Jeff Lehman

Wernher Open Pairs, second final: what was up must …

Having blogged about the 63% first final session of Barry Purrington and me, fairness requires a blog about the 37% second session, from the Wernher Open Pairs, rated a national event, in Toronto.

Agreeing on opening bid style is an important element for a successful partnership.  Playing with a good partner, but in a nonregular partnership, we came a cropper on two hands from the second final.

Dealer: 1-N

Vul: None

North

KJ97

QJ2

4

T9754

West

53

AT

QJ9532

QJ3

East

AT42

K9753

A876

South

Q86

864

KT

AK862

West North East South
P P 1
1 3 4 All pass

Partner passed the East hand, a hand I would have opened.  I passed the 4response and we had not only missed game, we had also missed slam.  I also slopped a trick in declarer play and +150 was worth only 7 mps on a top of, I think, 64.

Dealer: 20-W

Vul: Both

North

Q43

JT874

QJ4

84

West

T985

AK952

6

KT3

East

K2

Q6

AK98

AQJ76

South

AJ76

3

T7532

952

West North East South
1 P 2 P
2 P 4NT P
5 P 6NT All pass

My 2 rebid was forced by system agreements (3 and 2 would show extras and 2NT was verboten with a stiff).  Not allowing for such a weak opening bid, partner advanced the auction quickly to 6NT before I could show my club support.  6 seems like a fair contract (but would not make on this lie of cards) and 6NT had no chance.  Down 2 for 5.5 mps.

Dealer: 7-S

Vul: Both

North

2

Q652

AKJ7

Q854

West

AQ875

A

4

KJT963

East

643

JT43

QT963

2

South

KJT9

K987

852

A7

Our first board of the second final.  I wish I could remember the auction, but all I recall is bidding clubs first and then 2 at my next turn.  South doubled.  I was not too displeased, as we seemed to have stopped low and I was able to win one trick in each rounded suit and, with one coming via an endplay, all five spades in my hand.  Deep Finesse says that 2 can be made our direction, but I was down one.  I should have been displeased: -200 was 14.5 mps.

Many poorly declared or poorly defended hands followed, and, while the severity of our bad score was a surprise to me, we clearly knew that we had fallen far, far from contention.

Dealer: 4-W

Vul: Both

North

J6

AT632

K3

AT76

West

AKQT72

984

J74

3

East

43

KQJ7

T98

KQ94

South

985

5

AQ652

J852

When I played golf regularly, a bad round seemed always to be capped by a good last hole, thus producing encouragement that the next round would be much better.  So, too, it was with this session of bridge.  On the last board we were playing a pair whose skills I respect but, well, I really do not like much.  Given the results on earlier boards, where I had learned of differences in opening bid standards between partner and me, I would have been well-advised not to have opened the West hand with 1.  But that is the opening I chose.  When North decided to overcall 2, and that call was passed back to me, I chose also to pass, rather than compete when I held a heart fragment and such a weak hand.  I am sure that partner, who was awaiting a conversion of a balancing double, thought that we had suffered yet another bad board.  However, 2 was not a happy contract for the opponents.  I was doubly pleased when North, who discovered early in the hand how good were my spades, gave me a look that said “you really do not know what you are doing” and then we earned 58 mps for +300 defending 2 undoubled.  (On the previous board, these opponents missed a cold notrump game, when I opened a balanced, but poor, 13 count and they held 25 of the missing 27 HCP.  Yay!)

We’ll get the rest of the field next time.


3 Comments

PegAugust 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Doncha love people who make comments like this, Jeff? “You really do not know what you are doing”!!!

Many years ago, in a KO match, partner and I were explaining methods prior to play. One of my opponents responded to one treatment with this line: “That is a stupid way to play.” Gee; thanks! I told him, “Then – don’t choose to play it.”

A great deal of satisfaction, I must say, after beating this idiot with our “stupid methods.”

Jeff LehmanAugust 26th, 2011 at 7:34 pm

Well, Peg, it was only a look, not verbally articulated …. but even the look is not exactly the most appropriate of table behaviors.

FWIW, I would never have dreamed of making a 2H overcall on his hand … but I would never consider so telling him (a Grand LM, btw).

Good to hear from you.

PegAugust 26th, 2011 at 10:23 pm

Jeff – I’m with you (the 2H overcall.) Perhaps you should have given him a “you don’t know what you are doing” kinda look. Of course, I’d always prefer to skip “the look” and simply reap the rewards of the opponent’s action!

Leave a comment

Your comment