Moysian Magic

May 21st, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

After two passes, I open 1♣ with ♠AJ ♥K74 ♦A ♣AT97653.

LHO overcalls 1♠, partner makes a negative double, and RHO raises, annoyingly, to 2♠.  What now?

Might be nice to be playing good/bad 2NT but that is not on our card, and 3♣ seems lame.  Or so that was my thought.

With noone vulnerable, my thinking was that an in-tempo 4♥ had two ways to win: it might make, or it might produce a “transfer to 4♠“.  3NT?  Well that was worth considering, but I could guess at two risks: (1) opponents’ spade suit could be set up after two rounds; and (2) partner’s clubs might well be insufficient to run the suit.  I have heard that it is possible for a negative double of 1♠ overcall to deliver five hearts, after all, right?

All pass.  Small spade lead.

West ♠ AJ ♥ K74 ♦ A ♣ AT97653

East ♠ K95 ♥ JT96 ♦ KQ532 ♣ 4

The spade card was surprising, making 3NT more attractive than expected, even with the fear of insufficient club support being realized.  I had hoped for five hearts, but partner delivered only the four promised.

How does one get to ten tricks on these cards?  After some thought — is there such a thing as a 4-3 fit that plays quickly? — I thought of three spades (thanks to the spade lead into my tenace), one club, and, should diamonds split, three diamonds.  That is seven side suit tricks, leaving me to need to produce only three trump tricks.  I noticed that partner had produced some nice heart spots.  Perhaps the ♥A is onside so that the ♥K is a trick, a second round of clubs could be ruffed low and then that leaves the ♥JT9 for a tenth trick by power.  Yep, that would work and could be the winner if North is, say, 5=3=3=2 and South is 3=3=4=3.

I won the ♠J, ♦A, and ♣A in succession.  Then a club ruff with dummy’s ♥6, North following with ♣J and South with the ♣Q.  Then the ♦K for the first five tricks.  However, I was troubled by what I had seen in diamonds, North having played the ♦T, then ♦J.  With my missing all the diamond spots from the six through the jack, perhaps the play of spots should be disregarded, but I decided that diamonds were not 4-3 but were instead 2 with North and 5 with South.  (I was right: diamonds were 2-5.)  Let’s see, that would make the distributions possibly 5=3=2=3 for North and 3=3=5=2 for South.  The opponents are getting antsy, and I don’t blame them.  Bridge is not an easy game.  Maybe I should learn to bid better.

I tried ruffing a low diamond with the ♥7 in my hand, but was overruffed by North’s ♥8.  North continued with the master club, the king.  (A small heart to the ace — a hard play to find when looking at Qx –, followed by a heart back will scuttle the contract.)  I ruffed the ♣K in dummy with the ♥9.  South discarded a diamond (a spade seems to me to be a better discard, but I don’t think it matters).  I came to hand with the ♠A.  I played a good club from hand and North decided to ruff up with the ♥Q.  I am not sure if this is best play.  She returned a spade to dummy’s king, upon which I pitched a club.  The position now, with the lead in East was:

West ♠ — ♥ K4 ♦ — ♣ T

East ♠ — ♥ JT ♦ Q ♣ —

I have lost only to the ♥8 (overruff of the third round of diamonds) and to the ♥Q (pre-ruff of a good club). I led the ♦Q and the opponents were helpless.  South’s last three cards were ♥A53.  if South ruffs with the ♥A (what happened at the table), I can pitch my club and claim with high trumps.  If South instead ruffs with ♥5 (or even ♥3), I can overruff with the ♥K and one of East’s ♥JT will be my tenth winner, while South’s ♥A is my only other loser.

I will have to think more about what happens if North does not pre-ruff with the ♥Q when I led a fourth round of clubs.

Postscript:  Later on, I thought of a different line of play that might make ten tricks on the actual layout, even though diamonds are 5-2.  (The “might” qualifier is important, as will be demonstrated.)  The alternative line focuses on setting up the club suit.  That’s a common approach in 4-3 fits — using a side suit as a surrogate for trumps — and maybe I should have considered it.

Let’s say that after winning Trick 1 with the ♠J, I choose the unorthodox play of playing a small(!) club from hand.  I win the return in my hand and then ruff a small club with the ♥6.  That survives and now my clubs are established.  I lead a heart to my hand.  Time to show the whole hand:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ Q8742 ♥ Q82 ♦ JT ♣ KJ8
West ♠ AJ ♥ K74 ♦ A ♣ AT97653		East ♠ K95 ♥ JT96 ♦ KQ532 ♣ 4
	South ♠ T63 ♥ A53 ♦ 98764 ♣ Q2

Let’s review the tricks, through the time that declarer West leads a heart from dummy East:  ♠J, small club lost, win return in hand — let’s say a spade return won with ♠A, club ruff with ♥6, ♠K, ♥9.  Assume that that trick is won with ♥K, then ♥4 to ♥Q.  North is in the lead in this position:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ Q8 ♥ 8 ♦ JT ♣ K
West ♠ — ♥ 7 ♦ A ♣ AT97		East ♠ — ♥ J ♦ KQ532 ♣ —
	South ♠ — ♥ A ♦ 98764 ♣ —

What can North do?

• If she leads a spade, either South ruffs with the ace, after which West can reach his hand and claim, or South discards a diamond.  If South chooses to discard a diamond, West will ruff and lead good clubs.  if North ruffs with the ♥8, East, and then South can overruff, but West can then claim since South will have to lead a diamond to West. If, OTOH, North refuses to ruff in, then more clubs are played until the ♥A is played.  I think the correct nomenclature might be that the ♥8 is smothered.
• If she leads a heart, South wins and is endplayed into leading to the good West hand.
• If she leads a diamond, West wins the ♦A and plays the ♣A, which South must allow to hold.  Now another good club is played.  Again North has no winning answer, as the ♥8 is smothered.  OTOH, if she ducks, East plays a diamond and South’s ♥A must draw air.
• If she leads a club, East discards a diamond and either South ruffs with ♥A or the ♣A wins in West and clubs are continued for smothering of the ♥8.

That’s pretty cool.  Could the defense have done better?

Yes, the defense can do better.  The position shown above demonstrates the futility of South remaining with a singleton high trump.  Let’s explore the position at Trick 6, when the ♥9 was led from East, if South had risen with the ♥A instead of ducking.  In with the ♥A, South can continue a second heart.  West wins the ♥K, producing this alternative six-card end position, where it is North that holds the master trump rather than South:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ Q8 ♥ Q ♦ JT ♣ K
West ♠ — ♥ 7 ♦ A ♣ AT97		East ♠ — ♥ J ♦ KQ532 ♣ —
	South ♠ — ♥ 5 ♦ 98764 ♣ —

When West, in the shown position, leads clubs, the ruffing threat posed by South’s ♥5, a nonnatural trump trick, defeats the contract.  Arranging for North, rather than South, to be the defender who retains the master trump, leads to a winning result for the defense.

Could have done better …

May 21st, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

Here’s a hand from the local club game where both the declarer and defenders could have performed better.

Let’s first look at the hand from declarer’s perspective.  Playing 12-14 notrumps, East opened the auction with 1♣ and rebid 1NT (15-17, denying four hearts but not denying four spades) over his partner’s 1♥ response.  West conservatively passed and that ended the bidding.

West ♠ T4 ♥ K9753 ♦ KQ2 ♣ T84

East ♠ A32 ♥ A42 ♦ AJ97 ♣ A97

The opening lead by South was the ♣K: 4, 6, 7.  ♣Q was continued: 8, 2, 9.  Next came the ♣5: T, 3, A.

In with the third round of clubs, declarer East attacked hearts by playing a small heart to West’s ♥9, losing to North’s ♥T.

I think that play can be improved, because the club plays suggest that the thirteener club is held by North and not South.  If South led ♣K from ♣KQxx and saw her partner signal encouragement, she would likely switch to a small club at Trick 2, playing her partner for Axx or Jxx, rather than have continued with ♣Q.  Accordingly, I think better declarer play, upon winning the third round of clubs, would be to lead to West’s diamonds and play a small heart from West toward hand.  Should North (err to) play the ♥6, the heart can be ducked to South.  Should North play a higher heart, nothing is yet lost: you can still play for South to have a three-card heart holding and play two high rounds of hearts followed by a third round, to be, hopefully, won by South.  At the table, where North was allowed to win the first round of hearts, North cashed the long club for the fourth trick of the defense, and, after checking for the 3-2 heart split, declarer claimed nine tricks for +150.

South did have the three-card heart holding — meaning the suggested improvement in declarer’s play would have produced one more trick for declarer by eliminating the loss of the thirteener club –, having been dealt:

The improvement in South’s play is not easy to spot, and I can’t think of how to diagnose the improvement at the table, looking solely at dummy and hearing the subject auction.  But if South finds a switch to a spade at Trick 3, instead of continuing a third club, declarer is restricted to only eight tricks!  If the defense attacks two rounds of one black suit and then switches to the other black suit, the defense will win four black suit tricks and a heart.  Well, that is not exactly true; there is, in fact, another improvement available to declarer’s play, should he think the defense is capable of the fine play of switching to spades after two rounds of clubs.  Declarer, noting that the defense has not begun a Trick 1 attack on his side’s weakest suit of spades, could win the ♣A at Trick 1, thus ensuring nine tricks should hearts (and clubs) split.  Here is the whole hand:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ QJ765 ♥ JT ♦ 84 ♣ J632
West ♠ T4 ♥ K9753 ♦ KQ2 ♣ T84		East ♠ A32 ♥ A42 ♦ AJ97 ♣ A97
	South ♠ K98 ♥ Q86 ♦ T653 ♣ KQ5

The only sure-fire defense to hold declarer to eight tricks is the wildly unlikely opening lead by South of a spade, followed by a second spade and then a switch to clubs.

Yes, you may have already noticed that declarer is cold for 4♥ … and many in the field were in that contract.

Improper ethics at the club

May 20th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

I am going to get a couple of hands off my chest, so that I can rid myself of the frustration of bad ethics at the local club, and proceed to write about interesting hands in another blog.

OK, I admit to the sins of not calling the director on these hands.  (And also to the sin on Board 7 of shaking my head when dummy showed with such a weak hand.)  I know I should call the director, but I often do not at a club game.  Happily, my partner and I were rewarded in another way, because on each of the boards that are subjects of my complaints, we received excellent scores.

Dealer: (18) E Vul: NS	North ♠ AKQJT72 ♥ AJ8 ♦ — ♣ J96
West ♠ 853 ♥ QT4 ♦ AKJ2 ♣ Q75		East ♠ 964 ♥ K965 ♦ 96 ♣ AK32
	South ♠ — ♥ 732 ♦ QT87543 ♣ T84

The explanation of the Cappelletti double was not too accurate, since South described it not as “penalty”, but as 12-14 balanced; i.e., same as West hand.  East’s pass was alerted.  South asked West all sorts of questions about the alerted Pass by East.  West properly explained that, in this partnership, the pass is forcing, should South pass, to redouble, with various hand types possible for East, including a hand that wants to defend 1NTXX (which, reasonably enough, was East’s intention) or a single suited hand.  Not my favorite agreements, but those that this partnership uses.  Once the question was answered, South continued to ask more, but West had nothing to add, having given a full explanation.  South’s 2♠ bid was presumably a part of “notrump systems on” for NS, some sort of hand that expects to bid diamonds next.  Who can blame him for trying to run to diamonds?  If you were South, wouldn’t you place North with some sort of big balanced hand (yes, more than the described 12-14, but it is tough to pass, methinks, expecting North to have 1NT set in his hand!)?  North, as is his wont, did not alert.  Maybe he forgot.  He bid 4♠ with emphasis.  South seemed oblivious to the attitude of his partner and called 5♦.  West doubled and, evidencing great frustration, North bid 5♠.  East doubled 5♠ and NS was limited to the eight tricks one sees in dummy North.  +800 and all 13 mps for my side.

Dealer: (7) S Vul: All	North ♠ Q765 ♥ AK5 ♦ KQ5 ♣ KT3
West ♠ T ♥ T987642 ♦ 743 ♣ 74		East ♠ K92 ♥ Q ♦ AJT ♣ AJ8652
	South ♠ AJ843 ♥ J3 ♦ 9862 ♣ Q9

Hey, I do not blame North for the Break in Tempo before bidding 2♠.  Bridge is a thinking game and we have each been in situations where we had to make bidding decisions that require thought … even when we realize that such thought can put partner in a pickle.  Here, North had maximum values of 17 HCP and maximum spade length of four spades.  That surely must have tempted her to bid whatever is their super-accept.  Perhaps she finally was dissuaded by her flat distribution to bid only 2♠.  Yes, she should bid 2♠ in tempo, but that, IMO, is not the “real sin” here.  South, a highly experienced player, rebid 2NT on a hand opposite a 15-17 count that has eight HCP, of which three are in minor, unconnected honors in short suits.  Surely, passing 2♠ must be a logical alternative.  And the LA that is least suggested by North’s BIT.  (Perhaps I am unduly conservative, but I would not have tried for game opposite an in-tempo 2♠ call, had I transferred to begin with … which I am not sure I would have.)  North had an easy 4♠ call, of course.

East led his stiff ♥Q.  Looking at the ♥J in dummy, declarer recognized that the lead was a short suit lead.  Winning the heart in hand, North did not find the double dummy play of the ♠Q to pin West’s ten.  Instead she lost a spade trick to East’s king.  East smartly got out with ♣A and another club, and declarer eventually lost two diamonds for down one.  10.5 out of 13 mps for EW.

Which suit do you attack?

May 18th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Playing at the local duplicate, I was dealt ♠KT854 ♥9 ♦QJT6 ♣KQ4 in fourth seat, fav vul.  LHO opened 1♣, partner overcalled 1♥, and RHO passed.

What is your call?  In this partnership, 1♠ would be “nonforcing constructive”.  Rightly or wrongly, I judged that my lack of heart fit caused my hand to fall somewhat short of “constructive” and so chose to respond 1NT.  That closed the bidding and a fourth best ♣5 was led.

North ♠ KT854 ♥ 9 ♦ QJT6 ♣ KQ4

South ♠ 732 ♥ AQ876 ♦ A74 ♣ J2

North is the declarer at 1NT, with East having led a fourth best ♣5, likely from a five card suit.

One of the better playing tips I have read is one from Danny Kleinman: when playing a notrump contract, consider going after the suit that will produce the most incremental tricks, even if not your longest suit.  Here, the diamonds have only one top winner, but three diamond tricks can be easily taken if that suit is attacked, an increment of two tricks.  The spades are longer, but the number of tricks to be developed in spades is murky, especially since the ♠A is likely to be with East, the opening bidder.  Thinking along the lines suggested, I decided to attack diamonds.

The best play for four diamond tricks, of course, is to win the club in hand (North) and take a diamond finesse, hoping to find East with Kxx.  However, I could envisage a couple of problems with that approach:

• If East plays the ♦K from Kxx on the third round of the suit, the diamond suit is blocked.  Having won the first club in my hand, the defenders might be able to keep me from having a quick entry to the fourth diamond.  Should West gain the lead, a club through North can be ducked to dummy’s jack.
• If West owns the ♦K, she can duck the first diamond finesse and win the second diamond finesse, again blocking the diamond suit.  A club back again keeps me from having a quick entry to my hand.

The diamond blockage and the lack of quick entries to my hand seemed to be serious issues to me.  Accordingly, I played the ♣J from dummy (South) at trick one, winning the trick, and continued with ♦A and a small diamond to the ♦Q.  Both opponents followed suit and the ♦Q was allowed to win the trick.  With two diamonds in the bag, how should I continue?

At this point, the number of incremental tricks from continuing diamonds is only one: I have two diamond tricks and can build one more winner by playing a third diamond, no more and no fewer.  Do spades now represent a better chance to build incremental tricks?

If East owns ♠A in a doubleton holding, I can play two small spades from my hand, make the ♠A fall on air and produce three slow spade tricks.  That was my thinking (?) anyway, as I next led a small spade away from my five card holding.  East played the ♠9, West the ♠6.  East continued the ♣A and the ♣3, West following to both tricks as I pitched a heart from dummy on the third club, winning in my hand.

Still hoping for East to have owned the ♠A9 doubleton, I continued with a second small spade.  East played the jack and West discarded a high heart spot.  Oops, East had been dealt AQJ9 of spades!  East cashed out her last two clubs as West completed a heart echo and then played a third heart.  Perhaps East should now play a heart, but at the table, she, having already won three clubs and two spades, proceeded to cash the setting tricks of the ♦K and the ♠A before I could claim.  Down one, in a contract I bet I could have made had I continued a third diamond when I chose to switch to spades.

In retrospect, I think that continuing diamonds would have been a better play.  I was always going to lose at least three clubs and two spades (assuming the ♠A is offside).  I would have to have been quite fortunate, and perhaps benefited from a misdefense, to avoid losing to the ♦K.  Plus a heart lead through dummy would not have been welcomed.  My target should have been only seven tricks and I needed a third diamond trick to get me close.  What do you think?

When I looked at the hand record, I realized that not only would continuing a diamond have probably led to a seventh trick — I would have three diamonds, two clubs and the ♥A, while the opposing major suit singletons could make matters difficult for the opponents to cash three major suit tricks to add to their three club tricks and one diamond trick — but double dummy play could lead to eight tricks by endplaying East in a far-fetched way …

Dealer: East Vul: EW	North ♠ KT854 ♥ 9 ♦ QJT6 ♣ KQ4
West ♠ 6 ♥ KT5432 ♦ 953 ♣ T98		East ♠ AQJ9 ♥ J ♦ K82 ♣ A7653
	South ♠ 732 ♥ AQ876 ♦ A74 ♣ J2

Had I won the club lead in hand (North) and taken three rounds of diamonds to fell the king, East would be stripped of diamonds.  The ♥A(!) would strip East of her heart.  Next I could have played ♣J.  Whether East wins the ♣A now or later, she can be thrown in with a black suit and cash two spades and three clubs.  However, she would have to return a spade to my hand, where lies the long diamond.  That would be one spade, one heart, four diamonds and two clubs for me for the +120 I had sought but achieved -50.

Play suggestions, single dummy?

Almost a Grosvenor Gambit

May 17th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  3 Comments 

Bruce Downing of New London, NH, sent along a neat hand he declared at a recent sectional tournament.  Was the hand more interesting as I first understood it, or more interesting as Bruce later clarified the hand?

After a 15-17 1NT opened to his left is followed by two passes, Bruce, as South, decided to balance with 2♠.  His partner, Mark Conner of Grantham, NH, having been dealt a 20 count, raised to 4♠.  The opening lead is the ♦A (from AK and length).

North ♠ KQ ♥ AK94 ♦ J63 ♣ AK52

South ♠ J97532 ♥ T63 ♦ 92 ♣ J4

East signals encouragement to the diamond lead.  West continues with the ♦K, and then a third diamond to dummy’s jack and East’s queen.  You ruff.

Your side has 22 HCP, East has just played the ♦Q, and West promised 15-17.  At most, one would think, East has the ♥J.

You lead a spade toward dummy and West wins the ♠A and exits with a spade, East following suit.  To reach your hand to draw the ♠T, you cash two top two clubs from dummy, followed by a club ruff to hand.  East follows with the ♣9, you ruff, and West follows with the ♣Q.  Well, the ♣Q and ♣T are equals once you played the ♣J on the second round, and so West’s playing the ♣Q really does not disclose the location of the ♣T … plus playing the card (the auction shows) he is known to hold is the right play.  The fourth club in dummy is a threat to a defender, but you do not know which defender.

You draw the last spade with your jack, coming down to this position:

North ♠ — ♥ AK9 ♦ — ♣ 5

South ♠ 2 ♥ T63 ♦ — ♣ —

As I first understood the hand, West followed suit to the last spade and East pitched a heart.

What do you play now?  Well, if West is down the ♥Qxx, and ♣T, and East is down to ♥Jx and two diamonds, then the winning play is to play your last spade, squeezing West in the rounded suits.  But if West is down to ♥QJx (the rest of the cards are irrelevant), then the winning play is to hook the ♥9, ruffing a club back to your hand in case West splits his honors.

Which play is best?

The title of the post discloses the answer.  If East discarded to ♥Jx on the play of the ♠J, then he just gave you a chance to make a contract for which you previously had no play.  Only if he were fooling with your head, and creating a Grosvenor Gambit, could the squeeze be the right play.

Alas, follow up communication from Bruce clarified that it was West who discarded a heart on the ♠J, while East followed suit with the final opposing spade.  So, now which play do you prefer: to squeeze West in the rounded suits, playing East for an original holding of only two hearts and three clubs?  or to double finesse West in the heart suit, playing West for ♥QJx(x) and not caring about the location of the ♣T?

Since the only incremental gain from the squeeze compared to the double finesse is when East’s original heart holding was precisely Jx, the double finesse must be the percentage play.  That is the play, Bruce reported, that he took at the table.  And it proved to be the play to land his contract … for a big Swiss team IMP gain against 1NT making at the other table.

Declaring at the club

May 14th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Some well-declared hands at the club today.

Len Aberbach found a nice endplay declaring 3NT.

Dealer: E Vul: Both	North ♠ T7432 ♥ 962 ♦ T32 ♣ J3
West ♠ 985 ♥ 543 ♦ QJ76 ♣ KT4		East ♠ AQ6 ♥ AJ7 ♦ AK9 ♣ A965
	South ♠ KJ ♥ KQT8 ♦ 854 ♣ Q872

After opening 2♣ , then rebidding 2NT as dealer, Len declared 3NT against a lead of ♥K.  North discouraged and East let him hold the lead.  South switched to a diamond.  Len played three more rounds of that suit, with North and East pitching spades and South a club.  A club was led from dummy to the nine and queen.  South exited with a club and Len ran three more tricks in that suit, South pitching a heart, West a heart and North one from each major.  Having lost a heart and a club and won four diamonds and three clubs, the four-card end position was:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ T74 ♥ 9 ♦ — ♣ —
West ♠ 98 ♥ 54 ♦ — ♣ —		East ♠ AQ ♥ AJ ♦ — ♣ —
	South ♠ KJ ♥ QT ♦ — ♣ —

Reading the position perfectly, Len strip squeezed South with ♥A and ♥J to his queen, forcing a spade return from KJ into Len’s AQ for the ninth and tenth tricks.

Two more nice declare results followed reluctances by the defense to lead trumps.

Dealer: S Vul: NS	North ♠ 2 ♥ 863 ♦ KQ72 ♣ QT632
West ♠ AJ73 ♥ A9742 ♦ 5 ♣ AK4		East ♠ T964 ♥ — ♦ JT9643 ♣ J65
	South ♠ KQ85 ♥ KQJT5 ♦ A8 ♣ 97

I would have liked to have a better spots in the spade suit for my four card overcall, but I took the plunge nonetheless.  After all, goes my excuse, why can’t partner have Kxxxx, x, xxxx, xxx?  Partner’s 3♠ call catches my approval, but at the table I was surely hoping for a bit more.

North led a telling ♥3, suggesting that heart suit was splitting 3-5.  With only three side suit tricks, I needed to score seven of my eight trumps.  A trump lead at any time would probably scuttle my contract, but noone had led a trump yet.  I ruffed the heart in dummy and led a diamond from dummy to prepare for future ruffs in my hand.  South hopped with the ♦A and, thankfully, did not lead a trump but instead played back the ♣9.  I won the ♣K, ♥A (pitching a club from dummy), ♣A, and ruffed a third heart small in dummy.  A diamond ruff in hand followed. I played a fourth round of hearts, ruffing with the ♠9.  South erred by allowing me to ruff a diamond in hand with my ♠7 (see, I knew I should have had better spade spots for my overcall!).  At this point, I have lost only the ♦A and have won two clubs, a heart, three heart ruffs in dummy and two diamonds in hand for eight tricks.  The four card end position was:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ 2 ♥ — ♦ K ♣ QT
West ♠ AJ ♥ 9 ♦ — ♣ 4		East ♠ T ♥ — ♦ JT9 ♣ —
	South ♠ KQ85 ♥ ♦ ♣

A club to dummy’s ♠T was overruffed by South.  Now South had to play a trump and my ♠AJ would be my ninth and tenth winners.

Another hand where soft defense led to a made 4♠ contract was played by Len.

Dealer: E Vul: Both	North ♠ AK ♥ KJ832 ♦ KQ832 ♣ 3
West ♠ Q74 ♥ QT9654 ♦ AT7 ♣ T		East ♠ JT962 ♥ A ♦ — ♣ AJ87642
	South ♠ 853 ♥ 7 ♦ J9654 ♣ KQ95

After a competitive auction that is perhaps better left unprinted (but which disclosed the NS diamond fit and East’s excessive number of black cards), South forewent the advertised trump lead and instead led her singleton heart, ridden around to Len’s ♥A.  ♣A and a small club ruffed small in dummy, surprisingly overruffed by the ♠K … but also advertising the ownership of the spades between the four and the king.  North chose to return a heart and a small trump from East was overruffed by South.  Another club from South (!) was ruffed by the seven and overruffed by the ♠A.  Well, isn’t this an odd way to draw trumps, as East retained four of his original five spades while the opponents now held only the 85 of spades?  A heart back was ruffed by the ♠9, and the club suit established with a ruff with dummy’s ♠Q.  Len cashed the ♦A and ruffed a diamond small in hand.  The ♠JT drew South’s remaining trumps and East’s hand was all good black cards, 4♠ made.

Promoting the young ‘ens

May 14th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Of late, many major bridge events in the ACBL have been won by younger players.  In the current team trials for USA2 for the next world championships, the trend of success by younger players continues.

On BBO VuGraph, I witnessed Joe Grue and Justin Lall produce a very nice result in both the auction and the defense against the Nickell team stalwarts of Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell.  Grue-Lall are playing for the Bathurst team which, at last check, was leading the Nickell juggernaut in the quarterfinals.

By memory, this was the board layout:

Dealer: West Vul:	North ♠ AT9xx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ Qxxx
West ♠ x ♥ Jxxx ♦ AKJxxx ♣ Jx		East ♠ K ♥ AKQTxxx ♦ Qx ♣ xxx
	South ♠ QJxxxx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AKxx

The same contract was reached in the other room, but only Grue found the double.

Grue led the ♦Q and continued with a second diamond to Lall.  Now Lall found the two plays not executed in the other room (where the auction and declarer were different, which can certainly influence the defense).  First Lall cashed the ♥J and then when declarer had no more losers to discard, he continued a third round of diamonds, thus promoting Grue’s stiff ♠K for a second, doubled undertrick.  Well done!

Post script: Apologies to Linda Lee.  I just now have noticed that she chose to blog on the same deal as did I, and had published before me.  Well, Linda, I surely like your taste in hands!

Last board of Cavendish

May 8th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Kit Woolsey and Fred Stewart overcame two-time defending champions Bobby Levin and Steve Weinstein to win the big money Cavendish Invitational by about 150 IMPs.  With cross-scoring of IMPs, this is a very small amount.  That means that a game swing on the last board of the event could determine who is to win.  Each of these pairs defended a game on the last board.

Dealer: West Vul:	North ♠ AT753 ♥ T985 ♦ K ♣ T54
West ♠ K9 ♥ 6 ♦ QT7643 ♣ KQ97		East ♠ QJ2 ♥ KQ3 ♦ AJ85 ♣ J83
	South ♠ 864 ♥ AJ742 ♦ 92 ♣ A62

I am not sure of the meaning of Lev-Pepsi auction.  In particular, the 3♠ call looks odd.  But when the 3♠ call drew a double from Levin, would Weinstein find the heart lead needed to set 3NT?  Well, we don’t know because Lev pulled 3NT to 5♦.  That contract lost three aces, for down one.

Meanwhile, Woolsey did lead a heart against 3NT and that contract also was defeated.  Piekarek could tell that if North had an entry, the entry could be used to play a heart through declarer’s queen.  Accordingly, he played South to have all the cards: he won the heart lead, led a club to dummy and then ran diamonds.  In the five card end position, perhaps Piekarek hoped for this result from a strip squeeze:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣
West ♠ K9 ♥ — ♦ — ♣ Q97		East ♠ J ♥ Q3 ♦ — ♣ J8
	South ♠ A ♥ AJ7 ♦ — ♣ A

Thrown in lead with a black ace, South would be forced to allow declarer’s ♥Q to score up the game-going trick.  Of course, at the table the ♠A was with North and 3NT was set.

Weinstein has, I believe won this event seven times, five with Levin and two with … well, with Fred Stewart whom I believe was once married to Weinstein’s mother.  Meanwhile, Woolsey had won the event twice before, I think once with Ed Manfield and once with Neil Silverman.

Slams a plenty …

May 7th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Ton of slams at today’s club game, some more interesting than others.  In order of play ….

2.

Dealer: E Vul: NS	North ♠ KQJ92 ♥ 63 ♦ AJ742 ♣ 6
West ♠ T64 ♥ KT ♦ 965 ♣ A8754		East ♠ 85 ♥ 9 ♦ KT83 ♣ KQJ932
	South ♠ A73 ♥ AQJ87542 ♦ Q ♣ T

East chose to pass and South, my partner, opened 1♥.  I bid 1♠ and now East came to life with all of 2♣!  Partner jumped to 4♥ and West offered 5♣.  My 6♥ call closed the bidding.  ♣A lead and down one when heart finesse lost, 1.14 out of 11 mps.

6.

Dealer: E Vul: EW	North ♠ J6 ♥ T3 ♦ A5 ♣ Q876542
West ♠ A9875 ♥ A6 ♦ QJ96 ♣ K3		East ♠ KQT42 ♥ K982 ♦ K2 ♣ AJ
	South ♠ 3 ♥ QJ754 ♦ T8743 ♣ T9

I can’t explain the auction chosen by West, in light of East’s underbidding and West’s apparently poorly placed ♣K.  East’s bids were pretty much in tempo, I thought.  Call me a conspiracy nut, if you wish, for intimating that maybe something was overheard, but I do wish that pairs would enter the scores into the Bridgemates with less conversation.  2.77 mps on this one for -1430.

9.  Auction was quick: P-(3♣)-Dbl-(6♣).

West ♠ AQJT73 ♥ J ♦ AK ♣ A942

East ♠ 9 ♥ K8 ♦ 953 ♣ KQT8763

Pretty routine, seems to me.  Partner did well to lead the ♥A and my only complaint is that declarer could have just claimed and not forced us to play this hand.  4.5 mps on this one.

So far these slam hands are putting a hurt on our score.  Might something better happen?

15.

Dealer: S Vul: NS	North ♠ AJ765 ♥ A5 ♦ J ♣ AK752
West ♠ 4 ♥ QT9 ♦ QT98432 ♣ T6		East ♠ T983 ♥ J76 ♦ K6 ♣ QJ98
	South ♠ KQ2 ♥ K8432 ♦ A75 ♣ 43

I won the ♦K lead with ♦A in dummy, lead a club to my hand, then played two high spades in dummy, and then a second club to my hand, ruffed a club in dummy, led a heart to my A, drew trump and claimed, conceding a club.  9.86 mps.  This is more to my liking!

There’s a potentially interesting issue about tempo on this hand.  Partner’s 4♠ call was easy on this hand, but sometimes the South hand might be forced to raise spades on an Hx holding.  If South is up to making the 4♠ call on each hand, fine … but if South is the sort of player who can bid in tempo only on the easier-to-bid three card holding, then North comes under ethical pressure.

16.

Dealer: W Vul: EW	North ♠ — ♥ T765 ♦ A74 ♣ AKQT82
West ♠ AJ643 ♥ Q932 ♦ 6 ♣ J97		East ♠ QT985 ♥ J ♦ T9832 ♣ 64
	South ♠ K72 ♥ AK84 ♦ KQJ5 ♣ 53

I do not condone West’s double, plus it was out of tempo.  But having heard the double, I chose not to introduce my heart suit but instead rebid 2♣ directly.  My auction sounds weak, and so I do not at all blame partner for jumping to 3NT even though we missed slam (but then, we also missed hearts, which is a good thing).  +490 was 7.68 mps.

17.

North ♠ AJ85 ♥ T85 ♦ AK8 ♣ AQ2

South ♠ KQ9 ♥ KJ32 ♦ QT92 ♣ KJ

The auction of 1♣-1♦-2NT-6NT seems pretty routine, but how do you propose to play 6NT from North upon lead of ♠3?

Can’t hurt to delay play plan until a second spade is played.  I played ♠K followed by the ♠Q as West discards a club.  What now?

I have ten top tricks and so need two more out of the red suits, at least one of which must be in hearts.  Should I play diamonds from the top, in case I have four tricks there and thus know I need only one heart trick?  Or should I play hearts first, retaining flexibility in the play of the diamond suit, where I can play either opponent for the ♦J, or play for the ♦J to drop?  It can’t be right to play on more than two rounds of diamonds, because if you are off a diamond trick after three rounds, you could lose that trick and ♥A.

At the table, I led a diamond to my king, seeing only small cards, and then a small heart up.  East rose with the ♥A and continued a third spade, his partner playing a second club.

I am not sure if rising with the ♥A is the best play without regard to East’s heart holding, but it surely makes more sense if East holds both ♥A and ♥Q.  One’s assessment of East’s skill seems relevant here, because the more middling is East the more likely I would think he would rise with the ♥A only from ♥AQ.  And if East is really poor then he might rise with the ♥A from any heart holding “before it gets away”.

My East was a Grand Life Master, thus a player much better than me, but still not at level of contending in the big national events, I think.  So, might he have risen with ♥A from a holding that does not include the ♥Q?

I don’t know, but I finally decided to play for a squeeze.

I won the spade in hand, cashed dummy’s ♥K (Vienna coup), and began to cash my other black suit winners, with the club distribution having been disclosed as 2-6, pitching hearts and arriving at this position, with the last spade being played from my hand:

North ♠ J ♥ T ♦ A8 ♣ —

South ♠ ♥ J ♦ QT9 ♣ —

I pitched the ♥J on the ♠J.  Noone pitched the ♥Q and so I played diamonds from top, finding East with ♦Jx and making the same twelve tricks as everyone else in the room for 7.68 mps.

Dealer: N Vul: None	North ♠ AJ85 ♥ T85 ♦ AK8 ♣ AQ2
West ♠ 6 ♥ 64 ♦ 7543 ♣ T98764		East ♠ T7432 ♥ AQ97 ♦ J6 ♣ 53
	South ♠ KQ9 ♥ KJ32 ♦ QT92 ♣ KJ

That was really the last slam decision, although one time our opponents thought there might be one and so ended in 5♠.  For perhaps the second time in my bridge life, 5♠ actually went down one trick.

In spite of the tough beginning on slam hands, we were not terribly unlucky in the end.

Ethical dilemma

May 4th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  3 Comments 

I was faced with an unusual ethical dilemma at a tournament this past week.

As East in second hand, I hold ♠543 ♥AT4 ♦KJ3 ♣K983.  RHO passes as does LHO.  In fourth chair, partner opens 1♦.  Pass to me.

I have two choices, bid 2NT, which we define as 11-12, or bid 1NT, downgrading my hand because of its flat distribution and giving partner a little rope for his fourth chair opening.  So, what’s the problem?  A bridge player has to make decisions such as this one all the time.  Just use your best judgment and live with the result, right?

Ah, but there is a fly in the ointment.  You see, my hand came to me all sorted.  Holding a balanced eleven count and hearing three passes around you, don’t you think that receiving your hand all sorted suggests that the previous table passed this hand out?  That suggestion seems unauthorized information to me.  But it is not UI caused by my partner; it is UI caused by the player who passed me the board.  What to do?

I finally decided on a two-pronged strategy.  One, I was going to respond 1NT, because I strongly felt that that would be my response without having seen my hand come sorted … and it hardly seems fair to take a call I would not otherwise have taken just because of something that happened at another table, not mine.  Two, I was going to call the director before the hand was scored so that the opponents would be protected in case they felt my judgment was clouded by the pre-sorting of my hand.

Well, here was the complete hand:

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ AK97 ♥ 86 ♦ Q952 ♣ 742
West ♠ T8 ♥ Q72 ♦ AT874 ♣ AQ6		East ♠ 543 ♥ AT4 ♦ KJ3 ♣ K983
	South ♠ QJ62 ♥ KJ953 ♦ 6 ♣ JT5

Hmm, as dummy was placed, I was thinking that most Wests would open in fourth chair, but I could envisage some passing, given that the West hand has only two spades.  At any rate, my South opponent decided to lead the ♠2 against my 1NT contract.  Only later did I come to realize that his choice of major suit to lead would be an unpopular one.  But while a heart lead would give away a trick, all that the chosen spade lead did was cause me discarding problems.  On the fourth round of spades, I chose to discard what turned out to be a winning club from my hand while I discarded one from each red suit from dummy.  In the end, I scored only seven tricks for a well-below average score.  Still, +90 was a better score than the -50 I would have scored if declaring 2NT.  I did follow through on calling the director and explaining the situation.  The opponents were impressed … and the table score stood.