If only I could peek …
Having received some help from the defense of an inexperienced pair, I was in great position to land a no-play slam on Board 24 of today’s matchpoint duplicate.
I responded 1♠ to partner’s 1♦ opening bid. Partner chose to rebid 4♠, presumptively denying a hand that could splinter. Recognizing the potential of slam but running out of science to begin to describe my hand, I bid 4NT keycard. Receiving a “two with” reply, I jumped to 6♠.
South chose to lead the ♥A and then follow with a small heart as her partner played up the line. Surprisingly, the ♥J won Trick 2.
Expecting an easy time at the play, I reconsidered after the ♠Q from dummy revealed that South was void in spades.
I next played the ♣A and ruffed a club. I led a spade to dummy and ruffed another club. I cashed my remaining high spade and knew that I was now facing a potentially key decision.
If one opponent owns Jxxx of diamonds, my best chance now is to cash the ♥K to pitch dummy’s fourth diamond. A diamond to dummy would then allow me to draw the last trump and claim.
On the other hand, if hearts are 6-2 (would the inexperienced North player have high-lowed if owning a doubleton heart?), a lead of ♥K to pitch a diamond will be ruffed for the setting trick. In that case, I should now lead a diamond to dummy, without first playing the ♥K.
The odds favor playing diamonds, I think, but the signaling favors playing hearts.
I played a diamond to dummy, winning the trick with the ♦A but seeing no ♦J. I drew the last trump, pitching a small diamond from hand, and cashed a second high diamond. And North failed to follow …
-50.
I don’t really wish I could peek. But it would be nice to have taken advantage of the defense from the first two tricks to score +980.
However … when engaging a post mortem with benefit of the hand records, my partner on the hand, Barry Black of Brookline, MA, made a point I had not considered: if I were going to play for a twelfth trick in diamonds and not hearts, why not draw all trumps right away and then play on diamonds? This line would establish a twelfth trick in diamonds not only when diamonds are 3-2, or 4-1 with the stiff jack, but also when …
Oh! A 4-1 diamond break with a stiff nine, allowing me to have played two rounds of diamonds and then enter hand with a club ruff to take a proven diamond finesse against the ♦J. THAT was not a blip on my radar screen!
By the way, would I have had choices how to play the hand, had South — even after having led the ♥A at Trick 1 –, continued with the ♥Q to blot the jack and establish her ♥ T at Trick 2?
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Cute hand.
I think the West hand is worth only 3S at his second turn. It has just 18 HCP and 6 losers with two aces and two queens. My two cents.
I have an occasional habit of out-foxing myself and finding the only way I could go down. Testing the diamonds seems so…normal yet I could easily see my self doing the same thing.
@Mojo I see your point. While I like the pointy suits, the jacks aren’t doing much for me. In matchpoints there are a lot of ways this could go wrong.
This is a very common overbid, at least at the club where Jeff and I hang out. I don’t really know where it comes from: weren’t we all taught on our mother’s knee that it takes 26 points to make a major-suit game?
But back to the play, Jeff. I don’t know who the actual opponents were but it’s a cast-iron certainly that an inexperienced North would high-low with a doubleton. The fact that South is not going to be on lead again (unless the contract is already down) wouldn’t occur to them.