January 31st, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 3 Comments 
Recognizing that declarer does not necessarily know what you know is a talent that can be used favorably by a good defender. Here was an example where I was outdefended by an opponent at the other table of a club Swiss team event. (Board 17, Reyim Swiss of January 29, directions reversed.)
The opponents conducted this auction to 4♥.
I led the ♣A and observed a dummy with an extra heart. ♣2, 6 (right side up attitude), and 8 completed the trick.
The chance of a set looked bleak to me. Spades are splitting favorably for declarer so that any diamond losers can be pitched on good spades. Picturing declarer with something like AKQxx, KJxx, x, Jxx, or AJTxx, AKJx, x, Jxx, I continued with a second high club, hoping that partner’s ♣6 was from Q6 doubleton. However, the clubs seen at Trick 2 were the 7, T, and J.
Perseverating about partner’s having been dealt the T6 doubleton of clubs and having been reluctant to have “wasted” the ♣T at Trick 1 (we are not a regular partnership and, in my weak defense, we had already experienced some serious defensive errors), I continued a third club, as partner played the ♣Q and declarer ruffed. The whole hand:
Declarer drew trumps and then pitched a diamond on the ♠9, giving away an overtrick but ensuring her contract.
My table counterpart at my teammates’ table better recognized that, while he knew that spades were splitting, declarer did not. After cashing two high clubs against the same auction, he switched to a diamond. Declarer won the diamond, drew trumps and played two high spades. Staring at a diamond loser, declarer had to guess whether the spades dealt to my hand were Q743 or 743. Declarer guessed wrong, taking a losing spade ruffing finesse, followed by cashing of a good diamond for down one.
In fact, I was told, East at the other table contributed to the misread by my teammate declarer by playing the ♠Q on the second round rather than its then-equal, the ♠T (so that declarer was actually choosing between ♠T743 or ♠743 for my hand). Whether West gratuitously contributed to the misread by showing four spades rather than three, I do not know.
What I do know is that I was outdefended, in spite of partner’s thoughtful discouraging signal at Trick 1. Hopefully, the lesson will resonate.
January 10th, 2015 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
In an otherwise less-than-inspiring club session on January 9 morning at Temple Reyim, (begun with my getting greedy on our first board and going down one trick in a 3NT contract that I could have claimed at Trick 2, later compounded by playing in a part score on a good and making slam when a game forcing bid was passed, never being supported by an invitational-strength hand with no fewer than seven cards in the suit opened by partner, well … you get the picture, as we have all experienced similar sessions), I did, at least, get to execute two squeezes. One was undefensible; the other needed, and received, help from the defenders.
On the first squeeze, I was faced with an interesting bidding problem. How often does responder have to determine what to call with 15 HCP opposite a partner who has reversed? I held
Partner opened 1♦ and I responded 1♠. Partner now reversed 2♥. What to bid?
We play standard lebensohl. 2♠ would have shown my fifth spade and would be forcing for one round; 2NT would be lebensohl, expecting partner to rebid 3♣, usually preparatory to a signoff by responder in any suit. All other bids are game forcing.
In my more sophisticated-agreement partnerships, we have some additional agreements in this situation, that apply to responder’s auctions: 2NT, then 3NT shows 8-12 HCP and a strong preference for no trump; 3NT shows 8-12 HCP and a milder preference for no trump; and 4NT shows 12+ HCP and is natural. Just two problems: (1) those agreements don’t apply to this partnership; and (2) 15 nice HCP is probably even too strong for the 4NT call.
2♠ would not be a misbid, but it was hard to see what it might accomplish, even if partner did show three spades. I decided to stall with 2NT, just in case partner had an unusually red reverse and would rebid one of his suits. No luck. Partner rebid the expected 3♣ – doubled by South – and all that I had accomplished was to delay my problem. I now bid 4NT. I don’t think that 4NT can be keycard, when I have foregone an opportunity to establish a trump suit … but then that thinking might not be clear to partner. Partner now bid 5♥. Having no idea of what is partner’s hand and fearing he had no idea of my hand, I bid what I thought I can make, 6NT.
The ♣4 was led, and dummy was quite suitable. (In fact, maybe I should have rebid 2♠, because then partner’s 3♠ third round bid would enable me to have conducted a less-obtuse auction, beginning with 4NT keycard at my third turn.)
North is a pro with 18,000 masterpoints; South is a client, and a reasonable player. South played the ♣K at Trick 1. I suspect that clubs are Q third or fourth opposite KJ fifth or fourth. If spades run, I have twelve top tricks and some good chances for a thirteenth, and so it seemed prudent to win the first trick.
I played a spade to the ace and a spade to my king, North discarding a heart on the second spade. I led a heart (the ♥9, actually, in case I wanted later to hook the ♥T) to dummy’s king and took the marked spade finesse, to win a third and then a fourth spade. North pitched a club and another heart, as I then pitched a diamond from dummy. On the fifth spade, North pitched a diamond. Noting the absence of diamond discards until after I had discarded a diamond from dummy, I discarded a second diamond from dummy. South pitched a club. Not wanting to give the defense an opportunity to signal the count in diamonds, I played the ♥Q before the stiff ♦A. When everyone followed suit on the second round of hearts, I had accounted for all six hearts of the opponents: each opponent had followed to two rounds of hearts and North had discarded two hearts. I led my last heart to dummy, claiming the last four tricks with the ♥AT and the ♦KQ.
The second squeeze was played against a Flight C pair. As dealer, North opened 1♠, passed around to my ♠5, ♥KJ8762, ♦76, ♣KQ82. I balanced with 2♥, and that became the final contract.
North began with the ♠A and then decided to continue with the ♠K, establishing dummy’s ♠Q as master as South followed suit with the ♠6 and then the ♠T. I led a club toward dummy and, although this play seems wrong to me, North flew with the ♣A. After a bit of thought, she continued with a club to dummy’s jack, South following suit. I led the ♠Q from dummy and South ruffed, errantly choosing to do so with the ♥9. I overruffed with the ♥J and led a heart to dummy’s Q, losing to South’s ♥A. South returned a club and North followed suit to my ♣K. When I cashed the ♥K, I was pleased to see the appearance of the ♥T from North. I played out the rest of my hearts. North having been dealt not only the marked ♠J but also the ♦KQ, she was squeezed and I managed ten tricks on the hand, losing only to three aces. The defense had erred a few times, but it was still rewarding to take advantage, the whole hand being:
December 21st, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 6 Comments
In the last round of the getaway day A/X Swiss at the Providence, RI, NABC your opponents are experts who have designs on winning the event. Your pick-up team is a probable favorite, at this stage, to win Flight X, and you would certainly welcome an opportunity to finish as high as possible in Flight A.
You have reached this position, frankly, mostly through the efforts of your teammates. Not that your pair has not produced a few nice results through your own efforts, but your teammates, a pick-up partnership, have repeatedly converted your pair’s softer results into pushes. Your partner is a solid player – meaning that she likely plays better than do you – but one whose game is not heavily nuanced. She plays quickly and accurately, and you have concluded that your pair’s best results will be derived by minimizing added science to your bidding or defensive agreements.
The A/X Swiss is not exactly the Reisinger, but since you are in a good position, and know that your opponents are experts who will be giving it their best, you would like to conclude the tournament on a good note.
Will the hands be interesting?
I think they were.
Board 8 seems like a pretty routine major suit game. But Board 9 produces some action in both the auction and the play at your table.
You check an opponent’s convention card and notice that they are playing UDCA. A spade is led. At unfavorable vulnerability, the possibility of East’s owning eight spades could not be dismissed, and so you win the ♠A. You draw two rounds of trumps (East following once), ending in hand. To remove potential exit cards from East, you play one round of hearts, each opponent following small. Next you play a small spade to dummy’s queen (West following suit) and East’s king. East plays the ♦A and West follows suit with the two. In tempo, East plays back a small diamond.
Your play?
At the table, you ruff the diamond and play a second high heart from your hand, only West following suit. As you prepare for a red suit squeeze against West, West states “down one”. Huh? This was the whole hand.
Oh, man, all you had to do was discard a heart on the second diamond and you would have made the contract! Nice partnership defense!
In retrospect, you think you should have done two things differently. One, you should have cashed a second high heart from hand to confirm the ownership by East of only one heart. And two, you admit to not having paid close attention to the particular spade spots played by West. Had she led a low spade and then followed with a higher spade on the throw-in spade, you could have been alerted to East’s having only six spades and might have divined that East, for the unfavorable vulnerability jump to 3♠, also held long diamonds (thus increasing the chances that he also held both high diamond honors). Well, there is a reason you are still in Flight X.
Board 10 seems to be another routine major suit game.
On Board 11, your partner, perhaps not seeing your Bridge Winners harangue earlier in the week about delayed entrance into non-fit auctions (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/delayed-entrance-into-a-non-fit-auction/), balances with a 2♠ call (on AKxx) after having passed an opening 1♣ bid and hearing a 1NT response passed back to her. You hold a fair hand with QJxx of spades, pass 2♠, and notice that partner finishes one trick short of contract for -50. You realize that partner was correct to assume that you have some values and that her LHO will not own four spades, and you think -50 is a pretty fair result, but you feel as though you were lucky that the opponents were unable to punish you; you just do not like the sound of the auction.
On Board 12, your partner holds xxx, Txxx, –, AKJxxx and hears a Precision 1♣ opening to her right. She bids 2♣. Your RHO turns inquisitively toward you, even though you have not alerted, and you answer, “Would you believe? That shows clubs!”. RHO smiles and bids 2♠, alerted and explained as game forcing with 5 or more spades. LHO raises spades to the three level and RHO bids 4♠, passed out. Your partner sees you lead the ♣T as the West hand is faced as dummy:
(Please follow the “West” and “North” designations and not the “N” and “E” designations.)
What is your defensive plan?
Well, if you win your two club winners (everyone follows suit, partner playing the ♣9) and then take stock, your opportunity to beat the contract might have passed. That is what happened at the table. You followed with a third club, queen, ruff, overruff. The winning play is to direct partner toward your being able to ruff a diamond ruff by making an alarm clock play – win the ♣A and then the ♣K, playing your clubs out of order to alert your partner to do something special. At Trick 3, you can lead to your partner’s (hoped-for) ♥A and, with partner’s hand being xx, Axxx, QTxxx, T9, he should have no trouble identifying the special play as giving you a diamond ruff for the setting trick. Oh, that would have been such a great set of plays! Well, opportunity missed – both to set the contract and to get your name in lights – as you record -420.
On Board 13, you face a tough partnership bidding problem, made tougher by your having few partnership agreements. Well, you did talk partner out of playing minorwood, to her chagrin.
With thirteen tricks on top, surely there must be a better sequence available, even for a partnership with vanilla 2/1 agreements. How should the hands be bid? -1390 seems a disappointing score.
Board 14 seems to be another routine major suit game, the third one in the set. However, no doubt exhibiting, on the last board of a long tournament, the mind-sapping product of too much bridge, your LHO suffers a major accident. In third seat following passes by your RHO and you, she places the Pass card on the table, and a second or two later, says, “oh, I meant to open (Precision) 1♣”. Your partner shrugs her shoulders and passes out the hand. As much as you hate to win 10 IMPs this way, you realize that partner is right to accept the call actually made. After all, you recall, how many times have you failed to cash the setting trick in a team match, or made some other silly error that you quickly recognized, without either asking for or expecting to be granted a re-do? Isn’t a I-didn’t-mean-to-do-that call (not corrected in the same breath, if that is important) similar?
When your teammates finish and you compare scores, you learn that you lost a total of two IMPs on the two routine major suit games bid at each table (Boards 8 and 10), gained two IMPs on the seems-dangerous-to-you 2♠ balance (Board 11), and won the gifted 10 IMPs on the accidental Pass on Board 14. As they have done all day, your teammates bring back a card that pushes soft results at your table: here, on Board 12 (where neither pair found the defensive diamond ruff to beat 4♠) and Board 13 (where the opponents at the other table also rested in 6♦, cold for a grand).
On Board 9, your teammates conducted a slower auction than your table opponents, with East managing to mention both of her pointed suits before the opponents won the contract in 5♣ (doubled). Sadly, your teammate led a diamond and not a spade. The declarer at the other table also played along elimination lines, but with much more confidence than did you. Declarer covered the ♦J with the ♦Q to avoid a spade play through the AQ. A second high diamond was ruffed. Declarer drew trumps, ruffed dummy’s last diamond and played two rounds of hearts in hand. ♠A, then ♠Q endplayed East and declarer scored +550. 12 IMPs to the opponents.
You lose the match by 2 IMPs. You still win Flight X and finish fifth overall in Flight A. Sadly, however, the opponents finish just two VPs out of first place. Had the bidding accident not occurred on the last board of the tournament, your opponents – whose auction and teamwork defense to Board 9 led to your going down one trick in a contract you could have made – would have been deserving winners of the event.
See article in BridgeWinners website at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/concluding-ax-swiss-in-providence/
November 6th, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
On Board 3 of this morning’s club game, partner and I conduct a normal-sounding auction to 3NT.
The ♣Q is led and ducked to my king. I play a diamond to the king, winning, and the ♦9 losing to South’s ace, with North having followed suit to both rounds. South leads back the ♣8 and North wins the ace and continues a third round of clubs, my winning the ♣J as South chooses to pitch the last defensive diamond.
With two clubs, four diamonds, and three top tricks in the majors, I have 3NT in the bag. But, with South known to have eight major suit cards and North known to have four major suit cards, should I settle for nine?
At matchpoints, I think not. And, so long as I am going with the apparent 2:1 odds that a finesse of the ♠J will win a tenth trick, why not play for an eleventh, available if South holds not only the ♠Q, but also at least four spades and the ♥K?
I play for the Vienna Coup, by playing a heart to the ace, followed by a diamond back to my hand. South is discarding quite slowly, and so I am hopeful that I might make all the rest of the tricks, eleven in all. On the last three diamonds, South finally discards three hearts (while North discards three clubs). Alas, none of those hearts is the king, and so there will not be eleven tricks in this hand; that is, the Vienna Coup has not operated and Austria must await for a later visit. Yet, the spade finesse still looks to me like a 2:1 favorite for my tenth trick. I take the spade finesse.
Down one, the whole hand being:
I wonder if, against non-exceptional competition, I should have been more suspicious of the failure of North to have thrown a spade on the run of the diamonds.
October 25th, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
Recently, I engaged in a post mortem with partner about the meaning of various available calls to overcaller in the following auction (both sides vulnerable if you believe that makes a difference):
My suggestion is that overcaller’s choices are based upon his answers to two questions: (1) does overcaller’s side have game potential?; and (2) what is the offense-to-defense orientation of overcaller’s hand, given the original overcall of 1♠?
If there is a potential for game, overcaller can choose to bid game or to bid a non-spade suit to draw partner into the decision. A bid of 3♦ would show a second suit (two-suiter) and a bid of 3♣ or 3♥ would likely show a stopper in the bid suit and ask partner to consider 3NT or otherwise best describe his hand. On some hands, overcaller might choose to bid a second suit even if later planning on bidding game, just in case partner needs to make a decision at the five level.
If there is not potential for game, overcaller can, within the context of a hand that had overcalled 1♠, double with a hand with a low offense-to-defense orientation, bid 3♠ with a hand with high offense-to-defense orientation, and Pass with a hand with a non-extraordinary offense-to-defense orientation.
FWIW, my hand was KQ9765, 3, Q987, 73, and I overcalled 1♠ and then bid 3♠ over the 2♠ cue bid. (Our being vulnerable and the opponents not having a fit induced me to fail to jump to 2♠.) Our side can make eight tricks at spades; the opponents can make eleven tricks at hearts. That happens to be one or more fewer than Law of Total Tricks might suggest, because each side had a ten card fit in one major and an eight card fit in one minor. (In a spade contract there was an easy-to-find ruff available to the defense in the minor suit of overcaller’s eight card minor suit secondary fit.)
October 22nd, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
Board 18 from Monday’s club duplicate:
Showing the foresight to prevent a club ruff for declarer’s tenth trick, West led the ♠T.
Declarer won in dummy and called for a club. West won, perforce, and continued with the ♠A and a third spade, won in dummy. Declarer called for ♥A, then ♥K (carefully pitching a club), and ruffed a third heart, noting the 5-2 split.
Projecting the actual layout of the club suit, declarer led a second club, won perforce by West. West played a diamond. Declarer called for the ♦Q from dummy, winning the trick. A fourth round of hearts was ruffed, reaching this three card end position:
The ♠Q executed a double squeeze. West had to keep the ♥J and so discarded a diamond. Declarer discarded the threat heart from dummy. East had to keep the ♣Q and so discarded a diamond. The ♦A and ♦8 won the last two tricks for +620.
Well done!
… Except that it did not happen that way. Oh, this was the actual layout and the first five calls were as shown. But South chose to pass 1NT and instead of +620, NS scored -90. What a missed opportunity for South! (Although, had South balanced, perhaps North might have contented himself with a game try rather than a game bid, and surely South would not accept.)
October 5th, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
After some questionable bidding decisions by me and possibly by partner (what do you think?) we end in 5♠X on these cards and auction, at a club Swiss:
North is a pro with 13000 mps (yes, this is the same round as my previous blog) and South is a client, who is a very reasonable player. North begins with the ♦A (from AK per their convention card) and South plays the ♦3 (right side up). North continues with ♥A and, this time, South plays the ♥9. A second heart is continued, ruffed small in dummy as South plays the ♥4.
♣A and a club ruff follow. Then the ♦Q covered by the king and ruffed in dummy. On a third round of clubs from dummy, RHO discards ♦6 and I ruff in hand. I cash the ♦J, North playing the ♦4 and South following suit with ♦9. (The unseen diamonds are the 87.)
The five-card end position now, with the lead in West, is:
I ruffed a heart, both opponents following, and played a fourth round of clubs from dummy, RHO discarding a heart.
I know that clubs are 4-2 and can infer from the auction that hearts are 3-5. The ♠A now will land the contract if either opponent was dealt the stiff ♠K. (K/xx, Axx, AKxxx/AKxx, KQxx and xx/K, KQxxx, xxxx/xxxxx, xx). OTOH, a heart ruff and the ♠Q will land the contract if North was dealt the stiff ♠T (T, Axx, AKxxx, KQxx and K7, KQxxx, xxxx). (In the latter case, the ♠Q will fell the ♠T and a finesse position of A8 over K7 cannot be overcome for the defense.)
I went wrong, playing the ♠A in the shown position, when spades were T with North and K7 with South. 5♥ will go down two tricks: two black aces and a either a club ruff or a natural trump trick, plus a slow diamond trick, if we do not collapse our combined three diamond honors.
Did I have any (overlooked) clues to have chosen more successfully?
October 3rd, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
Defending in a club Swiss this morning, against a declarer with over 13,000 mps, you encounter an uncommon agreement in the auction of the opponents:
Partner leads the ♣2, playing 3rd/low.
Do you like the lead? What is your defensive plan?
…
…
…
I won the ♣A, felling declarer’s ♣K. I liked partner’s lead; what I did not like is knowing that trumps are 3-3. Otherwise, a club continuation would shorten declarer to a length less than one of the defenders. However, there surely were no side suit winners, and so continuing clubs might have some merit. I noticed that declarer’s transportation was messy: he has no cards remaining in dummy’s best suit and dummy was dealt no cards in declarer’s best suit. Maybe, especially if the ♠K were not an entry to dummy, we could develop an extra trump trick via a force anyway?
I continued a small club and declarer ruffed and then advanced a trump to dummy’s ♥9. I won the ♥K and played a third round of clubs, declarer ruffing again. The rounded suit volley continued when declarer led the ♥Q, which I won with my other heart top for our third trick. I continued the attack on declarer’s entries by playing a spade back. Declarer won the ♠A (that’s good news, because winning the spade in dummy would allow declarer to draw trumps with the ♥J and then get to his hand with the ♠A and claim with good diamonds.) Declarer next played three rounds of high diamonds, both partner and I following all three rounds. When declarer played a fourth good diamond, partner ruffed with the ♥T and declarer overruffed with the ♥J in dummy.
Now declarer conceded down one by saying “giving up a trick to your ace”. He knew we held the thirteener trump and he held all the tops in the other suits. But winning a trick with my ♥2 having been favored by being denominated an ace was pretty cool.
The whole hand:
FWIW, I am not a fan of their auction choices. I prefer opening 1♦, and I prefer a 3NT second round bid by responder.
But then there would be no story.
September 23rd, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
When you can’t do it yourself, engage someone else to do it for you.
That advice applied to Board 1 at Monday’s club duplicate.
I won East’s opening lead of the ♥Q with the ♥K and played the ♦A, both opponents following small. On a small diamond from North at Trick 3, East discarded ♠3. Winning the ♦Q in dummy, I reassessed by trick status. For winners, I have one heart and only three diamond tricks, plus three clubs and the ♠A, only eight in total. Should I attack spades and find the ♠K favorably placed, I will lose one spade and some number of hearts. If hearts are 4-4, I can take the spade finesse later. More likely, the ♥Q lead is from QJx or AQJxx, in which case I have four heart losers and cannot afford to try the spade finesse.
Backing my judgment about the lie of the heart suit, I opted to go for a squeeze play, but needed the opponents to cooperate in rectifying the count. At Trick 4, I played the ♥T from dummy. East won the trick and proceeded to cash two more heart winners, the suit having split 5-3 and my discarding a diamond, leaving this position:
When East chose to play his last heart winner, the fourth winner of the opponents, I can discard small spades from each hand. East exited with a spade, my winning the ♠A (and executing a Vienna coup). I next cashed three clubs ending in South. On the third club, West had no good discard from ♦JT and the ♠K. Making contract.
The whole hand:
Had East exited with, say, a spade, upon winning the second round of hearts, my contract would be defeated. That’s why the title is fratricide squeeze, and not suicide squeeze.
July 30th, 2014 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
In the recent Spingold finals, each NS pair replicated this auction, vulnerable:
.
and each went down one trick, missing a great opportunity for a big pick-up.
I do not know about their methods, and so am assuming 2/1 where South’s 2♣ is natural and game forcing and 2♠ promises three trumps (although it delivered only two, albeit both honors and with a not very attractive alternative call of 3♦).
I find fault with the exclusion call. North had two suits with third round losers. How can exclusion have helped discover if those losers were covered?
I come to the issue with a prejudice. I rarely accede to playing exclusion. In my peer group of partners, I have found exclusion to be employed when there is no more than a parlay of a potential slam and a void suit. What is often missing in the judgment of the user is, ahem, what to do with a side suit third round loser. Personally, I would avoid exclusion as North unless I were dealt something like KQTxxx, KQJxx, AK, –, or, at outer edge, maybe the same hand with a small spade morphing into a small diamond (KQTxx, KQJxx, AKx, — ), but still hoping for more possibilities of outside cards that will make a grand such as AJx, Ax, ?xx, ?????, where the ♣A or ♦Q make grand cold and many other possibilities for a thirteenth trick might make grand “good enough”.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related