December 10th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 3 Comments 
In the first round of a three-way match in a bracketed KO at Phoenix NABCs, I was dealt this hand: ♠ J76xx, ♥ KT, ♦ –, ♣ AKQJxx.
Deciding to treat the spade suit as a four-bagger, I opened 1♣. LHO jumped to 3♦ and partner made a negative double. RHO advanced to 5♦. I bid 5♠, ending the bidding.
LHO led a diamond.
I bought a nice dummy:
I ruffed the diamond in hand. Not wanting to be shortened a second time in the long trump hand, I played two rounds of clubs, shedding dummy’s remaining diamond on the second round.
I led a spade toward dummy and LHO pitched a diamond. Dummy’s king was topped by RHO’s ace. For the next several tricks, RHO and I volleyed pointed suit leads: she returned a second diamond which I ruffed with dummy’s small spade; I returned the ♠T which she won with the queen; and she returned a third diamond which I ruffed with dummy’s last trump, the ♠8.
I led a heart to the king in my hand. Provided both opponents follow suit to a second heart, the trump coup was assured to work, the position being:
More hearts can be continued until RHO decides to ruff in. At that point, RHO’s last trump can be drawn and declarer can claim the remainder with good club(s).
Trump coups are not so uncommon. To execute a trump coup, experienced players will have learned the technique of shortening their trumps to a length equal to that of the opponent who is, or might be, long in trumps. But executing a trump coup after avoiding the shortening of declarer’s trumps (by voiding dummy of diamonds by pitching a diamond from dummy on the Trick 3 play of a second club) is a technique I had not before seen.
Why the title of this post? Did the trump coup lead my team to victory?
Hardly. Instead, executing the trump coup was akin to a baseball player hitting a grand slam home run in a game his team lost …
Not only was this board pushed (contract at the other table was 4♠, the play sequence is unknown to me), but I and my New England teammates of Vermonters Peter Tripp and Penny Lane and Rhode Islander Barton Buffington experienced the following:
- we lost each match of the three-way by 1 IMP, thus being eliminated from the event;
- the last board score compared was our side’s +130 in a club partial losing IMPs to our teammates’ -400 defending a notrump game. Knowing that spades were two small opposite two small, my partner and I asked our teammates, “was a spade not led?”. They answered a spade was led, and then informed us that the spade suit lie of their hands was AKQJ opposite Txxxx. After four spades were cashed, the opponents took the next nine tricks.
Bartender?
October 27th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
My two favorite declarations from the recent NAP district final.
On the first, I am not at all sure that I played this hand the best way, but it worked out nicely.
I opened 1NT on 53, AQ4, AJ, KJ9876. (Board 7, 2nd final.) Partner thought for a while and then raised to 3NT.
Opening lead was a spade, and I awaited dummy’s appearance to see if that suit was stopped.
No problem there …
… but I wish LHO had led a red card …
I guess partner was considering whether to bid puppet Stayman. I think he chose wisely to avoid Puppet and just bid 3NT, for two reasons: he has extra values and his side suit doubleton includes an honor.
If clubs split, I have 11 top tricks after losing to ♣A. That sounds like the recipe for a squeeze. But is that the best play, or something so mundane as a red suit finesse best? Or should I cash the ♦A early just in case I see the Q, and then take the heart finesse?
Well, first let’s knock out the ♣A and be sure the club suit is running. The ♣A appeared on the second round and that suit split. Back came another spade. I now have only one dummy entry remaining.
I finally decided not to just take the heart finesse. So, I cashed the last high spade and led a diamond to my ace to run the club suit. Turned out that RHO held both the ♥K and diamond length, and I scored up +490.
On the second, I failed to account for the possibility of an unexpected call by my LHO.
Vul v. not, I opened 1♠ on AQJ95, T, AJT84, Q4. (Board 16, 1st final.) LHO bid 2♠, hearts and a minor. Partner bid 3♥, showing a limit raise or better (possibly an aggressive choice, when 3♠ would be a constructive raise). RHO passed and I saw no reason to disclose my side suit and so just bid 4♠. Now, my LHO surprised me by bidding 5♥. Partner passed and I was ruing not having shown my side suit so that partner could judge whether we have a two-suited fit. Well, if partner had not doubled, how could I with a stiff heart? I competed to 5♠, ending the bidding.
LHO began with two rounds of high hearts, my ruffing the second.
Having been shortened once, I did not think I could withstand a 5-0 trump split. Still, LHO had to have extreme shape for this 5♥ call. Perhaps he was 2=6=0=5 or 1=6=1=5. I decided to play for the latter. ♠A (each following), then a diamond toward dummy as LHO followed with the 9 as I won the king. A diamond to my eight, winning as LHO pitched a club. ♠Q, ♠K, diamond to the ten, ♠J, ♦A and claim +650.
October 27th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
I admit to being unhappy about the results of two rulings received about Unauthorized Information. But I am more concerned about what (it appears to me) to be the failure of local directors to educate other players about their legal responsibilities under Law 16.
Law 16B says, in relevant parts:
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by … a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation …, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
(b.) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would have been given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
(I hope my citation is current; with my not being a director I am quoting from what I found on the internet.)
To my way of thinking, changing a table result under Law 16 requires the following parsing of questions, adopting commonly used bridge terms and some of my own language:
- Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)?
- Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor?
- Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose?
Affirmative answers to all three questions means, as I view matters, the table result should be amended to reflect the result that would have been produced by Receiver’s choosing a LA bid.
Let’s apply these questions to the two recent rulings.
Ruling 1 auction (club Swiss)
Displaying proper protocol, South explained before the opening lead that North had given an incorrect explanation and that their partnership agreement was that the double is Cappelletti, as described in the footnote above.
At the end of the hand, when declarer had shown up with AKxxx, Kxx, KQx, xx and scored +140 in a team match opposite a weak hand with four of each black suit, I asked declarer what would mean 2♣ advance, under their agreements, to Cappelletti double, I was informed “natural, clubs” (an odd agreement, but that is just an aside). I called the director, explained what had happened, and asked to be scored as if we were defending 2♣.
- Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)? Answer: yes, Receiver hearing that Conveyor thought the Cappelletti double was a DONT double is UI.
- Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor? Answer: yes, the UI that Conveyor thought her 2♣ advance was asking for Receiver’s longest suit could demonstrably suggest to Receiver to bid his longest suit.
- Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose? Answer: yes, Pass would be a LA because a 2♣ advance to a Cappelletti double, for this partnership, could be made on a hand such as x, xxx, xxx, QJ9xxx, where 2C could be the last making contract.
Not only was the table result allowed to stand, but at no time, to the best of my knowledge, did the director inform Receiver of his legal requirement to choose a LA to the bid demonstrably suggested by his receipt of UI from Conveyor. The term “Logical Alternative”, or an equivalent term in less legalese language, was never communicated from director to Receiver.
Ruling 2 auction (NS vul) (club matchpoints)
The existence of BIT, far beyond that expected following the skip bid, was agreed by all four players at the table.
The hands of NS:
(Yes, responder having passed 3♦ is pretty incredible!)
After the hand, the director was called and the auction communicated.
- Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)? Answer: yes, BIT is UI.
- Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor? Answer: yes, Receiver hearing a BIT from Conveyor, suggesting that Conveyor had values, could demonstrably suggest to Receiver to make the most flexible call of double to accommodate Conveyor’s values, whether such values are in diamonds (passing the double), hearts (raising hearts) or spades (bidding spades).
- Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose? Answer: yes, at unfavorable vulnerability with an eleven count, Pass would be LA. As far as the third bid made thereafter by Receiver, the raise of 3♠ to 4♠, well, surely Pass is a LA!
The director did score the board as if opener passed the 3♠ call (-170 to EW) but did not score the board as if 3♦ were passed out (+110 or +130 to EW). Once again, to the best of my knowledge, the director did not inform Receiver of his legal requirement to choose a LA to the bid demonstrably suggested by his receipt of UI from Conveyor. The term “Logical Alternative”, or an equivalent term in less legalese language, was never communicated from director to Receiver.
Yes, I know these two situations arose in a club game. And the elitists out there might be thinking about relaxing the rules when compared to the application to a tournament – yadda, yadda, yadda – but so far as I know the rules apply equally to all venues of bridge. I have no trouble with applying the rules differently based upon the experience of Receiver, but in these cases Receiver was quite experienced. IMHO, the directors missed the boat … not only by issuing “bad” rulings under Rule 16B, but, more importantly, by missing an opportunity to help educate players about their legal/ethical responsibilities when the players are in receipt of UI.
Is it any wonder that UI infractions are so frequent, when directors consistently miss opportunities to educate players about their obligations under Rule 16? Do you think the Receivers in the two auctions are now any less likely to violate Rule 16B in the future?
September 15th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 5 Comments
Two(!) dustups at the club marred an otherwise interesting session Friday morning.
Why? Because I am too much of a legalist? Because opponents don’t respect the rules of the game? Because directors fail to establish the right atmosphere? Because the game was on Friday the 13th? (Probably all of the above.)
Alas, you are getting the facts from only one person, but I will try to be as dispassionate and fair as I can.
Board 3 was the first dustup. Our opponents are a regular partnership, pretty successful in the club game and in tournaments, with a total of approximately 11,000 master points. (In other words, about 3-4 times the total of my partnership.) On Board 1, they miss a good slam, conducting an auction that never even sniffed at the possibility of a contract above 4♥. On the second board, partner and I conduct a nice auction to reach 4♥.
As South chooses to write down the final contract before, rather than after, her opening lead, I follow my usual practice of asking to look at RHO’s convention card to learn their lead and carding methods. The card is completed; in the section on leads against suits, nothing is highlighted differently from the pre-printed, meaning, as relevant here, that they lead K from AK and length.
South leads the ♦A, and then switches to the ♣2. I duck the club and win the club return, thankful to not have run into a ruff. After drawing trumps and playing all the winning clubs and my last trumps, I reach a two-card end position: with my last heart being played, I have my spade and the ♦Q. South must keep the protected ♠K and so discards the ♦K (so much for leading the K from AK and length). Making 5 on the showup squeeze. And, as is almost always the case, a showup squeeze is just a fancy way of getting the same number of tricks available by taking a simple finesse.
Here is Board 3.
Again South leads a minor suit ace. This time I choose to ask North about their leads from AK and length.
“Against notrump we lead A to ask for unblock or count and K to ask for attitude.”
“But what about against suits?”
“I don’t know.”
“You mean you don’t have any agreement in your partnership about what to lead from AK and length?”
“That’s what I said.”
(No doubt with my voice tone showing some exasperation and incredulity), I continue: “Last hand your partner led A from AK and length, but your convention card is marked K from AK and length: is your convention card incorrect and you lead randomly between the two cards?”
“I told you what our agreement is”.
“Director”, I call.
When the director arrives, North tries to take over the conversation. “I told him what was our agreement, and he keeps asking”. I tell the director that their convention card is marked K from AK and the previous hand they led A from AK and I am now being told that their leads from AK are random. I just want to get a straight answer, is what I am being told correct and they should change their convention card, or is the convention card correct and what I am being told is wrong? I just want to know what their methods are when I see conflicting information.
Just complete the hand, says the director, leaving the table and not suggesting any change be made to the convention card.
South fails to give her partner a club ruff, and when in later with the ♣K, leads back the ♥Q, so that I can’t misguess the heart position. +170.
North continues to harangue during the hand and afterwards about how I kept asking after she told me their agreements. But, of course, she undertakes no effort to change their convention card.
Board 20 is the second dustup. Here North is a Grand Life Master of known short fuse, and his partner a fine player, very taciturn. I hold ♠AQ953, ♥2, ♦QT76, ♣984. Partner opens 1♥. I respond 1♠ and partner splinters to 4♣. North doubles. I can see slam possibilities opposite a hand that might not even be strong enough to have forced to game, say ♠KJxx, ♥Axxxxx, ♦AK, ♣x. I don’t want to signoff in 4♠. With no control card, perhaps I should bid 5♠, but I decide to bid 4♦. Partner bids 4♥, and, having made one slam try, I now bid 4♠. Partner passes.
Personally, I think partner has overbid: raising to just 3♠ would be plenty, but, of course, we would end in the contract I am playing nonetheless.
A club is led to North’s ace and a spade is returned. I win the ♠Q in hand and lead a heart to the king and North’s ace. Another spade is continued. This one I win in dummy and play ♥Q, pitching a club, and a third round of hearts, ruffing in hand and getting the good news about the split. As I am checking the order of my play to ensure that I transport correctly to draw trumps, ruff a club and pitch three diamonds on the good hearts, North interjects “don’t you have the ♦K?”. I don’t answer. “Don’t you have the ♦K?” he repeats, even more loudly. Again I do not answer. “Why are we playing this hand?”, he insists even more loudly. I ruff a club small, play a high spade from dummy to draw the last trump and then claim, saying I am pitching three diamonds on the hearts and then playing the ♦A. +650.
Now North turns toward me and blurts “asshole!”. I call the director. Again my opponent begins to take over the conversation after I had called the director. “This guy is always out to bust my chops”, he says. (I have had run-ins with him before, as have about a zillion others.) “He psyched a diamond cue bid without a control”. (An aside: I may not be current on these matters, but I recall that reportable psyches are limited to one’s first bid; my 4♦ call, at worst, is the bidding equivalent of a falsecard.) “He called me an asshole”, I complain to the director. Exhibiting more skills at amending a comment than he did at conducting the defense, North says “I was referring to myself for not returning a diamond”. The director admonishes no one, but does decide to hover around the table for a while.
What are the causes of all this? Can’t we – even at a club game – and especially for experienced players, just play by the rules?
September 13th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 1 Comment
Yesterday’s club duplicate began with a cold 3NT contract. Alas, it was the opponents who were cold for 3NT, but it was our side who played that contract!
The opening paragraph makes a giveaway of the bidding question that follows, but … what would you call at unfavorable vulnerability with ♠J9763, ♥AK63, ♦K4, ♣Q3 when you hear an auction of 1♥ by LHO dealer, 3♣ WJO by partner, and break-in-tempo 3♥ by RHO?
Envisaging AK-seventh of clubs opposite, in second chair and vul against not, and a heart lead summing to nine tricks, I offered 3NT, ending the bidding. A heart was led.
Well, I do not blame partner for his bid, but he hardly had what I was expecting:
I topped RHO’s ♥Q and advanced the ♣Q. LHO won the ♣A – that is maybe one element of good fortune – and then returned a heart – that certainly is another. +600.
This was the whole hand.
The opponents are entitled to five diamonds, three spades, and the ♣A for nine tricks in a notrump contract… whether on offense or defense.
Now, that’s the way to begin a session!
August 30th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 6 Comments
Because I disagree with the views expressed by many in a thread on BridgeWinners website http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-do-we-promote-bridge-ethics-for-beginners-and-intermediate-players/?cj=68192#c68192 I am taking space in my own bridge blog to document the causes for my disagreement.
The thread asks the question “when should beginners and intermediates be taught about bridge ethics?”. The views expressed by several commentators, as paraphrased by me (and perhaps not wholly accurately paraphrased), with which I disagree are these:
- Bridge ethics is too complicated to be taught to beginners; they will learn ethical bridge behavior by emulating experienced players.
- Unethical behavior at the club level should be highly tolerated because imposing higher ethical standards at the clubs will drive away club players; worry about ethics only at tournaments.
My views are that bridge ethics should be taught early and often to all bridge players, even beginners; and the local club might be the best venue at which to begin to teach players about the importance of bridge ethics.
Teaching beginners ethics in lesson plans
As an author of the bridge lessons produced for benefit of teachers of youth bridge in schools supported by New England Youth Bridge, Inc., a charitable organization, I have introduced bridge ethics in the second lesson plan for children … that is the first lesson plan at which the students learn that bridge is a game of two partnerships rather than four individuals. Does the early introduction of bridge ethics involve the difficult concepts of Breaks in Tempo, Unauthorized Information, etc.? Of course not; the students don’t even begin to learn how to bid until around Lesson 19! All the second lesson tells the students is that communication with their partner through verbal comments made at the table, through voice inflection, and through gesture are illegal – only communication through the cards that are played is legal partnership communication; furthermore, that bridge, akin to many sports, is a game that depends upon fairness and a set of rules exists to define the ethics required to ensure fairness. By establishing the general importance of ethical standards early in the students’ bridge education, a foundation is laid for introducing to students more difficult issues of bridge ethics later on, as their games advance.
Teaching beginners ethics at the club
If players are driven away from the game by club owners/directors enforcing ethics at club games, I suspect that usually ensues only when club directors and opponents haven’t been properly educated about how to present ethical issues and/or rulings. Let’s assume that your RHO at a club game breaks tempo (usually, experience tells us, denoting some extra values) and then LHO makes a marginal bid of game, a game that turns out to be cold. What should happen at a club game? IMHO, you should call the director, politely, but timely (in fact, it might be best that you call before LHO has bid). Your call should reflect only a question for the director to decide, rather than a castigation or accusation of an opponent. More importantly, the director, when called to the table, should say more than the usual “call me back after the hand if there seems to be a problem”. Instead the director should seize the call as an opportunity for educating the offending pair. The director might tell the pair that because bridge is a thinking game, taking extra time to decide on a call is not unexpected or illegal. However, when making a call out of tempo might convey to partner something about a hand that would not be conveyed if the call were made in tempo, partner is not allowed to take advantage of the information conveyed by the break in tempo; that information is Unauthorized Information. In fact, to ensure that the result is a fair one to the other pair, partner is required to choose a reasonable call that is specifically NOT conveyed by the break in tempo. No blame, just education, and an overriding concern with maintaining fairness.
August 23rd, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
Partner Saul Agranoff of Newton, MA, playing North, made a careful defensive play in the end game of Board 3 at yesterday’s club duplicate.
West opened 2NT (20-21) in second chair. With NS silent, the opponents conducted a puppet Stayman auction of 3♣-3NT (no four or five card major).
Saul led the ♦Q and I played a UDCA ♦8 as declarer won with the ♦K. Declarer next played ♥A and a small heart, ducked by Saul and won with dummy’s queen. Playing reverse Smith, I played ♥8/♥4, discouraging to diamonds. Declarer played a club from dummy to his A and K, my following. Next came the ♦A and three more rounds of clubs. I pitched a diamond, ♠3, and then ♠5. Saul pitched ♠2, ♥T, and ♦T. In this four card end position — declarer having won five clubs, two diamonds, and two hearts –, declarer called for the ♥J and Saul won his king, as I followed suit:
What to play now by Saul?
Well, a check on the signaling by me (my low spade should promise the A [or K if Saul had not owned that card himself]) and a check on the HCP (declarer has already shown up with 18 HCP in aces and kings in the nonspade suits) suggests that I own the ♠A and thus we have the three remaining tricks in the form of two spades and the ♦J. What can go wrong?
Carefully, Saul considered what to play if the checks above were wrong: what if I had signaled with the ♠Q (instead of ♠A) and declarer’s last three cards were the tenth trick of ♠A (instead of ♠Q) and the ♦9x? In that case, cashing the ♦J and then playing a spade would present declarer with an eleventh trick in the form of the ♦9. Saul insured against that holding by leading a small spade without cashing the ♦J; that way, declarer could win his hypothetical ♠A and then Saul could claim the last two tricks with his ♠K and ♦J, holding declarer to ten tricks.
As it turns out, my hand did hold the ♠A as both my signaling and declarer’s opening bid were as expected. No reasonable defense would allow declarer to win more than the nine tricks he had already taken. But Saul’s careful defense was, nonetheless, noteworthy.
June 5th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 6 Comments
A regional expert had been quoted (if I am remembering correctly, which I might not be!) as castigating “picture bids” because they “never” occur.
Well, “never” might be an overbid. These were our hands from Board 10 from the May 31 club morning duplicate pairs:
With partner holding AK in spades, one of my uncontrolled suits, and holding a singleton in diamonds, the other of my uncontrolled suits, the hands are known to fit well. Knowing that my hand holds neither the ♦A nor ♦K suggests strongly to partner that wasted values in my minimum hand are not substantial. And knowing that my hand holds more than one spade suggests that the spade suit might produce six tricks. A keycard ask would immediately disclose that we hold all but the ♦A of the six key cards and a good slam can be reached on a combined total of only 26 HCP.
By contrast, a minimum responder hand with values in diamonds (say, xx, AJxx, KQ, QJxxx) opposite partner’s hand creates jeopardy should the slam search have advanced the bidding to the five level.
Adopting picture bids along with either serious 3NT or frivolous 3NT can help a partnership identify which minimums can produce slam and which minimums cannot.
May 20th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
I would submit that failings to timely finish a round of bridge can be categorized into two broad causes.
One cause – familiar to all – is slow play or bidding. Bridge is a thinking game. Sometimes the time spent thinking – even though such thinking time can be utilized by the other players to consider their future plays and bids – can be so extensive as to conflict with the reality that bridge is also a timed game. Many of us have sometimes unfairly sacrificed the required pace of play or bidding to the deliberation of the “best” play or bid.
The purpose of this article, however, is to highlight the second cause for failing to timely finish a round of bridge: creating “table dead time”, a cause less generally recognized but one that can significantly contribute to time problems. What I mean by an action that creates “table dead time” is an action taken by one player (or one pair) that forecloses all the other players (or other pair) at the table from simultaneously even thinking about future actions to progress the play or bidding.
Do you create table dead time? Assess your actions at the table against this series of questions.
- Do you spend time after the conclusion of one hand discussing the result of that hand … when you could, instead, be recording your result in your scoresheet, sorting your cards, and preparing for the auction of the next hand? Note that even if other players are ready to begin the auction, they must wait for you.
- Do you consider your rebids at the time of your rebid … when you could have considered the rebid at the time you opened the bidding? Let’s say you open 1♣ with Jx, Kxx, AJx, KJTxx. Your partner responds 1♥; the opponents are silent. I am not opining whether you should rebid 1NT, 2♣, or 2♥; what I am commenting is that you could have planned your rebid over the 1♥ response at the time you opened 1♣. Not only does a delay at your second turn cause table dead time; a delay (“break in tempo”) also can create Unauthorized Information to your partner. After all, if your ♦J morphed into the ♥J, surely you would raise to 2♥ without any break in tempo, right?
- Do you consider your next call in a competitive auction only when it is your turn … when you could have anticipated both the opponent’s bid and your next call? Let’s say you overcall RHO’s 1♥ opening bid with 1♠ on KQJxx, x, AJ9x, xxx. LHO raises opener to 2♥ and your partner advances to 2♠. While RHO is considering his second bid, are you thinking ahead about what call you will make over RHO’s most likely bids of 3♥ and 4♥?
- Do you consider what you will lead only after the auction is concluded … when you could have begun consideration when your opponent made a bid that suggests the final contract? Let’s say your RHO opens 1NT. With your side silent, the auction continues 2♣ Stayman by responder, 2♦ by opener. You can anticipate a final contract of 3NT and should already be thinking about what you plan to lead against that possible contract.
- In general, are you thinking about your next play only when it is your turn to play … when you could have been considering your play while other players are thinking about theirs? Let’s say that declarer is studying the dummy hand exposed to your right. While declarer’s study is ongoing, have you considered whether you are going to rise with your ace if declarer calls for the side suit singleton from dummy? Anticipating an opponent’s play is also a good way of hiding your holding from the opponent; after all, you were surely going to duck if you held the Q and not the ace and delaying before ducking is giving away the show (or, worse, coffeehousing).
- Do you record the contract (or perform any other administrative task) before making the opening lead or planning your line of play … when you could have been performing the task while dummy is being tabled?
- Are you in the lobby or at the food stand when the next round is scheduled to begin … when you could have delayed the trip until you can conclude before a round is begun?
- Are you causing director calls or creating other time-consuming delays by failing to promptly alert your partner’s calls, forgetting your agreements, misunderstanding who is on lead, having an incomplete or unavailable convention card, or asking questions about unalerted calls … when you could have been attentive to all of these matters?
Do you need to alter your actions at the table in order to diminish table dead time?
May 14th, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
Playing matchpoints at the local club the morning of May 13, your partner leads the ♠T against the opponents’ contract of 4♥, reached after an auction of 1NT (11-14)-4♦ (transfer) – 4♥.
What is your defensive plan, after you have won the spade opening lead?
With 25 HCP between the two shown hands, and 11-14 promised by declarer, you can place partner with 1-4 HCP. The lead marks declarer with the ♠J. Declarer’s opening bid looks pretty barren (but far from impossible) if he does not possess the ♦A, ♣A, and ♣K. Assuming declarer does own those cards, however, the location of the ♦Q and the ♦T remains uncertain. Let’s examine the possibilities:
- Declarer owns both the ♦Q and the ♦T. In this case, you need to cash the second spade; otherwise dummy’s remaining spade could be pitched on a surplus diamond winner. Just “could” and not “will”, because declarer might well choose to pitch a diamond on the established ♠J, and then cash the ♦A and take a ruffing finesse in diamonds in order to pitch the losing spade from dummy. In that case, you might merely swap a spade trick for a diamond trick. “Might” and not “will” because when the ♦Q is not covered, declarer might choose to ruff the ♦Q and, lo and behold, drop your doubleton ♦K, thus establishing the ♦T for a pitch of dummy’s second spade. Ah, bridge is a tough game, eh?
- Partner owns the ♦Q (with or without the ♦T). In this case, you need to switch to a diamond. If you instead continue a spade, the ♦J will be pitched on the established ♠J.
- Declarer owns the ♦Q and partner owns the ♦T. In this case, you might as well cash the second spade. Declarer has no surplus diamond winner to pitch the spade (if the ♦J is led from dummy, you cover with the king, declarer can win the first two diamonds, but partner’s ♦T can win the third round of diamonds); no pitch of a spade on a diamond is available.
Further complication #1. Diamonds is not the only suit that can produce an extra winner in declarer’s hand upon which he can pitch dummy’s second spade. Clubs also might produce an extra winner: imagine declarer with AKxx of clubs.
Further complication #2. You realize that at other tables the 4♥ contract will be played by your table’s dummy and not by your table’s declarer. In that case – at least as I like to play defensive signaling – partner’s discouraging signal on your spade lead should show the ♦Q (or ♦K, if you did not already hold that card), because diamonds is the “obvious shift suit”. You would be much better positioned to ascertain whether the defense can build a trick in diamonds if you had been on lead.
All in all, I judged it best to cash the second spade. But a diamond was the winning switch.
We received about an average board, when only two pairs out of 16 defeated 4♥ (hearts was declared by North at all tables other than mine).
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related