Jeff Lehman

IMP pairs event at the club

IMP pairs events are notoriously random.  I am not saying that IMP pairs events are not fun – I rather enjoy them – but the results one receives are so dependent upon random matters such as whom you play on the “boards that count”.  That the boards that count mean so much is the consequence of so many boards producing hardly any significant potential IMP swings at all.  

When I think of IMP pairs events, I think of a post mortem I conducted with a friend between sessions of such an event at a past NYC NABC.  We were each sitting the same direction in the first session.  As we progressed to a particular board, I complained, “Oh, this one was bad; our opponents got to the vulnerable 6 slam and we suffered a big loss to the field, winning only the A.”  My friend chimed in, “They got to the slam against us, too, and went down one trick, for a big gain to the field.”  Upon inquiring I learned that the declarer against my friend had played the trump suit of Qxx opposite AJ9xxxx by playing small to the jack.  Sure enough, KTx was in the slot and my friend’s side won both the A and a trump trick.  Of course, the declarer against me and my partner was familiar with the safety play of leading the Q and so lost no trump tricks.

Well, in yesterday’s IMP pairs at the club, my partner and I were lucky and not unlucky.  Here are two examples.

 

 
34
N-S
East
N
North
102
J8
A852
87632
 
W
West
985
K97643
J10
Q5
A
E
Me
KJ73
A
KQ9763
109
 
S
South
AQ64
Q1052
4
AKJ4
 
W
West
N
North
E
East
S
South
1
Dbl
2
3
Pass
5
All Pass
 
 
 

South is an elderly lady and North an elderly man.  South plays much better than her appearance and table demeanor would suggest; North, not so much.

I led the A and partner encouraged.  Declarer decided to drop the J.  I switched to the 7 and declarer successfully finessed the Q.  Declarer cashed the A and led a diamond to the A in order to lead a second trump.  After long thought, he went up with the K, dropping the queen.  Next declarer led the Q from dummy.  Partner flew with the king and returned his last diamond.  Declarer ruffed in dummy and played the T ruffing in his hand!  Now he had two losing diamonds and only one trump to take care of them.  Down one.

No one else in the field bid 5.  And so, while our opponents deserved a big win for bidding to +600, the failure to pitch diamonds on good hearts converted their score to a big loss for them/win for us by suffering -100.

And then a more subtle, but equally undeserved, pick up for my partnership on Board 15, where declarer is relatively new to competitive bridge, I think. 

 
15
N-S
South
N
North
Q6
J2
Q973
108654
 
W
West
J7432
AQ1087
K65
5
E
Me
A1085
3
1082
AKJ92
 
S
South
K9
K9654
AJ4
Q73
 
W
West
N
North
E
East
S
South
1
Pass
Pass
Dbl
All Pass

I would not have replicated my partner’s decision to pass 1X, but rather would have bid cue bid 2 on my way to 4.  How did partner’s decision work out?

Well, here was the play.

Partner led a diamond.  Declarer won the jack, cashed the A and led a third diamond to partner’s king.  Partner exited with a spade to my ace as declarer played small from dummy and chose the odd option of playing the king from her hand.  I cashed two top clubs, partner pitching spades on each, and then led a third club.  Partner ruffed declarer’s queen with the 7 and exited with a spade.  Declarer won perforce with dummy’s queen and advanced the J, losing, as should have been expected, to partner’s Q.  That was our sixth trick (one diamond, one spade, two clubs, one club ruff, and the Q).  Partner exited with his last spade.  Declarer was trump tight in the four-card end position and partner won two more trump tricks from his AT8.  Down two for +500 and a small pickup on the “normal score” of +450.

But why, given the auction, did declarer choose to lead the J from dummy, when she could have chosen to lead through partner toward the J?  Had declarer kept the K instead of unblocking that card on the first spade lead, she could have won partner’s spade exit in her hand and then led a heart toward dummy’s jack.  Either the J would win a trick or partner would win his Q on air.  Either way, declarer gets one more trick and earns a big gain for being -200 against the “normal score” of -450.

Was this enough for us to win the event?  Sadly, not even close!

 

 

 

 


1 Comment

Judy Kay-WolffMay 1st, 2014 at 1:20 am

Hi Jeff,

I enjoyed your evaluations of the different situations .. in particular your handling AJ9XXXX opposite QXX. Of all the card combinations, if one takes a moment to figure out how to cover all bases, the correct play here becomes obvious and once faced with the situation, it should be indelibly inscribed in one’s mind that there is only one correct card to thrust upon the table.

There are many challenges we face during a session and obviously the options vary whether Imps or Match Points. Since I play so much more duplicate than teams, I find it amazing how often these ‘correct card’ combination decisions enter the picture. Of course, it is a whole different ball game when safety vs correct play determines your handling.

Over the decades, much has evolved with conventions, signals, treatments, discards, et al. However, one thing is for sure .. card combinations remain constant. It is a very satisfying part of the game .. especially if it works.

Leave a comment

Your comment