Three from sectional Swiss

Right cards in the right places

Without benefit of a computer, partner Rob Clark of Nashua, NH, came up with a winning evaluation of his hand on this deal from a recent sectional Swiss match, an evaluation not replicated by the top notch pair at the other table.

How do you value this hand?  ♠xx  ♥AT9xxx  ♦xx  ♣AQx?

The Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator (you know, The Bridge World past and current editors) measures this hand as “worth” 13.05 points, thus a clear opening one bid.  (See http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi).   Valuing the quick tricks in his longest suits, Rob did open 1♥.

What about this hand as a responder to a 1♥ opening?  ♠Axx  ♥Jxxx  ♦Axx  ♣Kxx.  Game forcing (meaning Jacoby 2NT) or game invitational (meaning limit raise)?  I took the lower road, responding 3♥.  K&R agreed with this evaluation, too, rating the hand as 11.20.  Looking at the hand a different way, it is a nine loser hand, which argues for avoiding game forcing treatment if you believe the decision is otherwise close.

Now, back to Rob.  With a ten card fit established, he judged to accept the invitation and bid 4♥.  At IMPs scoring, this decision seems on-target to me.  (Although, I think I would be tempted to pass at mps.)

These judgments by Rob earned our team 10 IMPs, as the opponent at our teammates’ table passed Rob’s hand.  (I am not a believer that there is a gap between a weak two and a one bid; I can understand that some hands would not be opened a weak two because of concerns about the quality of the suit, but I think the strength ranges of the bids are continuous.  However, I know of others who disagree, including the expert who passed at the other table, and then in the post mortem remarked that the hand was too weak for a one bid and too strong for a two bid.)

 

High level competition

Your LHO opens 4♥, alerted as being weakish because the pair plays Namyats and a stronger bid of 4♣ was available for a better hand with long hearts.  Partner doubles (for takeout) and this is passed to you.

You hold ♠xxxx  ♥ —  ♦KT8xx  ♣KJxx.  What is your call?

Taking mild inference from partner’s failure to overcall 4♠, I thought it likely that partner held a four card minor.  With second round controls in each minor and first round control of hearts, I took a strong liking to my hand and advanced 5NT!  Partner called 6♦ with ♠AKQx  ♥Qx  ♦AQxxx  ♣xx.  I think the whole hand was:

 

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   xxxx ♥   — ♦   KTxxx ♣  KJxx
West ♠   QT9x ♥   Axx ♦   Jx ♣  AQxx		East ♠   J  ♥   KJT98xxx ♦   x ♣  xxx
	South ♠   AKQx ♥   Qx ♦   AQxxx ♣  xx

The spade break was disappointing (but welcomed because there was a sure trump loser if the other table in the sectional Swiss is playing in a spade slam!) but the fortunate club position provides a pitch for the fourth spade, so that 6♦ is making.

 

Obvious Shift revisited

I am a big fan of Obvious Shift signaling.  See the Granovetters’ terrific volume called “Switch in Time”.  A previous blog entry addressed this approach to defense, too.  See http://jeff.bridgeblogging.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=112&action=edit

Unfortunately, the only one of my regular partners that I have convinced to play Obvious Shift signaling does so, frankly, only as an accommodation to me.  I might have succeeded in convincing others of my partners to follow the general tenet of this signaling approach – that a discouraging attitude signal for the suit led means that signaler would welcome the obvious switch – but, by and large, my partners do not support this approach to signaling.

I remain a fan, however, and this hand from the Swiss demonstrates a reason why.

My RHO opened 1♠ and I made a takeout double with ♠x  ♥KJx  ♦KJTx  ♣AK8xx.  LHO bid 2♣, alerted and described as a constructive raise of spades with expected spade length of three cards.  Partner advanced 2♥ and RHO now jumped to 4♠.  Although tempted to double, I chose to pass and made an opening lead of the ♣A (our agreed lead from AK and length).

Dummy shows with:

 

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   T98 ♥   Qx ♦   AQxxxx ♣  xx
West ♠   x ♥   KJx ♦   KJTx ♣  AK8xx

What is your defensive plan?

I could think of two routes to four defensive tricks: (a) two clubs and two hearts off the top; or (b) two clubs, a club overruff of dummy (that is, playing for pard to own two clubs and declarer to own four clubs), and an extra trick, either partner’s ♠A or my ♥K sitting after declarer’s ace.  At the table it is hard to think too deeply about the 52 card layout and refine these plans, but they are the two general plans that might be under consideration.

Which plan do you pursue?

The answer to that question is derived from partner’s signaling.  If partner is using Obvious Shift signaling, he will signal discouragement on the ♣A lead if he holds the ♥A or K (but then I can see that I hold the ♥K), and will signal encouragement on the ♣A lead if he does not hold the ♥A or K.  That will tell me if I should switch to a heart or should continue clubs.  But if partner does not use Obvious Shift signaling and might signal encouragement just because he holds the ♣Q, then my hand is unsure which defensive route to pursue: if partner also holds the ♥A, then continuing two more rounds of clubs might produce a fatal ruff/sluff if it is partner who owns four clubs; while if partner instead owns only two clubs and not the ace of hearts, then switching to hearts allows declarer to score dummy’s ♥Q.