Helping partner …

January 24th, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

I missed a defensive opportunity at today’s club Swiss.  See if you can do better.

Dealer: W #16 Vul: EW	North ♠   K743  ♥   A5 ♦   832 ♣   Q542
West ♠   QT86 ♥   T832 ♦   A954 ♣   9

Partner led the ♠A.  I discouraged, thinking that our finding a heart ruff is the best route to setting the contract.  Partner did lead a heart to my ace and I returned a heart to his jack.  Partner now led the ♥K.  If we win this trick, we will have won the first four tricks.

What is your defensive plan with my hand?

….

At the table, I let the ♥K hold, and everyone else followed suit.  After due consideration, partner led the thirteener heart, looking for a trump promotion. 

Looking at a diamond holding that did not lend itself to effecting a trump promotion, I should have ruffed partner’s good ♥K in order to cash the ♠K and then lead a third spade hoping that partner had led the ♠A from a doubleton.

The whole hand was:

Dealer: W #16 Vul: EW	North ♠   K753 ♥   A5 ♦   832 ♣  Q542
West ♠   QT86 ♥   T832 ♦   A954 ♣  9		East ♠   J95 ♥   Q74 ♦   KT76 ♣  AKT
	South ♠   A2 ♥   KJ96 ♦   QJ ♣  J8763

Partner’s play of the thirteener heart was a good play:  Had I held KT of diamonds, this would be the winning play, as I can ruff with the ten for our fifth trick and our combined ♦K opposite ♦QJ will produce the setting trick.  This gives declarer a hand such as Kx, Qxx, xxxxx, AKT, consistent with the auction at our table.  We lost 7 IMPs on this hand, since partner’s hand balanced 3♣ at the other table and our teammates went on to 3♦.  When declarer misguessed trumps, that was down two for -200 at their table and -90 at ours.

Takes two to defend

January 21st, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  5 Comments 

I am not sure if this defense is findable.  What do you think?

Assume that the opponents are not vulnerable, and that this is the auction:

At the table at the club on Thursday morning, the opponents were vulnerable and East failed to pass 2♥X, but, hey, it is my blog, and the cards did lie as indicated below.

Dealer:  E Vul: None	North ♠   7  ♥   KJT62 ♦   7643 ♣   KQ8
West ♠   KQJ64 ♥   A5 ♦   95 ♣   AJ75		East ♠   83 ♥   Q973 ♦   AKT8 ♣  964
	South ♠   AT952 ♥   84 ♦   QJ2 ♣   T32

East’s normal lead is the ♦A (assuming A from AK and length).

West can see a one trick set pretty easily: two diamonds and a diamond ruff, the ♥A, the ♣A, and a presumptive trump trick from partner for his final pass.  But this is matchpoints, and a two trick set for +300 will score much better than +100.

Holding the trump ace, West can see both that the diamond ruff can wait and that, if East has good intermediate trumps, a trump promotion might produce a slow trump trick.  The winning defense is as follows:

1.  ♦A from East, a discouraging signal from West.

2.  Holding promotable trump intermediates, East switches to a spade and declarer calls for dummy’s ♠A.

3.  Declarer calls for a heart from dummy and West rises with the ♥A.

4.  Now West returns a diamond to his partner’s king.

5.  East plays a third diamond, West ruffing with his small trump.  (This play seems to me to be the toughest, because East has to figure out that his partner played a discouraging diamond at Trick 1 in spite of holding a doubleton.)  The defense has now won four of the first five tricks.

6.  West plays the ♠K and declarer ruffs.

7-8.  Declarer plays the ♥K, winning, and then the ♥J, losing to East’s queen, as West signals encouragement for clubs.  Declarer now has one heart remaining, the ten, and East has one heart remaining, the nine.

9.  East plays a club to West’s ace for the sixth defensive trick.

10.  A high spade from West promotes his partner’s ♥9 for the second undertrick and +300.

Is the suggested defense findable, to make North pay for his questionable overcall?

Sometimes, they just get you …

January 20th, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  3 Comments 

Might be a good thing I enjoy bridge so much, because sometimes you just can’t score.

Dealer: N #21 Vul: NS	North ♠   AKJ94 ♥   95 ♦   AJ8 ♣   A42
West ♠   QT5 ♥   KJT42 ♦   T72 ♣   T6		East ♠  8632  ♥  AQ83  ♦  Q9 ♣  Q93
	South ♠   7 ♥   76 ♦   K6543 ♣   KJ875

No, I don’t understand the auction, either, but we have no defense against 5 of a minor and -600 was a 0 on a 9 top.

Dealer: E #14 Vul: None	North ♠   J9 ♥   KQ96 ♦   QJ72 ♣   862
West ♠   43 ♥   A532 ♦   T643 ♣   T97		East ♠   AKQ72 ♥   J ♦   95 ♣   AJ543
	South ♠   T865 ♥   T874 ♦   AK8 ♣   KQ

South is clearly a man without fear.  We couldn’t touch 3♥ and -140 was another 0.

An unusual unusual notrump

January 13th, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

Making an unusual notrump call at a high level is not terribly uncommon as a step to seek partner’s input in selecting the best trump suit.

Until this morning’s club game, however, I had never, to the best of my recollection, employed an unusual notrump when I had a six card difference in length between the two suits.

Having been dealt your standard variety nine-card suit ♠T, ♥-, ♦975, ♣KT9875432, I was in third hand, all vul.  Pard opened 1♦ and RHO overcalled 4♥.  I bid 5♣ and LHO next called 5♥.  Now pard offered 5♠ and a pass to me.

Rather than adhere to the adage of “what do you call an eight/nine card suit?  trumps!”, I chose to bid 5NT (can’t partner own Hx of clubs for her remaining two cards?), and partner’s 6♦ call completed the bidding.

Dealer: N #13 Vul: All	North ♠   AK983 ♥   6 ♦   AQJT842 ♣   —
West ♠   J652 ♥   Q832 ♦   K6 ♣   AJ6		East ♠   Q74 ♥   AKJT9754 ♦   3 ♣  Q
	South ♠   T ♥   — ♦   975 ♣   KT9875432

 +1370.

Entries are the lifeline of bridge, Part II

January 12th, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

The first hand of a recent regional KO offered some scary bidding, followed by some play that slightly missed the mark.

Dealer: N Vul: All	North ♠   7xxx  ♥   KJ9 ♦   ATxx  ♣   T9
West ♠   AQT9xx ♥   Qx ♦   xx ♣   xxx		East ♠   K ♥   ATxx ♦   Jxx ♣   Qxxxx
	South ♠   Jx ♥   8xxx ♦   KQxx ♣   AKJ

South opened a weak (12-14) notrump in third chair.  West overcalled 2♣, alerted.  EW were playing Cappelletti, where 2♣ shows an undisclosed one-suiter.  East duly relayed to 2♦, West showed her suit by bidding 2♠ and two passes followed to South.  Playing cooperative doubles (see Phillip Martin’s article https://sites.google.com/site/psmartinsite/Home/bridge-articles/countering-notrump-interference), South doubled, showing a doubleton spade.

Here North had no attractive option after the double: while his side had 20-22 HCP and the opponents were known to be in a seven card trump fit, four spades to the seven did not bode well for defending 2♠X.  But then, bidding on was not attractive either.  For all North knew, his side might have no eight card fit;  and the probable 6-1 spade split might foretell that trumps would fail to split well no matter what three level contract lay ahead.

North decided to pass, albeit with reservations.  (I recommend adoption of cooperative doubles, but you have to have a long-term memory to survive the occasional pitfalls; just try to remember as you lose IMPs by incurring the occasional -670 or the like, that producing the hopefully more frequent +200/300/500 and knowing when to compete for a plus score on offense wins IMPs, too.)

North chose to lead the ♣T.  South won the ♣J and led back the ♦K.  North encouraged and a small diamond was next played to North’s ace.  A third diamond was ruffed by declarer.

Declarer now played a second round of clubs, ducked by North and East and won by South’s ♣K.  South returned a heart and West considered how to play the split tenace of the ♥T and ♥Q.  It didn’t matter because North held the ♥KJ.  At the table declarer played a small heart and North’s ♥J forced the ace.  Declarer next played the ♠K and then a heart to the Q and K.

Declarer might have hoped that placing North on lead would force North to either exit with a spade from Jxx and lose a trump trick or exit with a heart and provide an entry to the otherwise unreachable ♥T for a club pitch.  (I think this is a reasonable and thoughtful play for avoiding -500, as North might have been dealt an original distribution of 4=4=3=2 opposite his partner’s 2=3=5=3.)  But the cards as dealt provided no such benefit:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   7xx ♥   9 ♦   T ♣   —
West ♠   AQT9 ♥   ♦   ♣   x		East ♠   ♥   Tx  ♦   ♣   Qxx
	South ♠   J ♥   xx ♦   Q ♣   A

North exited with a spade and handlocked declarer who had to lose a club at the end for +200 for the defense.

Both the defense and the declarer missed opportunities.

Had declarer left the ♠K in dummy, the six-card end position, with North on lead with the ♥K, would be as follows:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   7xxx ♥   9 ♦   T ♣   —
West ♠   AQT9x ♥   ♦   ♣   x		East ♠   K ♥   Tx ♦   ♣   Qxx
	South ♠   Jx ♥   xx ♦   Q ♣   A

No matter what card North plays, dummy’s ♥T provides a discard for declarer’s losing club.  Thanks to the ♠J being in the short hand, declarer can, after the ♠K and ♥T are played from dummy, ruff a rounded card with the ♠9 or ♠T and draw trumps to make the doubled contract.

But the defense could have done better, too.  The defense had to attack one dummy entry before winning a second round of clubs and attack the other dummy entry when next in lead.

After cashing the second diamond winner, North (alas, I was North) should have then led a trump forcing the ♠K from dummy.  Declarer can duck a club, which South must win.  Now a heart return by South attacks dummy’s other entry and declarer will be unable to rid herself of the third losing club.

So … the hand represents a familiar theme, about entries being the lifeline of bridge:  Declarer needed, on the actual lie of the cards, to preserve dummy’s two entries and the defenders needed to attack dummy’s two entries.  When each side missed the mark, the mistakes cancelled out and the contract failed by one trick, +200 to the defense.

Is the fear reasonable?

January 11th, 2012  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

On Board 28 of a matchpoint club game, EW bid briskly to 4♠ via a 2♠ opening and a raise to game.

Dealer: W #28 Vul: NS	North ♠   7 ♥   KJ94 ♦   K964 ♣   T873
West ♠   KQJ954 ♥   753 ♦   J5 ♣   65		East ♠   AT6 ♥   Q8 ♦   AT873 ♣   KQJ
	South ♠   832 ♥   AT62 ♦   Q2 ♣   A942

The opening lead was a small heart to the ace followed by a small heart back to the K and Q.  Trick 3 was a club to the king and ace.  Declarer soon drew trumps and claimed contract by virtue of six spades, one heart ruff in dummy, the ♦A and two clubs.

Obviously the defense needs to switch to a diamond before the ♣A is dislodged.

Is there a clear fault?

Yes, I think; the blame is with North.

Each defender feared that declarer could take eleven pointed suit tricks if the club ace were not cashed quickly.  While South’s fear was legitimate, I do not think the same could be said of North’s fear.  North should have played a diamond at Trick 3.

From the perspective of South, declarer might own ♦KJx or ♦Kxxx of diamonds and a diamond return would allow declarer to run the diamond suit to put to bed the ♣A (if declarer held no more than two clubs in the first situation or no more than one club in the second situation).  But from the perspective of North, the only holding of declarer that would allow declarer to take five diamond tricks was ♦QJx … and if that were declarer’s holding, then declarer would have insufficient entries to both run the diamonds and draw trumps: declarer could win a Trick 3 diamond return in hand, but must then draw trumps ending in hand to avoid suffering a ruff by South; when a second diamond from declarer is covered by North, dummy can win … but North maintains a holding that requires yet another finesse and there is no quick entry to West to take that finesse.  (Of course, if declarer held ♦QJxx of diamonds, a diamond return would be ruffed by South.)

Tapping the short hand

December 15th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

On this hand from Thursday morning’s club game, declarer’s side has nice 5-2 fits in each major suit, each of the two suits splitting 3-3.  Which major suit contract makes more tricks: the one where the tap suit is shortening the hand with a two card holding in trump, or the one where the tap suit is shortening the hand with a five card holding in trump?

Oddly enough, the defense can take more tricks against the 5-2 fit where the short trump hand is tapped than against the 5-2 fit where the long suit is tapped.

Dealer: N – #21 Vul:  NS	North ♠   32 ♥   AQ764 ♦   T5 ♣   JT76
West ♠   KT5  ♥   T83  ♦   A97 ♣   KQ98		East ♠   876 ♥   J52 ♦   KQJ ♣   A543
	South ♠   AQJ94 ♥   K9 ♦   86432 ♣   2

Some players might have chosen to open the South hand in third chair with weak 2♠, but at my table South chose to open 1♠.  Passed hand North replied 2♥ and that became the final contract.

I led the ♦K and partner encouraged.

The pointed suits in dummy dissuaded me from continuing diamonds.  Hoping to produce whatever trump tricks I can by forcing dummy to ruff twice – the second time with the ♥K – I switched to the ♣A at Trick 2.  Partner encouraged and a second club was ruffed with the ♥9.  Declarer played a second round of diamonds and I won that trick and continued a third club, ruffed with dummy’s ♥K.  A third diamond was ruffed by declarer as each of us followed suit.  Declarer unsuccessfully finessed the ♠Q and partner’s ♠K was our fourth trick.  Partner played a high club and won our fifth trick.  With the ♥K having been used for a ruff, my ♥J stood as the later game-setting trick.

Meanwhile, with every suit splitting evenly, the opponents would have experienced no difficulty making eight tricks in spades, even when repeated club leads would cause the long hand to be shortened. 

Ode to Rodwell

December 10th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

My post mortem of this hand (Board 20, club game of today) suggested an opportunity missed to apply some of the more interesting defensive play suggestions embodied in Rodwell Files, a wonderful book that happens to be published by our blog host, Master Point Press.

As you will note from the auction choices (and perhaps from the subsequent heart play), our club game opponents are not a particularly formidable pair, but that does not take away from the interest of the defensive problem partner and I faced.

I decided to go passive against this auction, choosing to lead the ♠2. 

Dealer: S Vul: All	North ♠   K7643 ♥   KT65 ♦   93 ♣   86
West ♠  J92  ♥  A98  ♦   AJ54 ♣  J42

Declarer won the spade lead in hand and then ran four more spades, declarer showing with ♠AQT and partner with two small.  Partner discarded two small diamonds and declarer and I matched discards of a diamond and a heart.  Now declarer played a club from dummy, partner played small and declarer’s ♣T lost to my ♣J.  I found a return of a small heart from my ♥A9 and, when declarer chose to duck from dummy (not the best play, I think, because declarer should foresee the danger of partner leading a diamond through his king and so should rise with the ♥K), we could have emerged with the ♥Q, an intermediate diamond through the king and taken one club, three diamonds, and two hearts for a highly satisfactory plus score on the board.  Alas, partner did something that matched my too-frequent play during the session – that is, he found a losing play of the ♥4 and we were soon not +100 but -180.

Here was the whole hand. 

Dealer: #20 – W Vul: All	North ♠   K7643 ♥   KT65 ♦   93 ♣   86
West ♠   J92 ♥   A98 ♦   AJ54 ♣   J42		East ♠   85 ♥   Q42 ♦   QT76 ♣   Q975
	South ♠   AQT ♥   J73 ♦   K82 ♣   AKT3

When I was conducting a post mortem with benefit of the hand record, I noticed a potential application of Rodwell’s teaching for second hand danger hand high.  What if partner, wanting to be on lead to push a diamond through declarer, had flown with the ♣Q at Trick 6? … And what if I, recognizing how much the partnership needed for partner to be on lead had cooperated by discarding on the run of spades one club and one diamond instead of one heart and one diamond?

My bet is that declarer would read partner for ♣QJ and proceed to top the ♣Q and then lead a heart toward dummy’s ♥K.  Even if declarer guesses – as he should – to rise with the ♥K, winning the trick, is it not likely that he will next finesse the ♣T and lose to my then-stiff jack?

With a club trick in tow, I could then play ♥A and a third heart to partner’s queen.  Now an intermediate diamond return by partner through declarer’s king would net us the three tricks already alluded to plus three diamonds.  That is, we might set 2NT even after declarer guesses the heart suit correctly.  Take that, Eric Rodwell!

The finesse of the four lands a contract!

December 9th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Yiji Starr, from Wayland, MA, has a reputation for playing the tough hands well. 

That the reputation is deserved is illustrated by her declarer play on the deal below.  The hands were played in a BAM event at the Seattle NABCs. 

Yiji reported the deal to our local unit’s website and has permitted me to enhance that report on this blog.

After East opened the bidding with a gambling 3NT call (solid 7+ minor with no outside A or K), Yiji’s 4♠ overcall closed the bidding.  West led the ♦2.

North ♠  QJ3  ♥  A72 ♦  J983  ♣  AT4

South ♠  AK9854   ♥  Q4  ♦  7 ♣  Q973

East won the ♦T and returned the ♦Q (possible suit preference with a club void?).  Yiji ruffed with the trump ace and West, playing upside down count and attitude signals, discarded the ♥3.  Yiji drew three rounds of trumps ending in hand, East following and West pitching the ♣5 and ♣6.

So, East was dealt seven diamonds and three spades while West has eleven of the unseen 14 cards in the rounded suits (eight hearts and six clubs), including the two rounded kings.  The discard of two clubs suggested to Yiji that West might have longer clubs than hearts, as did the possible suit preference connotation of East’s Trick 2 play of the ♦Q when the ♦K and ♦A were equivalents.  Yiji concluded that West’s most likely distribution was 1=5=1=6.

Yiji led the ♣3 from hand at Trick 6.  When West followed with the ♣2, Yiji, backing her construction of West’s distribution, played dummy’s ♣4.  When the ♣4 held (!) as East could not follow suit, Yiji ruffed a diamond back to her hand and led a second club toward the AT, forcing West to split honors.  Having won the ♣A, Yiji could force the other club honor with the ten and set up her ♣Q for a third club winner: six spades, three clubs and the ♥A landed the contract for a win on the board.

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠   QJ3 ♥   A72 ♦   J983 ♣   AT4
West ♠   2 ♥   KJT63 ♦   2 ♣   KJ8652		East ♠   T76 ♥   985 ♦   AKQT654 ♣   —
	South ♠   AK9854 ♥   Q4 ♦   7 ♣   Q973

What if West had played his clubs differently on this layout, so that he played one of his non-honor, non-deuce clubs on the first round of that suit, forcing the ♣T from dummy?

The contract could still be made via a squeeze/endplay.

After winning the ♣T at Trick 6 in this scenario, declarer can ruff a diamond to hand and play off her last trump.  With declarer having advanced her last trump for her seventh winner (six spades and the ♣T) of the first eight tricks, the position is this:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠  —  ♥   A72  ♦   J ♣   A4
West ♠   — ♥   KJT ♦   — ♣   KJ8
	South ♠   (9) ♥   Q4 ♦   — ♣   Q97

Whichever suit West were to pitch on this trick, declarer can (after pitching a diamond from dummy) now play Ace (for an eighth winner) and small of that suit, placing West on lead with his now-singleton king.  West would eventually have to lead away from his remaining king, allowing declarer to score both the ace and queen for her ninth and tenth tricks.

Entries are the lifeline of bridge

December 2nd, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

I like this “textbookish” hand that arose at this morning’s club duplicate:

Dealer: 11- S Vul: none	North ♠   KQ2 ♥   Q632 ♦   97 ♣   K832
West ♠   63 ♥   KJT54 ♦   A52 ♣   974		East ♠   JT75 ♥   97 ♦   Q863 ♣   AT6
	South ♠   A984 ♥   A8 ♦   KJT4 ♣   QJ5

I am not sure why South opened 1♦ instead of 1NT, but that opening bid gave me the opportunity to overcall 1♥ with the West hand.  I know of some players who would fail, even nonvulnerable, to overcall such hand, but the overcall seems automatic to me, as it both enables us to compete in hearts and it directs partner what to lead.  Anyway, North next bid 1NT and the opponents ended in 3NT played by North.

Partner led the ♥9, a nice card for me to see.  Declarer correctly ducked from dummy and the first textbook play occurred next.  That would be my ducking the heart, too.  The objective on this hand is to get partner to lead his second heart while my diamond entry is retained; the only way to do so is for my hand to duck the heart so that partner still holds one to lead when he is next in lead.

Declarer should adopt the counter strategy of ducking the heart lead, too.  That way when partner returns one, he is now voided in the suit.  Then partner, when in with his entry, would be unable to play hearts and my hand, when in with my entry, will not yet have runnable hearts as declarer’s still singly protected queen will win the fourth round of the suit.  Declarer has nine tricks in the form of three spades and three clubs, and two diamonds with aid of the finesse and the ♥A. Looking at from the perspective of the defense, we have only two hearts right away (the ducked trick one and the later ♥K) as well as two minor suit aces before declarer can take her nine tricks.

Fortunately for partner and me, declarer erred by winning the ♥Q at Trick 1.

Oddly, three times, including at my table, 3NT went down two tricks, and only once did it fail by one trick.  3NT made, sometimes with overtricks, seven times.

Usually, I would expect 3NT to be played by South, but similar principles apply: Declarer should not play the ♥Q on opening lead but instead should duck the heart lead in both hands so as to exhaust my partner of hearts.