(This commentary relates to Board 16 played in a Gold Cup match on Wednesday November 16^th 2010)

‘Sophisticated’ conventions can aid bidding , but when opponents join in the bidding those sophisticated conventions can sometimes create extra difficulties.

West (my partner) opened with a ‘multi 2’ bid to describe either a weak two major-suit  hand , or a game forcing ‘Acol style’ 2 opening. North overcalled 3 , and as East I had no sensible bid so I passed. (If my partner had the strong hand he would obviously bid again). South decided to conceal his heart suit and bid 4NT (Roman Key Card Blackwood) and , on hearing the response of 5 meaning 0 or 3 key cards , he bid 6.

From my point of view I naturally assumed West’s opening bid was a weak 2 , and thus thought that he had the heart suit covered to some extent. Not wanting to give away a trick in spades or diamonds I led the 10. Within a few seconds of dummy appearing North claimed 13 tricks for 6+1 (5 clubs, 7 hearts and the A).

The conversation with my partner then went along the following lines.

My partner to me :-

 (i) “Pity you did not under-lead your A since I could then win with the K and can give you a heart ruff to defeat the contract”. (Not a lead I am ever likely to find!)

 (ii) “Actually 6 would be a good save”

 (iii) “In fact 6 , by West , would make on any lead except the A and a diamond ruff (a lead which the opponents are also very unlikely to find). A 14 HCP slam!

With each true statement my misery grew. We did not win the match.

John C Williams November 17^th 2010.

NB I suggest you do not reveal the EW cards until where indicated later in this piece.

(This commentary relates to Board 13 played at the Hertfordshire Swiss teams event on September 26^th 2010).

Occasionally a hand will live with you as a personal nightmare , this is one such. My partner South opened a Benjamin 2 and , although I had enough HCPs for a positive response , the bid should have an A and a K. I therefore decided to respond with a negative relay of 2. After partner bid 2 the opponents entered the fray.  I bid my clubs , the opponents kept bidding spades , my partner showed his diamonds , and after West bid 4 I decided to bid the slam in diamonds.

West led a spade not realising that his partner East was on lead (due to my earlier 2 bid). I accepted the tournament director’s option of forbidding a spade lead , and East led a low diamond taken with the A , with West discarding a spade exposing his void. I spent some time working out how to play the hand and since it seemed clear to me that I would need the club finesse , I took it straight away. The Q won the trick - so far so good. I now led the J and the 10 which both held. I could not afford to take the last diamond as hearts might not break 3-3 , therefore I crossed to the A , then led K followed by  a small heart , feeling pleased when West discarded on the third round enabling me to ruff safely. Then I had to get back to dummy , so I led the AC  , with the view of subsequently ruffing a third round of clubs in dummy. However East ruffed the  A with the Q (having originally held only a singleton ) and cashed a spade winner. If East had had one more club I could have made my contract by then leading a third club and ruffing or over-ruffing as necessary.

Why was it a nightmare? Well now reveal the E/W cards. What I had failed to notice was that West held J10 doubleton in hearts. So once I had cashed the A and K the suit was already established , and my 8 was now a winner!  My mood was not improved when it was further pointed out that East’s diamonds were Q542 and that earlier on , instead of taking two rounds of trumps I had taken only one , I could have left a finessing trump position as an entry to dummy.

The slam was not bid in the other room and 6-1 , instead of 6 making , cost us the match. A case of not watching all the cards. Mea culpa.

John C Williams September 27^th 2010

(This commentary relates to Board 22 played on June 1^st 2010).

Most Grand Slams are bid when one hand has a long suit and all the controls (aces) are held. Normally it is only worthwhile bidding it at pairs if the odds on it succeeding are well over 50% , say 75%. This is because if the odds are less than 75% then the whole field are unlikely to bid even a Small Slam , and therefore bidding the Grand is not necessary to achieve a good result.

The success of a Grand Slam normally depends on being able to run a long solid suit whilst , of course, holding all the controls. If both hands are balanced then one needs more HCPs , but how many? On the above hand E/W have a combined holding of 38 HCPs and 15 top tricks , which should certainly be enough. When East opens the bidding with a strong bid (2NT or 2C if playing Benjamin Acol) West could ask for aces and kings but might as well just bid the Grand Slam directly. The only discussion on the hand at our table was as to which of the N/S hands was the stronger as both held 1HCP. North won as their Jack was accompanied by two tens as opposed to South’s one ten!

Seven pairs bid 7NT and three pairs only 6NT.

John C Williams June 4^th 2010.

(This commentary relates to Board 14 played on April 20^th 2010.)

I like computer dealt hands for many reasons. These include :-

 (i) They are completely randomly shuffled and dealt, unlike hands dealt at the table which may be  imperfectly shuffled.

(ii) They offer the opportunity of having a print-out of all the hands played at a session such that one can study the hands later , learn from any mistakes , and so improve one’s bridge.

(iii) The print-out usually includes a computer analysis of how many tricks can be made by each side in all suit and no-trump contracts.

This later aspect should, however, be treated with some caution as the computer can “see” all the cards in each hand and whilst the number of tricks cited is accurate this is not necessarily achieved by the best percentage way to play the hand. This is known as double-dummy play and it is not always possible, at first glance, to see how to make the number of tricks cited.

For example on the above hand should the N/S partnership bid to 3NT the computer analysis indicates that 9 tricks can be made on any lead. It would appear at first sight that on a heart lead ducked all round and won by North with hisJ , only 8 tricks can be made (1 , 4 , 2 and a ) before East gains the lead and plays a second heart to West ‘s 4 tricks. However, look what happens if North simply plays a second heart at trick 2 allowing West to take his 4 heart tricks early. North discards2 from his hand and a diamond , with two small spades from South’s hand. Whatever West now plays, North takes his AK , A  and A  (key play) before crossing to Q  and then 9 . In the two card ending South is left with Q and 10 whilst North is left with A and 8. However, East has either discarded the K and kept two diamonds or kept theK andQ. Whichever it is, North plays appropriately from dummy to win the last two tricks. East has been squeezed, not by declarer, but by his partner West! 

Any other line of play by West in the heart suit only allows West to take 3 heart tricks and gives North the time to develop up to three tricks in spades for his contract.

John C Williams 21^st April 2010. 

(This commentary relates to Board 2 played on March 30^th 2010)

Sometimes (but usually only claimed in retrospect) it can be a good idea to double the opponents in game , in order to keep them from bidding a slam!

Nobody bid and made 6 with the above N/S cards , although twelve tricks are always available by ruffing two spades in dummy to establish the suit , drawing trumps , and simply conceding one club trick. 6 scores +1370. However three pairs , who may perhaps have been on their way to 6 , were doubled in 5 , made 12 tricks , but only scored + 950. The bidding shown above occurred at our table , and West’s jump game bid of 4 holding only a five card suit should have worked well. I think East should now sacrifice in 5 over 5 , and indeed 6 over 6 if the slam is bid. 6 is only three off against best defence - after a spade lead to the A, a high spade (indicating a diamond entry) is returned for a ruff and a second spade ruff is obtained after North under-leads his A to the K. Three off in 6 doubled is only +500 for N/S.

In addition to the three doubled game contracts , one N/S pair made + 620 (5+1), and one pair collected a penalty of +300. Meanwhile one E/W pair were allowed to make 11 tricks in 4 , and two E/W pairs collected penalties of +100 and +200.  

(This commentary relates to Board 15 played on October 6^th 2009)

It is always interesting to see the diverse contracts that can sometimes be reached on the same board.

With a slam available for N/S in either major suit , and a game available for E/W in either minor suit , this was always going to be an exciting and competitive hand. The bidding sequence suggested above uses the *‘Michaels’ convention to pinpoint a two-suited hand. A ‘Michaels’ bid is similar to the ‘Unusual 2NT’ overcall , which is normally used over a major suit opening bid to indicate both minors. A Michaels cue bid of the opener’s suit promises a two-suited 5-5 hand , thus the 2 overcall above indicates a holding of 5-5 or more in the majors , with 8-12 HCPs.  When East raises clubs to the 5 level South has a problem. If South does decide to bid a major then North , with his extra distribution, may well bid a slam. If South passes then North should bid 5 , and now South may well bid the slam. For pairs not using  Michaels bids the 2 bid by North is replaced by a double. East will still bid 5 , and perhaps the bidding should still proceed as indicated above, although South will now not appreciate the strong major distribution in the North hand.

Contracts reached (assuming spades , although hearts was the contract at some tables) were 6 dbl + 1 (1860), 5 dbl and redbl + 1 (1600), 5 dbl + 2 (1250), 5 dbl (850), five contracts of 4 + 2, one of 4 + 1, and one of 6-1. One E/W pair were allowed to play in 5 , making 11 tricks. Well , you have to get lucky sometimes!

* The Michaels Convention

In the late 1940s Alvin Roth developed the unusual 2NT overcall to indicate the two lowest ranking suits. Mike Michaels, an American player, recognised that a cue bid was also a somewhat redundant bid and suggested its use to indicate other two-suited hands. Thus over a minor opening  a cue bid indicates both majors , and over a major opening a cue bid indicates a major/minor two-suiter. The partner of the over-caller can then use 2NT to ask which minor suit the over-caller holds.

(NB  In theory 6 can be defeated via A and a spade ruff , but this defence is unlikely to be found.)

(This commentary relates to Board 4 played on May 26^th 2009.)

This was an intriguing hand where results ranged from NS game contracts making plus two to part scores being defeated.

After North has opened 1 East may pass and South then bids 2. North will reverse into 2and South will bid 4. East, very pleased he did not bid, will probably cash two club tricks and either continue with the J or switch to the Q. Playing a spade to the K North discovers the bad news and cannot avoid losing at least two trump tricks. However if he escapes a club lead he can ditch his two clubs on the hearts ,  ruff clubs in dummy, and finish with ten tricks.

If East does overcall 1 then the auction will take a different course - South bids 2 and probably ends up playing in 3NT. When West leads a club South , seeing dummy ,will be concerned. But then he realises that the suit is blocked as East switches to the Q taken by K. Despite this good news South appears to have only eight tricks. However , since East must have all the spades for his overcall , South should try to arrange an end-play against East by throwing him in when he only has spades to lead.  South plays the A discarding a heart ,followed by three rounds of hearts and, providing he is counting , will realise that East’s hand is an open book. He has shown up with five spades, only one diamond and only three clubs. He must therefore have the last heart and on playing the fourth heart East is end-played in spades having to concede the last four tricks.

Had East shown up with only two hearts, and therefore three diamonds, declarer must hope that East’s last diamond is the master and cross to the Q (overtaking East’s  10) and end-play East by throwing him in with a diamond. Should East show up with exactly three hearts and two diamonds declarer is doomed and settles for eight tricks. (If North ends up declaring 3NT then a spade lead from East gives NS an easy nine tricks).

Actual results :- One NS pair made 3NT+2 , one pair just made 3NT and one pair made the unlikely contract of 4 (presumably because the defence did not find their spade ruff). The contracts failing were 3NT-2 (twice) , 3NT-1 , 4 doubled -1 , 4-1 , 3-1 and 2-1. It all depended on whether East overcalled , and who became declarer.

John C Williams 28^th May 2009.

(This commentary relates to Board 9 played on April 21^st 2009.)

(This commentary relates to Board 12 played on April 7^th 2009)

(This commentary relates to Board 12 played on January 25^th 2009.)

There were two good grand slams on offer last week , one each way.

(This commentary relates to Board 16 played on January 25^th 2009. )

John C Williams January 30^th 2009

(This commentary relates to Board 7 played on October 28^th 2008)

I was sitting South and after the opening lead was made my partner jokingly explained that as my opening 2 was vulnerable he fully expected it to be a strong suit! He then tabled AKQ1095!

Be wary if contemplating doubling just because you hold the balance of HCPs (High Card Points) especially if the hands are distributional. I wish I had heeded this lesson!

At our table my partner, North, opened a slightly offbeat strong 1NT (15-17) and East overcalled 2S. I decided to use the relay conventional bid of 2NT to ask partner to bid 3C after which I would have bid an invitational 3H. Unfortunately West intervened with a bid of 3S and I had to decide what to do when the bidding came round to me. I should have passed but foolishly decided to double knowing we had 22-24 HCP . I then made a passive lead of the jack of diamonds. In short order declarer took his Ace diamonds (discarding the 10 clubs) , Ace of hearts, a heart ruff, Ace of clubs , a heart ruff, a diamond ruff , a last heart ruff with the queen spades. Whatever North does now , declarer makes eleven tricks for 3S plus two (doubled) ie a score of 1130. If I had bid again East said he would have bid 4S which , had I doubled and made the same lead , would have only cost us 990! 

I can of course hold declarer to nine tricks if I attack and lead my 10 spades as he will lose two spades and two hearts. Two pairs who doubled 4S did defeat the contract by one trick , but one pair let the contract through.

John C Williams October 2^nd 2008

(This commentary relates to Board 10 played on July 15^th 2008)

8  card suits are unusual , so the odds on one player being dealt two such hands in 24 boards, and both in spades ,  must be very high. But such was the fate / fortune of South last Tuesday night.

However luck tends to even out , and on the other 8 card suit the luck situation was reversed.

(This commentary relates to Board 16 played on July 15^th 2008) 
Most N/S pairs reached game in spades , possibly via the sequence shown, a contract which is only defeated due to the bad diamond break. (A club lead to the A, a diamond ruff , and then the KC and AH cashed for one off)  Indeed eight pairs failed to make their contract , and only one pair made 4S.  (Note that if EW compete to 5H on their combined 15HCP , NS must sacrifice in 5S , as 5H makes.)

Curiously one pair bid and made 6S, presumably on a spade lead. As this pair also made 6S+1 on the first hand for the second best score , they certainly were the main benificiaries of this surfeit of spades.

On some hands it is important to re-evaluate your hand in the light of the opponents' bids. North passes and East may well open 1S. Despite having only 14 HCP the South hand with its excellent spade stops and major interior sequences should bid 1NT (normally 15-16 HCP). Whether West passes or bids two spades , 3NT should now be reached and it is highly improbable that West will find the JD lead necessary to defeat this contract by one trick. In fact four pairs made ten tricks and one pair nine tricks.

However, dependant one one's style, East may well open 1D in which case South needs to be more cautious as the JD lead will now be found. A take-out double is a reasonable bid and North may end up playing in NTs or perhaps even clubs or hearts. On a small diamond lead from East the defence should come to five tricks in NTs and most club contracts will fail badly due to the unlucky trump break. In fact one pair went two off, and two pairs three off in contracts. Two E/W pairs were allowed to play in 2S (making).

John C Williams June 10th 2008