November 16th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
No Comments 
A bridge-playing friend of mine has a derogatory term for bad players; he calls them marshmallows.
But be careful; sometimes the marshmallows can tempt you.
East thinks for a long time on opening lead and finally leads the ♠A. West plays the ♠9. East continues with ♠Q to my ♠K, East following suit.
Seems pretty clear from the auction hesitation and play that spades are 7-2.
I play two high clubs and everyone follows suit. On three more clubs, West discards the ♦9 and two small hearts. Meanwhile East throws one of each red suit and one spade. Now I play three high hearts. East can follow suit only once, while West follows to all three hearts.
The hand is now completely counted out, assuming I have read the spade suit correctly. East is 7=2=2=2 and West is 2=5=4=2. I have reached this three card end position, having lost one spade, and won one spade, five clubs, and three hearts. East is down to two spades and a diamond and West is down to all diamonds.
What to do?
If West’s three diamonds include both high honors, I can lead a diamond to dummy’s JT and endplay her for a neat eleventh trick. But if East’s one diamond is an honor, a small diamond will lose to his honor and he will claim with good spades, holding me to nine tricks.
I think the matchpoint choice is pretty clear, and that is not to risk settling for only nine tricks. I can think of at least three reasons for that:
- The marshmallow sitting East is much more likely to be retaining a high diamond than a small diamond that he could have earlier pitched.
- If the marshmallow sitting East had tried to get his partner on lead in order to lead through my ♠K, I would be sitting one trick worse than I am now. I am also a tempo ahead because East chose to lead ♠A and then ♠Q, rather than leading the ♠Q at Trick 1.
- If I had not upgraded my hand to open 2NT, and had instead opened 1♣ (as I expect the field to have done), a spade preempt by East would have put my partner in a pickle and it is possible that we would not have rested in 3NT to begin with. (Note that the opponents have six spades and a diamond trick and so even 3♠X would be a productive vul save against 3NT.)
Accordingly, I led the ♦A and a small diamond.
And I was wrong! The whole hand was:
Still, I was right in a sense not to be tempted by the marshmallow, since +630 was 9.86 factored mps on a 10.95 top. And +660 would have been the 10.95, a gain of only 1 plus a fraction.
November 5th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
7 Comments
If you were declarer on the hand below, and had won the ♣4 lead with the ♣A, can you spot the winning play at Trick 2?
Ready for Trick 2?
The winning play at Trick 2 is a small diamond from dummy!
You can assume that diamonds are 6-5, based upon the opening weak two bid. Furthermore, you might reason that for North, at favorable vulnerability, to have bid only 4♦ with five card support, he must have lots of cards … enough to think that he can beat 4♥.
Here’s the whole hand.
Once a diamond is played by declarer at Trick 2, the defense can establish a third round club winner easily enough, but no longer has any means to reach the club winner, as South is then exhausted of entries. Assume that North wins the ♦A at Trick 2 and advances the ♣J. Declarer can now force the ♥A, but only North will be on lead and the two losing clubs in declarer’s hand will eventually be pitched on established spades.
Of course at the table, this did not occur. South made a reasoned lead of the ♦K and thus eliminated transportation on his own. -620 would score 0 mps out of 15!
As an aside, do you think that North should have bid 5♦, or some call other than 4♦?
November 3rd, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
1 Comment
An attribute that can distinguish a good declarer is planning to set up a side suit to pitch losers. Correspondingly, an attribute of a good defender is to frustrate declarer’s planning to set up a side suit to pitch losers.
With that advice in mind, what is your defensive plan as East, after your partner – more about him later – leads the ♥5 against a 3♥ contract?
Holding three small diamonds over dummy’s K9-fifth, I think your first concern should be declarer’s potential to establish the diamond suit for discards.
What holdings of declarer can establish the diamond suit for discards? How many discards? Will the discards increase declarer’s trick total?
You first consider that declarer’s holding Axx will generate two discards. Any Axx? Yes. With the ♦QJT among the unseen five diamonds, the worst Axx holding declarer can hold is ATx. Consider what tall timber will fall from partner on the top two diamonds, and how powerful will grow dummy’s ♦9.
How about declarer’s diamond holding of Ax? With a 3-3 split of diamonds, that holding can also produce two discards. In fact, if declarer holds AQ doubleton, the diamond suit will produce three discards.
Even a singleton ♦A held by declarer will produce two discards, one on the ♦K, and, with heart entries being used to establish the diamond suit, one on the fifth round of diamonds.
Further analysis discloses that even if declarer lacks the ♦A, the diamonds can be established for two discards any time declarer has more than one and fewer than four diamonds, provided dummy has sufficient entries. But declarer will, of course, have to first lose the lead.
Accordingly, an active defense should be considered. Having won the ♥A, to which black suit should East switch at Trick 2?
Placing declarer with exactly three spades, given partner’s opening weak 2♠ bid, East can ascertain that declarer benefits by discarding spades on diamonds only if declarer has three discards; otherwise declarer is still left with one losing spade and you can see that the other two spades can be ruffed in dummy, probably without causing declarer to lose any more trump tricks. As analyzed above, declarer can benefit from three discards only if declarer’s diamonds are specifically AQ-tight (3=4=AQ=4 or 3=5=AQ=3).
But declarer might benefit by discarding only two clubs on established diamonds, if declarer’s club holding is xxx or Axx (3=X=Y=xxx/Axx). And if declarer’s diamonds are specifically AQ-tight, declarer will be able to discard up to three clubs on the diamonds.
Therefore, I think East should switch to a club at Trick 2.
The actual hand is as follows:
A club return holds declarer to ten tricks. Any other return allows declarer to take eleven tricks (3 hearts, 2 spades, 1 spade ruff, and 5 diamonds). -170 would score 8 mps on a 15 top and -200 would score 4½ mps.
Muttering something about “losing tempo”, partner excuses his failure to have led his top two clubs, a defense that, with the addition of a club ruff, would have held declarer to nine tricks for -140 and a score of 10 mps.
Oh yeah, I was the partner on opening lead.
October 24th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
1 Comment
What is your bidding plan with the following hand?:
Opening 1♦ is easy enough. Partner responds the expected 1♥. What next?
Especially with a big hand, I think the objective of showing nine of your cards by bidding 2♣ is a better plan than showing only six of your cards by bidding 3♦.
Over 2♣, pard preferences to 2♦. Now what?
I have unshown extras, and I can share them with partner and let him know that I am short in hearts by patterning out with 2♠. (Could be 3=1=5=4, too.)
What are the planned follow ups, leaping to the assumption that partner is on the same page? I think the follow up plans depend upon how much heart wastage partner shows and how much strength partner shows.
Over 2NT (minimum, with heart wastage), I am bidding 3♦. Yes, notrump might pay more, but even if partner has two heart honors (if not the AK), I am not going to choose to play a notrump partial when a diamond partial should be safer.
Over 3NT (maximum, with heart wastage), I am passing. Ah, the lure of the game bonus.
Over 3♦ (minimum, little heart wastage), I am passing. Enough is enough; just because partner has little wastage in hearts does not mean that he is dealt a few black kings.
Over 4♦ (maximum, little heart wastage), I am raising to 5♦, lured by the game bonus and hoping for something opposite like Kxx, Jxxx, Qxx, Kxx, with a club ruff constituting my eleventh trick.
At the table, pard bid 2NT and I took out to 3♦. How did that result fare?
Not so well as could be. Not only did partner have even better hearts that he might have, but also clubs split 3-3. The club split meant that I made an overtrick (the opponents later led spades, looking for a set) for +130 but it also meant that the souls in 3NT (with both heart honors with South) made their contract!
Ah, well, it was still an auction of pride.
October 23rd, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
1 Comment
The form of scoring (IMPs, although 6-board club Swiss) and the vulnerability (we were vul) made it easy to put the pedal to the metal and drive to game on these two hands.
Yes, the failure of North to overcall 1♠ seems odd to me, too, but would not have changed the overall auction, with a negative double being substituted for the 1♥ response, and, presumptively, clubs being supported later over a spade raise advance by South. +600, with +100 at our teammates table for defeating 3NT on a spade lead. 12 IMPs our direction.
The heart lead made matters scary — well, I guess they could have been scary after a spade lead, too — but when clubs behaved, we scored up +600 (actually, +630 given lucky stiff ♦K). Teammates were -150 (probably defending clubs, although I am not sure) for a pickup of 10 additional IMPs.
October 13th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
8 Comments
Try some quizzes from last Thursday’s club Swiss.
Board 2. You hold
At favorable vul, you hear this auction:
What is your call?
Board 9. You hold:
You hear this auction of the opponents, with explanations provided:
What is your opening lead?
Board 15. You hold, at fav vul
You hear vul LHO open 2♥, passed around to you. What is your bidding plan?
Playing in an unfamiliar partnership – where you want to avoid auctions that complicate partner’s life and can create bad boards to bring back to teammates – hey, maybe that is a good strategy even in a familiar partnership! –, you overcome your fear that partner will pass a takeout double, and you decide to double. Partner responds 2NT, which you alert and explain as artificial presumed to be a weak hand of as yet undetermined type. Do you make the usual 3♣ call now? And if not, then what do you bid? Are your choices influenced by the fact that you are playing in an unfamiliar partnership … or by the assessment that the opponents are among the weaker pairs in the field?
Board 17. Against another weak pair, you hold
On lead against their labored auction of 1♥-2♣-2♥-2♠-3♦-3NT, you decide to lead a diamond. You see this dummy and the shown line of play.
♦Q won in hand, ♦A won in hand, ♦9 to the ♦J (partner, playing UDCA, pitching a small club), ♦K (partner pitching a slightly higher small club), spade to the 2, Q, and your king.
What do you now lead?
Follow up in a while …
October 13th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
No Comments
Back to one of my favorite themes, Culbertson’s Rule …
Culbertson’s Rule (from Jeff Rubens’ classic book The Secrets of Winning Bridge) says to invite game (or slam) when the contract could be cold opposite a well-fitting minimum for partner’s bidding. If the contract being cold requires a well-fitting maximum, then forget about it. Or, as Bob Hamman has been quoted as saying, “don’t play me for perfect cards; I won’t have them!”.
As stated in prior blog entries on the subject, a benefit of applying Culbertson’s Rule is that the application motivates the bidder to anticipate how the play might progress, which surely must be a better guide than the numeric evaluation guides that abound, such as total trumps or Losing Trick Count. (The latter, and similar, guides can be highly useful when less is known about partner’s hand; but when the auction has developed to provide more information about partner’s hand, I find that Culbertson’s Rule is a superior evaluation tool.)
You begin the following auction, with relevant partnership agreements footnoted:
Your call?
Applying Culbertson’s Rule, you “give” partner this hand: ♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣Axxx. That’s enough for the high reverse of 3♣, because partner would have opened the hand if the ♦K were a small diamond. But it is a minimum for a high reverse. And it surely is well-fitting: having the ♣A instead of, say, ♣KQ is well-fitting, and the fit value of the ♦K is obvious.
And so, you now ask yourself, how cold is 6♠ opposite such a hand?
Not so cold at all, assuming the expected lead of a heart. It surely might make, but it takes a 3-2 trump split for starters, plus 4-2 or 3-3 diamond split so that the losing heart can be pitched when there is only the master opposing trump outstanding.
Therefore, you should, IMHO, signoff over the 4♣ call. (But if partner had bid serious 3NT instead of 4♣, then you should continue [in fact, as we play, a below game control bid is required]: add, say, the ♠Q to partner’s hand, and slam looks way better.) (Another side note: a fourth trump from your hand would have been worth a lot: you can expect to need to ruff out clubs, and ruffs can be limited – either from a trump lead by the opponents or by running out of trumps before the ruffing is completed – when you own only three card trump support.)
Feeling frisky, I guess, at the table you go on over 4♣ and partner soon finds himself in 6♠ and does, in fact, receive the expected heart lead, specifically the ♥3.
Uffda! You need to get rid of the heart loser, and you need to bring in the black suits for only one loser. No easy task.
After winning the ♥A in dummy at Trick 1 (RHO playing a telling ♥K), you take the diamond ruffing finesse: ♦A, ♦Q (not covered) upon which you pitch your remaining heart. The ♦Q holds the trick! Conveniently left in dummy, you turn your attention next to the club suit. With dummy having only three trumps, you do not believe you can afford to play to ruff out both missing club honors. So you lead a club from dummy to take a finesse. With RHO having signaled probable ownership of ♥KQJ and the diamond play placing with her the ♦K, you decide to finesse the ♣T, hoping that it draws the king. And the ♣T wins the trick! Is luck on your side, or what?
You next play the ♣A (small clubs all around) and a third club (small from LHO, and the ♣J from RHO). Now a heart ruff to reach hand and a fourth club to dummy. LHO does not ruff in and a club ruff sets up your long club. Now holding four spades and the good ♣Q in hand, you lead dummy’s last trump to your hand, and no matter what you do, you end up making an unexpected +1460, the whole hand being:
Note: the hand record at the club shows North owning the ♦K, but surely the play at the table suggests that South owned the ♦K as shown above.
Violate Culbertson’s Rule at your own risk. Sometimes the penalty is no penalty at all: lottery ticket purchase time?
September 24th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
4 Comments
More than the normal amount of interesting boards from today’s club duplicate; so, I will just list them each and hope that readers find them interesting.
I led my stiff ♦Q and declarer called for dummy’s ace. A spade was passed to my Q and I shifted to the ♥7. Declarer called for dummy’s queen and the three highest honors were played in sequence on this trick. Declarer now advanced the ♠T. I decided to hop with the ♠A and now faced a decision about how to reach partner for a diamond ruff. Probably the order of his spade plays should indicate whether he owns the ♣K (or ♣A if I did not hold that card myself), but that is a better point to make in the post mortem than to depend upon at the table. I finally decided to play him for the ♥T and returned my ♥4. Voila! Partner won the ♥T and gave me a diamond ruff to hold the opponents to eight tricks.
After you receive a limit raise of 3♥, you carry on to game. How do you play 4♥?
Drawing trumps and stripping the club suit are easy first steps. But next, do you play on diamonds or on spades? I think I would play on diamonds, since if the ♦K is onside, your combined ♠QT9 might complicate the opponents’ ability to cash three spade tricks right away. However, attacking spades has some attraction, too, because perhaps an opponent might, particularly if not careful, be endplayed into either giving a ruff-sluff or leading from the ♦K. One thing, if you do attack spades, the right card to lead is the ♠9 and not ♠T, because you do not want to induce a cover by the ♠J.
As it turns out, no matter what you do, best defense will set you a trick.
Partner’s decision to treat his hand as a three-card limit raise can be questioned, but with an eight-loser hand, is certainly reasonable. How do you play 3♠ on the lead of the ♣6?
At the table, I ducked in dummy and when West played the ♣J, I ducked in my hand, too! Now I was in good shape and ended making ten tricks, losing two spades in addition to the Trick 1 ♣J. Ah, the power of aces and kings!
Would you take the same actions as did I on my hand? Or would you have doubled 4♥ with my partner’s hand, which is what it would have taken on this hand to shut me up?
What is your call on?:
A 3♠ call at this stage should deliver three spades, but with our secondary club fit and such a good doubleton in spades, I chose to bid 3♠ nonetheless.
A lead of two rounds of hearts would scuttle the slam by establishing a slow spade trick for the defense, but at the table a spade was led and we had fourteen tricks on top.
September 18th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
4 Comments
I hope you can defend better than did I on this hand.
Over RHO’s 15-17 1NT, I entered the auction with a DONT call of 2♦. (Btw, since the opponents were vulnerable, I am not so sure that my entering the auction was best; perhaps it was better to pass). LHO doubled (for takeout), opener bid 2♠ and responder raised to game.
I decided to lead a small heart (3rd and 5th).
Declarer played the ♥K from dummy, followed by a small spade to his king. A small club was led by declarer, small from me, honor from dummy, odd count shown by partner. A second spade to declarer’s ace was followed by a second club.
What is your defense?
At the table, my (myopic) thinking went no deeper than focusing just on the club suit. Placing declarer with three small clubs, I knew that if I ducked, declarer would be able to enjoy the thirteener club only by using a side entry in dummy, of which there were not many. So I ducked the second round, dummy’s other high honor winning.
But declarer found the winning play: he played a heart to his ace, and ruffed a heart in dummy. Then he exited with a club, endplaying me with my now-stiff ♣A. The whole hand was:
Had I thought more deeply – such thought to include consideration of not only my hand and the club suit being played but to also include partner’s hand – I would have chosen a different line of defense. Key is the expectation that partner has four spades, in all probability four small spades. Had I won the second round of clubs and exited with a club, declarer would have been unable to immediately enjoy the long club, since partner could then ruff the long club. And because of partner’s spade length, declarer could also not “draw trumps ending in dummy” to cash the long club. Good defense – that is a defense that thinks about partner’s hand, too – would lead to the defeat of the 4♠ contract.
August 22nd, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~
No Comments
You hold: ♠T632 ♥AKQJ6 ♦— ♣KT83
Your auction begins as follows:
Under your partnership agreements (you play weak notrumps), the 1♠ bid promises an unbalanced hand. Partner has five or more diamonds, unless he is specifically 4=1=4=4.
Would you bid 4♦ at this stage? Or, do you believe you are too strong for 4♦ and/or you are uncertain that partner would take that call as a splinter in support of spades?
At the table, I bid 2♣ at this stage, artificial, fourth suit game forcing.
I chose to call 5♣ now. My plan was to bid slam if partner DID NOT control bid 5♦, and to signoff in 5♠ if he did.
I am not sure if my plan was the best, but it worked out fine. Partner did control bid 5♦ (the bid I fear to hear) over my 5♣ call and I followed plan by signing off in 5♠:
Just making opposite partner’s ♠QJ85 ♥2 ♦KQ875 ♣AQ9.
Now had his ♦K morphed into the ♠K, pard would have bid 5♠ over my 5♣ and I would have bid 6♠ . Pard would have made that contract, too.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related