Hand Evaluation at Club Swiss

Today my local bridge club ran a Swiss, in which each match played the same boards.  I found that many of the boards presented issues on my favorite bridge subject, Hand Evaluation.  Hand Evaluation is often the process of “placing cards” in partner’s hand in order to determine one’s bid.  My favorite Hand Evaluation tool, which I have cited frequently in my blog, is Culbertson’s Rule. 

Culbertson’s Rule suggests trying for game (or slam, as the case might be) when a perfect minimum for partner’s hand might make the game cold.  By citing a perfect minimum, Culbertson’s Rule legislates against giving partner the perfect cards (that would be a perfect maximum) while still providing useful guidance as to when games or slams might be made on something less than normal high card points.

An application of Culbertson’s Rule was inherent in Board 1, where advancer had also to consider how the play would progress, an important attribute of successful bidders, as Karen Walker has noted in her outstanding, long running series in the ACBL Bulletin.

On Board 1, dealer to your left opened weak 2♥.  Your partner overcalled 2♠ and RHO passed.  What is your call with Q, K43, AJ86, KJ965?

Well, first consider how you expect the play to progress at notrump.  You expect a heart lead.  That develops a heart trick for you, but it also can establish five heart tricks for the opponents.  So, you can ask yourself, can I run, with benefit of a heart trick, nine tricks before the opponents can run five?  With a hand with no running suit and only one ace, you are going to need lots of help from partner for you to be able to run nine tricks.  Still, with a 14 count and a protected heart card, the possibility of nine tricks is not remote.

How do you solicit partner’s cooperation?

I think many pairs would play a 2NT response as an Ogust-style bid.  If partner shows a good hand, 3NT might make on power.  On the other hand if partner shows a bad hand but a good suit, your ♠Q becomes really useful in a spade contract (probably more useful than two small, if you imagine partner with some sort of spade holding such as KJTxxx or the like).  But if you are in a spade contract, then the ♥K before the 2♥ opener diminishes in value.  All in all, I think it is best to bid 2NT and then sign off in 3♠ if partner shows a bad hand and a good suit.

And this would be the winning call on this board, because partner owns K987543, Q8, K92, Q.  For a push.

(If you don’t believe this aceless ten point hand [and even the ten HCP includes a secondary honor in the opponent’s suit and a stiff queen] is worth an overcall, I understand, but I would disagree.  Opposite so little as QJ, xxx, QJxx, xxxx, a pretty undistinguished, flat six count, you can expect to make 2♠.  Add in so little as two aces and you can make game and yet advancer is unlikely to even enter the auction.)

 

On Board 9, your partner shows a strong notrump and you hold AKJ96, 5, KQT85, 32.  You show your spades and then your diamonds and partner preferences to 3♠.  Should you make a slam try (presumably by bidding 4♦)?

I think “yes”.  Give partner so little Qxx, Axxx, Jxx, AKxx  or Qxx, xxxx, AJx, AKxx…  hands that are not even a strong notrump, and 6♠ appears to be a great contract.    

As it turns out, partner has neither of those hands, but he does have an extra source of tricks in his club suit and will cooperate with a 4♦ slam try on QT3, A82, 96, AKQT5.  The ♣J does fall and 6♠ makes.  For +13 IMPs.

 

On Board 11, you hold AK8743, QJ5, Q853, –.  In second chair, you open 1♠ and LHO overcalls 2♣. Both responder and advancer offer single raises of their partner’s suit.  Over advancer’s 3♣ it is your call.  Do you try for game?

I think “yes”, in spite of only 12 HCP that includes a bunch of quacks.  The club bids suggest that partner might not have values in clubs, and thus his values are in the suits where they produce tricks for your side.  For example, give partner something like xxx, Kxxx, KJx, xxx, a flat seven count, and game is pretty cold.

A game try of 3♦ will, indeed, strike gold, because partner holds QJT2, T2, KJ94, 743 and will recognize the value of each of the meager cards (♠Q, fourth trump, two diamond honors) he held and bid a cold game.

(Meanwhile, it turns out the opponents can make 4♥.  I am seriously doubting, however, that they will go on to 5♥ over 4♠.) +8 IMPs.

 

On Board 19, you respond 2♦ to your partner’s 1♥ opening bid on AKT4, 4, KQ963, KJ5.  You are playing 2/1 game forcing and when opener rebids 4♣, your agreements are that opener has shown four card (or longer) diamond support and a singleton (or void) in clubs.  Although you do not require that a splinter jump in a game forcing auction requires extra values, this particular splinter jump, because it takes the partnership beyond the most likely game of 3NT, should promise at least a king above a minimum opening bid.  You would much prefer to own the ♣A rather than the ♣KJ, but still, even totally discounting your club holding, you still have remaining enough values to justify your forcing to game, and so, rather than sign off in 4NT, you conduct a slam hunt.  Partner might, for example, hold QJx, Axxxx, Axxx, x, a hand which is not close to being a king over a minimum, and yet 6♦ can make via five diamonds, four spades, ♥A and two club ruffs.   What to bid over 4♣ is system dependent.  You do not want to ask for aces because if partner holds something like xxx, AKJxx, AJxx, x, you might have no slam.  You need to get partner’s cooperation so that he knows how well his non-aces match your values.

4♦ seems to me to be the right bid now.  (Some would play 4♦ as minorwood; I think it is better off played as natural and forcing so that you can bid cooperatively, and not quantitatively, to discover whether slam is appropriate.)  Partner will offer 4♥, you continue with 4♠ (or 4NT as a substitute spade cue bid if you are playing 4♠ as kickback in this auction) and partner will value his fifth diamond and other assets appropriately to reach 6♦ opposite Q7, AQJ63, AJT74, x.  +13 IMPs.

 

By the way, not all of the auctions and results shown here were found at the table.  But I think they could have been.  I sincerely believe that Hand Evaluation, along with some useful and well-understood system agreements, will distinguish the outstanding bidders from the field, especially if Hand Evaluation is supplemented by the ability to plan the play during the auction.