What if the declarer were in ninth grade?

November 29th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

Playing last night at a local club in the ACBL-wide Charity Game, I opened 3♦ on Board 8, holding ♠76  ♥75  ♦QJ97542  ♣AT.  Seems pretty normal to me, although the text from ACBL describes a reaction of “not too crazy” about my call.  Yeh, I would have opened 3♦ also if my ♣A were a deuce, but so what?

Anyway, North decides to overcall 4♠ (more on that choice later) and South leaps to 6NT.

What do you lead with my hand?

I considered the ♣A, but decided eventually to do the normal of leading the ♦Q.  Disaster, as this was the whole hand!:

Dealer: 8, W Vul: none	North ♠   AKQJ85 ♥   J96 ♦   A ♣   943
West ♠   76 ♥   75 ♦   QJ97542 ♣   AT		East ♠   2 ♥   T832 ♦   86 ♣   KQJ862
	South ♠   T943 ♥   AKQ4 ♦   KT3 ♣   75

-990 and the expected 0 mps.

Oh, did I mention that the declarer was the highly skilled — and obviously highly imaginative — Zach Grossack, a ninth grader?  Zach, partnering his remarkable brother, World Youth Individual champion and former King of Bridge, Adam Grossack, will be representing the US in the Under Age 21 world championships.

Back to more mundane aspects of this deal:

• What do you think of the 4♠ call?  I think that is an overbid.  3♠ defines the hand better.  4♠ should be a similar hand type to the hand held — that is, a spade one-suiter — but stronger, such that game can be expected to make opposite a nonextraordinary seven count.  With a more balanced but stronger hand, double would be the right way to start.
• Should my partner East bid 5♣ over 4♠?  Surely such a call should promise some diamond tolerance, but at equal colors, I can see why partner passed.  (And if he had bid he would have spoiled my story about Zach’s bid and my lead!)

How good is your contract?

November 22nd, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Playing matchpoints at yesterday’s club game, partner and I had a nice auction to 6♥.  The opening lead was a small heart, won in hand as South followed with the ♥Q.

West ♠   AK95 ♥   AT9642 ♦   Q ♣   AK

East ♠   2 ♥   KJ87 ♦   753 ♣   J9643

What is your declarer plan?

Recognizing the value of the long club suit in dummy, you might be able to discard your losing diamond on a club, enabling you to take all thirteen tricks.  The play sequence to maximize the chances of establishing a club for a diamond discard would start: win the heart, cash ♣AK, lead a heart to dummy drawing the outstanding defensive trump, ruff a club, play ♠A and ruff a spade with dummy’s third trump.  If an extra club is not yet established, ruff another club, reach dummy with another spade ruff and cash the ♣J to pitch a diamond.

That’s pretty.  But is it smart?  What happens if clubs split worse than 4-2 and an early club is ruffed in with the outstanding defensive trump?  Then you are down in a cold slam.

At matchpoints your play decision is affected by your evaluation of how you think you are doing on this hand relative to the field.  Expecting that few would reach the 25 point slam, I think it is best to ensure the contract.  Draw the second trump and then cash the high clubs.  You retain some chances for thirteen tricks — maybe the ♣Q falls in three rounds, or, if the ♣T is felled in two rounds on your left, you can take a ruffing finesse against the ♣Q on your right, pitching your diamond if there is no cover.

As it turns out, playing more aggressively for thirteen tricks would have worked.  But playing safely for twelve maximized your mp expectation, because +980 was worth 12 of 13 matchpoints.

The whole hand:

Dealer: West Vul: #12, NS	North ♠   Q74 ♥   53 ♦   AJT9 ♣   QT52
West ♠   AK95 ♥   AT9642 ♦   Q ♣   AK		East ♠   2 ♥   KJ87 ♦   753 ♣   J9643
	South ♠   JT863 ♥   Q ♦   K8642 ♣   87

Which diamond to lead?

November 22nd, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

As East you hold ♠T87  ♥JT9  ♦AQT82  ♣A2 (Mansfield, MA regional, Nov 18, Daylight Open Pairs first session, Board 27) and hear the following auction:

What do you lead?

Diamonds seems like the obvious suit in which to seek tricks, and so the question might transform itself to which diamond do you lead?  I tried the ♦A, which is our “power lead”, meaning it asks partner to unblock an honor if he holds one and to show count if he does not.  Typically, the ace lead would be from a much stronger suit, something like AKJTxx where leader is trying to determine whether to fell the opponent’s doubleton queen (unless partner owns the queen, in which case he will play it under the ace) or to look for partner’s entry to hopefully lead through declarer’s Qxx.  However, the power lead is also useful with a somewhat weaker holding provided leader holds a side entry.

In this case the ace lead was hoped to allow me to continue by playing small if it appeared that the opponents’ diamonds were Jxx opposite Kx or by playing the queen if it appeared that the opponents’ diamonds were Jx opposite Kxx.  Of course, should I be so lucky that partner owns one of the two missing honors and a second diamond, that would be great, too.

This time, the ace lead worked well, as the entire hand was

Dealer: South Vul: #27, none	North ♠  AJ96  ♥  8654 ♦  K65  ♣  Q4
West ♠   432 ♥   KQ732 ♦   974 ♣   T9		East ♠  T87  ♥  JT9 ♦  AQT82  ♣  A2
	South ♠   KQ5 ♥   A ♦   J3 ♣   KJ87653

Partner played the ♦9 (no honor, upside down count), and a welcomed card to see, as it promotes my ♦8, and my ♦Q continuation pinned the ♦J.  When in later with ♣ CA, I could win three more diamonds for a one trick set.

When I saw the hand record and realized that a heart lead would produce an even bigger set, I worried about the matchpoint result.  But when the scores were posted, I was pleased to see us get 13½ of available 16 mps.

Compared to the Box

November 5th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  5 Comments 

Mike Lawrence has written about assessing one’s hand compared to “the box” to which earlier bidding has placed the hand.

An example arose in yesterday’s club game.

You hold ♠AK62  ♥6543  ♦QJ3  ♣63, all vul.

You hear the following auction:

Your negative double showed four cards in each major and 6+ HCP.  Compared to “the box” of that description, how do you assess the attributes of your hand?  And how does that assessment lead to your choice of call?

You have extra values, and in the form of quick tricks of the ♠AK.  Your four cards in your side’s potential trump suit are horrid.  You have an unexpected probable trick in the opponent’s suit which is likely to be wasted on offense.

Taken together, these attributes lead you to double 3♦.

Dealer: West #10 Vul: All	North ♠ QJT7 ♥ K ♦ AKT95 ♣ T97
West ♠ 953 ♥ A987 ♦ 4 ♣ AQJ82		East ♠ AK62 ♥ 6543 ♦ QJ3 ♣ 63
	South ♠ 84 ♥ QJT2 ♦ 8762 ♣ K54

+800 would be the result of your double.  The cards lay luckily for your side, for sure, but the reasoning for doubling was sound.

Bridge Books Can Help!

October 30th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

As one who reads a better bridge game than I play, I am cognizant of some “fancy” plays about which I have read and which I hope I can remember to execute when the time is right (and only when the time is right).

In a recent tournament, I think the reading paid off.

In yesterday’s Can You Get Home before the Once-a-Lifetime October Snow Storm Makes Driving Too Hazardous sectional open pairs (Board 7, morning session) in Auburn, MA, I was third hand with ♠K8  ♥T72 ♦AQ98  ♣AT94.  After two passes, I opened 1♦, LHO doubled, partner passed, and RHO bid 1♠.  I passed and LHO’s 4♠ raise ended the bidding.

Let’s see.  LHO has lots of strength and there is no particular reason to think that either opponent is extremely short in clubs.  Having no particularly attractive lead, this seems like the time to underlead the ♣A.

Here was the whole hand.

Dealer: #7 – S Vul: Both	North ♠ K8 ♥ T72 ♦ AQ98 ♣ AT94
West ♠ A7532 ♥ 9 ♦ K753 ♣ 873		East ♠ QJ64 ♥ AKQJ53 ♦ 4 ♣ KJ
	South ♠ T9 ♥ 864 ♦ JT62 ♣ Q652

Declarer played the jack from dummy and partner won the queen.  Partner returned a club to my ace.  I cashed the ♦A and awaited my ♠K to come home for the setting trick.  24½ on a 25 top!

Interesting byplay from the Flight C opponents followed.  As partner and I were beaming (just inwardly, I think), the dummy asked declarer if 4♥ can make.  “Same lost tricks”, said declarer, apparently still not recognizing what had just happened.

Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation #4

October 25th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation is as follows (imported from a previous blog entry on the subject):

“Many methods of hand evaluation abound: Law of Total Tricks (LOTT), the counter to LOTT in Lawrence-Wirgren book, Losing Trick Count (LTC), and, of course, point count.

I think all of those methods pale in comparison to Culbertson’s Rule, which I had read many, many years ago in Jeff Rubens’ great book The Secrets of Winning Bridge.  Rubens defines the Rule as “your hand is worth an invitation to game (or slam) if a perfect minimum holding from partner will make it a laydown”.

What makes Culbertson’s Rule better, IMHO, than alternatives is that it gets the bidder to be thinking about integrating the play into the bidding: what cards do I need from partner (that are consistent with the auction as a whole) to make the contract I am aiming for laydown?  The “perfect minimum” aspect of the Rule keeps a player from getting too ambitious: if you are counting on partner to have a perfect maximum, you will frequently be disappointed; and if are counting on partner to have a hugely imperfect minimum, you are going to miss too many good games or slams.”

Apply Culbertson’s Rule to this hand (Board 14 of yesterday’s club Swiss), held opposite a partner who has opened a 12-14 1NT: ♠KT642  ♥AJ8  ♦QT  ♣T53.  Do you try for game?

Well, a perfect fit will have four trumps, will promote your ♦Q, and will have two small clubs to limit your losers there.  Let’s “place” these cards in partner’s hand: ♠QJxx  ♥Qxxx  ♦AKx  ♣xx.  That’s a twelve count and thus satisfies the rule that the perfect fit must be in a minimum hand.  Opposite that hand, however, we are still off a trump and two clubs and must therefore pick up the heart suit for no losers.  That’s far from a laydown game and so the Rule would answer the question that game should not be invited.  Responder can choose either to pass (my choice at IMPs, because the ten HCP should be enough to bring home 1NT, while 2♠ might be set by a bad trump fit and a bad split) or to bid 2♠ (my choice at matchpoints because it is likely to score higher.)

Now, apply Culbertson’s Rule to this hand (Board 15 from the same game), also held opposite a partner who has opened a 12-14 1NT: ♠AJT843  ♥7  ♦8  ♣AQ654.  Do you try for slam?

Assuredly, yes!  The right ten count from partner (Kxxx of one black suit and Kx of the other black suit, and one red ace) can make for a near laydown slam, and partner is nowhere near his 12 point minimum.  Your partnership agreements will dictate how you try for slam, but you should strive to communicate your black suit lengths and your slam invitational values.

Here’s a third hand from the same event (Board 22), where an attribute of Culbertson’s Rule – the attribute of “placing” cards in partner’s hand – should lead you to make a move toward slam.  You hold ♠KJT4  ♥AKJT843  ♦J  ♣T.  You open 1♥ (assume you are not playing Namyats, if you wish) and partner bids 2/1 game forcing 2♣.  What do you call next?

Well, whatever you do, do not bid just 2♥!  So little opposite this hand as three small hearts and the ♠Q makes game near laydown, so you can hardly afford to make a minimum rebid.  Your partnership agreements will dictate what you bid next, but now is not the time to be “saving space” by rebidding only 2♥; you need to let partner in on the slam potential of this hand.

Trump suit preference

October 25th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

The defenders on a hand from yesterday’s club Swiss team event would have benefitted from effective use of “trump suit preference”.

EW reached 4♥ on Board 8, with declarer East having shown at least six hearts and game invitational values opposite West’s 12-14 1NT opening.

West ♠ K94 ♥ AQ ♦ K873 ♣ 9864
	South ♠ T62 ♥ K4 ♦ AJ65 ♣ AJT3

The play began as follows: small spade to partner’s jack and declarer’s ace, heart to the queen, ♠K pitching a club, spade ruff, and heart to the ace felling your king.

Next a diamond is led from dummy to declarer’s ten.  Partner has played small cards throughout, as you win the ♦J in this position:

West ♠ — ♥ — ♦ K87 ♣ 9864
	South ♠ — ♥ — ♦ A65 ♣ AJT3

What do you play next?

If partner holds the ♣K, clubs is the suit you want to play.  If partner does not hold the ♣K, clubs is the suit you want to avoid.  Yes, leading diamonds does not look attractive, either, but a diamond play might work if partner was dealt a doubleton diamond and still holds a trump.  If that is the case, then you can play ♦A and a third diamond and partner can ruff away declarer’s queen from an original holding of ♦QTx.

Can you tell?

Well, maybe, and the key will be your partnership’s signaling agreements.  What order did partner play her two small hearts?  Anticipating the club situation, partner should play her hearts from small to large if she holds the ♣A or ♣K; and if she holds neither the ♣A nor ♣K, partner should play her hearts from large to small.

(Some might argue that partner should show her diamond count on the lead from dummy at Trick 5 if she holds a doubleton.  But partner’s diamond plays might be constrained, as the Deep Finesse analysis later in this entry will illustrate.)

At the table, South cashed the ♣A in the shown position, allowing the game contract to make.

Dealer: W – 22 Vul: None	North ♠ QJ8753 ♥ 865 ♦ 92 ♣ Q2
West ♠ K94 ♥ AQ ♦ K873 ♣ 9864		East ♠ A ♥ JT9732 ♦ QT4 ♣ K75
	South ♠ T62 ♥ K4 ♦ AJ65 ♣ AJT3

Perhaps South’s ♣A play smells of panic, but to be truthful South is in a difficult position and would have been greatly aided by having an agreement to use trump suit preference and her partner having played trumps in high-low order.

As an aside, have you noticed the Deep Finesse play for eleven tricks?  Assume the same opening lead as at the table and the following progression of plays: ♠A winning, two rounds of trumps picking up the ♥K, ♠K for a club pitch and a spade ruff.  In hand, declarer draws the last defensive trump.  And now leads the ♦T!  South covers with the jack and dummy wins the ♦K.  Now a diamond to the Q draws the A while simultaneously pinning the nine (see, the nine was an important card, too important for North to have wasted by playing on the first round of diamonds).  Now, the ♦87 in dummy are good for club pitches and South has no good exit card!  Yeh, sure.

Squeezing the declarer

October 6th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

The opportunities for the defense to squeeze declarer are much less frequent than vice-versa.

Ken Kadis of Brookline, MA, sent me this hand in which he was the declarer subjected to a squeeze.  Playing with his wife Elayne, Ken and his team won both the match and the sectional Swiss event, but the hand he chose to share with me was a testament to the fine defense of his opponents, Bob McCaw of Sudbury, MA and Sheila Gabay of Newton, MA.

Dealer: S Vul:	North – Elayne K ♠ Jxx ♥ KJxx ♦ xxx ♣ T9x
West – Gabay ♠ Kxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxx ♣ AKxxx		East – McCaw ♠ Axx ♥ AQxxx ♦ JTxx ♣ x
	South – Ken K ♠ QTx ♥ T98 ♦ AKx ♣ QJ8x

Gabay led a low club and Ken chose to duck this to his hand, winning the ♣8.  He advanced the ♥T at Trick 2 and McCaw (who must have considered ducking), won with his queen.  McCaw led back the ♦J and Ken won in hand.  On a second heart lead, Gabay discarded a spade and McCaw disrupted declarer’s communications with dummy by ducking, a play which also helped “rectify the count”.  Ken now led a club and Gabay hopped with the ♣K, as McCaw showed out and discarded a heart.  Gabay played the ♦Q.  Ken ducked this and won the diamond continuation, perforce.  A third round of clubs was won by Gabay’s ace, McCaw discarding a spade.  Gabay switched to a spade and McCaw won the ace and cashed the ♦T, producing discards around the table: a heart by Ken, a club by Gabay and a spade from dummy.  Now McCaw continued the fine defense by cashing the ♥A in this position:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ J ♥ KJ ♦ — ♣ —
West ♠ Kx ♥ — ♦ — ♣ x		East ♠ x ♥ (A)x ♦ — ♣ —
	South ♠ QT ♥ — ♦ — ♣ Q

No matter what Ken discarded, he was destined to lose the last two tricks.  Gabay held spade and club threats and could discard the opposite of the suit discarded by Ken.  A spade next from McCaw led to down three!

Results not commensurate

September 27th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Sometimes in duplicate bridge some of the hands where you displayed a bit of skill matchpoint poorly and some of the hands where you stumbled matchpoint well.

In Monday’s club game, my partnership’s weak notrump base resulted in our missing a 4-4 spade fit and instead playing a 1NT contract.

West ♠ AKJ4 ♥ 8654 ♦ A96 ♣ 97

East ♠ T752 ♥ T7 ♦ Q83 ♣ KQJ3

North led the ♥Q against my 1NT contract.  South followed suit with the ♥9.  North next switched to the ♦J, covered by the Q and K and won by my ♦A.  I led a club to dummy’s honors and South won the ♣A.  South cashed the ♥J; that was surprising, given that North had led the ♥Q.  South then led back a diamond.  I played small from my hand and North pitched a heart, as dummy won the ♦8.  Now that was really surprising!  What to make out of all of this?  Seems as though North might have chosen to have led the ♥Q from AKQ32; that doesn’t seem consistent with their lead agreements on the convention card, but perhaps she was thinking that her partner would unblock the jack just as if she were leading Q from KQT9?  Not sure about any of that, especially because if that were her plan, she should be glad her partner did not unblock the jack because had she, my eight would soon be established as the master heart!

At any rate, expecting that hearts were 5-2 and diamonds were known to be 1-6, I went about playing two high clubs to discover more about the hand.  Each defender followed suit and it was time to take stock.  I had won two diamonds and two clubs.  North seems to be either 3=5=1=4 or 4=5=1=3.  The former is way more likely, since a spade could have been safely discarded from a four card suit, even if she held the queen.  So … I led a spade to my ace for my fifth trick and threw North in with a heart, South discarding a diamond as expected.  North cashed one more heart and the thirteener club and then led a spade into my KJ.

Dealer: 12-W Vul: NS	North ♠ Q98 ♥ AKQ32 ♦ J ♣ 6542
West ♠ AKJ4 ♥ 8654 ♦ A96 ♣ 97		East ♠ T752 ♥ T7 ♦ Q83 ♣ KQJ3
	South ♠ 63 ♥ J9 ♦ KT7542 ♣ AT8

+90, however, was only 3.5 mps out of 11, because declarers in spades scored better.  Still, that is better than being -50.

On another board, I held as dealer a hand that can cause midgame conversions to a big club system: ♠KJ942  ♥AQ53  ♦A  ♣AK6.  A 21 HCP three suiter.  My style on such hands is to open at the one level and then pray that someone else makes a call to avoid being passed out (or, maybe, to open 2NT).  I opened 1♠ and partner responded 1NT, forcing.  Good, got by the first round and I know to make a game forcing jump shift to 3♥ this round.  With the opponents continuing to be silent, partner now bid 3♠.  Our agreements are that the 3♠ bid over 3♥ jump shift shows the same type of hand that would bid 2♠ over a 2♥ rebid by my hand: that is, two cards in spades and something under invitational values.  We don’t play constructive raises and so partner, if he has as many as three spades, should have a limit raise and he would then rebid 4♠ in this sequence and not 3♠.

Seems like I am pretty much backed into bidding 3NT at this point and I fully expect partner to pass that call.  Surprisingly, however, partner now bids 4♥.  What does he have?

My best guess is that the “agreements” I articulated are not shared.  Maybe partner really does have a three card limit raise and tried to save bidding spade by bidding only 3♠ at his last turn and then control bidding the ♥K next.  I chose to control bid 5♣.  Partner now bid 5♠ and I, still not sure what is going on, closed the bidding with a 6♠ call.  North led the ♠3.

Dealer: 24-W Vul: None	North ♠ T63 ♥ T ♦ KJT983 ♣ 753
West ♠ KJ942 ♥ AQ53 ♦ A ♣ AK6		East ♠ Q8 ♥ J96 ♦ 762 ♣ QJ982
	South ♠ A75 ♥ K8742 ♦ Q54 ♣ T4

Hmm, I guess partner and I did have a partnership agreement about the meaning of his 3♠ call.  Why did he remove 3NT?  Yes, I can see that diamonds are a big problem in 3NT and that 4♠ is a much better contract (6♣ anyone?), but how can partner know that my minor suit holdings are as they are: if you reverse my clubs and diamonds, 3NT is the preferred contract.

Turning to the task at hand, 6♠ is not such a bad contract.  When spades behaved and the ♥K proved to be onside, we were scoring up +980, all 11 mps, and I am issuing an apology to the nice ladies who had just been fixed.  (Only later did I realize that a heart lead, followed by a heart return by South when in with the ♠A, could have set 6♠.)

Too much said?

September 22nd, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  11 Comments 

Some unusual issues present from a situation at a club game that required a director ruling:

Dealer: 11-S Vul: None	North ♠ A7 ♥ T76532 ♦ 8 ♣ Q984
West ♠ KJ54 ♥ 4 ♦ AK54 ♣ KT62		East ♠ Q3 ♥ A98 ♦ QJT97 ♣ AJ7
	South ♠ T9862 ♥ KQJ ♦ 632 ♣ 53

2♦ was alerted.  Upon request, the call was explained as limit raise or better, presumptively denying a four card major.

Here are the uncontested facts:  Before the opening lead, West announced a partnership agreement relevant to the auction.  West explained that the partnership agreement was that 2♥ showed length (presumptively four card length) in hearts but did not promise a heart stopper.  The announcement was not requested by North-South.

♣4 was led and West soon claimed twelve tricks.  Not so great a score as making 6♦, but a near top board for EW.

North-South called the director.  North said that absent the (unrequested) explanation, the ♥2 would have been led (presumptively an attitude lead, and not a count lead).

Although neither side explicitly said so in these terms, I think it likely that:

• NS felt that the unrequested announcement induced a non-heart lead.
• EW felt that the failure to make a heart lead was produced by West’s tactical decision to bid 2♥, and not by the announcement of the partnership agreement.

The director changed the table result to down 2, after concluding that with the ♥2 lead,  “the most favorable result that was likely” for NS and “the most unfavorable result that was at all probable” for EW were each down two tricks in 3NT.

To the extent that “knowing the players” is relevant, allow me to share this.  I was West.  I would characterize me as a non-expert, but an experienced and knowledgeable tournament and club player.  Before the opening lead is made, I always announce all partnership agreements that are relevant to the auction, even when such announcements are not required or alertable.  NS are two of the top players in the ACBL district.

What do you think should be the ruling, bearing in mind not only the points that follow, but anything else you think is relevant to a ruling?

• Before the opening lead, should West announce partnership agreements that are relevant to the auction, even when such agreements are neither alertable nor required to be announced?
• If “yes”, should West skip such explanation when his bidding violated such agreements?
• In ruling to accept or reject the table result, should the director accept the explanation of North that, absent the announcement, ♥2 would have been led?