April 17th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 12 Comments 
Because my schedule often makes playing in tournaments difficult, I play a high percentage of games in clubs. One product of that experience is that I observe quite a bit of Breaks in Tempo. My perception is that partners of the tempo breakers seem to make more frequent good decisions than they do when there is no tempo break.
Hence, my joy at seeing a tempo break backfire at today’s club game. The opponents are a pair on the line between low Flight A and high Flight B.
As you can see from my footnotes, I am not too keen on many of the calls in the subject auction.
Holding trump control and expecting some values from partner, I chose to lead not a high diamond, but rather my singleton club. Seemingly unconcerned about my having led a singleton (but why would I lead from the ♣Q when I could have led a diamond?), declarer played the jack from dummy and won partner’s queen with the ace. Still not sensing the club singleton, declarer next led a small diamond toward dummy rather than playing on trumps in hope that I owned K doubleton. I ducked that and partner won the ♦J. Partner returned an intermediate club, declarer covered, and I ruffed. We still have coming to us the ♥K, ♠A, and a third round club winner for a satisfying +300 and all 11 matchpoints. 3NT has no chance, of course, on a heart lead.
April 4th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
In yesterday’s club matchpoint game, I was faced with a tough bidding decision.
I held
and heard this auction:
Tough bidding decision, only because of the form of scoring and the vulnerability. At IMPs, I would double: so what if partner chooses to pass and the opponents can win, say, six club tricks and a side trick? That is still +500 and it is possible that 3NT might not make our way. At matchpoints, though, I obsessed with being +500 instead of +600 or +630. I finally decided to bid 3NT to match the field and hope that I might gain on the play.
The ♣6 was led and partner tabled a disappointing dummy, not that I disagree with his auction.
Remember: North is the declarer.
Unless I can run the diamond suit, I do not expect to make the hand.
West overtook the lead and continued clubs, my winning the ♣A at Trick 2 as East followed suit with the ♣2. Ah, so West had rebid vulnerable 3♣ on only a six card suit.
With clubs 6-2, I attacked diamonds by playing the ace and then finessing the jack. The good news is that the ♦J held the trick. The bad news is that West did not follow suit, but instead discarded a heart. Surely the bidding marks West with the ♥A. Not much to do now but cash the ♦K. West discarded the ♠2.
Unless West is some sort of evil genius, she discarded a spade because she did not possess another non-ace heart to discard. That marks her with 4=2=1=6 distribution. Not hard to read. I played the ♠K, both following (with the six and the three, respectively). And then dummy’s other spade, seeing the ♠T from West. Both because possession of the ♠Q might make the heard bidding more likely and because spades are “known” to be 4-3, I finessed the ♠J. When East followed suit small, the ♠A and ♠7 won tricks and I conceded down one.
As much as I wished I had doubled 3♣, down only one trick was a pretty good score. 3NT was certainly the normal contract and, just by taking clues that were pretty apparent (although, certainly, far from foolproof), taking the maximum of eight tricks matchpointed at 68+% .
March 30th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
In one of the hands on my previous blog entry, I was on lead against 2NT after the opponents’ auction of 1♥-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 2NT-P. From K62, T3, Q53, KJ765, I led the ♠K. In my dreams, declarer is 1=5=4=3 with the stiff ♠Q and my lead is the only one to set the contract by not only pinning declarer’s ♠Q but also establishing multiple spade tricks in partner’s hand. Well, that dream was not realized. Although the spade lead was effective, leading the king of spades accomplished nothing that leading a small spade would not have similarly accomplished.
So, at today’s club duplicate …
I upgraded the following hand: AT2, AKT, K3, AK863 to a 2♣ opener. Partner responded 2♦, showing no aces and at most one king, and I made the planned rebid of 2NT. Partner could, perhaps, have tried 4NT directly here, or maybe, just maybe, 6NT, but he chose 3♣, Puppet Stayman. Over my 3NT, he now invited with 4NT. Enough is enough, and I passed 4NT.
I received a passive heart lead, won in hand. I cashed two top clubs and learned that the suit had split 2-2. I led a small diamond from my K3 and the Q won in dummy. I unblocked clubs from dummy, led a second heart to my hand to cash the long club. Now I led my last heart to dummy’s two remaining heart winners. After one diamond, four hearts, and five clubs, the lead is in dummy and everyone is down to three cards. The (strip squeeze) end position I hope for is this:
… or this:
Provided I can read the end position, I can make twelve tricks. If the position is the first one, I can force South on lead with her stiff ♦A in order to lead a spade from her Kx. If the position is the second one, I can play a spade to the ace to fell the king and cash a second spade. Either way, I win a very satisfying twelve tricks.
Ah, but only in my dreams. Yes, the cards were exactly as indicated: South did own both the ♦A and the ♠K. But she had led from the ♠K at Trick 1 and I “earned” my twelfth trick that way.
March 27th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
Here are some choices from today’s club matchpoint event. Starting with Board 1.
From the hand shown, what do you choose to lead?
I tried the ♠7. Declarer thought for quite a while and then called for the ♠T, to partner’s ♠J to declarer’s ace. Declarer cashed the ♦K and then I won the ♥K with the ♥A at Trick 3 (alas, not a Smith-echo partnership and so my choice of spade has not been validated by partner’s choice of heart card) and chose to return another spade. Partner won the ♠9 and switched to the ♣J. Down three tricks (and could have been down four, had we cashed a third spade before removing my club tops)! For a top (not sure why declarer did not first choose to run the diamonds for down two).
Board 14.
Against a lower-flight pair, you are in 6♠ and receive a lead of the ♥A. What is your declarer plan?
Hoping to reduce the chances of the opponents finding a heart ruff at Trick 2, I decided to play the ♥Q at Trick 1. A diamond was continued and I played ♠K and then took a spade finesse. Diamonds were not the expected 6-3 (why, if she were going to enter the live auction, would North choose to overcall 2♦ rather than to have doubled?), but the spade finesse did win and the slam came home. 9.32 on 11 top.
Board 22. You hear this auction by opponents.
Defending against one of the better pairs in the room (that is, the 2NT bid is not what some refer to as “suicide 2NT”, but rather will deliver the extra values it should), what do you lead from the hand that follows?
I feared giving away a cheap club trick and noted that opener had not supported responder’s spade suit. I tried the ♠K and this held declarer to eight tricks. The spade lead was easier to find when notrump was declared from the North chair and so the result was a disappointing 2.5 out of 11 matchpoints. Still, that is better than the -150 we would have earned with a club lead (to dummy’s queen, to be followed by one diamond finesse immediately, and another, if necessary, when in dummy with the ♠A).
Board 29. As West, you hold
At all vulnerable, do you pass 3♠ hoping to convert a reopening double? Not sure that is a good choice, but my pass was made in tempo and turned out to be a lucky one when partner balanced, not with a double, but with 4♦! What now?
I think it is best to keycard now … if you are sure that partner will take the parlay of pass then 4NT (or whatever other call you have defined) as keycard and not as an offer to play on a hand that was “trap passing”. But at a club game, reaching a makeable 6♦ is likely to score quite well, and that is what I bid directly. +1370 for another 9.32.
March 18th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
Tuesday morning’s club game included a hand (Board 12) with bidding issues for both partner and me and with a play issue for me.
Here are the hands of partner (North) and me (South):
Bidding issue #1. Do you open the North hand or not? If you do open, do you open 1♠ or 2♠? My preferences are that the requirements for a weak two bid and a one bid run continuously; that is, assuming adequate suit length and quality, if a hand is not strong enough for a one bid, then it is a weak two bid. I know of some other players who believe that there is a gap between the two. To determine if I have an opening bid, a frequent guideline I apply is Rule of 22: add your HCP and the length of your two longest suits (akin to the Rule of 20) and also add your quick tricks: if the total is 22, you have enough for an opening one bid; if the total is fewer than 22, then you do not have enough for an opening one bid. (I suspect I would be better off to slightly shade the opening if not vulnerable, but I do not.) So, by my standards, the North hand is a 2♠ opening.
Partner chose to open 1♠ (as would many).
Bidding issue #2. What do you respond with the flat 21 HCP of South (playing 2/1 game forcing)? 4NT is definitely not right; you would prefer that partner ask for keycards than you, because if partner were to ask he could probably count tricks better than you, as you have all aces and kings and no length or secondary cards. 2♦seems like the normal response, but since I was hunting for information, I decided to try 2♣.
Partner now, of course, rebid 2♠. We are not a familiar partnership and so I am not sure we have all of our necessary 2/1 treatments agreed. Still, a benefit of my choosing 2♣ response, is that I can be pretty sure that partner has six spades for the rebid even if our rebids of majors might otherwise deny the ability to rebid 2NT rather than promise a six card or longer holding the opened major.
I now bid 3♠ and partner raised to 4♠.
Bidding issue #3. What do you rebid with my hand? At this point, I still don’t like 4NT but could not think of an alternative. Partner responded 5♣, showing 1 key card. I next rebid 5♦, asking about the ♠Q. Partner bid 6♠, promising the ♠Q but denying the holding of a side suit king.
Bidding issue #4. What do you bid next with my hand? I am counting on six spades and five more cards in my hand for eleven “top” tricks. With partner not having any side suit kings, his opening 1 bid, I thought, must include at least two queens. If they were both in the minor suits, I have thirteen top tricks, but if one were in hearts, then I have only twelve top tricks. Either way, I was unable to discern a benefit to spades over notrump, and so I chose to rebid 6NT.
The ♥J was led and dummy was a disappointment: only one queen and it is not a minor suit queen! I am certainly going to guess that the ♥T lies also with West and that the ♥K lies with East. No matter how I look at this hand, I need three club tricks to make my slam. And if I lose a club trick, I will suffer more undertricks than the spade slam bidders.
Play issue. OK. I need the club finesse to win twelve tricks. Might as well assume that it does win. Is there then a way to thirteen tricks?
There is, if there is a red suit squeeze, one hand having been dealt five or more diamonds plus having to guard hearts. Here, the play gets interesting:
- If West holds the long diamonds, then I should cover the ♥J in order to establish the ♥9 as a threat card against West (transferring the heart menace).
- If East holds the long diamonds, then I should fail to cover the ♥J so that the ♥Q is a threat against East.
- I, somewhat unplanned, also notice that perhaps my choice to respond 2♣ rather than 2♦ might pay a dividend. My not having shown length in diamonds might cause the potential for a red suit squeeze to be tougher to identify for the defender with a three card holding in diamonds. If that defender discards a diamond at some time, then his partner might be subjected to a red suit squeeze even if his partner were dealt only four diamonds.
Without regard to which opponent I play for diamond length, the end positions are similar. Win the heart ace, play a high club, two spades ending in dummy, take the club finesse, play a third winning club and three more rounds of spades. After five of six spades, one heart, and three clubs, I reach a four card end position, with North’s last spade to be led and one opponent only (I hope) holding three diamonds:
The ♥? is the ♥9 if I choose to squeeze West and is the ♥Q if I choose to squeeze East.
Who do I choose to squeeze?
I have no idea, but I think the decision might reasonably be based upon which defender do you think is more likely to discard a diamond from a three card holding. At the table, I had not really thought that through and so played the ♥Q at Trick 1 just in case the lead had been away from the ♥K (fat chance!). At any rate, the club finesse did work (good!) but East did choose to hold on to his four diamonds (good for him) and so I scored +1440. I wonder if West might have pitched a diamond so that I could have won a thirteenth trick had I not covered the ♥J? Still matchpointed well, though.
March 10th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 8 Comments
Board 4 of yesterday’s matchpoint club game included points of interest in the bidding and the play.
Playing against a pair of Grand Life Masters, you hold ♠764 ♥KQJ ♦AQT8 ♣Q84 and hear partner, as dealer, open 1♠. Playing 2/1, you respond 2♦ and expect to next support spades cheaply. When partner rebids 3♣ (showing, per your partnership agreements, at least a king more than a minimum opening bid), you reconsider. Do you conclude that notrump is likely to play as well as spades and choose to rebid 3NT, in order to score the Perfect Ten points more than the spade declarers?
I did choose to rebid 3NT and that became the final contract. West led the unbid heart suit, choosing the ♥2 (attitude per their methods).
♥2, 3, 9, Q goes the first trick, suggesting that the ♥A lies with South.
Hmm. +650 in spades looks easy, what with being able to pitch two small clubs from dummy, one on a heart and another on a diamond; you will lose only the two rounded suit aces. Can you follow the same play line in notrump and earn +660?
Not necessarily. If you try to force out the heart ace, the opponents are capable of ducking the second round of hearts and then running some number of hearts when in with ♣A. Unless you can run four diamond tricks the two hearts will get your trick total up to only ten (5+2+3+0). If you try to force out the ♣A, which opponent do you play for the ♣A? If you play North for the ♣A and are right, the ♣Q will win a trick, but then when you force out the ♥A, a club through dummy’s king can net the opponents not only the ♣A but also an intermediate club. If you play South for the ♣A and are right, the ♣K will win a trick, and, when you next force out South’s ♥A, South will be unable to lead clubs to the advantage of the defense. So, leading a club toward the king must be better than leading a club toward the queen.
But, should you lead a club at all? If you can win four diamond tricks, you can force an eleventh trick by later playing a second heart.
How should one play the diamond suit for four tricks, taken in isolation? My Encyclopedia of Bridge says that the card combination of Qx opposite AKTx will produce four tricks 50% of the time with play of the queen followed by a finesse of the ten. But is it worth the risk to take a second round finesse against the ♦J? If cashing diamonds from the top produces only three total diamond tricks, then you still have the chance mentioned above of playing South for the ♣K, provided South is not the player who still holds a good diamond.
All of the above is difficult to calculate at the table, of course.
If planning on playing diamonds for four tricks, it is probably best to run two rounds of spades in order to discover any special spade shortness that could cause you to take an early finesse (in either direction) against the ♦J. You don’t want to run the spade suit, because your hand won’t know what to discard.
I decided to play on diamonds from the top. Everyone followed to three rounds of diamonds, but no ♦J appeared. As planned, I next played a club toward dummy’s king. That lost to North’s ♣A. North-South cashed diamond and heart winners for the next two tricks and I scored only +630 for 2.23 out of 11 matchpoints. The whole hand:
The Search for the Perfect Ten will have to be resumed on a different board.
March 4th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 3 Comments
Today my local bridge club ran a Swiss, in which each match played the same boards. I found that many of the boards presented issues on my favorite bridge subject, Hand Evaluation. Hand Evaluation is often the process of “placing cards” in partner’s hand in order to determine one’s bid. My favorite Hand Evaluation tool, which I have cited frequently in my blog, is Culbertson’s Rule.
Culbertson’s Rule suggests trying for game (or slam, as the case might be) when a perfect minimum for partner’s hand might make the game cold. By citing a perfect minimum, Culbertson’s Rule legislates against giving partner the perfect cards (that would be a perfect maximum) while still providing useful guidance as to when games or slams might be made on something less than normal high card points.
An application of Culbertson’s Rule was inherent in Board 1, where advancer had also to consider how the play would progress, an important attribute of successful bidders, as Karen Walker has noted in her outstanding, long running series in the ACBL Bulletin.
On Board 1, dealer to your left opened weak 2♥. Your partner overcalled 2♠ and RHO passed. What is your call with Q, K43, AJ86, KJ965?
Well, first consider how you expect the play to progress at notrump. You expect a heart lead. That develops a heart trick for you, but it also can establish five heart tricks for the opponents. So, you can ask yourself, can I run, with benefit of a heart trick, nine tricks before the opponents can run five? With a hand with no running suit and only one ace, you are going to need lots of help from partner for you to be able to run nine tricks. Still, with a 14 count and a protected heart card, the possibility of nine tricks is not remote.
How do you solicit partner’s cooperation?
I think many pairs would play a 2NT response as an Ogust-style bid. If partner shows a good hand, 3NT might make on power. On the other hand if partner shows a bad hand but a good suit, your ♠Q becomes really useful in a spade contract (probably more useful than two small, if you imagine partner with some sort of spade holding such as KJTxxx or the like). But if you are in a spade contract, then the ♥K before the 2♥ opener diminishes in value. All in all, I think it is best to bid 2NT and then sign off in 3♠ if partner shows a bad hand and a good suit.
And this would be the winning call on this board, because partner owns K987543, Q8, K92, Q. For a push.
(If you don’t believe this aceless ten point hand [and even the ten HCP includes a secondary honor in the opponent’s suit and a stiff queen] is worth an overcall, I understand, but I would disagree. Opposite so little as QJ, xxx, QJxx, xxxx, a pretty undistinguished, flat six count, you can expect to make 2♠. Add in so little as two aces and you can make game and yet advancer is unlikely to even enter the auction.)
On Board 9, your partner shows a strong notrump and you hold AKJ96, 5, KQT85, 32. You show your spades and then your diamonds and partner preferences to 3♠. Should you make a slam try (presumably by bidding 4♦)?
I think “yes”. Give partner so little Qxx, Axxx, Jxx, AKxx or Qxx, xxxx, AJx, AKxx… hands that are not even a strong notrump, and 6♠ appears to be a great contract.
As it turns out, partner has neither of those hands, but he does have an extra source of tricks in his club suit and will cooperate with a 4♦ slam try on QT3, A82, 96, AKQT5. The ♣J does fall and 6♠ makes. For +13 IMPs.
On Board 11, you hold AK8743, QJ5, Q853, –. In second chair, you open 1♠ and LHO overcalls 2♣. Both responder and advancer offer single raises of their partner’s suit. Over advancer’s 3♣ it is your call. Do you try for game?
I think “yes”, in spite of only 12 HCP that includes a bunch of quacks. The club bids suggest that partner might not have values in clubs, and thus his values are in the suits where they produce tricks for your side. For example, give partner something like xxx, Kxxx, KJx, xxx, a flat seven count, and game is pretty cold.
A game try of 3♦ will, indeed, strike gold, because partner holds QJT2, T2, KJ94, 743 and will recognize the value of each of the meager cards (♠Q, fourth trump, two diamond honors) he held and bid a cold game.
(Meanwhile, it turns out the opponents can make 4♥. I am seriously doubting, however, that they will go on to 5♥ over 4♠.) +8 IMPs.
On Board 19, you respond 2♦ to your partner’s 1♥ opening bid on AKT4, 4, KQ963, KJ5. You are playing 2/1 game forcing and when opener rebids 4♣, your agreements are that opener has shown four card (or longer) diamond support and a singleton (or void) in clubs. Although you do not require that a splinter jump in a game forcing auction requires extra values, this particular splinter jump, because it takes the partnership beyond the most likely game of 3NT, should promise at least a king above a minimum opening bid. You would much prefer to own the ♣A rather than the ♣KJ, but still, even totally discounting your club holding, you still have remaining enough values to justify your forcing to game, and so, rather than sign off in 4NT, you conduct a slam hunt. Partner might, for example, hold QJx, Axxxx, Axxx, x, a hand which is not close to being a king over a minimum, and yet 6♦ can make via five diamonds, four spades, ♥A and two club ruffs. What to bid over 4♣ is system dependent. You do not want to ask for aces because if partner holds something like xxx, AKJxx, AJxx, x, you might have no slam. You need to get partner’s cooperation so that he knows how well his non-aces match your values.
4♦ seems to me to be the right bid now. (Some would play 4♦ as minorwood; I think it is better off played as natural and forcing so that you can bid cooperatively, and not quantitatively, to discover whether slam is appropriate.) Partner will offer 4♥, you continue with 4♠ (or 4NT as a substitute spade cue bid if you are playing 4♠ as kickback in this auction) and partner will value his fifth diamond and other assets appropriately to reach 6♦ opposite Q7, AQJ63, AJT74, x. +13 IMPs.
By the way, not all of the auctions and results shown here were found at the table. But I think they could have been. I sincerely believe that Hand Evaluation, along with some useful and well-understood system agreements, will distinguish the outstanding bidders from the field, especially if Hand Evaluation is supplemented by the ability to plan the play during the auction.
February 23rd, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 8 Comments
In the second of two hands during the first round of a sectional open pairs, you surprisingly find that you have a pair of kibitzers, players who are participating in the same event. Must be something with respect to the arrangement of the event or maybe they have finished their first round early and have learned that they will not be playing these hands.
LHO deals and his 15-17 1NT bid ends the bidding.
Partner leads the ♣T (can be from T9 or KT9 or QT9).
You win the ♣A and decide to switch to a small heart. This works well. Partner plays, and wins, the ♥Q. She continues with the ♥K, losing to declarer’s ♥A. Declarer plays ♦A and a small diamond, partner following to the first diamond and discarding a small club on the second. Upon winning the second diamond, you cash out the heart suit, as declarer pitches three diamonds, partner pitches two more clubs and dummy pitches one of each black suit.
What now?
You know that declarer holds the ♣J and at least one, if not both, of the ♣Q and ♣K. You also know that declarer was dealt A-empty fourth of diamonds and the ♥A. That accounts for something between 11-14 HCP. Declarer must own at least the queen in spades, maybe more.
You can cash the ♦K to ensure +100, maybe more if declarer does not own the ♣K, but owns the ♠KQ, ♣QJ, and the known red aces. But unless declarer owns the ♣K and KQxx of spades (for a full 17 HCP, along with the red aces and the ♣J), declarer will be unable to win the rest of the five tricks needed to make his contract before letting you in the lead again and you have a chance at scoring at least +200 other ways (as when declarer owns the ♠K, ♣KJ, and the red aces and must give up the lead again in one the non-heart suits).
You hope you are not making your decision just to thrill the kibitzers, but you choose to exit a club. -90, as this was the whole deal.
February 18th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 10 Comments
The past two times I have played club bridge, I have witnessed table opponents with similar profiles engage in hesitations that bother me. The similar profile is that each player, although not playing bridge for nearly so long as many of us, play often and successfully enough in tournaments to have garnered several hundred master points in 2014. Sure, I suspect that most of the master points were gathered in bracketed events, but the quantity of points gathered must reflect the playing of a lot of tournament bridge and not – in case one suspects a different standard of rules enforcement and education at clubs – just club bridge.
Example 1. Player 1 held –, T87632, 96, KT763 at unfavorable vulnerability in third chair. His partner opened 1♠, my partner overcalled 2♦, and Player 1 passed in tempo. I was next to speak. With great support for partner but unexciting distribution and “wasted” Qx of spades, I chose to raise to only 3♦ on Q2, J4, AQJ84, 9854. Opener now bid 4♠. My partner passed and Player 1 hesitated for a full two minutes, I would guess, before passing. I am not defending my incongruous-with-my-earlier-bidding choice to bid 5♦ in the passout seat. We were down two, undoubled – partner also had made a possibly questionable decision to overcall on J76, A95, K7532, AQ and we would have won one trick in each suit on defense against 4♠.
Because I felt my side had not bid the hand well – in particular, my choice to bid 5♦ – I felt I had suffered no damage from the hesitation and thus no cause to complain. Perhaps because the director was the opening bidder, I also chose not to ask Player 1 about the reasoning behind the hesitation. However, I really question what Player 1 could have been thinking about over 4♠ by his partner with his misfit opposite a partner who has shown a great spade suit. Although one should strive to always bid in tempo, I could see some thoughts about bidding more opposite a vulnerable partner on a hand that might have passed 2♦ with something akin to xxx, Axxxxx, xxx, x. With such a hand, diamond shortness in partner’s hand can be inferred and the value of the hand opposite long and strong spades has grown a lot. Of course, that speculated reason is nowhere near the what-could-you-have-been-thinking-about hand held by Player 1.
Example 2. Player 2 held KQT, Q973, K8, Q982, in fourth chair at favorable vulnerability. In third chair, I opened 1♥. Player 2 hesitated a long period of time before passing. As I think is appropriate in such circumstances, I remarked, “can we acknowledge a break in tempo?”. Player 2 quickly answered “yes”. My partner raised to 2♥. I don’t know the opponents’ tendencies to pre-balance, but, if Player 2’s partner is being ethical and not acting on the alleged values or heart shortness suggested by the hesitation, his decision to pass my partner’s raise to 2♥ on 76543, 4, AJT54, J3 was surely made easier. My partner and I proceeded to have a poorly judged auction to 4♥.
I could have held it to down one, but normal play led to down two. I can’t claim that the hesitation caused me damage in the play and so I chose not to call the director. However, I did question Player 2, “what was the cause of your hesitation?” His reply: “I had 13 points and so wanted to bid but concluded that no call fit”. Well, overlooking the fact that he had only 12 HCP, I agree with his conclusion, but for a player of that experience and success to break tempo on a balanced hand with length in the opened suit and 12-13 HCP? Really?
I frequently act on my interpretation of opponents’ tempo. My understanding is that I do so at my own risk, and I accept that. However, it is also my understanding that a player must have a bridge reason for his hesitation (the standard example for not having a bridge reason being to hesitate holding the queen when declarer leads small toward a KJ combination in dummy, inducing a misguess by declarer). I am troubled by the hesitations of Players 1 and 2 and will be on my Ethics Lookout when I play these two in the future.
February 17th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 3 Comments
Playing with a new partner, an experienced player, we, not surprisingly, engaged in an auction that required agreements we had not discussed. Board 22 of February 13 morning pairs, part of the Common Game.
In second seat, I opened 1♥ and heard partner not only respond but respond a game forcing 2♦.
“Standard” responses to the queen ask, I believed, are for answerer to bid 5♥ without the ♥Q, to bid 6♥ with the ♥Q and no non-heart kings, and to bid the suit of the cheapest king with the ♥Q and a side suit king.
Partner responded 6♥. Hmm, if we are on the same wavelength, partner must have just about all the QJ combinations in the non-trump suit, perhaps something like QJx, KQx, QJTxx, QJ. That gives me twelve top tricks with multiple chances for a thirteenth. Rightly or wrongly, I chose to bid 7♥ . (Before passing 7♥, East thought this would be a good time to ask what means my 5♦ call. More on this later.) West led the ♠Q.
Dummy was a bit of surprise, and, in the club suit, a bit of a disappointment.
My first thought was that if I were lucky enough to find an opponent with QTx of diamonds, I could, with only one ruff, establish the suit for three club pitches. Accordingly, I won the ♠A in hand, followed by the ♥A and the ♦A. When I played a heart to dummy, East discarded a spade. I drew another trump and then played ♦K, seeing only small cards. Thinking that squeeze chances could be enhanced if I were to lead a third round of diamonds, I led a small diamond from dummy, ruffing with the ♥T in hand as West failed to follow suit. I drew the last trump.
After 4 hearts, 2 diamonds and a diamond ruff, and 1 spade, everyone is down to five cards.
I need to run the club suit, and so hope for the ♣Q with East. Because East is known to hold the ♦Q, matters are ripe for a squeeze even if East were dealt the ♣Q with length of four cards or more.
I led to the ♠K and advanced the ♣J. When I won that trick, the lucky grand slam came home.
Postscripts.
- I think it would have been wise for me to have been more circumspect about partner and I being on the same wavelength with the responses to 5♦. By the way, if we were on the same wavelength, would a 5NT response by partner show the ♥Q and more than one side suit king?
- I should have cashed the ♣A (possibly unblocking the ♣8) before leading to the ♠K. Not sure why I missed that extra chance.
- Back to the exchange before East passed out 7♥.
- East: What does 5♦ bid mean?
- Me: I will be pleased to explain the whole auction before your partner makes the opening lead.
- East: It is my turn to bid and I want to know about the 5♦ bid.
- Me: Unless you intend to bid, you are better off not asking. (Yes, I should have called the director either now, or when the question about 5♦ was made. Tablemate rulings are generally a bad idea, even if not ill-intentioned.)
- East: Glaring at me.
- West, perhaps being less inclined to continue the argument, made the opening lead face down and I explained all the calls that are footnoted.
The East player is not a regular contender, even in a club game. But she is no club game or tournament novice, either; in fact she frequently plays in tournaments in the area, even though I did not, at the time, match the face with a name.
What to make out of all this?
Well, I think two things: (1) I should not have tried to correct matters, especially after my offer to explain the auction had been resisted, and particularly because I do not know her personally. I hope I have learned that lesson and to call the director; and (2) for someone to have played so long and to not have known to ask such a question (would the question have been asked if she did not own QT87x of diamonds? No way!) is probably a condemnation of directors who rarely educate players about the need for players to avoid giving Unauthorized Information to their partners.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related