Telling actions

September 18th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

A hand with a telling play and a hand with a telling auction each led to tops at yesterday’s club game.

The first hand featured a couple of unblocking plays.

Dealer: 12-W Vul: NS	North ♠ K ♥ K9874 ♦ AKT963 ♣ T
West ♠ JT97 ♥ A ♦ J75 ♣ 98753		East ♠ AQ62 ♥ QJ652 ♦ — ♣ AQJ2
	South ♠ 8543 ♥ T3 ♦ Q842 ♣ K64

North led the ♦A and I ruffed in dummy.

Further diamond plays could make the hand unwieldy to play and so I decided to work right away on establishing my side suit of clubs.  Not wanting to relinquish my control of the heart suit, I began clubs by playing the ♣A and then the ♣Q.  The good news was that the ♣K was offside; the bad news was that the suit did not split 2-2.

Upon winning the ♣K, South chose to return a club for his partner to ruff.  That the ruff was with the ♠K was telling.  I unblocked the ♣J from dummy.

North returned a second diamond and I ruffed with the ♠A.  With clubs now established, I was no longer reluctant to play to my ♥A.  I ruffed a third diamond voluntarily, with the ♠Q.  Having unblocked the spade suit, I could return to my hand by playing dummy’s ♠6 to my ♠7, finessing against South’s ♠8.  I drew trumps and claimed eleven tricks with good clubs.

That we were the only pair to bid slam on the second board was the product of some good luck, good judgment, and perhaps one too many calls from an exuberant opponent.

Dealer: 24-W Vul: None	North ♠ QT5 ♥ T8642 ♦ JT3 ♣ K32
West ♠ 982 ♥ AJ93 ♦ Q98 ♣ AJT		East ♠ 6 ♥ KQ75 ♦ AK7652 ♣ Q8
	South ♠ AKJ743 ♥ 4 ♦ 4 ♣ 97654

The meaning of partner’s 3♠ call was undiscussed.  When South gratuitously chose to double the cue bid, the auction became easier for me as I now had the option of passing to partner, so as to learn what were his intentions.  Partner, whose intentions were to play in hearts, appreciated the auction signals suggesting that I had few wasted values in spades: not only had South bid spades and then doubled his cue bid, but also I had not bid 3NT over the double.  Accordingly, partner, Len Aberbach, now chose to bid an aggressive 4NT.  I now knew that partner’s spade cue bid was based upon a heart fit and we were soon in 6♥.  A spade was led to the ace and a club returned.  I rose with the ♣A.  Given that I was dealt the ♥J and that South had a void in neither red suit, a spade ruff and the running of both red suits produced twelve tricks.

Litigious, are we?

September 14th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  6 Comments 

I was shocked to hear the opponents call the director on consecutive boards last night.  To the litigious opponents, apparently my choosing a call other than the one they would choose constitutes a reason to complain to the director.

22.  You hold ♠J987 ♥AK9632 ♦4 ♣AJ.  What is your call after partner opens 1♦, you respond 1♥, and partner rebids 2♦?

2♠ is an obvious choice.  2♠ does not show length in spades – partner has denied four spades when he chose to rebid 2♦ rather than 1♠ – and is presumptively showing some spade values as the start of some sort of game exploration, most frequently looking for 3NT.

2♠ has some potential drawbacks.  If partner bids notrump, you are likely to receive a club lead and might well have wrong-sided the notrump contract.  Also, partner might bid notrump when he has two card heart support and 4♥ is a superior contract.  You can, of course, rebid 3♥ over 2NT, but that gives the defense a pretty good roadmap as to your distribution.

2NT is a possible call, but that call might well miss a better 4♥ contract as partner will not cater to your owning such heart length.

At the table, I chose to bid 3♣.  Akin to 2♠, 3♣ is presumptively showing some values in the suit bid as the start of some sort of game exploration, most frequently looking for 3NT.  My planned rebids were:

• Over 3♦, to bid 3NT
• Over 3♥, to bid 4♥
• Over 3♠ (which is the call partner would be expected to make with a couple of small cards in spades but no stopper), to bid 3NT
• Over 3NT, to pass.

Only an unlikely 4♣ raise – unlikely because partner might have bid 2♣ rather than 2♦ with four clubs – , will cause me to regret the choice of 3♣, and even then a 4♥ bid by me might land us in our best contract. However, the 3♣ call does have some potential benefits over 2♠.  For one, if partner bids 3NT, he is likely to receive a spade lead and the contract is right-sided.

I am not saying that 3♣ is the obvious, or even necessarily the best, call, but surely it is a reasonable call.

Ah, but not to the opponents. When a spade, rather than a club, was led, and dummy showed with a doubleton club, the opponents thought it necessary to call the director and complain about the absence of an alert of 3♣.  Fortunately, the director ably concluded that 3♣ was just a forcing bid and unless there was reason to think that partner and I have some special understanding, nothing actionable had occurred.

Dealer: 22- E Vul: EW	North ♠ KT32 ♥ 74 ♦ J96 ♣ QT93
West ♠ J987 ♥ AK9632 ♦ 4 ♣ AJ		East ♠ AQ ♥ 8 ♦ AK8753 ♣ 8542
	South ♠ 654 ♥ QJT5 ♦ QT2 ♣ K76

The spade lead gave partner some helpful tempo and he took ten tricks for a nice score, when a club lead would have held him to nine tricks.

The opponents continued to complain, as we tried to motivate them to begin the next board (to make up for time lost in the directoral call and ensuing discussion).

23.  This time, you hold ♠Q5 ♥KT ♦JT52 ♣KT865.  You pass, partner opens 1♠ in third chair, you respond 1NT (semi-forcing by PH), and partner bids 2♦.  What is your call?

2NT is an obvious choice and so is 2♠.  One is the high road and one is the low road.

But isn’t this a really nice hand at spades?  I suspect that partner’s most likely distribution, given his bidding and my suit lengths, is 5=3=4=1.  This hand has many potential positives in a spade contract:

• The doubleton spade is a high honor, helping to solidify the suit.
• A possible ruffing value in hearts.
• Help in partner’s second suit.

In addition, the possibility of hearts being a weak spot for notrump is a consideration.  For example, would not partner bid this way with KJT9x, xxx, AKQx, x?  Then notrump is off several heart tricks, and each black ace.  Meanwhile, if you can negotiate a heart ruff, spades might lose as few as one trick in each suit other than diamonds.

Thinking of the above, I chose to rebid 3♠.  When my dummy showed with only two spades, the opponents decided again to call the director!

The conclusion of the director was the same as on the previous hand.

Because partner had six spades on this hand, nothing much mattered as all roads lead to 4♠.

Dealer: 23-S Vul: All	North ♠ 632 ♥ AJ942 ♦ K7 ♣ 973
West ♠ Q5 ♥ KT ♦ JT52 ♣ KT865		East ♠ KJT874 ♥ Q8 ♦ AQ64 ♣ A
	South ♠ A9 ♥ 7653 ♦ 983 ♣ QJ42

Truly, I would not have objected to the opponents asking me, upon viewing dummy, if we had any special agreements on these two auctions.  But calling the director seems to me to evidence the litigious side of so many nowadays.  (Oh, in case any reader thinks my position is prejudiced, I was educated as a lawyer … and I am one who believes strongly in acting within the rules of the contest.)

Duck for dinner

September 13th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

The opponents’ unorthodox bidding creating an interesting situation at today’s club game.  Both the defense and the declarer missed opportunities.

I will show the whole hand and auction first:

Dealer: 14-E Vul: None	North ♠ A93 ♥ AKT842 ♦ A ♣ T62
West ♠ 752 ♥ Q973 ♦ KQT8 ♣ J5		East ♠ K8 ♥ J65 ♦ 42 ♣ KQ9843
	South ♠ QJT64 ♥ — ♦ J97653 ♣ A7

I was East.  What do you lead with my hand?

A low club would have been best, but I chose the ♣K.  Declarer won the ♣A.

Should partner unblock the ♣J?  If I held KQT9 of clubs, I would have led the Q to conventionally ask for the unblock of the J.  But, on the other hand, from KQT-sixth, I might have led the ♣K.  Seems to me that partner’s play is a tough one and since unblocking seems more normal with a hand that might expect to later gain the lead, that is what he did.

Trick 1 is the time for thinking about the hand as a whole.  Even if declarer wants to play lickety-split, I am a firm believer that the defense should take its time.  As third hand, I will always pause if declarer has not (and say “I am thinking about the hand as a whole”).  And if I am opening leader and neither partner nor declarer has paused, I will think about the hand for a moment before turning over my card to consent to play of Trick 2.

On this hand, I was ready for Trick 2 duck of the lead of the ♠Q from dummy and played small in normal tempo.  (Yes, I can see that winning the ♠K will work if I am up to leading a small diamond on the next trick, but I was not about to find that switch, I confess.)

With dummy’s only entry knocked out at Trick 1, declarer probably needs five spade tricks for his contract to add to his four top tricks on the side.  Four spade tricks would suffice if my hand sets up his ♣T, but there is no assurance that we will be so giving.  Declarer needs an opponent to have been dealt Kx of spades to win five spade tricks; Kxx will not produce five tricks for declarer because the suit will soon be blocked.  Ergo, declarer should play a second spade to his ace.  He would be pleased with the result of that play.  However, declarer might have been hoping for the development of some sort of end position to produce an extra trick in one of the side suits — and he surely did not want partner on lead to a club through his ten — so declarer chose to pass the ♠J next.  I won this with my king and, with declarer limited to only three spade tricks on the play to date, then chose to next set up my clubs even at the cost of developing an extra club trick for declarer.  The ♣Q and a third club followed.  At this stage, all declarer had for tricks were two clubs, two hearts, two spades and a diamond and ended down two tricks.

My teammates bid more normally and reached 4♠ for an 11 IMP favorable swing.

Growth spurt

September 10th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

Two hands from a mid-week regional Swiss event evidence how the value of a hand can grow based upon the auction:

In one match, I held ♠x, ♥JTxx, ♦Axx, ♣QJxxx.  RHO opened 1♦, I passed, LHO responded 1♠ and partner doubled.  RHO passed.

With fits for each rounded suit and controls in each pointed suit, I jumped to 4♥, in spite of holding only 8 HCP.

North ♠ Axxx ♥ Axxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx

South ♠ x ♥ JTxx ♦ Axx ♣ QJxxx

I won the spade lead with the ace in dummy and led a heart from dummy: my general plan was to draw exactly two rounds of trumps and then set up clubs and cross ruff the pointed suits.

RHO rose with the ♥Q, while LHO followed ominously with the ♥9.  RHO continued a spade, ruffed in hand.  The ♣Q was covered by the king and won by the ace.  A club back to the jack brought welcomed news that the suit split 2-2.  A second heart toward dummy disclosed that the ♥9 was a singleton.  I won the ♥A and “drew trumps” by playing clubs.  RHO ruffed in and played a diamond, won by my ace.  Another club produced another ruff for the third trump trick of the defense.  However, with all trumps accounted for, I could now claim with one more good club and a cross-ruff. +420 (on combined 20 HCP) was worth 11 IMPs as our teammates were +140 in a spade partial.

In another match, I held, all vul, ♠T9xx, ♥x, ♦xxx, ♣JT9xx.  Pard opened 1♣ and I passed.  LHO balanced 1♥ and partner was there with 1♠.  RHO offered 1NT.

Given my initial pass, I have a great hand!  Envisaging for partner something like ♠KQJx, ♥xxx, ♦x, ♣AKxxx — maybe more –, I now bid 3♠, possibly as a two-way shot, successful if either side could make game.  Partner raised to 4♠ and received a small heart lead.

North ♠ T9xx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ JT9xx

South ♠ AKJ7 ♥ AJTx ♦ x ♣ AKxx

The 1NT advance suggests that, in addition to a clear diamond loser, a spade and a club must be lost, too.  With so much work to do — setting up clubs, ruffing red suit♠ –, probably spades must split 3-2 and clubs 3-1.  This suggests that needed distributions of opposing hands are 3=3=4=3 for West and 2=5=5=1 for East.  Three spades, four clubs, and the ♥A produces eight tricks.  With the defense having attacked hearts, seems like the last two tricks must be either two heart ruffs or one heart ruff and a second heart trick by power.

East played the king on the heart lead and declarer won the ace.  If the ♥K is an honest card, then a ruffing finesse in hearts will produce a second heart trick and only one ruffing trick is required for contract.  Trusting that card seems the easiest route to ten tricks (there might be other successful plans).  Indeed, the missing hands were, I believe:

Dealer: S Vul: NS	North ♠ T9xx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ JT9xx
West ♠ Q8x ♥ Qxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ Qxx		East ♠ xx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ AKJxx ♣ x
	South ♠ AKJ7 ♥ AJTx ♦ x ♣ AKxx

Although the actual play and defense differed from the suggested approach, game did make for +620 on 21 combined HCP, and 11 IMPs when matched against -110 (contract unknown to me) at the other table.

When you really need to go, badly …

September 10th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

A club game hand presented an opportunity to induce partner to switch suits so as to set a 1NT contract.

Playing weak notrumps (where a strong notrump hand is typically opened 1 of a suit and then 1NT is rebid over partner’s one level response), I opened 1♦ in the West chair and heard the bidding close with North’s 1NT overcall.  Partner East led the ♦3, declarer called for the ♦2 from dummy South.  This is what I saw:

Dealer: 12-W Vul: NS	North ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣
West ♠ AQ8 ♥ KJ53 ♦ AQJ7 ♣ 62		East ♠ ♥ ♦ (3) ♣
	South ♠ K52 ♥ Q7 ♦ 94(2) ♣ JT953

What is your defensive plan?

Partner is marked with 0-2 HCP.  Yet, I want him to be on lead so that he can play a major suit through dummy.  Seemingly his only potential entry cards are the ♣Q and the ♦T.

I began by playing the ♦Q at Trick One, the best I could do to discourage a diamond return should partner gain entry.  Declarer North won the king, and led one major himself, passing the ♠J.  I won the ♠Q and returned the ♦7.  Partner won the ♦T.  At this point, had partner returned a heart, we will set 1NT, by multiple tricks.  Admittedly, that is not an easy play, but the whole hand was:

Dealer: 12-W Vul: NS	North ♠ JT963 ♥ A96 ♦ K86 ♣ AK
West ♠ AQ8 ♥ KJ53 ♦ AQJ7 ♣ 62		East ♠ 74 ♥ T842 ♦ T53 ♣ Q874
	South ♠ K52 ♥ Q7 ♦ 942 ♣ JT953

With apologies for the bathroom-like sound of the title of this blog, I really needed partner to go (on lead and to switch to hearts)!

Addendum: my partner on this hand has since pointed out that I could have defended so as to have made the heart return easier to find.  When I am in with the ♠Q, if I first cash the DJ before leading a small diamond to partner’s DT, partner, having no more diamonds, must switch suits and is thus more likely to find the winning heart switch.  “Building a fence around partner” is a high level bridge skill, and, without regard to whether partner should have returned a diamond on the at-the-table defense,  I would have been well-advised to have adopted the defense pointed out by partner.

You never know …

September 5th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

A funny result at each table during a mid-week Swiss event.

Playing a team not too well known to us, partner and I experienced the following:

Dealer: N Vul: all vul	North ♠ xx ♥ AKxxx ♦ x ♣ KJTxx
West ♠ AKJTxxx ♥ — ♦ QTxxx ♣ x		East ♠ Q ♥ Jx ♦ KJ9xx ♣ AQxxx
	South ♠ xxx ♥ QTxxxx ♦ Ax ♣ xx

Can you believe it?  Holding the ♦A opposite an opening bid, South sacrificed vulnerable against our 6♦ slam!  I led a spade and partner overtook, cashed a second spade and returned a club.  Two club tricks netted three undertricks for +800. NS had done well to lose 800 rather than 1370.  (As an aside, note that 6♠ can be beaten on a diamond ruff.)

Not to worry; our teammates covered us nicely.  After the same first two bids, South bid only 3♥.  This gambit worked well when West next bid 4♦! and that became the final contract.  Nicely done, teammates, as -170 paired nicely with our +800 for 12 IMPs.

Wanted: a pinch more of care …

August 26th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Having misplayed this hand on the penultimate board before dinner break, I stewed over dinner at my failure to have taken a bit extra care and landed my contract from the first qualifying session of the Wernher Open Pairs, at Toronto NABCs.

Dealer: 1-N Vul: None	North ♠ AKJT54 ♥ 4 ♦ A982 ♣ A3
West ♠ Q8 ♥ J97652 ♦ T5 ♣ KJ2		East ♠ — ♥ A ♦ KJ643 ♣ QT98764
	South ♠ 97632 ♥ KQT83 ♦ Q7 ♣ 5

East led a club, which I won with the ace.  With a sure heart loser, I need to find pitches for my three small diamonds.  I am expecting to find the ♥A onside, but that provides only two pitches.  Looked to me as though I need the ♥J to fall in time so that the ♥T becomes available for a third pitch of diamonds.

I briefly considered ruffing a club in dummy, but had this general feeling that I would need the club ruff entry for a later dummy entry.

Accordingly, I played one round of trumps at Trick 2 and a second at Trick 3.  Now I led a heart toward dummy and East rose with the ace and played a club back which I ruffed in dummy.  When East showed out on the ♥K, I was destined for down one.

But I had erred by not taking the care to count the entries needed to dummy.  Had I done so, I would have realized that I need only two entries to dummy: one to reach the ♥KQ for two diamond pitches and to ruff the fourth round of hearts, and a second to, hopefully, reach the long heart for a third, and slam-going, diamond pitch.  So, without even figuring out why taking an early club ruff in dummy in necessary — but rather taking the club ruff on general principles of elimination play after having counted that I need only two entries to dummy –, I should have ruffed a small club before leading a heart.  Some sequence such as ♣A, ♠A, club ruff, ♠K, and a heart would have endplayed East.  East can avoid the endplay only by leading the ♥A at Trick 1.

(Another blogger also published this hand — where she was in 4♠ but made a twelfth trick on the line suggested here –, but since it appears that she has since removed the entry, I thought I would post here).

Wishin’ and hopin’

August 26th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

Would you envisage a lie of the cards that enables you to play this suit for only one loser?:

West ♠ ♥ ♦ A96 ♣

East ♠ ♥ ♦ J75 ♣

Fortunately for me, Len Aberbach, my partner, conjured the winning lie of the cards at this morning’s club game:

Dealer: 18-E Vul: NS	North ♠ KQ73 ♥ T94 ♦ QT ♣ T854
West ♠ T ♥ AQJ76532 ♦ A96 ♣ Q		East ♠ A952 ♥ K8 ♦ J754 ♣ A63
	South ♠ J864 ♥ — ♦ K832 ♣ KJ972

Opposite a barren weak notrump, my bidding was a little rambunctious (so little as the ♣J or ♦T would have been welcomed).  Len, however, was up to the task.  In the end position, he played small toward the ♦J, the ♦Q rising to his right.  Later the ♦J pinned North’s ten and finessed South out of her king.   Of course, I would not have bid the slam without the ♦9.  Yeh, sure.

Surprisingly to me, the risk of being in slam had some upside, even in a matchpoint event.  (I was expecting the same top for +480 as for +980, meaning the slam bid was all risk and no reward).  However, one other pair bid and made slam, one pair was +480 and three other pairs (one in 7♥!) went down a trick.

Wernher Open Pairs, second final: what was up must …

August 25th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  3 Comments 

Having blogged about the 63% first final session of Barry Purrington and me, fairness requires a blog about the 37% second session, from the Wernher Open Pairs, rated a national event, in Toronto.

Agreeing on opening bid style is an important element for a successful partnership.  Playing with a good partner, but in a nonregular partnership, we came a cropper on two hands from the second final.

Dealer: 1-N Vul: None	North ♠ KJ97 ♥ QJ2 ♦ 4 ♣ T9754
West ♠ 53 ♥ AT ♦ QJ9532 ♣ QJ3		East ♠ AT42 ♥ K9753 ♦ A876 ♣ —
	South ♠ Q86 ♥ 864 ♦ KT ♣ AK862

Partner passed the East hand, a hand I would have opened.  I passed the 4♦ response and we had not only missed game, we had also missed slam.  I also slopped a trick in declarer play and +150 was worth only 7 mps on a top of, I think, 64.

Dealer: 20-W Vul: Both	North ♠ Q43 ♥ JT874 ♦ QJ4 ♣ 84
West ♠ T985 ♥ AK952 ♦ 6 ♣ KT3		East ♠ K2 ♥ Q6 ♦ AK98 ♣ AQJ76
	South ♠ AJ76 ♥ 3 ♦ T7532 ♣ 952

My 2♥ rebid was forced by system agreements (3♣ and 2♠ would show extras and 2NT was verboten with a stiff).  Not allowing for such a weak opening bid, partner advanced the auction quickly to 6NT before I could show my club support.  6♣ seems like a fair contract (but would not make on this lie of cards) and 6NT had no chance.  Down 2 for 5.5 mps.

Dealer: 7-S Vul: Both	North ♠ 2 ♥ Q652 ♦ AKJ7 ♣ Q854
West ♠ AQ875 ♥ A ♦ 4 ♣ KJT963		East ♠ 643 ♥ JT43 ♦ QT963 ♣ 2
	South ♠ KJT9 ♥ K987 ♦ 852 ♣ A7

Many poorly declared or poorly defended hands followed, and, while the severity of our bad score was a surprise to me, we clearly knew that we had fallen far, far from contention.

Dealer: 4-W Vul: Both	North ♠ J6 ♥ AT632 ♦ K3 ♣ AT76
West ♠ AKQT72 ♥ 984 ♦ J74 ♣ 3		East ♠ 43 ♥ KQJ7 ♦ T98 ♣ KQ94
	South ♠ 985 ♥ 5 ♦ AQ652 ♣ J852

When I played golf regularly, a bad round seemed always to be capped by a good last hole, thus producing encouragement that the next round would be much better.  So, too, it was with this session of bridge.  On the last board we were playing a pair whose skills I respect but, well, I really do not like much.  Given the results on earlier boards, where I had learned of differences in opening bid standards between partner and me, I would have been well-advised not to have opened the West hand with 1♠.  But that is the opening I chose.  When North decided to overcall 2♥, and that call was passed back to me, I chose also to pass, rather than compete when I held a heart fragment and such a weak hand.  I am sure that partner, who was awaiting a conversion of a balancing double, thought that we had suffered yet another bad board.  However, 2♥ was not a happy contract for the opponents.  I was doubly pleased when North, who discovered early in the hand how good were my spades, gave me a look that said “you really do not know what you are doing” and then we earned 58 mps for +300 defending 2♥ undoubled.  (On the previous board, these opponents missed a cold notrump game, when I opened a balanced, but poor, 13 count and they held 25 of the missing 27 HCP.  Yay!)

We’ll get the rest of the field next time.

Wernher Open Pairs, first final: what goes up …

August 25th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

My partner, Barry Purrington of Eagan, MN, and I scored average in the finals of the Wernher Open Pairs, rated a national championship, in Toronto.  How we scored average, however, was a little annoying and embarrassing: we scored 63% in the first final, and 37% in the second final!

First, stories about the good luck and skill in the first final, then, on a separate and sadder blog, perhaps some stories about the bad luck and skill in the second final.

Dealer: 1-N Vul: none	North ♠ K4 ♥ Q86 ♦ A653 ♣ KJT9
West ♠ AT985 ♥ 532 ♦ J82 ♣ 65		East ♠ QJ ♥ T97 ♦ Q94 ♣ 87432
	South ♠ 7632 ♥ AKJ4 ♦ KT7 ♣ AQ

My 2♥ raise is explained by my consenting to partner’s request not to play support doubles.  What role that agreement played into partner’s decision to blast to 4♥ directly, I am not sure.  Barry smartly played so that a third round of trumps could not be drawn, allowing him to score a spade ruff in dummy and then complete drawing trumps.  +480 beat the notrump declarers and scored 56.5 on a 64 top.

Dealer: 2-E Vul: NS	North ♠ 842 ♥ AQT96 ♦ A5 ♣ K52
West ♠ A97 ♥ K8752 ♦ — ♣ Q9874		East ♠ J65 ♥ 3 ♦ QT843 ♣ JT63
	South ♠ KQT3 ♥ J4 ♦ KJ9762 ♣ A

Barry is a fine player and partner, but we are not a practiced partnership and so too often produced auctions where one partner thought we had an agreement and the other did not.  Over the 1♥ overcall, I produced a 3♥ jump cue bid, under the premise that we had agreed that the cue bid forced partner to bid 3NT (and results in placing the overcaller on lead).  When Barry did not alert but instead bid 3♠, I was fortunate to hold a hand that would bid 3NT without regard to the UI of the failure to alert.  Some interesting byplay was produced when, before the opening lead by East, I explained what I thought was our agreement on the meaning of 3♥.  You see, we had played these opponents in a qualifying round and had then to explain a missed alert of a 2NT call that was purported by the bidder to be a “good/bad 2NT”.   “We’re not quite as bad at this as it seems”, I meekly explained to the pro sitting East.  I doubt he was convinced.  Some soft defense by the client sitting in the West seat allowed me to score up eleven tricks for 39 mps.

Dealer: 9-N Vul: EW	North ♠ AK93 ♥ A ♦ A986 ♣ K976
West ♠ 7 ♥ T8432 ♦ KQ543 ♣ 42		East ♠ QT842 ♥ Q765 ♦ 2 ♣ T83
	South ♠ J65 ♥ KJ9 ♦ JT7 ♣ AQJ5

2♣ was agreed not to be game forcing; thus a 3♣ raise by North would be passable.  We would seem to be on our way to a fine 6♣ contract.  However, the wheels, well, maybe they did not come off, but they surely loosened, because the final contract was 6NT.  No matter: the Play is the Thing.  With nice diamond spots and at least one honor onside, Barry had eleven top tricks and proceeded to squeeze East out of one of this major suit queens for a twelfth trick.  61 mps.

Dealer: 19-S Vul: EW	North ♠ QT2 ♥ K ♦ A8765 ♣ J983
West ♠ A763 ♥ 932 ♦ KJ9 ♣ 764		East ♠ 984 ♥ A875 ♦ Q432 ♣ T2
	South ♠ KJ5 ♥ QJT64 ♦ T ♣ AKQ5

The opponents failed to commence a diamond attack and so I took ten tricks in the other three suits before cashing the ♦A.  56.38 mps.

Dealer: 25-N Vul: EW	North ♠ 4 ♥ 965 ♦ QJ753 ♣ K983
West ♠ QJ ♥ J73 ♦ T986 ♣ AT65		East ♠ AT97532 ♥ T ♦ 2 ♣ J742
	South ♠ K86 ♥ AKQ842 ♦ AK4 ♣ Q

More luck.  Somehow we landed in 6♥ (with no BW call, obviously).  When the opponents cashed the ♠A but not the ♣A, the ♠K became the twelfth trick.  62.5 mps.

Dealer: 26-E Vul: Both	North ♠ K952 ♥ Q732 ♦ K2 ♣ AKT
West ♠ J76 ♥ JT5 ♦ Q93 ♣ J963		East ♠ AT43 ♥ AK98 ♦ T75 ♣ Q7
	South ♠ Q8 ♥ 64 ♦ AJ864 ♣ 8542

West’s 1NT response is an overbid, IMHO.  I doubled for takeout and partner decided to pass.  Holding two card diamond length, I was pretty confident that the pass connoted excellent diamonds.  I led the ♦K and then, after cashing a high club to simplify the defense after partner ran the diamonds, continued my other diamond.  When declarer surprisingly won the ♦Q at Trick 4 and then proceeded to produce the heart cards that allowed him to win four heart tricks, I was quite concerned.  Four hearts, one diamond and the ♠A totals six tricks.  Declarer led a club to my remaining honor.  North has to hope that his partner owns the ♠Q.  In the four card end position, North holds Kxx of spades and the ♣T, while South has his original spade holding and two good diamonds.  A small spade from North will ensure the defeat.  A harrowing +200 and 58 mps.

On another hand, the opponents overbid on a partial, going for three (undoubled) vulnerable tricks.  And on another a declarer revoked, giving us a couple of additional undertricks on defense.  Yes, there were a few fixes the other direction, such as our opponents finding a cold grand slam and playing it in notrump to boot.  But there was no doubt that much of our first final success was due to good fortune.