Battle of the mini-Titans

After the first session of the Club Championship Pairs, my partner, Mike Seaver and I were just leading the field from Ken and Penny Riley, recent recipient of the Dimmie Flemming Award. 

When the two pairs met during the second session, there was more than the usual friendly rivalry in the air.

On the first board, Ken picked up ♠AKJ9843 ♥AQ ♦5 ♣Q109 and heard Mike, his right hand opponent, open 1♠ in third seat at favourable vulnerability.

Ken checked his cards and felt unhappy. He glanced at Mike, who seemed unnaturally calm, and back at his cards, and felt even more unhappy. He then passed with the look of a man who had just been given some very unpleasant news at the hospital.

The clouds opened briefly when his left hand opponent responded 1NT and the bidding came back to Ken after two passes.

For what it is worth, I think that the "right" action to show this type of hand is now to double, which effectively shows a penalty double of 1♠. However Ken passed - which in a sense was exactly the right thing to do in that it was the last real chance for his side to score a plus score.

The spotlight now turned to Penny who had to lead from ♠2 ♥KJ1064 ♦762 ♣8742. Even without the mild smell of smouldering discontent which had contaminated the air, partner was marked with a fair number of points and Penny chose the ♥J, a reasonable selection - although, perhaps missing both the ♥9 and an outside entry, a low heart might have been advisable.

And so it proved, for the complete hand was:

It was now impossible for the defence to take more than six tricks and, in the event, one defensive trick slipped away when Ken won with the ♥A and returned the ♥Q, which Penny felt unable to afford to overtake for fear of establishing a trick for declarer's ♥87.

I spite of this, -120 proved to be a remarkably good pairs score. Many holding Ken's hand had been unable to contain themselves against the "obviously psychic" 1♠ opening, and, as a result, had ended up in 3♠ (or higher) going off, usually doubled!

Make them sweat!

When I started this blog, a friend wrote to me: "You need to include more of your disasters. It will make you appear more human". In truth, there never seems to be a shortage of disasters, but they are rarely particularly illuminating or instructive, and while they may elicit an sense of Schadenfreude in the reader, they are hardly great reading......but in the age of Fifty Shades of Grey, maybe that doesn't matter.

Without further ado, for your pleasure and enjoyment, here is an example from Tuesday's duplicate game, with my partner and I sitting E/W, and playing against Paul Barden and Jon Cooke :

North	East	South	West
	1NT (1)	Pass	2♥ (2)
Pass	2♠	Pass	Pass
Dbl (3)	Pass	2NT (4)	Dbl (5)
3♣	Dbl	3♦	Dbl
3♥	Pass	Pass	Dbl (6)
Pass	Pass	Pass

(1) 12-14 balanced. Not ideal, but opening and 

rebidding clubs is grotesque

(2) Transfer to spades

(3) Well judged reopening double. Allowing

opponents to play peacefully in 2S is losing tactics

(4) Two playable suits, partner

(5) We have the majority of points, partner.

You may wish to compete or double the opponents

(6) Not a good bid. At this vulnerability, double only makes sense if the opponents are likely to be going two off. West's clubs and spades do not look well placed, so maybe 2S is going off and any plus score will get a good result - a double risks turning a poor score into a zero

The denouement was brief and brutal. We cashed our four top tricks in the order: ♠A, ♦A, ♥A, ♦K and followed this with a third round of diamonds, ruffed by declarer, and establishing dummy's ♦10 in the process. Declarer barely had to breathe hard as he ruffed one spade high in hand on the way to claiming his contract via three trumps, two ruffs, two spades, one club and one diamond.

This supine defence was not impressive. Against semi-balanced part-score hands where your side is known to hold a majority of the points and five trumps, it is often critical to cut down the opponents' opportunity to cross-ruff, and therefore right to lead a trump from the outset.

So suppose we had led ace and a second heart against this contract. Declarer considers his prospects. West presumably holds five spades, three hearts, three diamonds and two clubs and also has two of the four remaining top cards ♠A, ♦AK, ♣K for his bidding. Declarer can see that a third round of trumps is coming when the opponents next gain the lead, so can count three trump tricks, one ruff, one club and one spade (maybe two, depending on the position of the ♠A). That adds up to two or three off - not an attractive prospect.

Although, on the probable distribution, the need to use two entries in hand to lead up to ♠KQ on table is a mirage, declarer wins the trump in hand and leads a spade to the ten and king, which holds. It now seems likely that the spade ace is onside and, if so, declarer could lead a small spade from table to draw the now blank ace.

Another possible place to look for extra tricks is the club suit. If West holds two out of ♣KJ10, admittedly rather against the odds with East known to hold five cards in the suit and West only two, there is a second trick in the suit, and there may be more. In any case, taking a losing club finesse would not cost a trick per se since there would remain an entry to hand to cash the ♣A.

Before committing himself, declarer may however choose to give up a tempo and let opponents reveal a bit more of their hand. The way to do this is to lead a diamond towards the queen. This will reveal the position of the top diamond honours before taking any final decision on the likely position of the ♠A or ♣K. The diamonds are sufficiently solid that declarer cannot be forced without establishing a diamond trick and, if the opponents do that, they will lose the opportunity to draw a third round of trumps.

So, a diamond is led and the opponents cash ♦AK, West turning up with ♦A, who then gets off lead with a third round of trumps which declarer wins in dummy, East discarding a small club.

It is apparent at this stage (if it was not already) that if West holds ♠A and East ♣K, this contract is going at least two off and a score of no matchpoints to N/S will result (of course the calculation is different if West had not doubled - now -100 for two off undoubled might not be so bad against 2♠ making).  Note that there is no sure play for one off, else declarer might take it!

Declarer can't afford at this stage to trump a diamond back to hand: East might have started with Jxxx and upon winning the ♠A would then be able to cash a winning diamond.

So, with some trepidation, it is now time to take the club finesse. Declarer leads a club from dummy and is delighted to see West rise with the king (in case North has a holding such as ♣AJ87(x) and is intending to finesse. Under those circumstances only the playing of the ♣K gives declarer a guess on the second round of the suit). He gratefully snaps up the trick and cashes the ♣Q, discarding a spade from dummy, and receives a second favourable surprise when the ♣10 appears from the West hand.

Suddenly there is light at the end of the tunnel, and declarer leads ♣8, intending to run it if East plays low. In fact East covers with ♣J and declarer ruffs in dummy. All that remains to be done is to ruff a diamond back to hand and cash the two remaining clubs. East wins the last trick with the ♠A. Nine tricks via four clubs, three hearts, a club ruff and a spade - very neat.

What's worse, I'm sure that Paul would have played it just like that - but at least, he would have had to raise a sweat for his +530 !

Nightmare on Elm Street meets Dirty Harry

It was one of those evenings. On the first board we bid a small slam missing a side ace and five trumps including the king; the opponents did not cash their ace at trick one, and so, courtesy of a 3-3 break in another side suit, this contract rolled home. Then on the second board we pushed our opponents into a five diamond contract, doubled and redoubled to boot and then failed to find the killing opening lead  (king from king doubleton). Inexplicably declarer failed to take a finesse, and the contract went off. My heart was still pumping when this hand came up: 

Dealer:  North Vul : None
West	North	East	South
	Pass	Pass	2♣ (1)
Pass	2♦ (2)	Pass	3♣
Pass	3NT (3)	Pass	4♠
Pass	5♠	Pass	6♠ (4)
Pass	Pass	Pass

 

1. Forcing to game
2. Waiting
3. Natural, showing scattered values
4. South’s final bid was conservative. Envisaging four spades to the ace in partner’s hand, he could almost count 13 tricks on a 3-2 trump split.

West led the heart knave, covered by the queen, East’s king and won by declarer’s ace. 

Two possible lines of play suggest themselves:

1.    Cash the ♠K and ♦A, then follow with ♠Q, overtaken by dummy’s ace and take a diamond ruff with ♠J. Play your remaining small spade to dummy’s 109, drawing any outstanding trumps in opponents’ hands. Finally, play clubs from top. If clubs break 3-2, you will make thirteen tricks. If clubs do not break, you will lose the fourth round of clubs with no way back to your hand. Opponents will cash their remaining diamonds and heart. Result: contract either makes with an overtrick or two off.

2.    Cash ♠K and ♠Q, follow with ♣AK. If clubs and spades are 3-2, simply draw the last trump and cash winners, ruffing a heart in dummy at the end for your thirteenth trick. If clubs are 3-2 but spades are 4-1, you no longer have the entries to do the dummy reversal.  You can draw the opposing trumps ending in hand and you give up a heart at the end. If clubs break 4-1 but the hand with the singleton club is out of trumps, you can ruff a club and play dummy’s other top spade. Then come back to hand with ♦A to draw the remaining trump with ♠J (if necessary) and again you play your remaining winners, conceding a heart at the end. Result: contract either makes with an over trick, makes exactly or goes one off.

That’s a lot of options and you also need to consider your possible matchpoint score relative to those pairs in 6NT and the few in 7♠. They will be making exactly if clubs are 3-2 (barring 5-0 spade breaks) and going off (maybe three off in 6NT) otherwise.

	Method 1	Method 2
Clubs 3-2 & Spades 3-2	Beat 6NT	Beat 6NT
Clubs 3-2 & Spades 4-1	Beat Method 2, 6NT	-
Clubs 4-1 & Spades 3-2	Beat 7S, 6NT	Beat Method 1, 6NT, 7S

So in summary, Method 1 gains over Method 2 in all the 3-2 club breaks when spades break 4-1, (68% of 28%) but loses in all the 4-1 club breaks (28%). That said, half the time the spades are 4-1, you might want to discount the possibility that clubs are 4-1 as well, since this would give one player eleven red cards – probably more than enough to have stirred some opposition activity during the auction.

Put it the other way around, Method 2 gains in all the 4-1 club breaks - but if you follow this line, you will be beaten by Method 1 (as well as 6NT and 7♠) in 28% of the 3-2 club breaks. In the other 68% of the 3-2 breaks, both methods score the same 13 tricks and beat 6NT but not 7♠.

In pure technical terms, there may be a slight bias in favour of one method over the other. There is however one final factor – what does it do for partnership confidence if you go down in 6♠ when it was makeable, and have to explain to partner that you were chasing an overtrick? You feed your negative score into the Bridgepad only to find that the overtrick was unnecessary to beat those pairs who were in 4♠ or 6♣!

Maybe for all this analysis, the answer is that if you need a lift to your score, you should adopt Method 1. If you need to avoid bad scores, you should play Method 2. Or as Harry Callaghan almost said:  Before you play a card, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do you?