opportunities for declarer and the red game making (4♠) and down (5♦) resulted in -620 and -100 for my team, lose 12 IMPs.  Disappointed.

On this next hand, once more a 5♦ contract comes into play.  At my table, Mike concealed the club suit, allowing me to introduce spades.  I luckily judged to take the red vs. white save vs. 5♥ when it came around to me.  And, West unluckily judged to take the phantom in 6♥.  With his solid spade trick to offer the defense, it would have been better to defend than bid on.  I thought both sides had double fits, so there are lots of tricks for both sides. The save in 6♦ over the opponents 5♥ would have been just as successful (-1) as my choice of saving in 5♠.  But, bidding one more can have the effect of causing the opponents to also bid one more, turning a save into great profit, when 6♥ was down a trick.

At the other table, the unusual NT prevented spades from being introduced and NS judged to defend 5♥ rather than save at 6♦.  So, when 11 tricks were there, our teammates were +450 to go with our +50  for 11 IMPs.

On this next hand, bidding was identical at both tables.  I was dummy.

After the spade lead, declarer only has 8 tricks unless a club/diamond squeeze can develop.  However, at my table, declarer tossed the ♣Q on the 3rd spade, limiting potential club tricks, then misguessed to fly the ♦Q, setting up 6 tricks for the defense, -2. -100.

At the other table, a heart was led at trick 1.  However, declarer still can’t manage 9 tricks.  But when in with the ♦K, South must finally get spades going.  When South didn’t lead spades on opening lead nor when in with the ♦K, declarer had enough time to develop 9 tricks and score the game.  +400 and +100, resulted in my team losing 11 IMPs.

On this last hand my 3♦ bid was a joke (vul vs. not), but preempts are made to give the opponents problems and they guessed wrong.

I’m not suggesting I made a good bid, but I felt like creating some action and this time it worked.  When my hand bid only 2♦ at the other table, the opponents played a quiet 4♥.  

There was nothing to the play with 11 tricks in a heart contract.  Well, not exactly nothing.  Without the ‘lead director’ diamond bid, pard may try a top spade.  With the fall of the ♠9, declarer has the timing to draw 2 trumps, then take 2 spade finesses, pitching the diamond loser and making 12 tricks.  But, with the diamond lead, 11 tricks max.  That meant +50 and +450 for my team, win 11 IMPs.

Recap Of 2/2/2015 28 Board IMP Individual

February 3rd, 2015  ~  bobmunson  ~  2 Comments 

While there were several hands of interest (including a vulnerable 4♠ made at both tables which seemed like it might be beaten), I’m just going with the 3 double digit swings.  Bidding was almost the exclusive cause of the 3 swings, but leads, defense and declarer play presented some opportunities to avoid the adverse swing.

What to do in 1st chair with the West hand?  Here, the miserable spots, not to mention the side 4 card major suggested to Dan (as West, dealer) to not open, but Mark, at the other table, did open 2♥ as dealer.

So, at my table, given the chance, East would likely have opened 1NT, but since I opened 1NT in front of him, he passed at his first opportunity.  Once Dan balanced over my 1NT, Manfred, as East, carried on to the heart game, which was one level too high.  The limit was 9 tricks for West in a heart contract, so partner and I scored +50 vs. the 4♥ contract.

At the other table, after the 2♥ opening, North made a normal 2NT overcall, and East decided that a penalty double was in order.  As you can see from the layout, even though EW have the majority of the HCP (21 vs. 19), they have no tricks!  Declarer can easily score 0+1+2+5 and at some point, a diamond or spade endplay scores the odd extra trick.  I don’t know how the defense or declarer play went, but double dummy best defense results in 9 tricks for NS and, in practice, 9 tricks were made for a strange route to -590 (of course normal 590s come from making a non-vulnerable doubled major suit game).   Lose 11 IMPs with our +50 compared to our teammates -590 when the uptrick was scored in 2NTX.

Should West pull the double to 3♥?  I wouldn’t think so, but bidding (instead of sitting for the double) would have been quite a success here.  Had he bid 3♥, win 5 vs. lose 11.

Two pretty normal auctions, where Bill decided, with the weak heart suit, to try for the 9 trick game where Ed dutifully transferred, and was corrected to 4♥ after he bid 3NT over partner’s acceptance of the transfer.

When North (Manfred) found the diamond lead vs. 3NT, the defense had 5 tricks established immediately.  Declarer could manage 8, but no way to get 9.

If I found the same diamond lead vs. 4♥, there would be no story to tell.  Or, if I shifted to diamonds after winning the ♥Q, we push the board.  Instead, I led ‘from nothing’ with the 3rd best club, and when a later got in with the ♥Q, I decided to hope partner had a singleton club and some small trumps that he needed to score, so I fatally continued clubs.  I thought Lead Captain would call for a club lead and I was ‘right’ sort of – the ♣6 ranked best of all leads on 5000 deals, but it was very nearly a 13-way tie.  That is, all leads scored nearly the same in terms of % of times the contract is defeated.  The lead seems rather random to me.  Should I have worked out the diamond shift?  It didn’t seem necessary, and a club ruff (if available) did seem necessary – if declarer held ♥KJx to go with 5 clubs, after knocking out the ♥A, he can get to dummy and draw trump, scoring 1+3+1+5.  Of course, declarer, in that scenario, cannot hold both the ♦K and ♠K.  So, if I pick the right pointed suit to lead, we might beat this hand without the ruff.  Of course, in reality, not only did partner not hold an initial singleton club (thererfore he was unable to ruff my club continuation), he held 2 natural trump tricks and had no interest in ruffing.  All he wanted was for me to lead a diamond through so he could score his ♦K.  But, as declarer ran his tricks, eventually Dan was endplayed out of his ♦K, so all we scored were our 3 trump tricks, -420 and -50, lose 10 IMPs for our team.

Is this a guess or should I work this out?

For our last hand, once again the third and last double digit swing happened on a ‘none vulnerable’ hand.  I’m well known for ‘never’ wanting to show 4th hand 3 green cards.  So, when 2 passes, came my way, it seemed necessary to make come call.  With such short spades, I decided to cram the auction with a 3rd seat 2♥ opening.  This caught Bill (East) with a hand that he thought might be too strong to simply overcall.  The opening bid created an effective opening lead for partner.  And it left Bill fearful of a 2nd round heart ruff by his LHO, should he pursue heart ruffs in dummy.  Scoring heart ruffs in dummy still seems like the best play.  You could possibly still just lose 2 spades and a diamond, even if they score ruff of a high heart on the 2nd round.  

The other table had no opening bid to contend with, so they had a club lead instead of a heart lead against their 4♠ contract.  Declarer then led diamonds to get to dummy, finessed hearts, ruffed a heart and pitched a heart on the ♣K (after cashing the ♣A), so he just lost the ♦A and 2 trump tricks, but scored the game.

At our table, after the ♥9 lead, the ‘power’ of my ♥765 came into play.  Declarer decided to hope I held ♠Jx and, so after winning the heart at trick 1, led ♠A then ♠Q.  Partner won the ♠K, played the ♠J (so dummy no longer has trumps), then cleared the heart suit.  Since I still held the ♦A, upon winning, I had 2 hearts to cash for -2, +100 to go with +420, win 11 IMPs.

I can’t claim 2♥ was a good 3rd seat opening bid, but on this hand, it was effective as both a lead director and creating uncertainty for declarer in the play of the hand.