January 21st, 2013 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 3 Comments 
Just a little outside …
Do you remember that line from the movie Major League? Bob Uecker played a broadcaster who was calling a pitch that was about 30 feet outside. Just a little, uh, understated was the call.
Well, that movie line has nothing on my defense on this hand. My defense was, shall we say, just a little underwhelming.
I held ♠T, ♥976, ♦KJT, ♣AQJ652 and heard partner open the bidding with 1♦. RHO, at unfavorable vulnerability, overcalled 1NT. I doubled, and that might have been the only call made at the table that was reasonable. Everyone passed and it is my hand on lead.
I chose the ♣A, which is our agreed power lead against notrump, meaning that partner unblocks an honor if he has one, and shows count if he doesn’t. Dummy showed up, remarkably, with 4=6=0=3 distribution and 2 HCP, in the form of the major suit jacks. Partner played the four and declarer the 9. I continued the ♣Q and partner played the three and declarer won the king. Declarer played the ♥A , dummy and I followed suit and partner paused. Yep declarer had one of the two death heart holdings AKQx; even AKQ tight would not be a problem, only AKQx or AKx would allow him to run six heart tricks.
Here’s the whole hand:
We scored up -380, when no less than +1700 was available to us, had I just led partner’s suit! I underdefended five tricks at Trick 1, and then another two tricks at Trick 2. I think – and certainly hope – that is a personal record.
Interestingly, look at the parlay of auction choices that had to occur in order to allow my defense to take place. Partner opened 1♦ on a hand that many would choose 1♠. Declarer overcalled 1NT without a diamond stopper. And, most extremely, advancer passed 1NTX with an undisclosed six card major! I guess the opponents have seen me defend before. Then partner passed with an undisclosed five card major.
Just to add fuel to the fire, not only did my partner have to suffer through my seven trick misdefense this hand, but he also suffered through North having spilled partner’s cup of soup. And then, when the hand was over, and I departed to avoid giggling, partner was left to argue with the opponents over whether they had taken eight or nine tricks!
Yep, just a little outside …
December 18th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
The Lady has Company? Who is the Lady? Why, the Queen of Spades, that’s who.
Yesterday’s club game found that the Lady and Company were just enough to scuttle two apparently well-reached spade slams. Since one was for us and one was against us, I guess I should not complain.
On Board 8, I chose to open 1♠ on this primo 21 count, in second chair, all white: ♠AKJ85, ♥AJ743, ♦–, ♣AKJ. LHO passed and partner raised to 2♠. Now RHO, a passed hand, chose to overcall 3♦ . (As an aside, I am not a fan of West having passed as dealer; I always wonder if players who find lots of reasons not to preempt — here, the void and the four card heart suit — ever measure as a cost of such inaction the easier bidding paths they give the opponents.) I made an aggressive jump to 6♠.
When partner laid down the dummy, I was hopeful …
… but when the Lady was offside and well-accompanied, I conceded down one, sharing a bottom with the 4 of the other 16 pairs who bid 6♠. 2 mps out of 15.
Retribution of sorts was gained several rounds later when the opponents bid nicely to 6♠ on Board 18. (1♠-2♦ gf, 2♠-3♣, 3♠-6♠; my favored agreements would include a second round rebid of 4♠ by East, showing a suit that can play for at least six winners and no more than one loser opposite a small singleton, and a hand that contains less than one ace or two kings outside the good suit.) Partner led a heart and declarer took a good line. ♥A, ♠AK getting the news about the Lady being joined by an Entourage of three small, ♦KAQ pitching the ♥Q but getting ruffed in, with the ♠Q still to be lost. This result was 13 mps out of 15, sharing a top with 3 others who defended 6♠, plus one pair that managed to defeat 5♦.
December 18th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 6 Comments
I have been getting some bad bridge scores on hands with Unauthorized Information (UI) from Breaks in Tempo (BIT).
When my partner breaks tempo, I consider all the Logical Alternative (LA) calls I can make and then select the one that I have assessed is the one that is most contra-indicated by the UI from partner’s BIT. My assessments have been pretty good, which means my scores on the subject boards have been pretty bad.
When one of my opponents breaks tempo, typically their partner assesses correctly the UI from the BIT and makes very good decisions as to whether to bid on or not. Again, my scores on the subject boards have been pretty bad.
But last week, I observed a rare reversal of these experiences.
Was it because I saw fewer BITs? No, not a chance.
Was it because I shelved my policy to be an ethical player by choosing an unattractive LA when my partner was passing along UI? No, I hope not.
Was it because my opponents decided to no longer take advantage of the UI created by their partner’s BIT? No, laughingly.
So, why was it?
Well, here is an example from last Friday’s unitwide game. My RHO opened 1♠ in second chair. At fav vul, I decided to overcall 4♥ on ♠7, ♥AKT9764, ♦A2, ♣QT4. My LHO, who is a regular bridge partner and more of my RHO, broke tempo before passing. My partner passed and my RHO was in passout seat with ♠AQJ62, ♥832, ♦5, ♣AK92, a 14 count with no shortness in the suit of my overcall. So, did my RHO do the normal thing of passing? No, my RHO decided that this was a good hand to reopen with a double, nicely fielding his partner’s slow pass on ♠KT93, ♥J5, ♦QT987, ♣86. Really, how else can LHO show her partner a hand with spade support but marginal values for a 4♠ bid over 4♥, other than to commit a BIT and then pass 4♥? But – here was my change in luck – LHO failed to bid 4♠ over her partner’s reopening double, but decided to pass instead. And, even better, the defense neglected to find its club ruff and I emerged with +590.
Yep, I think my luck is changing!
December 10th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 11 Comments
Our local bridge club is probably not distinctive in that members frequently break tempo. I submitted an article to a Bridge Winners website thread, basically complaining about a ruling my partner and I received after I had called the director over a tempo break by the opponents.
In this thread, my intent is not to re-submit the particulars of the ruling, but rather to evangelize about how I would like to see directors generally deal with Breaks in Tempo. What follows is an excerpt from one of my comments in the Bridge Winners thread:
“If the director knows how to word a ruling – that is, the director not only makes the ruling but cautiously explains the ethical rationale for the ruling, and the players who call the director are non-accusatory in what they say to the director, I think the director call lends itself to teaching. …
In my Version of the World as it Should Be, the director is called and says something like this. ‘Bridge is a thinking game. Sometimes it takes a while to think through all of the possibilities and that is not a violation. However, when your partner breaks normal bidding tempo in spending time to think, you are not allowed to to choose from among the bids you were considering – we call these bids Logical Alternatives – a bid that is suggested by your partner’s break in tempo.’ That way, everyone learns, future violations are limited and no one should feel as though they were just incarcerated. After that has happened, if I am the opponent of the BIT pair, and I sense any concern from them, I can, and in fact many times have, helped them understand why the director has made the ruling he did.
I do strongly believe that understanding ethical obligations is an important part of the education of even newcomers … [this was in response to another commenter talking about cutting some slack to inexperienced players, especially at a club game] … In fact, I would go so far as to say that a primary reason club games produce so many ethical violations, is because directors are way too inactive to educate the offenders (which, see above, can easily be done constructively). Unfortunately, by my observation, the typical director response is a short ‘OK, call me back at the end of the hand if you think there has been damage’. Even using the word ‘damage’ adds angst to a situation that could be, and I think should be, instructional.”
December 8th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ No Comments
Board 15 of Monday morning’s club game presented some early symmetry followed by a fun end position.
After 1♣-1♠, 2♣, I closed the auction with a jump to 3NT. The ♥4 was led.
I tried the nine from dummy and was happy that it held the trick, retaining two as yet unattacked side entries to dummy’s nice club suit.
Next, I symmetrically unblocked singleton black aces, first in clubs and then in spades. I ran clubs, finding that the suit split 3-3. I had seen a couple of noninformative diamond discards including one by LHO, by the time I had reached this five-card end position.
I tried a diamond to the king. The finesse lost, but since this was the full hand …
… LHO’s one diamond discard had brought her down to AQ tight of diamonds and three major suit cards. She could cash a second diamond but was then forced to allow me to take a second heart finesse. Three hearts, two spades, and six clubs for +460 was a factored tie for top board (9.86 out of 11).
December 4th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 7 Comments
Has anyone noticed that “slam” spelled backward, with an added apostrophe, is “mal’s”. “Mal” is Spanish for bad. And that was an apt description of my side’s results when I played slams at Monday morning’s club game.
On Board 6, vul v not, I opened 1♣, LHO overcalled 1♥, and partner made a negative double. RHO decided to pass.
What is your call?
Envisaging something akin to Qxxx, xxxx, xxx, Kx, plus, I chose to leap to 6♠. Alas, partner had a queen special.
Down 2, -200, 3.5 mps out of 11. (3 NS pairs managed to make 420 in hearts and one pair went down one doubled in 4♠.) (I would say something about that cagey pass by North — wouldn’t 3♦ be appealing as a lead director? –, but I suspect the pass was just caused by having counted up to only four HCP.)
On Board 9, partner took an aggressive view of his balanced 15 count opposite a strong notrump, again vul v not, forcing to slam after learning that my hand had three card heart support. We ended in 6NT, receiving a diamond lead.
How do you play this hand?
My thinking was that if I have five heart tricks, then I can make a twelfth trick from either a club finesse or a fourth spade; and if I have only four heart tricks, then I need both a fourth spade trick and the club finesse. Spades is obviously a suit you can wait on in case you receive distributional clues suggesting you finesse against the ♠J. And so, after winning a diamond at Trick 1, I played a heart to the A (all followed, but not with the queen), and took a club finesse losing. A second diamond was returned. Upon winning that trick I took a losing heart finesse. Diamonds were cashed out and I scored up -400, sharing a bottom with another pair in 6NT for 0.5 mps.
November 30th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 4 Comments
I am betting I won’t receive any sympathy, but I am trolling nonetheless.
At a club IMPs pair at fav vul, I hear my partner open 1♠. I hold:
Shockingly, I hear my Flight C RHO overcall 2NT (unusual, for minor suits)… this, at vul v not. I double … and, even more shockingly, I hear three passes follow!
I lead a spade.
(Pay no attention to the “N” and “W”, the full names of “East” (dummy) and “North” (I) are correct.)
I see the king in dummy won by partner’s ♠A, and declarer pitches a club. Partner now plays the ♣Q! Wanting a diamond switch, I discouraged by playing my smallest club. Partner gets the picture and now continues with ♦A and ♦Q, the latter won by declarer!!
What is going on here? Declarer has no more high cards in her long suits than the ♦K and the ♣J. As declarer thinks and eventually plays a small heart, what are your thoughts?
…
Well, mine were that while no matter what declarer had, she made an insane bid, I am going to place her with something more than 5-5 distribution. The play to date is consistent with her holding –, Kx, KT862, Jxxxxx. So thinking, I rise with the ♥A to shut her from two good spades in dummy, and plan to cash two high clubs and then play a third club to lock declarer in her hand, where she can cash good rounded suit cards, but then must lead a diamond from T86 into my J97 as we take turns being endplayed and I rack up a neat +800.
Following plan, I rise with the ♥A and cash the ♣K, partner following. But when I play my ♣A, partner follows with the ♣J! What, declarer actually is 0=3=5=5? At this point, we have no tricks beyond my good ♦J. Discombobulated (no, I am not asking for sympathy for this play!), I neglect to cash the ♦J, and manage to arrange to hold ourselves to +200. Meanwhile, had I exited with a small club after winning the ♥A, we could have gotten +800 that way!
November 29th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 2 Comments
Luck in a bridge hand can swing wildly.
Witness this hand from the ACBL-wide charity game of Monday evening November 26.
All vul, as dealer I opened 12-14 1NT. My LHO overcalled 2♥, showing hearts and spades. My partner should employ lebensohl here (Rubensohl [transfer lebensohl] might be better, but we are not playing that) in order to sign off in 3♣. However, he chose to bid 3♣, which is forcing. RHO passed and I signed off in 3NT. Thanks to my being maximum, we have all of 21 HCP.
LHO, a Flight C player, leads the ♥K, and then switches to a spade, won in my hand. I lead a club toward dummy and LHO plays the ♣J. With the defense having arranged to leave me with a remaining stopper in each major, I duck this trick, leaving me with an assured five tricks in clubs. Unless LHO leads a diamond now, I am likely going to be able to develop a ninth trick in hearts. And so it comes to be, and I score up nine tricks, making my game contract.
To explore the first line of this post, about (at least apparent) luck in a bridge hand swinging wildly, allow me to show the entire hand.
(There will soon be an explanation of the change in dealer and vulnerability, from what I explained in the auction paragraph to what is shown above.)
1. Lucky in that South did not open a weak 2♦, thus not inducing against a notrump contract what appears to be the most favorable lead for the opponents. Or, even worse, possibly stealing the contract.
2. Lucky that partner overbid his hand, thus leading me to bid a game on very few HCP.
3. Lucky that opening leader did not lead fourth best, thus making me scramble for tricks with the heart suit ready to run, and transportation between the opponents’ hands easy.
4. Lucky that opening leader chose not to continue hearts but rather chose to switch to a suit that I had doubly stopped.
5. Unlucky in that to avoid risking my having only two club tricks, I played to assure my having five club tricks, only to later discover that I had six club tricks had I played more aggressively.
6. Unlucky in that I could have shut out the diamond suit had they attacked that suit.
7. Finally, unlucky that the board was fouled. It was supposed to be Board 19, but the cards were errantly placed in Board 20 (thus explaining why I was the dealer) and so some fouled board scoring was awarded giving us only 65% score on the board when bidding and making 3NT seems much better result than 65%.
November 27th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ No Comments
My learning style is such that I am aided by tips. Two of my favorite bridge tips apply to the hand below, taken from a club game of Monday morning, November 26.
Let’s say that as West you arrive at a contract of 3NT, with no opposing bidding. My favored auction would be a simple one: 1♦-1♥, 2♣-3NT, all pass.
In my club game, there are many very good players. However, your opponents on this board are a pair that usually finishes with a score around the 45% range. You should not count on them to play totally ridiculously, but, by the same token, they are unlikely, especially on defense, to take a view of a complex hand as a whole but rather to play a hand suit-by-suit following some general principles (second hand low, third hand high, etc.) that suffice for easy hands.
You receive a lead of the ♣4. You duck in dummy, South plays the six and you win with the ♣9. You believe that the lead is from AJ74.
One of my favorite tips came from a book by Danny Kleinman. As I recall the tip, Danny asked rhetorically “why do experts win more tricks at notrump than non-experts?” and answered by saying “because they attack the suits with the most trick potential and not just their longest or best suits”. My application of Danny’s tip is to calculate the increment between the developable tricks in a suit and the top tricks in a suit. All else being equal (yes, that is a big “if”, because a learned declarer will also be concerned with issues such as how many tricks can the defenders win, which defender is the danger hand, transportation, etc.), declarer should consider attacking the suit with the largest increment.
You know that hearts is the suit you least want to attack and you apply the increment calculation tip to the other three suits. In spades, you have no top tricks and can develop somewhere between two and three tricks, depending mostly upon the position of the ♠A and the split of the spade suit. Let’s say that spades is +2+. In diamonds, you have two top tricks, and can surely develop at least one more, given that you can force an entry to dummy with the ♣K. You might even emerge with five diamond tricks, if Qxx is in the slot. Let’s say that diamonds is +1+. In clubs, you have won Trick 1 and so the “top tricks” are one. If your read of the club suit is correct, you will be able to develop three more easily with a finesse against the ♣J. Let’s say that clubs are +3.
While you are strongly considering clubs as the suit to attack, you consider peripheral issues. You know that hearts is the suit the opponents should attack, but then you remember a second favorite tip. I can’t attribute this tip, probably because it is so universal. The tip is “consider the hand not only from the lens of what you can see, but also from the lens of what the opponents can see”. Stated more pithily, the opponents cannot see through the backs of the cards; what is important to them is the picture of the hand that is created for them. Why is this tip relevant? Because, while you can see that either opponent would be smart to attack hearts, that is not so clear to the opponents, especially to North. For all North knows, leading hearts might be the way for declarer to get a free finesse that he cannot otherwise take. And, you complete your thought, it is to North that you will be losing the ♣A.
Now fully satisfied that clubs are the suit to attack, you lead the ♣Q. Quite wrongly, but not surprisingly given your assessment of North’s bridge skills, North takes the ♣Q with the ♣A, probably figuring out that otherwise his ♣A will be capturing only a small card. South pitches a small heart. Of course, had North correctly held off on the second round of clubs, you could reassess because then a third round of clubs won by the ace and a red suit return would be distinctly unwelcomed.
Now North pauses to think. Yes, pausing is something he should have done before winning the ♣A. He is now likely thinking that leading hearts can be dangerous if declarer holds something like ♥AQ or ♥AKJ, that diamonds in dummy certainly look unattractive, and that there are no tricks to develop in clubs. Therefore, he leads a spade.
This is great news for you as declarer, because spades is the next suit you want to develop. Now you see the value of dummy’s ♠9. By playing that card now, you are in effect finessing against a possible ♠T of North. Indeed the ♠9 forces the ♠A of South and you now have three spade tricks coming.
Finally, someone attacks hearts. Upon winning the ♠A, South plays back the ♥K. You now have all the tricks but one, as you have lost two black aces, and you have coming four clubs, the top two diamonds, the ♥A, and three spades for ten tricks. So, it must be right to win the ♥A right now and play winners to see if someone is subjected to pressure.
You take the proven club finesse, run the club suit (you pitch two hearts, and South pitches one of each suit while North pitches a heart) and then spades, each opponent following to the second round. As you prepare to play the ♠K, pitching the ♦T from East, this is the position:
The opponents have some pressure to keep red suit protection (Qx of hearts and Qxx of diamonds). Most of the time, especially against not the best competition, you will be able to at least get a read on whether South is trying to keep Qxx of diamonds. Most Souths would evidence some angst at discarding down to ♦Q with shortness. Or in stiffing the ♥Q, with which they might be endplayed into leading a diamond into dummy’s tenace.
Spades split 3-3, with South, who had already pitched one spade, pitching a diamond. You note no particular angst from South (as well as no diamond discards from North). Backing your judgment, you finesse the ♦J. It wins and you take eleven tricks for 10 mps out of possible 11.
The defense was far from best, but you notice that the two tips helped you toward a near top board. You concluded that clubs was the best suit for you to attack and you realized that North would experience difficulty divining that a heart switch was the best suit for his side to attack.
November 17th, 2012 ~ Jeff Lehman ~ 10 Comments
Here’s an interesting hand for a pair that plays weak (12-14) notrumps.
All vul, you open 1♣ on a hand that strong notrumpers would open 1NT. LHO overcalls 1♦ and partner doubles, presumptively showing 6+ and at least four cards in each major. RHO passes. And you?
Well, playing weak notrumps, a 1m opening is one of three types of hands: long in the minor (either 6+ or, if 5 then with a side four card suit, often spades), 4-4-4-1, or strong and balanced. On the subject hand, you are strong and balanced but you also happen to have four card support for partner’s heart suit. What should mean your “raises” of the hearts shown by partner?
I think 3♥ and 4♥ should be equivalent to raises of a 1♥ response.
So, what should 1♥ and 2♥ mean? Remember you cannot have a balanced minimum with four hearts, because such a hand would have opened 1NT. Can 1♥ be a hand with only three card heart support (the same scheme used by some pairs for a 1♠ rebid by opener when a 1♥ overcall is met with a negative double by partner [promising exactly four spades], and any minimum hand of opener’s with four spades is to bid 2♠)? Might opener have three hearts in a hand of 5-4-3-1 distribution? If the four card suit were spades he would rebid in spades. But if the four card suit were in diamonds, a 1♥ call might be right, rather than risk defending 1♦X opposite possible diamond shortness of partner. Or, might opener have three hearts in a 15-17 notrump but a hand without a diamond stopper, maybe 3=3=3=4? That’s possible. So, it seems reasonable to me to play that 2♥ shows a hand with four card heart support but one that is too weak for a 3♥ raise, maybe a 5-4-2-2 minimum or a poorish strong notrump with four card heart support but deemed not quite strong enough for 3♥.
Not sure if 3♥ or 2♥ is a better choice with my hand, but I chose 2♥ at the table. Now my RHO bid 3♣, partner passed and LHO preferenced to 3♦. Having lots of defense for my prior choice of 2♥, I doubled. And 3♦X became the final contract.
Now, on to defense.
Partner led a 3rd/5th ♥6, dummy covered and I won the ace. To me, it looked as though declarer had at least five clubs for her 3♣ rebid and so, having trump control, I led back the ♣7 to plan for giving partner club ruffs. Declarer thought a while and then played the ♣J, losing to partner’s queen. Partner returned a spade, small, king, small. Expecting partner to ruff this club, I played a second club back. Surprise, as declarer won the ♣A and partner followed with the eight. So declarer, vulnerable, bid 3♣ on a four card suit; man, these club players will do anything not to defend! Declarer led a diamond from dummy and I flew with the ♦A to play a third club. Declarer inserted the nine and partner ruffed with the ♦6 (our fourth trick, one in each suit). Now partner cashed the ♥K and played back another spade which I won with the ♠A, our sixth trick. I led back a fourth round of clubs and partner ruffed with the ♦J. That’s down three, +800 for the good guys!
OK, declarer bid way too much. But the longer I play weak notrumps, the more I find interesting inferences available to each partner, from the failure to have opened 1NT. Much was written on this subject in a fascinating thread on Bridge Winners, responding to a long-ago monograph of Fred Gitelman.
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related