I would encourage anyone to contribute to these monthly articles. Hands should be submitted from any Porthcawl Club session. Take a look back at previous month's hands to see the type of article required. Don't worry about the 'journalise' - I'm quite happy to edit any submissions if you require. Please Email submissions to Tony Haworth or to Jan Richards
|
|
|
|
| Associated Articles |
In some of the 'Hands', there are links (shown in blue) to Articles for Training or General Information purposes. These are my own views and may not represent the majority view on the particular topic. I am also biased to 5-card major systems.
Since very few teams events are played in the club, unless otherwise stated, hands relate to club night pairs events.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| December (Thursday 15th.) - Board 22 |
Show Detail |
Freakish distribution hands don't normally lend themselves to good technical analysis, but this one is an exception. Firstly what should East open - 1♣ or 3♣. You could argue that 11 points is too strong for a pre-empt, but given the quality of the suit and the redundant 2 jack-points, and the vulnerability, I don't think it's unreasonable. South would then obviously pass (unless you're playing penalty doubles - some players do), West passes, but what does North bid. He has some thoughts on a slam, but 3♥ and 4♥ could be passed. 5♥ seems to fit the bill, asking partner nothing specific, but 'can you give any general assstance for a slam'. The good spade and diamond honours now allow South to bid 6♥ - (I don't see any way to bid the grand - not that you would want to be in it missing the ♥ K). East leads the ♣A and most North's will now make 13 tricks having finessed the heart. But what about West's defence. He can count 13 clubs between partner and dummy (partner is unlikely to open 3♣ vulnerable with only a 6-card suit), so rather than lazily just discard, why not ruff partner's winner with ♥K - he knows declarer is going to finesse it in any case. North will over-ruff, but East's ♥J is now promoted to a winner!
At one table, instead of bidding hearts over East's pre-empt, North, unsure how many hearts to bid, just doubled. This awful bid gave the top result, with South passing, leaving declarer 5 off for +1400 (a better score than the 980/1010 North/South slam).
AFH
|
|
|
|
| August (Thursday 18th.) - Board 9 |
Show Detail |
(This hand was actually from an August club-night)
The opening bid by North, is a Multi 2♣ which shows either a balanced 20-21, an eight playing-trick suit (standard Benji), or a weak two in diamonds. The bid is designed to make it more difficult for opponents, they don't know whether they are competing against a strong or a weak hand. East is in doubt as to which option it is, and correctly remains silent (he can always come into the auction later, when North has defined his hand, albeit at at level higher than he would want). South with a non-positive hand (requiring 14+ points), makes the 'negative' bid of 2♦. West doesn't really care whether North has a strong hand, and bids his 6-card suit. East bids game, and South, now knowing that North has a weak diamond hand, attempts a 5♦ sacrifice. West, not to be out-done bids 5♠ . North's opening bid has made it somewhat difficult for East/West to bid the spade slam - possibly just as well since the only pairs to make 12 tricks were gifted it by the defence. The slam can genuinely be made even against best defence, but I think its impossible to find the correct line at the table (it took ten minutes in the pub afterwards to see the winning line).
After a diamond lead from North, the only constructive thought from declarer (West), is that he needs to optimally develop the heart suit - a possible successful club finesse wouldn't give enough tricks. The winning line is to eliminate clubs and diamonds from both declarer's own hand and dummy, and then throw South in with ♥Qx for a ruff and discard. So win trick 1, cash ♣K, then ♣A, ruff a club, back to dummy with a trump, ruff a club, back to dummy with a trump, ruff a diamond, and then play a small heart towards the ♥K. If North rises with ♥A, it's easy for declarer to establish the hearts for three winners (this is essentially how some declarers made the contract). If North ducks, dummy plays ♥K and then exits with a small heart to South. South is now endplayed; he has to concede a ruff and discard for declarer's twelfth trick. It would obviously be of no benefit for North to overtake partner's queen, declarer now makes the necessary heart tricks. This hand features a dummy reversal to an extent rarely seen - four trumps used in the long trump hand for ruffing.
|
|
|
|
| August (Thursday 11th.) - Board 13 |
Show Detail |
Thanks to Peter Jenkins for supplying the commentary and analysis for this hand (editor's note: Peter - North; Sandie - South).
The Bidding: North, playing against one of the better pairs in the room, holding a modest hand opens 1♠. East passes, and South bids 2♣. West cannot bid his spades after North's opening bid, so passes, and North makes a natural 2♦ bid. South not enamoured with either of partner's choices, repeats his clubs. Playing aggregate scoring (the club summer 'Olympiad'), rather than a feeble 'pass', and spurning a buck passing fourth suit 3♥, North now makes an adventurous 3NT bid (the un-bid hearts are reasonable). All pass.
The Play: East, reluctant to lead his best suit - diamonds - after North's re-bid, chooses the un-bid heart suit (♥ 5 lead). When dummy appears, declarer can only count probably five tricks, but overcoming his initial despondancy, realises that his only practical source of tricks is in the club suit. The best scenario requires one opponent to hold either a singleton club honour, or East to hold Qx or Kx. If this is not the case, then declarer needs to East to not hold a spade honour (if West gets in with a club, he would probably switch a spade through North). So declarer playing on this assumption needs to manufacture two entries to dummy by way of the hearts. On the low heart from dummy, West plays the ♥ 9, and North carefully plays the seemingly unnecessary ♥ A (if taken with ♥ 10, there would now only be one useful entry to dummy). The singleton club is finessed to West's ♣ K. What does West play now? If he cashes ♠ AK and then switches to a diamond declarer would be one off (correct play with the actual layout).However his would be wrong if declarer had ♦ AQJ10 and a doubleton heart (North cashes ♦ AQ, and then throws West in with the ♦ J). Similarly if he doesn't cash the spades, and immediately exits with a diamond, aggain if North has ♦ AQJ10, West can be end-played to give declarer his nine tricks. Alternatively, has East led fourth highest from a five card heart suit (the ♥ 4 is not visible), North only having a doubleton heart, whereby on a heart return, North will not have an extra heart entry to dummy. West chooses a heart and the rest is history - dummy wins the heart, cashes ♣ A, and concedes a club to East. The best that East can do is to play a spade to partner's ♠ AK, but the remaining tricks belong to declarer, with North's small heart providing the vital entry to the established clubs. Bingo!
Declarer's ♥ A at trick one was his only realistic chance and he took it (Editor's note - well played).
PJ.
|
|
|
|
| September (Saturday 7th.) - Board 11 |
Show Detail |
This hand is intriguing from both a bidding and play perspective.
The first three bids from East/West are fairly routine, but what next? East could lazily bid 3NT, but with partner having defined his hand already, West will almost certainly pass.There is every prospect of a slam, so in order to make partner bid again East should use the 'fourth suit forcing' bid (the corollary is that most other bids - support of one of partner's suits, repeat of your own suit, no-trump bids, are non-forcing limit bids). This bid, first realised by Norman Squire in the 1950s, is the only low level forcing bid. In the UK there is some reluctance to play it as game forcing, but I would prefer to subscribe to the continental view that it should be game-forcing (i.e. you have a good 12+ point hand).
So East bids the 'fourth-suit' 2♠. In considering his response, West should prioritise his features as follows:
(1) - three cards in responder's natural suit;
(2) - five cards in his (opener's) own second suit;
(3) - six cards in his (opener's) own first suit;
(4) - stopper in the fourth suit (bid no-trumps);
(5) - honour doubleton in responder's suit;
(6) - five cards in his (opener's) first suit
West duly now bids 3♣ (as per (2) above), and East now has his eyes on a slam if West has anything better than an absolute minimum opening (say 11 points). So to find out, East should now bid 3♠ (his second suit). West should interpret this as a forward going bid, since East hasn't bid 3NT, but how should he respond? 3NT would show a shut-out minimum hand (11, 12 points), so I think that he should emphasise the good quality of his club suit by bidding 4♣ - a mild slam try (I'm not sure whether this should guarantee an ace - views welcome).
There are alternative interpretations of this sequence - again I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct.
Now the problems revert to East. He has three possibilities:
a) Accept the slam try by cue-bidding ♥A.
b) Reject the slam try by bidding 4NT (to play opposite the slam try).
c) Just bid the slam (6NT).
The problem with the cue-bid is that he knows that West's next only slam-try bid would be a Blackwood 4NT. But he also knows that in order for West to bid the slam, West would need to know that he, East, has the semi-support in diamonds, and there is no practical way that West can determine this. I often decry players who try to bid their partner's hand, but this case is an exception
The hand is too good to reject the slam try, despite the non-honour in clubs. So the most pragmatic approach is to just bid 6NT
Against 6NT, South leads ♠6 - what is the best line of play?
|
| Show Answer |
Having breathed a sigh of relief at the sight of dummy (West), it's important to not rush the play. Two pairs immediately played the club finesse, and ended up with 12 tricks. But with a little more thought as to safer options, declarer may well end up with 13 tricks.
If the diamonds are breaking 3-3 (or 4-2 with the 10 doubleton), the club finesse is not actually needed. 12 trick are there with 4 spades, 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, 1 club. If they don't break, there is the club finesse to fall-back on. So with the lead in dummy, play a diamond to the king (any reasonable North is bound to duck). Then play a second diamond (♦J). If the ♦10 appears, the suit should be continued for a guaranteed 12 tricks. However if the 10 doesn't appear and the suit is again ducked, declarer can't afford to play the third round - either defender could be left with ♦A10 and the contract will be defeated. So in this case declarer should revert to the club finesse (if this loses, and the diamonds were originally 3-3, then congratulate the defender on holding up for two rounds).
Take a look at all four hands - 13 tricks made with good declarer technique (also take one club finesse before cashing the major winners, otherwise you may carelessly block the club suit).
Note - with the hand as shown, North should in fact take the second diamond. He should assume that if declarer, East, is a reasonable player, he will spurn a further diamond round (because of the reason stated above), and will immediately revert to clubs. North knows that the club finesse is working, so if he ducks the second diamond, declarer will probably end up with 13 tricks - as was the case.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| August (Saturday 17th.) - Board 5 |
Show Detail |
One of the major differences between 'teams' and 'pairs' bridge is a player's attitude towards risk. In teams bridge it is usual to adopt a safe line of play at the expense of making possible risky over-tricks, whereas in the pairs game is it often acceptable to take a necessary risk in order to gain vital over-tricks. This month's hand illustrates what we mean by a necessary risk.
But first the bidding. Up to 3NT by East, the bidding should be fairly common (some may pass the 1♦ opening, but this can rarely be right - it's unlikely to be left in, and even so, East /West can probably outscore any penalty with a part-score themselves). After 3NT, the better Wests should now make a slam try with 4♣. After a freely bid 3NT, a repeat of any minor is usually taken to be a slam try rather than a mere suit preference. To accept the try, partner (East) should cue-bid any first round control (ace or void) - in this case 4♥. (The corollary is that a 4NT bid from East is to play, rather than Blackwood). After this West can bid 4NT - whatever Blackwood - knowing that if East goes beyond 5♣ with any un-favourable response, the partnership can play in 5♠. In this case his two ace response leads West to the easy club slam (he can't have the un-helpful ♦A otherwise he would have previously cue bid diamonds rather than hearts).
However at our table, East took the 4♣ to be a suit preference request between clubs and spades, and just bid 4♠.
South leads his partner's suit - ♦2. How should East proceed?
|
| Show Answer |
The answer lies in how he assesses the final contract. Obviously he's never going to outscore any pair in 6♣, but what of the rest? Any pair in 5♣ can at best score 420, but any pair in 3NT will score +430 (the defence are sure to cash their three top winners at some stage). Moreover 3NT is the most probable likely contract (borne out by the traveller - five out of the six plays were in 3NT).
If declarer ruffs the first diamond in dummy, and the trumps break 3-3, declarer can make 12 tricks for +480. However if the trumps break 4-2, and declarer tries to draw trumps, the defence will win the ♠A and force another diamond ruff in dummy, leaving one defender (in this case North) with one more trump than dummy. Declarer will in fact now go one off (as was the case at our table). So declarer risked scoring +480 against the probable outcome of -50.
Why was this risk unnecessary?
Let's look at what happens if declarer throws away from dummy on the diamond lead (it's semantics whether you consider him throwing away a winner or more correctly a non-loser). North wins ♦K and his best return is the ♦A (from his perspective South could just have the points to hold the ♦Q). Now declarer ruffs in dummy and is down to the same number of trumps as any defender holding four. He now plays a trump (North is certain to hold the ♠A based on points for his opening bid). Whatever he now returns, with declarer holding ♦Q he cannot force dummy down to three trumps. Declarer continues drawing trumps and then enjoys the clubs to make 11 tricks for a score of +450. He doesn't need to score +480, the +450 will be better than any score of +430, so the risk of trying for 12 tricks was unnecessary (and futile).
So is the pairs 'safety' play the same play as if declarer was playing a teams match? Well - maybe. Having won the first diamond, if we assume North returns the ♦K, and South's diamond indicates that he started with three (i.e. having originally led a 'mud' ♦5, and now follows with the ♦9), declarer can cater for either defender holding five spades (probably South based on the bidding), and must not ruff again in order to make eleven tricks. If however South makes the likely false-card of the ♦3 (trying to fool declarer by showing a doubleton diamond), declarer cannot risk not ruffing in dummy (North could play a third diamond, which South would ruff, dummy over-ruff, but this would promote the ♠7 in North's hand - one off).
In pairs, this level of safety would bound to lead to a poor board (+420 against +430 for 3NT + 1).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| July (Thursday 4th.) - Board 12 |
Show Detail |
Dealer West:
How can a hand vary between being 'Thrown In', and bidding and successfully making a slam? At our table this hand was thrown-in, but other tables bid game and made twelve tricks (nobody actually bid the slam, but it is perfectly feasible to do so). The hand highlights a number facets of modern bidding concepts.
Most club players are aware that bidding is more than just adding-up points. We are all familiar with adding extra points for voids or singletons (once a fit has been found), but there is still more to it than that. Do we have a suitable re-bid; are the points in the right place.... etc?
Firstly let's look at possible opening bids from each player's perspective.
West (Keith - dealer) - an 11 count, but with a Jack doubleton. If you decide to open 1NT then we must assume you would open all similar hands, and therefore systemically you should state 11-14 points on your system card. Not one that I would open.
North (Emer) - using the simple point count approach or even the standard 20 point rule (points + length of two longest suits, totalling at least 20), the hand should be passed (19 count). However these guidelines take no account of the location of specific honours. Seventy five years ago, Ely Culbertson expounded the concept of 'quick tricks', but along came Goren and subsequently 'modern Acol', with the 'quick trick' concept being side-lined (except when responding to strong 2's'). However, it certainly has a use in determining whether to open these 9/10/11 point hands. Add total points, to total length of two longest suit, to quick tricks. If 21 or more non-vulnerable (21.5 vulnerable), open the hand. So in this hand there are 1.5 + 0.5 quick tricks, and the sum becomes 9 + 5 + 5 + 2 = 21 so open 1♠ (it goes without saying that even though the hearts are better, you must open the higher ranking of hearts and spades).
East (Tony - third hand) - even the most die-hard of light openers would refrain, but I have seen 3♣ opening on worse hands - not for me.
South (Betty - protective seat, assuming North has passed) - Acol, and most other bidding systems don't like 4-4-4-1 hands, so beware. More so with this hand - 12 points including a singleton Jack. It is often best to 'pass' these hands, but given the fact that you have 'spades' you can out-compete the opponents should they re-open with a heart overcall, and I would probably just open - but what? Five-card majors - 1♦, but four-card majors?
If you decide to open - do not open 1♠ - there is no legitimate re-bid over partner's assumed 2♥. There are two mainstream theories to handle 4-4-4-1 weak hands with a singleton red suit (and also influenced by whether you play a weak or strong no-trump). The traditional approach is to open the suit below the singleton (i.e 1♦ in this case). This does tell a small lie when you re-bid 1♠ over partner's assumed 1♥ (you should now be showing five diamonds). The other more modern approach is to open the lowest suit, but not suitable in this case given the anaemic club holding. So 1♦. Whatever response/rebid sequence, you should probably reach the spade game, but the slam is much more difficult.
Overall, North should open 1♠, but what does South respond. Most players play 'splinter bids' , i.e. a response at the 4-level agrees partner's major opening and shows a singleton or void in the bid suit. An exception is 1♠ - 4♥ which should show a genuine long weak/intermediate heart suit. So how do we show the heart splinter situation? A useful approach is to bid 3NT - the 3NT bid has no other genuine use which can't readily be overcome (i.e. specifically 1♠ - 3NT is a splinter bid in hearts). All splinter bids should be followed by cue-bids from opener, and this modified 3NT approach also allows opener to cue-bid either minor at the 4-level.
So in our hand, we can now see how the slam is readily reached (no problem in the play):
North: 1♠ - 3NT (singleton or void in hearts) - 4♣ (cue bid) - 4♦ (cue bid) - 4NT (whatever Blackwood - but ideally RKCB inherent in which partner can show the ♠Q) - 5? (two aces - diamonds already shown with the cue-bid + probable spade ace) - 6 ♠.
A far cry from pass-pass-pass-pass
AFH
|
|
|
|
| June (Thursday 2nd. May) - Board 27 |
Show Detail |
(This hand occurred in May, but it is such an interesting situation that I've included here).
An obvious statement - the better bridge players are the more experienced ones. Why? - familiar situations don't need to be re-thought, thereby minimising the possible consequence of 'getting it wrong', together with economising on brain power - important in longer events. However, I queried many experienced players (grand masters, internationals etc.) on the best defence on this hand but as yet none has given the correct answer - they have relied on experience without going back to a basic re-think of the situation.
West is declarer in a fairly standard 3NT contract (West's 1NT re-bid is 15-16).
Put yourself in South's position when your partner, North, leads ♣4. You correctly insert the ♣Q, and West contributes the ♣2.
What next?
|
| Show Answer |
Experience tells you that you must return the 'obvious' ♣K in order to unblock the suit - wrong.
Let's look at the whole hand and see the effect of this. West will win with the ♣A, clear the diamonds and play one of the majors. North will now effectively be end-played. Yes, he can cash the ♣J, but this sets up West's ♣10. Alternatively, any major suit exit gives West time to establish his majors for at least nine tricks.
Now lets look at the situation if at trick two, South instead plays his small ♣. If West ducks (probable), North wins, and he knows he can return a club to his partner's king (West would never have ducked twice with ace and king - and in any case it doesn't matter). Now, when North gains the lead with one of his majors, he can cash the last club. The defence will now make a total of three club tricks, whereas the 'obvious' defence only provides two tricks. Declarer should now probably be one off (some good players would still make on a correct guess of the major suit layout, ♠A followed by small spade, but South's defence hasn't made it easy).
Even if West wins the ♣A at trick two, when North later gains the lead, he can play another club to South's king. The suit is blocked, but North has a further entry, after which he can cash his boss club (again - West can prevail, but he would need to guess the majors correctly).
If North has the ♣A instead of the jack (his initial small club lead indicates at least one honour), the lead of the small club still cannot lose (try it with all the various club combinations available to declarer)
Why has this come about? South should realise that given the outstanding points together with his own entry-less hand, his partner, North, almost certainly has two entries, and there is a good chance that he will have the ♣J9, so the blocked club situation doesn't matter. He will also trust partner to know that he, South, has the ♣K. It is more important to relieve partner from the end-play.
So what has South learnt about this situation. He can add this layout to his experience memory bank, and when re-called, next time will return a low (club). Or, he can learn never to rely on experience - thought is more important. I'll leave it to you how you handle it.
(Note - the same situation occurs if you have QJx and no other entry. You play the J on the first trick, and assuming it holds, you must return the small card).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| May (Thursday 2nd.) - Board 16 |
Show Detail |
Pre-emptive bids - weak threes, weak twos, weak-jump-overcalls etc. certainly have nuisance value in making life difficult for the opposition to find their best contract. However if the opposition do buy the contract, declarer knows much more about the opposition's distribution and points, than he would otherwise. This month's hand would be made much more difficult without the assistance of the pre-empt.
Roger as North, opened with a weak two-spade bid. East is just a little too strong for 2NT (normally 16-19, but this hand with the good spade suit is better), so he bid a not unreasonable 3NT.
South, Eileen, led a fairly standard ♣J (top of inside sequence when having seen North discard), and on seeing dummy, declarer said 'thank you' to partner in very enthusiastic tones.
No real problem with making ten tricks, but playing pairs, what about any more?
You have three spade tricks (you can finesse North twice), two clubs (following the lead), three diamonds, and three hearts - North is almost certain to have the ♥Q even for his weak-two opening. Three of these tricks require finesses (two spades and one heart), but the only problem is the entries to dummy. There is one entry with ♥A, and one in diamonds - where is the third entry?
Consider the diamond suit - you could play the queen and overtake with the ace or king, and then later finesse the ten. But what if the ♦J is with North - you would probably not even now make ten tricks.The hand is actually guaranteed 11 tricks assuming reasonably honest North/South bidding. Think for a minute before looking at the answer.
|
| Show Answer |
Having won the opening lead with the ♣Q, enter dummy with ♥A. Play a spade and North will cover with one of his honours, which East in turn wins with the ace. Now the crucial play is to play a small spade from hand which North has to win. He is now end-played, effectively giving you the third entry to dummy. If he plays a spade you take the finesse, cash out the three diamonds, and then take the heart finesse. If he plays a heart he is giving you the heart finesse. If he tries to exit with a diamond, play small from hand, and cover whatever South plays. You then take the heart finesse, and can now overtake the ♦Q for three diamond tricks.
(Note - with this line of play it's important to take one of the spade finesses before the heart finesse).
What's the only lead from South to hold declarer to 10 tricks? - a heart (declarer now only needs two entries to dummy for finesses, but he doesn't now make two club tricks).
Without the weak 2♠, declarer would be unable to accurately map-out the North/South hands, and would make only nine or ten tricks.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| May (Thursday 31st.) - Board 4 |
Show Detail |
When dummy goes down, declarer's first action should be to formulate some form of draft plan. Moreover the plan should be flexible enough to cater for unforeseen developments during the play. I did formulate a cunning plan on this deal but failed to adapt at the critical time.
But first the bidding. It's not usually good technique to rebid no-trumps with a singleton in partner's suit - you can only ever take one finesse, and moreover if the finesse fails you may not have any other entry to dummy. However the alternative of re-biding the anaemic diamond suit, and the presence of reasonable stops in the other suits persuaded me to bid 2NT. Again over partner's 3♣ there is a good case to pass, but I took an optimistic view with 3NT.
On receiving the lead of the ♣10 from North (Dian), I inserted the ♣J, and when South (Barbara) played low, I realised that there would be problems.
I could try to establish the diamonds. If they were 3-3, I would have to first cash the ♣A (leaving the defence with a club winner) and eventually lead a heart from hand, by which time even reasonable defence would be attacking spades. I didn't relish immediately leading a heart to the king - when in with a winning diamond surely the defence could organise three heart tricks. If the diamonds were 4-2, the contract would have no realistic prospects.
So I obviously needed to establish the club suit, and it would appear that North had led 'top of an internal sequence'. Whilst I could safely lose two club tricks, there was no second entry to dummy to then enjoy the suit (the ♦K obviously affords one entry).
Time to start planning. The only realistic way that the contract could make was if North held:
♠ Qxx
♥ Axxx - (the same effect if one of the small hearts is the Q)
♦ xx
♣ KJ10x
- a quite likely holding since North has chosen a 'safe' initial lead of the suit bid twice by dummy.
So exit with a club to North who would at that stage be end-played.
a) If she exited with a heart this would generate two heart tricks for declarer, moreover one of which would be an entry to dummy.
b) With a spade or diamond exit, take in hand, cash ♠AK and ♦A and exit with a spade to North. Yes, she can then exit with a diamond to dummy, but declarer then again end-plays North with a further club. The defence end up with one spade, one heart, two clubs.
But the layout wasn't quite what I expected, and more importantly I didn't recover the situation......
Have a look at the complete hand and see if you would make when North exits with a low heart, won by South's ace.
|
| Show Answer |
Having exited with ♣Q, North played a small heart. I inserted the ♥J, expecting South to cover with the queen. I would then take with the ♥K, and the ♥10 would eventually be an entry (together with the ♦K), in order to run the clubs. However South played the ♥A (she didn't hold the queen). I followed, and my plan disintegrated - the heart suit was blocked for the additional entry to dummy.
However a split second later I realised my possible mistake - but too late. All I needed to do was throw the ♥K under South's ace!! On careful analysis this would appear to offer the best chance, but I played too quickly.
Bear in mind that West can still try to generate enough tricks by reverting to the diamond suit, playing for four diamonds, two clubs, two spades and a heart (remember at this stage the defence have won one club and one heart). If the diamonds are not 3-3 this line is unlikely to succeed.
If South returns a heart and North started with four, the contract is unlikely to make if West pursues the 'club' line - North will make three hearts, and two clubs. This is irrespective of whether the ♥K is dropped under the ace or not. If West decides to revert to the 'diamond' play, then once again the defence will probably make three hearts, one club, and one diamond. However if North only has three hearts (to the queen), then the 'club' line succeeds as long as the king is sacrificed.
If South returns a spade, and you haven't played the ♥K under South's ace, you must abandon the 'club' line (not enough entries) and revert to diamonds. In pursuing the 'diamond' line, you will need to cash ♣A before losing the inevitable diamond, thereby setting up a club for the defence. But still the defence will only take four tricks - contract making. If you have played the ♥K under South's ace, then even with the 3-3 diamond break you would probably fail whatever the heart situation.
So basically the decision is does North have ♥Qxx, whereby throwing the K gains. If not (i.e probably ♥Qxxx), and South returns a spade and the diamonds are 3-3, throwing the K loses. A close call, which I got wrong.
Of course, the defence can prevail by returning a spade or diamond at trick three - but I was given a chance and didn't capitalise on it.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| April (Monday 2nd.) - Board 5 |
Show Detail |
Defending is generally accepted as one of the more difficult aspects of the game. However good systemic techniques (signalling, discarding, etc.), the ability to assess declarer's most likely hand layout (counting, what he did/didn't bid etc.), and a degree of 'vision' can often lead to success.
Take this hand from last Monday night. The auction was swiftly concluded with East's opening 4♥ pre-emptive bid concluding the auction. No problems with your (automatic) opening lead of ♣K, on which partner plays ♣3. Take a moment to consider your next lead......
.....The majority of average player's would next play a small club to partner's assumed ace, after all what harm can it do. But sitting with two outside aces, it's time to be a bit more positive.
My partner and I play 'count' on partner's lead of a king (see footnote), so I know now that partner started with three, or put another way - declarer started with a singleton, and would ruff a club return. Any more thoughts.......
.......Let's try to assess declarer's hand. A singleton club, eight hearts (?), so four cards in diamonds and spades. Irrespective of these four cards, assuming semi-solid hearts, declarer can lead up to dummy's kings twice. With 2-2, or 3-1, in the diamonds and spades, ten tricks will be taken (leading the singleton suit first). If 3-1 the 'third' card can be discarded on the 'other king'. With four diamonds (except QJ10x) and a void spade, declarer is bound to go off - he can't successfully ruff in dummy. He can't have a void diamond and four spades (opening a four-level pre-empt with four cards in the other major, and more relevantly partner remaining silent with a nine-card suit - I don't think so). So with an eight card heart suit, South has no realistic control over the outcome; whatever he reasonably does, declarer's fate is already sealed - making or one off.
So let's consider the possibilty of declarer having opened with a seven-card heart suit (still with the singleton club remember). He will now have 3-2 or 4-1 in diamonds and spades.
If he is 3-2 he cannot get rid of the 'third' card (probably a diamond), so is bound to go one off (with ♦Qxx he could take an optimistic view in the diamond suit - small to the king (ducked by South), and a small one back also ducking, thereby setting up the Q. With this holding he may try the ♠J finesse - failing - so also one off). So once again his fate is sealed.
However what if he has 4 diamonds and 1 spade. Once again he can get rid of one diamond loser (on ♠) but not two - so one off whatever we do - unless...(time to put your thinking cap on).
Suppose declarer's singleton is the ♠Q - consistent with opening a four-level pre-empt with a seven card suit. He could now play ♠Q (you can't realistically duck in case it's a doubleton), and eventually enter dummy with ♦K (having drawn trumps) in order to discard two diamonds on the established spades. So is this declarer's only conceivable holding on which South's next play can influence outcome?......yes.
If you still haven't looked at declarer's hand, I'll tell you that in this last situation, you action does determine the outcome of the contract.
You need to deprive declarer of an entry to dummy at the right time (for him), to discard losing diamonds. So cash ♦A and then lead a small diamond. Declarer with a singleton spade, cannot get to dummy to discard a possible losing diamond. Any down-side to this action?
As already assessed, with eight hearts he cannot be defeated. With seven hearts, three diamonds to the queen, and a small doubleton spade, yes we have possibly given him an easier ride to ten tricks. But would he open 4♥ with 11/12 points and this distribution - surely he would have opened a simple 1♥.
Time to look at the whole hand. You can see that the cash of the ♦A is in fact the only way to defeat the contract. (Note if declarer has ♦QJxx and ♠x, this is also the only way to defeat the contract).
Personally I would prefer to open 1♥. Had our East had done so, the bidding would probably have gone 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♠ (forcing) - 3♥ - pass. Nine tricks made against best defence.
Footnote: Against a suit contract, many players now lead the K from either AKxx... or KQxx.... Why?
If partner leads the A, does he have a four or five card suit. You, with say Q82, and seeing three in dummy will encourage (attitude), correct if partner has four, but wrong if he has five. But if partner leads the K (playing count) you will play the 2 (an odd number of cards) and he will refrain from cashing a third round. Again this is most relevant if declarer has the short trump suit (as a result of a no-trump transfer for example) - you want to avoid him ruffing in the short hand.
Looking from the leader's perspective its usually correct to lead the standard ace from AKxx, but with AKxxx it is often better to lead the K (there are other situations - listen to the bidding).
AFH
|
|
|
|
| October (Thursday 6th.) - Board 5 |
Show Detail |
Porthcawl Bridge Club has just introduced a Duplimate machine, whereby the machine randomly deals the hands for a particular club night. In addition the associated computer can print out the hand records, which makes for better analysis in the pub after the game. Some players decry the device, saying that it produces freak hands which are unmanageable. I think this is a flimsy excuse. It certainly produces less boring hands, but the distributions tend to be more in line with the statistically more probable, which does require a little more logical thought from all players. This particular hand is a good example.
Bold, but staight-forward bidding. West's 4♦ shows a five card diamond suit, and with it having been freely bid over 3NT, becomes a slam try. East with three card support accepts the invitation and completes the investigation with Roman Key Card 4NT, to which partner responds with the three aces. In pairs, 6NT is the preferred slam.
Against a couple of declarers, it would appear that South led a small heart (not my choice away from the queen against a slam). Declarer won in hand, and assessing that the diamond suit is the best source of tricks, immediately tried a diamond finesse (the percentage line with five missing - just). This loses, and wherever he wins the heart return effectively has to rely on South having precisely ♠Kx. Two or three off depending on the defence's discards.
Declarer comments - 'unlucky, both finesses wrong'. Not quite true. Time to look at all four hands.
Having won the first trick in hand, declarer should count his tricks (yes, this applies to all levels of play, not just beginners). Whether the diamonds yield four or five tricks, declarer still needs to generate at least two spade tricks. So since he definitely has to take the spade finesse at some stage, he should attack this suit first (there is another advantage in this approach). The spade finesse loses to North, and at this stage, East realises that he now must win all five diamond tricks. So is he back to square one - the diamond finesse or the drop? If North returns a heart, declarer must win in dummy. He can now give himself an extra chance of guessing the diamonds correctly, by running the spades in case they break 3-3. South has an easy first discard, the heart, but if you were sitting South, for the second discard would you honestly choose a club in preference to a diamond? (South is effectively caught in a distributional pseudo-squeeze - yes, I've made the name up, but I don't know of a more technical description). Once a diamond is discarded, it is much easier for declarer to find the winning play of the queen drop. If South had discarded a club (but he looks foolish should declarer have ♣AKJ), declarer's best chance would be to return to hand and take the diamond finesse - wrong, but at least he tried to give himself an extra chance.
If the spade finesse had originally won, declarer would now play the diamonds from the top, being prepared to lose one and rely on using his last entry to hand to cash the club winners and then take a second spade finesse (yes, he looks a bit foolish if North has held up the ♠K, but against a slam this would be a defence for the expert).
However what is not a defence just for the expert, is for North to give his return some thought. A heart is probably pointless, and he should return ♣J. This superficially seems just as meaningless, but South should now realise that his partner must have ♣10, and can safely un-guard his ♣Q, i.e. discard a club rather than a revealing diamond.
Note - a spade lead from South leads to the same play; a club lead - defensively effective since South can now discard clubs in preference to diamonds when partner inserts the 10, but never in a million years; so we are left with a diamond lead - this being the lead which will probably kill declarer, since he now doesn't have a second entry (heart) to his hand.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| May (Monday 23rd.) - Board 4 |
Show Detail |
Probably the two most important boards in any session are the first board and the last board. On these particular boards your mind tends to wander more so than on other boards: on the first board you can't decide whether its too cold or too hot, you find your pen isn't working....; on the last hand you start to look forward to going home and watching that program you recorded - but did you remember to set the machine. So even more need for optimum concentration. Sadly I ignored this principal; we'd had a very bad start to the session with a poor bidding sequence, and then on the last board not enough thought was given to the situation (made more difficult with other players putting on their coats, tables being noisily put away, boards being collected, all before the bidding had started).
First the bidding sequence: after Elen had interfered with 2 , Gary correctly raised to 3 - using the losing trick count only an eight loser hand. I raised to the obvious game.
Elen started with A and K, with Heulwen petering. Surprisingly she then switched to 3 . Time to think, or in my case not to think. My automated view was that if trumps are 2-2, end up in dummy, take the heart finesse, and if successful re-enter dummy with a diamond ruff for a further heart finesse - contract making 11 tricks. Even with the  K wrong contract still making - 10 tricks.
But before rushing along these lines see how you might have played it (don't peek at the hands).
|
| Show Answer |
I ruffed the club in hand and cashed the  K, and the Q appeared on my left. Worries now stated to enter my mind. I could no longer ruff the losing diamond in dummy - bound to be over-ruffed, and if the heart finesse was wrong - one off. So ruff the small diamond with A, heart finesse - losing, and a diamond return - ruffed by South - one off.
Another thought was to now play Q throwing a heart from dummy, ruffed by South. All South needs to do is return her last trump and I can't ruff the losing diamond and the losing heart. Still one off.
In essence by adopting the above line if the spades are 3-1 (North with any singleton), I don't think you can make. Moreover, if West had Qx she would surely have played another diamond knowing that I would have to ruff with the king - guaranteeing her Q and probably the contract one off (having said that, I still don't understand why she didn't return a third diamond in any case).
So excluding these combinations, can we combine chances.
A better line is not to cash the K immediately, but to play a small diamond and ruff with the A (this is what you would have done if North had herself continued with a third diamond).
But there are still problems. If you spurn the heart finesse, and play a spade back to hand (even dropping the bare queen), and then play Q ditching a heart, South will ruff and return a spade - no trumps now left in dummy with which to ruff a heart - one off.
So you must play a club ruff back to hand. Then Q throwing a heart from dummy. Yes, South will ruff, and you win her probable spade return **. Then A followed by a ruffing finesse in hearts - you still have one trump left in dummy (note that due to the blocked heart finesse situation, you actually want the K to be 'offside'). Eventually draw North's Q with your ace. Contract making (that's why Elen didn't return the third diamond - she realised I would be forced into this line of play!!!).
** The problem is how do you win the return - the drop of the singleton queen, or play spades 2-2 with South having Qx. Given the probable exclusions mentioned above, its a close call.
I think this is a better line than the lazy one that I adopted, as long as you guess the spade correctly.
Any other thoughts as to the best line of (winning) play?
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| March (Monday 7th.) - Board 16 |
Show Detail |
Emer is still asking me what happened on this board, having made 7NT against her with an ace missing. The bidding (and possibly one aspect of the play) gave rise to a number of mistakes, two of which were possibly my doing.
Playing against Emer and Pat, partner's 2 opening bid was a standard Benji bid, at that point showing eight playing tricks in any suit (in this case obviously clubs). Now I bid 2NT showing a balanced hand with say 8+ points - this is then forcing to game. I have had different opinions on the bid:
- should I have bid 3NT showing 11+ points ?
- do 2NT and 3NT deny an ace?
- should I have bid 2, a positive 1 1/2 tricks in spades (my own view is that this also shows a five card (spade) suit)?
I would welcome comments on the above points.
Gary is right to then bid 3 clarifying the hand as shown. An automatic 3NT from myself, but I think that partner's best bid is 4 (we are in a game forcing sequence) rather than 3NT. This would then enable my own hand to take control - preferable since I have a reasonably clear picture of partner's hand, wheres the he doesn't have as good a view of my hand. I would have then bid 4NT (Roman Key-Card in Clubs), and we would have played in the safer 6 or possibly 6NT.
After partner's 4NT, I took this to be quantitative (this is a mis-interpretation due to my original 2NT bid - if this is open ended is partner asking for a better than minimum?). With hindsight this is clearly wrong.
Partner thought that I must surely have an ace, so bid the grand (again my previous question as to whether 2NT already denies an ace becomes relevant).
So far, two possible mistakes from myself, one from partner, but I have been told that the opposition also made a mistake (of which I was not aware). You may possibly have heard of a Lightner doubles against a slam, which asks partner to consider an unusual lead - against 7NT this would be one of the suits bid by dummy. Apparently, if this clearly cannot be the case (as here), it should ask for a spade - I must admit I haven't come across this before.
Emer not un-naturally led a heart. Dummy goes down, and rather that consider it impossible to make 7NT missing an ace, the time has come for more positive thinking. See how you would play to make, having avoided the spade lead.
|
|
|
|
|
| February (Thursday 10th.) - Board 18 |
Show Detail |
Thanks to Peter Jenkins for contributing this month's hand.
This hand occurred at the second table at which Sandra and I played. Barrie, partnering Vera made what appeared to be an impossible thirteen tricks, since Sandra (West) held the AK of hearts. An opponent at a later table commented on it being a ridiculous result, but was then somewhat embarrassed after I had explained how it arose - primarily due to my opening lead
The North-South bidding could not have been more direct - South 2♦ (announced as strong) - North 3NT.
East (myself) led the Jack of spades. Declarer can now see at least probably twelve tricks - 3 spades; 3 diamonds; probably 6 clubs. Running the lead to the ♠A, he then cashed the three top diamonds and then played ♣A followed by the remaining five club tricks - discarding a heart and three diamonds from dummy. Having now made ten tricks, and trusting East to have the ♠10, declarer led the ♠2 from hand towards dummy. The probable marked finesse of the ♠9 led to thirteen tricks (of course if West did have the ♠10 and retained it singleton with the two top hearts, declarer would have been embarrassed to only make the ten tricks).
With hindsight, if only I had made a 'false' lead of any other spade declarer would never have risked the finesse at trick eleven.
At other tables, South played in 3NT. Standard leads dictate a small heart from West again giving South all thirteen tricks. Of course against six no-trumps West has no difficulty in his choice of lead - in fact a few did play in 6NT - contract off. Only one pair - Trish and Megan - succeeded in the poor 6NT contract (if fact making all thirteen tricks) - presumably from North.
(I fail to understand the bidding sequence, a sensible controlled auction leads to the correct contract of six clubs - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♠ (second suit) - 3NT - 4♣ (slam try in clubs) .... eventually 6♣. Far too many players leap off into the unknown - particularly 3NT - without proper investigation of possible better alternatives. A simple force of 3 from North is the correct bid. Nobody played in this the correct contract).
What declarer has actually done in the play of this contract is to execute a double squeeze - a double spade menace opposite the squeeze card - the final club. East cannot keep the last diamond as well as the spades. Similarly West cannot keep the hearts as well as the last spade (should he have the vital card in this suit).
PJ
|
|
|
|
| October (Monday 11th.) - Board 3 |
Show Detail |
The simplest, or possibly one might say the 'non-thinking' approach can often be the best, as typified by this hand from the Monday night session. A fairly standard auction resulted in me declaring in 4♠ from the South hand. After the J lead how do you proceed?
In a worst scenario the hand could lose three hearts, a spade, and one diamond. The spade loss is inevitable, and a possible diamond loss may not be too damaging as long as something can be done about the hearts - i.e play the suit for one loser. I decided to try to discard one heart from hand on the third round of clubs and then rely on the diamond finesse or the heart ace being with West. This needed to be done before drawing trumps to avoid possibly going two off if the diamond finesse is wrong (if West wins the trump ace and then switches to a heart). So after the third club, I played a spade from dummy which was allowed to win in hand. I then had to decide how to continue playing spades. If I played the honour from hand and it was ducked again, I would have no convenient entry to dummy to take the diamond finesse. So I played a small one towards dummy, hoping that East would win and be out of clubs and be end-played in the red-suits (having to cash the ♥A or play the diamond finesse for me). No such luck - Ken Jenkins played the fourth club which created a trump promotion for West. Belatedly recognising this I threw another heart form hand, still relying on the diamond finesse. However East played a diamond - finesse wrong - one off.
In principle I think the above approach is correct, but the error I made was in playing the second spade towards dummy jack. If I had inserted a small one from dummy, or preferably played an honour from hand, the situation would have been in better control. I didn't take this line because on the bidding, with three trumps West may have chosen to have led one but didn't. He would be less likely to lead one with only two (the danger from his perspective is that he might trap partner's trump queen).
I would welcome comments on your opinions as to the best line of play.
Of course the simple line of not worrying about the location of the heart ace succeeds. With this card in the West hand all declarer has to do is draw trumps, losing a spade, a heart, and a diamond. Every other declarer seems to have made the contract!!
Tony Disley replies:
I'm not sure whether or not there is a 'right' way to play this hand, but I would comment:
In order to make, if the ♦K is wrong then the ♥A must be right, so declarer should take an immediate diamond finesse. If this works then declarer is still on a guess, but with more options and hopefully more information. If the finesse fails then declarer needs to assume that the heart ace is favourably placed and can play to lose one heart, one diamond, and one spade.
In any case the first play of the spades must be either small from table or high from hand, so that any uppercut can be dealt with as long as the defender who ruffs started with three trumps.
Thanks Tony
|
|
|
|
| August (Monday 24th.) - Board 10 |
Show Detail |
This month's hand analysis has been written by Peter Jenkins - thanks. Please let's have more members contributing.
An example of overbidding, but as declarer I (Peter) played for the only chance.
First an explanation of the bidding:
1 - straightforward, preparing to re-bid 2 next time.
2♠ - a jump shift in our system shows at least a good opening hand (16+ pts.), and tolerance for partner's opening bid. The suit is a bit sketchy but....
3 - no extra values, and no support for partner's jump bid.
4NT - standard Blackwood
5 - two aces
6NT - North needs to be declarer to give the optimistic slam the best chance. If the missing ace is in clubs or spades, then an opening lead through the suit could see the contract immediately doomed. Also being somewhat ashamed of the supposedly good spade suit, I'd rather it wasn't exposed in dummy.
Following a low club lead from East, declarer decided that the keys to success were:
a) the hearts should not break 5-0
b) the diamond ace was with West (50-50 chance)
c) the diamonds would break 3-3 (or if 4-2, the opponent holding four would discard one on the long hearts - a not unreasonable hope in the light of declarer's jump bid in spades).
So probably a 40% slam at best - but we're there now so give it a go (best to look at all the hands now).
The J was covered by the Queen, with declarer winning the trick. Even if the finesse had succeeded (unlikely - people rarely underlead queen's against a slam), it would still require the diamond ace to be favourably placed. After cashing Ace and Queen of hearts (the first key to success was therefore satisfied when both defenders followed), declarer entered dummy with the spade ace. Time to test the diamonds. Low from dummy, and the King held in hand (looking good now). Crossing to dummy again with the heart king, declarer cashed the remaining two heart winners discarding two spades (seven tricks so far). In the light of the bidding, East thought he had to guard the spade suit (thinking declarer probably started with five), and so shed a diamond. Another diamond followed from dummy. It didn't matter whether West took his ace or ducked - declarer was now home. I sought comments from a neutral (my brother - a much better player than myself). "Looking at both hands, the pairs contract is 3NT - 690. This would probably score 60%+. It loses only to the dodgy slam, and beats any heart contract. If South had opened 1NT (some people would), all roads lead to 3NT." "Turning to the actual bidding sequence, South's re-bid of 3 would also normally lead to 3NT. North's 4NT is actually bidding the hand twice if the initial jump bid shows 16+ points. It looks like a combined 30 count, so the no-trump slam is decidedly suspect - but it worked" PJ Editor's noteNorth's new suit jump bid with this type of hand is unusual. Jump responses are normally either:- standard Acol 16+ points with a long suit- a jump fit showing a near opening hand (10+ pts), support for partner's opening suit, and a good 5-card alternative suit.
- more players - myself included - are playing the bid as weak (or in some cases ultra weak). i.e. the equivalent of a weak two opening bid. This typifies the way the game is going - destructive rather than constructive.
|
|
|
|
| June (Monday 21st.) - Board 16 |
Show Detail |
An appreciation of good technique in relation to a 'fourth suit forcing' bid should enable any reasonable pair to reach the slam on this hand.
The first three bids are fairly normal (but I still see pairs incorrectly opening 1 rather than the longer diamond suit - there seems to be a fixation that with a five card major this must be opened at all costs!!).
The 2♣ bid is the 'fourth suit forcing' bid, which merely says 'we probably have game on partner, but I don't know where - please tell me more about your hand'. That's the easy bit, but it is the precision of partner's responses which make this handy tool so powerful. So many average players seem to think that it is merely asking for a stop in the fourth suit in order to bid no-trumps. This is far from the best solution.
(Note - the fourth suit asking bid should be played as forcing to game if at the three level, but only forcing for one round if at the two level).
I strongly recommend the approach advocated by Andrew Robson, which prioritises the opener's responses to the fourth suit bid as follows:
1. Three card support for responder's initial suit.
2. Five cards in opener's own second suit.
3. Six cards in opener's own first suit.
4. No-trumps - showing a stopper in the fourth suit.
5. A good doubleton in responder's initial suit.
6. Five cards in opener's own first suit.
Adopting the above priority approach, this month's hand becomes easy to bid. In response to the 2♣ fourth suit, working down the list: priority 1 - not applicable; priority 2 - yes, we have a five card spade suit, so bid it.
This one bid says so much about the hand. Not only does it show five spades, but must also show six diamonds, since with five diamonds and five spades the opening bid would have been one spade (so opener's shape must be 5-2-6-0; 5-0-6-2; or 5-1-6-1).
I see no point in not immediately bidding the diamond slam (you could bid three diamonds - forcing - in order to invite a cue-bid sequence, but I'm not sure this gets you anywhere. One of your key features is the ♣KQ, which partner will not be able to ascertain). Also by bidding it straightaway, far less information is given to defenders to enable them to find their best lead (as was the situation here).
North led a heart (a club lead would have been more probable if East-West had embarked on a cue bidding sequence), which my partner Gary won with the ace. After drawing trumps, he took a ruffing finesse in hearts. When he led the ♥Q from dummy, South covered. This was ruffed. He could then throw the losing club on the ♥J and cross-ruff the hand for thirteen tricks.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| May (Monday 3rd.) - Board 5 |
Show Detail |
There were only four tables this Monday evening, so the club ran a teams event.
This particular hand gave opportunities for a useful swing, but in our head-to-head match neither side excelled. The bidding as shown occurred at our team mates' table. Our East-West team mates opened 1♠, and their opponents (South) bid 2NT - a two suited hand with non-touching suits (see footnote). In the light of partner's original pass, I think this bid is highly unwise.
At our table I decided to pass, not fancying a two suited bid with the anaemic heart suit, and a club overcall seems to serve little purpose. A danger of bidding this as a two-suited hand is that if you become a defender (which is the most likely situation with partner having already passed), so much distribution information is given to declarer which can assist his play of the hand - as was the case here.
The initial play was the same at both tables - Q lead, not covered, and a ruff of the club continuation. Our East team-mate, knowing that South was 5-5 in hearts and clubs, then decided to rely on the trumps breaking, and the A singleton with South, - but realistically this line would be unlikely to succeed, there is a shortage of entries back to hand to establish the hearts. Nevertheless he played ace and a small spade. Receiving the bad news, he cashed the A, and despite seeing the fall of the Jack failed to make this guaranteed contract. He continued with a second heart - still attempting to unblock the suit - but this was ruffed, and North switched to a diamond. After the defensive two diamond tricks, South gave partner another heart ruff - two off.
At our table the continuing play was identical but with a little more resolve - there was no reason to assume the bad breaks, and declarer assumed North was trying to fool him by dropping the Jack with a doubleton (not unreasonable - since with Jack-doubleton he may well drop the Jack "knowing" it would subsequently fall under the King). Again he attempted to unblock the hearts but with the same end result - two off.
At the other table with the distribution information, despite the contract appearing to be lost, the declarer can give himself a much better chance - how? (The same reasoning actually applies at our table without the help of the two-suited overcall).
|
| Show Answer |
The optimum play is to play two rounds of spades ending in dummy. Why not then cash just one round of hearts to see if anything interesting happens? It does - the Jack falls. But still, how do we unblock the hearts - its no good drawing trumps and then playing the other heart - you can't get back to hand to enjoy the established hearts. The answer is, after the first heart with the Jack appearing, revert back to spades and on the last spade throw the winning K to unblock the suit - i.e. a winner on winner play.
Footnote:
Two suited overcalls are a very useful defensive tool - if used properly. The common features of all approaches are:
- I recommend using on strong constructive hands (15+), or weak sacrificing hands (7 - 11 points, depending on vulnerability and whether parter has already passed). Avoid using on intermediate hands (12 - 14 points), since you invariably become a defender and all you achieve is telling declarer the hand distribution.
- the two suits should be of some substance - not like the heart suit in the hand above.
- the mechanics of the conventions employ the use of the immediate cue bid (e.g. 1 - (2)), a jump to 2NT, and possibly an artificial 3 bid (see Ghestem below).
In summary the three main methods are:
Michaels Cue Bids - in which in some situations the two suits are clearly defined and in others not so. (If a major suit is involved this is clearly defined).
Ghestem (modified, CRO, Wemble) - the two suits are always clearly defined. To achieve this, use is made of the 3 bid as well as the cue bid and the 2NT.
"Smith/Butler" - not a licensed name, but used locally. It has been named after Colin Smith and Dr. John Butler - two prominent Welsh international players of the 70s and 80s. It is a hybrid of the Michaels bid and doesn't employ the 3 bid.
Comments - my own preference is for the Michaels Cue bid - reasons:
- Ghestem uses the 3 bid, whereas I like to use this bid as a weak jump overcall - also most players at some time do forget the use of the 3 bid (don't laugh - Pierre Ghestem who invented the convention, whilst playing for France in the world championships did forget the bid!!).
- when the opposition's bids are not necessarily well defined, there are less bids available for the opener's partner, which makes it more difficult to defend. (See notes on Defence To Two Suited Overcalls
- Michaels Cue bids can keep the bidding slightly lower than in the "Smith/Butler" method.
(The only disadvantage of Michaels is if the opponents bounce the auction, responder doesn't necessarily know your specific suits, so may not be practically able to compete).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| April (Monday 19th.) - Board 24 |
Show Detail |
A fairly straightforward auction, with East on lead. A diamond lead seems standard, but which one?
At our table, East chose the J (top of an interior sequence), which I won with the A - there is little point in ducking. I then took a losing club finesse and waited for the good news (a heart or spade) or the bad news (a diamond). What do you return as West?
|
| Show Answer |
Thankfully West returned  Q and I duly made my eleven tricks.
(paraphrased):
"Why didn't you return my opening suit - I led from top of an interior sequence?" retorted Audrey (East).
"But you may have led from the top of a sequence (J109) without the King, and declarer would now have  K. He may also have K instead of the A. It's imperative that I now switch to a heart, certainly to keep declarer to nine tricks, and maybe to defeat the contract if you have four hearts." "Declarer could have either holding, consistent with his 12-14 1NT opening bid - how am I to know which?" - replied Barbara (West).
(Note for declarer: another reason to confidently go up with the A at trick one. Defender is more likely to assume you also have the king, otherwise you may have ducked and he would then be more likely to continue diamonds when in with Q).
Which defender is right? Well, both are correct - the J lead could be from top of a sequence, or top of an interior sequence. How do you decide which? There are two possible solutions, one which resolves this specific lead issue; the other which has slightly more wide reaching applications.
Strong '10'
When do you make an opening lead of a '10' against no-trumps'? It is normally only from H109x.. (or, a singleton, or a doubleton). With 109x... , you should lead the second highest from a bad suit i.e. the '9'.
The 'Strong 10' principle extends the scope of a '10' lead against no-trumps, as follows:
"The lead of the 10 against no-trumps guarantees the 'J' and/or the '9', together with a higher non-touching honour'.
(originally 'strong 10' only included the option of the J and a higher honour. However this precluded the lead of the 10 with Q109x.., so the added option of the presence of the '9' was included. This very rarely gives rise to any confusion).
So with say KJ10x.., K109x, AJ10x.., A109x.., lead the 10. Partner now knows exactly what you have.
One thing to remember: Only use the 'strong 10' principle against no-trumps.
So in the hand stated, East would lead the 10 using this gadget lead, whereby partner now knows that he has either the J or the 9, together with the a higher honour (in this case it must be the king). West must therefore be correct to continue diamonds - contract one off.
Smith Peters
A defensive play technique which I don't recommend for average club players. Many top class players use this technique (many also hate it). I'm personally not a fan (so easy to forget or confuse partner particularly if accustomed to giving count), and I do prefer the strong 10 approach in this specific situation. However I must admit that the Smith Peter principle is very useful in other situations (see my notes on Smith Peters).
Using Smith Peters, your play to the next suit played by declarer indicates whether or not you like the opening suit lead (this can be from either defender). Normally Smith Peters in this next suit, have a high card saying 'I would like you to continue the original suit led', whereas a low card says 'I have no interest in the original suit being continued'. So in the hand stated, when declarer plays a club at trick two, East must play the 9 (high), asking partner to continue with the original suit led (diamonds). If he plays 4 (low) at trick two, he would expect partner to find a switch if he wins the trick.
One of the major limitations of Smith Peters is if you only have a singleton in the next suit led. This is of no use to partner, and can actually confuse him (say you had the singleton 4 in the quoted hand. This would be played per-force and West would probably now incorrectly find the heart switch). (Tip for declarers: when playing against defenders who use Smith Peters, try to avoid automatically playing the smallest card in the suit that you select at trick two).
Comment from Rob Charlesworth (thanks for the feedback):
Although what you said is correct about strong 10s etc., if you look at the hand from a purely defensive viewpoint, the diamond return is the one most likely to defeat the contract. For the heart to be right, North must have precisely Kxx. Any holding with the A, or Kxxx and the contract cannot be defeated. If North has Kx why hasn't East originally led a five card suit! I would think the odds favour East having five diamonds. If he doesn't have the K, and the K does come down - unlucky.
My reply: - fully agree with you, and if not playing either of the above signalling systems I would probably return a diamond. However looking at the traveller results nobody did. One of the problems is that it is surprising how many pairs forget or don't realise that the lead of the J can be the top of the internal sequence as well as the top of the sequence.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| March (Monday 8th.) - Board 15 |
Show Detail |
Prior to Monday night's session I went racing at Ffos Llas. At the races I usually have a few bob on each race, with mixed success. The third race was a four horse race with a clear odds on favourite. It had a good rating, a good jockey, a good trainer, four legs etc. coupled with the 1-3 on price, it couldn't lose. However something in me had doubts - to offset the low price you need to stake a reasonable sum to show any return. But what if it did then lose. I didn't want to make a decision so I didn't have a bet on the race (the odds-on favourite actually lost). The same applies sometimes at bridge - if you don't want to commit to even the most logical course of action, try to delay.
This month's hand started with a bidding problem. After I opened a spade, partner correctly bid one no trump. It is tempting to bid 2, but the disciplined approach is a raise to a new suit at the two level shows 9+ points (the more modern style is to actually show 10+ points). So you are left with the 'dustbin' bid of 1NT (see footnote 1). Surprisingly Terry - South, having originally passed, now overcalled 2. What do you bid with your West hand? You want to double, but this should be take-out with extra values (although opinions do vary on this issue) (see footnote 2). So you pinch a point (the good 10s make you feel less guilty) and bid 2NT, with partner raising to 3NT.
The defence start with the top two hearts, followed by a club switch. It can't do any harm to play low ensuring your Jack - or can it? Time to think ahead - if North wins the Q, and then switches to a diamond you have a difficult decision. Time to analyse the defender's hands (in particular South's). He has passed originally and then overcalled, knowing there are opening points on his left. He should therefore have an 11 count - but marked with a five card heart suit why hasn't he opened. It is probably a bad 11 - and a possible interpretation of this is that it contains a singleton King (he has already shown eight points in hearts). The most likely singleton is K, in which case declarer should rise with the A - 'the horse can't lose'. But if your deduction is wrong, you must inevitably concede a spade to the defence, after which you will lose a few diamond tricks. Also even if you do drop the bare diamond king there are problems with discarding from dummy. So save yourself from having to make this decision by rising with the A from dummy (you can almost certainly later lead a small club towards the Jack). Looking at all four hands, you would have lost your odds-on bet on the diamond suit.
|
| Show Answer |
Important - also see footnote reply: If you ducked the club and then went up with the A on a diamond switch, the horse has stumbled and you'll struggle to cross the winning line.
But having overcome the first hurdle (win with A), you can now attack the spades. Play a small spade towards the Jack.
If North wins, it means South must have the K so you must now rise with the A on a diamond return (if South originally did start with Kx you probably can't make on any play). If a singleton K with South does materialise, cash the Q, and cross to dummy and cash the spades hoping the 9 falls on the fourth round of the suit.
If South wins the K, then North is marked with the K and when he gets in with the Q and possibly switches to a diamond you know how to play the suit. Any other switch from North guarantees you the contract.
If neither player takes the K you just re-enter dummy with a club and continue spades, again hoping for the 9 to fall favourably (The clubs need to break 3-3 in this situation).
All hurdles jumped - bookies taken to the cleaners.
Footnote 1: some players do play a new suit minor raise is less than 9 points. However in doing so, in a sequence such as 1 - 2 - 2NT - 3 the final bid must be non-forcing. This in itself gives rise to problems if you have a forcing type hand. The average player is best advised to keep to the 9 point minimum.
Footnote 2: the general guidelines on whether low level doubles are penalty or some form of take-out are:
'all doubles of a suit at the one or two level are for take-out, except'
- after a redouble, or
- after a previous take-out double has been passed for penalties, or
- a take-out double of the same suit was available at a lower level, or
- other situations as specified by the partnership.
The above is a generalisation, but in the absence of any specific partnership understanding its best to keep to the above definition. In the featured hand, if West doubles South's 2 bid, this would be for take-out with extra values (e.g. AQ1087 4 K92 AK93).
Tony Disley Writes: When both defenders duck first round of spades , how do you get to 9 tricks if they just play diamonds when they take K ? How do you get back to dummy? or lose 2H , 1S , 1C and at least 1D. My Response Quite correct. In principle it is still correct to win the first club with the ace. However in the light of your comment we now have a photo finish: - do you rely on the 9 falling in three rounds, in which case it is better to play ace and queen of spades when in dummy (in the actual hand - one off). - take the original intended line and rely on a mistake from the defence (i.e. they don't duck the spade to the Jack). If South has the K he is unlikely to duck since he doesn't know whether you have a doubleton (he would be conceding the contract if so). If North ducks with the K then you probably have to concede one off.
|
|
|
|
|
| January (Monday 11th.) - Board 18 |
Show Detail |
This should be a fairly straightforward hand but only one pair managed to make the game (they actually made an overtrick - I've no idea how).
At our table, my partner (Gary) opened 1, and after two passes North (Megan) made a strong jump overcall, which her partner (Joyce) duly raised to game.
Two points about the bidding:
Firstly, even playing five-card majors my own style is to open any hand with five clubs and five spades with 1. You'll find the relevant bridge playing public is split 50-50 on this issue, but my own view is that you can subsequently show this shape far more easily by opening a club (see my short tip Opening With 5 Clubs and 5 Spades).
Secondly, many players play weak jump overcalls (especially non-vulnerable), and are therefore precluded from jumping to 2 (or 3 over a 1 opening bid) with the North hand. No problem - just double first and then raise or change the suit. Over a 1 original opening bid, South will bid 1 over your double. Then simply re-bid 2 which shows 16+ points and heart support (not good enough to raise to 3 nor to cue bid the opponents suit - these would tend to show a 19+ point hand). If East opens 1, the principle is exactly the same - double first and then over partner's 2 you are worth a simple raise to 3. South is good enough to raise to 4.
I suspect the opening Q lead was fairly standard, with West overtaking. After any return other than a spade, with nine sure tricks, superficially it would appear that declarer's best chance of success is to finesse East for the J for the tenth. This was actually the line taken at our table (remember there had been no 1 opening bid so the location of the J is more of a guess), but destined to failure.
A much better line is to draw trumps, cash the K and the play a spade towards dummy, spurning the finesse and inserting the K. When this holds, simply play a spade off dummy towards the Q (noting the fall of the J gives you satisfaction of not having finessed with the 10). East wins, but is end-played. A club gives a ruff and discard; a diamond concedes two tricks in the suit; a spade eventually loses to dummy's 10, even if the jack had not previously fallen. (Note that if East originally opens 1 this line is bound to succeed - not quite so easy over a 1 opening - another reason to open 1 rather than 1!!).
Contract made.
If North-South are playing weak jump overcalls, South will probably become declarer, and West may well lead a diamond. In this case South cannot pursue this line and would find it more difficult to succeed (when in with A, West merely continues a diamond). Declarer would need to drop the J in three rounds.
(I retrieved the travellers for the event and it was declared throughout by North).
AFH
|
|
|
|
| December (Thursday 3rd.) - Board 10 |
Show Detail |
During the play of a hand, declarer usually employs some form of probability assessment in determining the optimum course of action. For example the most common situation - a finesse - is a fifty percent shot (ignoring bidding and other play features). But it is only a probability - not guaranteed to succeed. One of the more galling aspects of the game is to correctly assess the best probabilities, but then find the cards 'wrongly' placed. I suffered this ignominy on this hand (but I welcome comments as to whether the optimum line was in fact taken).
But first the bidding. My partner Rob (East) opened 1. I had a hand good enough for a responder reverse, so bid the longest suit, being prepared to show the second suit in a reverse situation. I bid 2, expecting to subsequently show my hearts (reverse and forcing). Partner surprised me with his own reverse - 2 (16+ points - diamonds notionally longer than the spades). It was obvious that the hands didn't fit, so giving full weight to the six-card suit, 6NT seems the obvious bid.
The defence found a good lead - Q - which immediately restricts entries to dummy. It is obvious that the best course of action is to establish the club suit. Hopefully five clubs, two diamonds, two hearts, and three spades should give twelve tricks.
An overall assessment of the hand shows that you have to take care in utilising dummy's entries. The K needs to be unblocked, and a club must be conceded before using the second (last) entry to dummy - otherwise after cashing dummy's winners, if the defence then gain the lead with a club they can cash winners in the other suits.
So on winning the diamond, I immediately led the low club from dummy. South played low - which card do you play - A,K, or 10? Obviously if the clubs break 3-2 it doesn't matter - 12 tricks guaranteed. But what if South has four clubs (if North has four clubs the contract is probably doomed in any case). If South has QJxx, it is correct to insert the 10. However what if he has Qxxx or Jxxx (i.e. North has a singleton honour - this is fractionally the more probable break, since South with two of the honours may play one). If you play 10, with North winning, you cannot conveniently get to dummy to play a club through South, so have to concede a further club trick. If instead you play A or K (dropping the singleton honour), you also have to immediately concede a club, but in doing so actually concede two clubs. So on this play, if North has a singleton honour the contract is doomed. You therefore insert the 10 hoping for QJxx with South (or the 3-2 break), but luck is against you - contract one off.
One small improvement that I didn't consider at the table is to initially lead the 8. You still intend to play the 10 from hand but you may induce South to cover with the 9. Now, even if North has a singleton honour you can later finesse the 7, to claim the contract.
The more interesting aspect of the hand occurs when South does in fact play a honour when you originally lead a club from dummy. If he has played this from QJxx you must duck this (i.e concede the club trick before having to eventually re-enter dummy and cashing dummy's winners before finessing South for the remaining club honour). But what if he has played the honour from a doubleton (a good player may well do this). If you proceed as above, try explaining to partner that although the clubs were 3-2 all the time, you managed to go off. Although the doubleton honour is more likely than QJxx, I'm not sure that I would have had the courage to duck, cash the K, enter dummy, cash winners and then finesse South for the other honour. So I would probably have still gone one off.
Note that without a diamond lead, you have a delayed entry to dummy so can afford the luxury of leading clubs twice through South. This totally alters the play of the suit.
Comments welcomed.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| November (October - Monday 26th) - Board 7 |
Show Detail |
Apologies - this hand actually occurred in October, but due to venue closures in November and my personal minimal attendance I think it is a worthy substitute.
The bidding of the hand was fairly straightforward, except that the raise to 3NT based on a 19/20 point hand is somewhat old fashioned (but still works). The more modern style is to bid 2NT (18 or 19 points, forcing) - it enables partner to better describe his hand with a view to a preferable 5-3 major fit (if North had five spades the sequence would go: 1 - 1 - 2NT - 3 - 4) or a possible alternative suit slam - but neither applicable on this particular deal.
The play of the hand is very interesting both from declarer's and defender's viewpoints. At our table, playing against the two Trish's, West led J. Standard leads dictate that the 4th. highest should be led from a suit containing only two touching honours (unless there is precisely one card missing between the second and third card - the so called two and a half honour sequence). However with the diamond bid on the leader's right, it must be correct to lead the Jack. The Q wins in dummy and East casually played the 2 (mistake 1). East should play the 7, telling partner its safe to continue the suit if she wants to (you have the 9 and know partner has the 10).
Over to declarer - what next? The diamond lead has taken out a vital entry to dummy making it improbable that the club suit can be established. It would appear that the best chance is to make two or three spades, two hearts, four diamonds and a club - 9 or 10 tricks. It's probably unsafe to attempt to return to hand with a heart honour in order to play the diamonds and spades (you could well be establishing the heart suit for the defence). A club is safer - the opposition are unlikely to then cash the missing honours enabling you to establish the suit in dummy. My partner did play the club to the ace, but then the illusion of the eight card club fit persuaded him to play a second club (mistake 2). West won and had to decide what to do (so much easier if partner had played the 7 at trick 1). Seeing the spades in dummy, and having heard South's direct bid of 3NT rather than a reverse of 2 (thereby he probably only has three hearts) should enable the heart switch to be found. The contract could now possibly be defeated if declarer then attempts to establish the diamonds before the spades, (if he plays spades first, the entry to the long hearts can be prematurely removed). At our table West played 2 (mistake 3), and East won with the King, declarer playing the 7 (mistake 4) !. The play of the 7 effectively blocked the suit, restricting declarer to only two spade tricks (if he unblocks with the J or 10, three spades tricks beckon). However on winning the heart return, and playing on diamonds (West winning the third round and exiting with a heart), declarer now played the J which West ducked! (mistake 5) - ten tricks. If West covers with the Q the suit is blocked for only two tricks.
So a chapter of accidents led to 10 tricks (my apologies for the criticisms, but the remarks are intended to be constructive) - probably an undeserved second top (one pair made 11 tricks - I suspect the defence got off to an unfortunate club lead).
AFH
|
|
|
|
| October (Saturday 10th.) - Board 4 |
Show Detail |
Firstly my apologies for last month's complicated hand. Many of you thought it was beyond the average player - I did give you a warning. This month's hand enables you to decide your own appropriate level of expertise - a bidding problem where probably all avenues lead to the same result.
In the middle of the evening the East-West pair arriving at our table said 'why didn't they bid the slam against you on board 4. We had no problem - 1 - 3 - 6. Whatsmore, North didn't lead a diamond so there was no problem with 13 tricks'.
All perfectly true, but a fortuitous dummy did provide declarer with the luck he needed (deserved?).
On this hand you can take four approaches to probably reach the same final contract. Each approach has its virtues depending upon your personality. Declarer should ask himself what ideally he needs to know about partner's hand - whether partner has the A; whether partner has K; and to a lesser extent whether partner has K. If he can determine some of these facts he can bid or refrain from the slam.
1. 1 - 3 - 6 - the eternal optimist - he knows nothing about partner's hand, but I can't argue with the final result.
2. 1 - 3 - 4NT - 5 - ?. Assuming normal Blackwood, the optimistic optimist will still bid 6, so why bid 4NT originally. The pessimistic optimist will close proceedings with 5. Of course with one ace, both would progress to 6. (There is some virtue in this approach if playing Roman Key Card Blackwood, whereby the quality of the spade suit can possibly be clarified). So one (or possibly two if RKCB) critical dummy cards can be determined.
3. 1 - 3 - 6 - based on the Losing Trick Count . The 3 bid shows only 8 losers. You have 4 losers: 8+4 = 12. Subtract from 18 to give 6 i.e. 6. I think this is a poor application of the ltc. The ltc is very good up to game level - it generalises the relevant controls in a hand. However in the slam zone, generalisations are not good enough - you need to determine specific controls (for example, suppose dummy had held Qxxx; Qx; Kxx; QJxx; - 8 losers, but I wouldn't fancy my chances in a slam).
4. 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 - ?. Let's pause at this stage and assess the last two bids. Having agreed spades, the 4 bid is a cue-bid showing first round control in clubs (i.e. ace or void). The cue-bidder then expects partner to also show him any useful controls (initially first round, but later second round controls). So a two-way 'conversation' is established.
Since partner didn't bid 4, he doesn't have the A. The pessimistic declarer may then opt to stop in 4. If not playing RKCB, there is no point in bidding Blackwood 4NT - partner has already denied the one outstanding ace. If playing RKCB, there is some merit in bidding 4NT to determine whether partner has K. However what if partner has K. The slam then becomes a good proposition with or without the K. How can we find out? The answer is that we ask dummy to tell us, by making a further cue-bid ourselves. So bid 5 which shows second round control in clubs (we've already shown first round control), and invites partner to show any second round controls himself. A slight problem is if partner has K and K, whereby he will show the K first by bidding 5. However over your 5 response (sign-off), he will realise that you would only have bid 5 if requiring some useful information from him in order to bid the slam. Since the K is obviously not this useful piece of information, it can only be the presence of K. Partner has this card so he will bid 6. If he didn't have it, he would leave you in 5 (probably with K and K he would still bid 6). If originally over the 5 bid partner bids 5, you then bid the slam yourself.
So the cue-bid approach enables you to find out if partner has either A or K. If he has either of these cards 6 becomes a very reasonable proposition.
For an introduction to Splinter and Cue Bids please click.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| September (Monday 7th.) - Board 22 |
Show Detail |
This month's hand involves techniques which may be a bit beyond the less experienced players - so beware. But there is a fantastic prize being offered (see last paragraph if you can stay awake that long).
A fairly standard bidding sequence (I wouldn't argue with a direct jump to game by North), and a fairly standard start to the defence - two rounds of diamonds. After that things get more interesting. Declarer knows that in the light of the pre-emptive opening bid, East is unlikely to have any more points outside the diamond suit - in particular the club finesse is bound to fail. There are nine sure tricks, but where do we go for the tenth - it depends upon the third trick continuation - but nonetheless, some sort of squeeze is required (the only possible alternative of West having three spades and being thrown in on the third spade is possible, but unlikely since this would give East a four card spade suit with his diamond pre-empt). Whenever one of the opponents has bid showing a long suit (pre-empt, weak two opener, weak jump overcall etc.), it's a fair chance that his partner has to try to guard two of the remaining suits and hence may be subject to a squeeze
At trick three:
a) East returns a club. This is probably the easiest squeeze situation to deal with, giving rise to a simple non-positional (automatic) squeeze.
A simple squeeze is one that operates against only one of the opponents; non-positional (or automatic) means that it can be either opponent (but not both). (Different terminologies do exist).
The basic pre-requisites for this type of simple squeeze are:
- there must be two menaces, a single menace in the same hand as the squeeze card and a two-card menace in the hand opposite the squeeze card (in this case the single menace is the 9 and the two-card menace is A8). A single menace is an isolated 'loser'; a two-card menace is a winner plus a loser in that suit, opposite a single loser in the suit.
- only one defender controls both suits containing the menace cards
- a boss squeeze card opposite the two-card menace
- the count must be rectified - i.e.declarer has already lost the maximum number of tricks that can be afforded - in this case three tricks
- all other winners should have been cashed.
So declarer should envisage the following end position, having lost three tricks (i.e needing all the remaining tricks):
9
5
-
9
QJ
- immaterial
-
J
A8
-
-
7
In the above the 5 is the squeeze card; 9 is the single menace; A8 is the two-card menace; only West is able to control the manace suits (spades and clubs).
North leads his 5 (the squeeze card) - discarding the worthless club from dummy. What does West throw? If he discards a spade, dummy makes both spades; if he discards a club declarer's club makes.
This situation can be arrived at by declarer playing the Q at trick three (knowing that it is bound to lose), thereby 'rectifying the count'. Whatever West returns, declarer cashes one top spade; the A; and runs the trumps, arriving at the above situation - contract made.
b) East returns a spade. The above situation cannot be reached. To rectify the count a club or spade has to be given away. If declarer attempts to do this at trick four, West wins and gives partner a spade ruff. If declarer draws trumps first and then concedes a club, he can't get back to hand to run the trumps (without destroying the intended squeeze position).
So in this case a different sort of squeeze is required - a trump squeeze. These are not the easiest squeezes to comprehend, but this is actually one of the easier ones. In a trump squeeze the ruffing value of the trump plays a part in ruffing at least one loser (from the opposite hand), and setting up an associated winner. Two entries are needed to the hand opposite the trump.
Win the spade and then draw trumps arriving at this position with declarer being able to afford one more loser (just before the last trump is played). i.e he has to make five of the remaining six tricks.
9
52
-
964
QJ10
- immaterial
-
KJ10
A83
-
-
AQ7
When declarer plays the the pen-ultimate heart from hand, a club is discarded from dummy, but again what does West do. If he throws a spade, declarer crosses to the A, ruffs a spade, and then re-enters dummy with A in order to cash the other long spade. If he throws a club, declarer plays ace and another club (won by West), and the long club (9) is set up in his own hand.
Note the difference in the two approaches a) and b). The key factor in (a) is 'rectifying the count' before the squeeze card is played; whereas in the trump squeeze (b), the squeeze card is played before the count is effectively rectified. (This is a simplistic approach - squeezes exist where neither of these criteria are necessary, but the above is difficult enough to start with).
So given the above, I was sitting North, did I make the contract? No!
Playing against Ken and Sheila, Ken cashed the A and before cashing the second diamond winner he switched to a spade - brilliant. If he had switched to a club, the non-positional simple squeeze layout can still be reached (a), but on the spade switch declarer has to concede the lead twice in order to rectify the count. I can't see a way of doing this without East getting a ruff or declarer being able to get back to hand to draw the trumps (I'll give a free cup of tea at a club night if anyone can show me a way to make on this return). I actually tried to give a diamond away at trick three, but the subsequent club return thwarted me.
Well done Ken - I look forward to reading your next book on 'Defence To Potential Squeeze Positions'!!
Footnote - anyone interested in reading more about squeeze plays should consider 'Bridge Squeezes Complete' by Clyde E Love - one of the best bridge books I've ever read.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| August (Saturday 15th.) - Board 29 |
Show Detail |
In the modern game, partnerships usually agree to play 'negative doubles', meaning that when partner's opening bid is followed by an overcall from the opponents, a double implies the other two suits. Often partnership agreements go no further than this, but one of the overlooked strengths of negative doubles is their ability to distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' hands (or more correctly 'forcing', invitational', and 'non-forcing' bids) when holding a 5+ card suit. The distinction seems to have been overlooked on this particular hand.
After East and South have made the obvious bids, what does West bid? You may well ask what has it got to do with negative doubles? Directly it hasn't, but the double can be otherwise used. This situation is known as a displaced bid (i.e. you want to bid a suit, but have been forced to a higher level because of the opponent's overcall - without the interference you could have bid 1, but because of the 1 interference you are forced to the two level if you want to bid your hearts). A direct suit bid can be agreed to be either forcing or invitational, but not both. To show the 'other', you can double first (which partner will assume to be the other two suits), and then bid your own suit.
The most common approach is to play the bid of a suit in a displaced situation as forcing (i.e. notionally a five-card suit, 10+ points). To show a slightly weaker but invitational hand, (6+ card suit, 7-9 points), double first and then bid the suit over whatever partner bids (I personally play it the other way round with some partners - but that is not the majority view - I just like to be awkward). So with this hand, you should double first, partner will probably bid 2, over which you then bid 2, and partner will pass knowing you have a reasonable heart suit and no more than 9 points. If you had had a couple of points more, you would bid 2 directly over the overcall, and partner would then be expected to progress. Furthermore, with up to a couple of points less, you pass, and if partner re-opens with a double - extra values - you just then bid your suit and partner can pass - this is the non-forcing situation).
(Please do not confuse the displaced bid situation with an in-line bid (e.g 1 - (1 overcall) - 1) - the overcall has not taken away your 1 bid, and you just bid naturally).
On the featured hand, the limit appears to be eight tricks in hearts, with an optimum East/West score of +110 (only achieved by one pair - Sid and Keith), but having talked to a couple of pairs who went off, they appear to have bid 2 over South's interference, and partner has just assumed that that was forcing, eventually reaching 3 or 3. The correct sequence is to double first - partner re-bids 2 - and then West bids 2 which partner should pass. (Some pairs who bid incorrectly were saved by South progressing in spades).
An interesting point arises if you are not playing negative doubles (i.e. 'old fashioned' Acol, in which a double is penalty of the over-called suit). In a displaced bid situation you should strictly have a 9+ point hand and therefore in the featured hand you should pass the overcall; but I'll bet most pairs would pinch a point with the six card suit and bid 2 - forcing - leading to a poor result.
Footnote - the first recorded use of 'negative doubles' was by Louis Scharf way back in 1937, but only became prominent as part of the Roth-Stone system developed in 1957. This was the year in which the Russians launched their first satellite, and based on this they were originally termed 'Sputnik Doubles'. Nowadays they are an integral part of duplicate bridge, but they are somewhat frowned upon in rubber bridge, in which a double really means double.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| July (Thursday 30th.) - Board 21 |
Show Detail |
Most declarers know that the most frequently used technique is the 'finesse'. A technique that follows very closely, but is not fully understood by some average players is that of 'Avoidance Play'. Freddie North - the great bridge writer and player - who has just recently died - described an avoidance play as 'A technique as common as the magpie, and just as cunning in its quest for survival'.
The objective of an avoidance play is to ensure that a particular defender is not on lead at a critical time during the play of the contract, depriving him from attacking declarer's weak holding (a holding which remains safe if the other defender is on lead). This often manifests itself in depriving a defender from gaining the lead, and running a long suit against declarer's no-trump contract.
The bidding in this contract is fairly standard - South is correct in not introducing his feeble diamond holding by way of a reverse. The 3NT is far more sound, given the holdings in the majors.
Before we look at the hand from declarer's viewpoint, let's consider West's lead. Normally players are taught to lead the highest card from a 3 card or a 2 1/2 card honour sequence (a sequence such as AKJ...; KQ10...; QJ9...; J108... with precisely one card missing below the top two honours. The intention is to possibly trap declarer's card immediately below the top two honours). So the correct lead from West's heart holding is the 'J' - or is it? If the dummy (yet to be tabled), has bid the suit, there is a far greater likelihood of actually setting up the 'gap card' in the dummy than of smothering declarer's holding of that card. This would be the case here if West chose the J; the 9 would be established in dummy. If dummy has bid the suit, I would advise the lead of the fourth highest rather than top of a 2 1/2 honour sequence. So the initial lead goes 4,2,K,A. How should declarer proceed?
|
| Show Answer |
At our table, declarer assessed that he could always set up a third diamond trick following a finesse. Also if the finesse succeeded the fourth diamond made the contract. If it failed he could fall-back on a favourable lie of K (with West). He immediately tried a diamond finesse, losing to East, who returned the obvious heart. Declarer won and played a club towards dummy's queen. West won and cleared the hearts - contract one down.
Declarer overlooked a typical 'Avoidance Play'. At trick two, if he plays a club towards dummy, West will win and play another heart. Declarer wins, but he can now safely take the same diamond finesse as before. East has no heart to return to his partner. Even if he had one, the hearts would be breaking 4-3, so all the defence make is a club, two hearts, and a diamond. Declarer makes his contract via two spades; two hearts; three diamonds; two clubs.
Basically the difference in the two approaches is that West gets the lead at an opportune time for declarer, i.e. when he has no hearts left with which to gain entry to partner's hand.
On the traveller, six pairs made and six pairs went down in this cold contract.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| June (Monday 29th.) - Board 15 |
Show Detail |
Against Ann and Sheila, Ann (South) chose to open 1 (my personal choice would have been to open 1NT, a bid which does make it more difficult for the opposition). Playing weak jump overcalls (6+ card suit; 6 - 10 points), I bid 2 - technically a couple of points light, but I did have a seven card suit. Partner with his strong hand then raised to 4 (I did expect at least a doubleton). The first thing that surprised me was that all pairs, except one, reached the game contract - not easy if not playing weak jump overcalls (also all those pairs made the contract - the only pair failing was in 3).
However the main point of the hand comes in the play, particularly from a defensive viewpoint. At our table, North led 8 - her partner's suit. It was pointless finessing, so I played the ace. Counting nine probable tricks (six spades, two hearts, one club), rather than rely on the heart finesse - bound to be wrong with the bidding - I immediately sought to establish a second club before the opposition could cash their three diamond winners (together with a certain spade trick). I played the Q - how do you defend optimally?
|
| Show Answer |
One of the 'rules' that is taught to defenders is that if declarer is playing a sequence of honours from dummy, you should cover the last one in the sequence (even then there are exceptions). However this only applies if there is also an assumed honour in declarer's hand over you, but if there is a chance of declarer ruffing (a so called 'ruffing finesse'), the opposite tends to be true - you should cover as early as possible. I can only assume some confused thinking on this hand (eavesdropping on the opponents' subsequent conversation), since South ducked the Q. I discarded a diamond, and took the losing spade finesse. Sheila switched to the diamond - too late. Ann (South) cashed the two honours, but I was able to ruff the third round, draw trumps and claim.
What went wrong in defence? I only realised the correct defence when I was thinking about the hand over a pint of beer afterwards. South should realise that it's pointless ducking the Q, declarer is merely going to discard. Also it's futile to think he will ruff the Q - he's played that card rather than a small one, for a specific purpose. However it is unclear as to how the contract is to be defeated by covering - doesn't declarer play the same way? An unclear view is better than no hope - so cover. Declarer ruffs, enters dummy with A, discards a diamond on the third established club and then as before takes the losing spade finesse. North can switch to his diamond, with South taking two tricks. But now instead of playing the third diamond, South switches to another club. I could have ruffed, but there would have been a trump promotion of the 9 for North - contract one off.
The major difference is that in the play as actually happened, two rounds of clubs had been played, and North still had a club remaining when South cashed his diamonds. In the optimum defence, three rounds of clubs had been played, and with North now out of clubs when South cashes his diamonds, is potentially able to ruff the fourth club.
So to generalise (not something I like to do, since there are exceptions), if declarer seems to be playing an honour sequence with the intention of a 'ruffing finesse' it is more often correct to cover the first honour played.
(The above contract can of course always be defeated on a diamond lead - difficult to find on the bidding).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| May 2009 (Thursday 14th.) - Board 2 |
Show Detail |
After a fairly standard bidding sequence, East becomes declarer in 4 (however some players may consider a weak jump overcall on the South hand - I think it's a point too strong). After the predictable heart lead, at the sight of dummy, your first thoughts are the possibility of an overtrick if the spades break 2-2 and you can conjure up a second diamond trick (split honours). But best not react too hastily. If the spades are breaking 3-1 other options exist - eliminate hearts and clubs, and try to end-play South. So take the first heart with the ace, ruff a heart, and re-enter dummy with the trump ace. When South shows out on the first round of trumps, your re-assessment of the hand gives you serious doubts as to whether you can actually make the contract - with South's overcall he could well have both diamond honours. How do you proceed?
|
| Show Answer |
In your re-assessment, your simplistic view is that you can still make the contract if you can ruff a total of three hearts in the long-trump hand (a dummy reversal), and a club in dummy, together with the six top tricks, hoping that North doesn't ruff a heart at any time. I embarked on this line, ruffing the third heart, and re-entering dummy with the K, and fortuitously North threw two diamonds making it easy. The contract made via six spades, one heart, two clubs, and one diamond.
However North can make life more interesting by ruffing either the third or fourth heart (which in fact he should do), thereby seeming to deprive declarer of a small ruff of the heart (over-ruffing with the K is winning with a trick that is bound to make).
Declarer can still prevail even in this situation. If North ruffs either the third or fourth heart, declarer - East - must overruff. He then eliminates any remaining hearts and clubs reaching this situation - (with declarer having made eight tricks):
QJ
-
6
Q7
86 7
- -
972 AJ105
- -
-
3
KQ8
J
Declarer leads a small diamond from dummy and inserts the Jack (or 10). South wins and whatever he returns, all the defence make is their two boss trumps (if he exits with the heart, take care not to ruff in dummy). Even if declarer had been in hand he must not attempt to cash his A - instead he must exit to South with J.
If you follow this general line of play, and knowing that North has seven cards in the minors at the play of the third heart, you can prevail however the minors are distributed in North's hand.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| April 2009 (Saturday 18th.) - Board 1 |
Show Detail |
Last Saturday was certainly the night to be sitting East-West, with a plethora of interesting hands. One hand that encompassed a number of technical aspects, both in the bidding and the play, was the following. Dave and I played it against Eleanor and Gwen. With North-South silent throughout, East must decide what to open. Having discussed afterwards, it would appear that the opening bids ranged from 1, 2, 4, 5, 2
Let's take a brief look at each of these options:
2 (following which, the pair reached 7NT with disastrous consequences - see pair 11 on traveller). Not strong enough, nor the requirements for a game force, and also this bid would be illegal under the current rules. The obligatory requirements for a strong 2 are: there are irrefutably 8 playing tricks; or it contains at least 16 high-card-points; or the high-card-points plus the combined length of the two longest suits total at least 25 - none of these apply.
2 - same as for 2
4 - possibility acceptable without the 5-card club suit, but you should not pre-empt with a good second suit.
5 - over the top even without the 5-card club suit.
1 - the boring, but correct choice.
After the obvious 1 response, when contemplating the re-bid, a basic principle is that if you have a second suit bid it, hence 2. Too many players with say a 6-4 distribution incorrectly re-bid the 6-card suit instead of showing the 4-card suit (in a non-reverse situation). On this hand this principle seems to have been ignored, with three pairs not mentioning the club suit and subsequently playing in the inferior 5.
West could settle for 3NT which would be passed, but the better 2 fourth-suit forcing bid leaves the door open for slam investigation.
It is important that East now rebids his clubs. This now shows 5 clubs, and since he originally opened a diamond, he must also have 5 or more diamonds.
After 3NT from West, East is still interested in a slam, and now bids 4, confirming 6 or more diamonds.
West is interested in a club slam, so bids Blackwood (we weren't playing Roman Keycard, but even if playing it, diamonds would be the agreed suit). After the one ace response, West is happy to bid the club small-slam.
One pair - Liam and Wendy, visitors for the evening - bid to 7. After the 2 bid they bid 4 which apparently shows 5 clubs and 6 or more diamonds. In this situation the subsequent 4NT is RKCB with clubs as trumps. The responder can now show the K enabling a possible grand-slam to be reached (but even then I would probably not have bid it - but I'm not Wendy!!).
In the play, after a heart lead taken with the A, declarer can always easily settle for twelve tricks, but in pairs there are many no-risk possibilities for the thirteenth trick. Take a diamond finesse; draw trumps (three rounds if necessary) and try to guess which hand may have a doubleton honour in diamonds and then play either Q or 10 (a guess); draw two rounds of trumps and play for any 3-2 diamond break hoping not to get over-ruffed. The odds are close, but slightly in favour of the latter route - but even that is somewhat fraught.
At trick two, a small club to hand (noting North's play of J), A, ruff a diamond, ruff a small heart back to hand, and then play another diamond, unfortunately with South following with defender's last diamond. At this stage there is A9 in dummy. Do you now ruff with the 9 hoping not to get over-ruffed, or do you ruff with the A and rely on the remaining trumps being 1-1 (if a defender has Jx remaining you will lose a club trick)?
You may consider this to be a complete guess, but there is an obscure play technique called the 'Principle Of Restricted Choice'. This is somewhat difficult to comprehend, but in essence it states that if missing two touching honours, and one defender plays one of them on a previous round, the assumption is that it is the other defender who is more likely to hold the other honour, given no other indication as to the distribution (it can be proved to be mathematically correct). Declarers unconsciously make use of this whenever they play for split honours with the defending side.
So in this situation with North having previously played J, it is more likely that South will have the 10. So you should ruff with the 9, and use your remaining club honours to draw the J (the remaining diamonds now having been established). Please note that it doesn't always work - it is only a probability guide, but if utilised over a number of deals, you will come out on top more often than not.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| March 2009 (Monday 23rd.) - Board 6 |
Show Detail |
A fairly standard 1NT opening bid from East, but who could forsee the fuse that was about to be lit.
South correctly doubled - he probably has six sure tricks in his own hand and with the K would possibly expect a seventh - one off - and that's without any possible tricks from partner.
Without playing anything complicated, West can pass the double with every expectation of making - which he certainly does - hence the 180s on the score sheet. North may then decide to pull, but to what - no five card suit; clubs or hearts are a punt. I think he is correct to pass.
However my partner and I play Halmic Defence To 1NT Doubled - but in addition to the 'normal' rescue manouevres, we embellish it with a couple of trimmings - one standard - one of our own design.
Unless you are playing that a rescue of 2 shows a weak hand with five or more spades, both a 2 and 2NT bid from the responder to the 1NT opening bidder are redundant.
A little known 'standard' appendix to Halmic, is that a 2 bid shows notionally 5-5 in the majors and an invitational hand (8 - 10 points). This serves both as a rescue, when the opposition are probably going to defeat the contract by running a long minor, but can also be constructive opposite a maximum 1NT opening bid, whereby 3 or 4, hearts or spades can make.
A extension to this (by no means standard), is to use the 2NT bid to show an 8 - 10 point hand, with 5-5 in a major and a minor. Partner (the 1NT opener), with only one, three or more card major bids 3 (the situation in this case), but with at least 3-3 in the majors he bids 3. Responder then sets both the suit and the level.
(for both the 2 and 2NT bids, the majority of points should be in the 5-card suits).
In this case he sets the suit with 3. Opener knowing that partner has spurned the opportunity of leaving 1NT doubled, can bid 5 with good support.
Contract made.
I've received a comment from Tony Disley re. this hand - thanks.
"Takes a pretty good declarer to have the table presence to make 5 on the defence of 3 rounds of spades , needing to ruff with A and then take first round double finesse in trumps"
My response:
However at our table fortuitously the system enabled West to become declarer, and North didn't lead his doubleton spade (he in fact led a trump) - an easy make now. Switch the clubs and diamonds - yes we would have had to take an inspired view in the trump suit.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| February 2009 (Thursday 5th.) - Board 26 |
Show Detail |
A slightly more difficult hand to assess this month - that's why it's later than usual. The intriguing aspect of the hand is in the play, but first a word about the bidding.
As East, I opened the obvious1♣, to which partner responded 1♠. My hand is too strong for a re-bid of 3♣, so what other bid do I make? Unfortunately, Bron and I don't play 3♦ as a cue-bid agreeing spades (this is the ideal bid - partner can then readily bid 3NT with only four spades - and I certainly pass with only three). I decided that she was most likely to hold five spades (there's a big gap between 1♣ and 1♠ into which other four card suits could have been bid), and so bid the spade game.
As can be seen 3NT is no real problem, but we, along with many other pairs ended up in the Moysian fit. A Moysian fit is a 4-3 trump fit named after Alphonse Moyse, the 1920's bridge writer, who strongly advocated opening four card majors and supporting with three - hence he found himself in many awkward contracts.
The problem in the bidding arose from West's bid of 1♠ rather than 1♦.So many players want to bid the four card major rather than a cheaper four card minor - why? I like to bid suits in ascending sequence (or as the Americans would say - 'up-the-line'), as long as any minor - usually diamonds - is biddable. You are not actually bidding the minor with aspirations of playing at 5minor (although a slam might be there), but to keep the level low enough to describe, and to indicate to partner a suit which is under control for a possible no-trump contract - as is the case with this hand. If your partner has a four card major he will bid it, and then you can support. The non-bid of diamonds, which would have given a sequence of 1♣ - 1♦ - 3♣ - 3NT, has given rise to the messier one shown.
In the play, North led the ♥K (ducked) and followed with another heart to declarer's ace. Declarer now ruffed the third heart with the small trump in dummy. Who's your money on -declarer or defenders? It would appear that declarer can only lose one heart and two spades at most, but there are three elements to the hand -control of the trump suit, entries to the long clubs in dummy, and entries to hand to draw trumps.
|
| Show Answer |
Certainly if South over-ruffs dummy, declarer cannot go wrong. She is now in control of the trumps - South only wins two further trumps.
What if South throws away a diamond. No good - declarer can still draw trumps and enjoy entries back and forth to run the clubs.
However if South throws a club things are different. It now depends on what declarer does:
♠ 84
♥ 962
♦ Q8
♣ 1083
♠ J763 ♠ KQ
♥ ---- ♥ ------
♦ KJ42 ♦ A5
♣ 97 ♣ AKQ542
♠ A109x
♥ ----
♦ 109762
♣ J
If she attempts to draw trumps, South must duck two rounds. Dummy now returns a diamond and declarer has to decide upon the finesse or to drop queen doubleton in order to not lose at diamond at the end. The odds heavily favour the finesse - one off.
If she doesn't draw trumps and attacks clubs, South can ruff the second club, return a diamond and declarer will eventually be cut-off from dummy's clubs.
(At our table, declarer attempted to draw trumps at the above stage. South ducked the first one but lost his nerve and won the second one, which allows declarer to make without resorting to the (losing) diamond finesse).
I suggest that you deal a pack of cards to get to this stage and check it out - I had to.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| January 2009 (Thursday 8th.) - Board 20 |
Show Detail |
Dealer West
Benjaminised Acol in which a 2-level major opening bid is a 6-card pre-emptive bid, showing 6-10 points vulnerable (5-9 not-vulnerable), is becoming more and more popular at club level.
The intention of any pre-emptive style, is to steal bidding space from the opposition, making it more difficult for them to find their fit.
However the sword has two edges if it is partner who has the 'big hand'.
My partner, West, opened 2, North passed, and now came the first decision. In principle two routes are possible: find out more about the quality of partner's hearts for a possible 4 contract; or find out about a possible spade fit for a 4 contract. But once embarking along one route it's difficult to cross-over to the other. My decisions were also affected by the fact that I'd never played with Jan before, so I didn't know exactly what she would take subsequent bids to mean.
2 - which most pairs play as forcing (new suit), but I was unsure whether my partner would take it as such (some pairs do in fact play this as non-forcing - not my style. They create a forcing situation by going through 2NT). Certainly the best bid technically as long as partner is on the same wave-length, but if a fit is not found the opportunity to investigate a possible 4 is lost.
2NT - the Ogust Response, implying some heart support, requesting partner to show his strength and the quality of the major suit opened (given an uninterrupted response, partner would reply 3, showing lower end of the point range, but good hearts - two of the top three honours). But again did partner play this convention? This is the most common meaning of the bid, but some pairs play this as a feature asking bid - common in America. I was afraid that partner may pass the bid. Also if the response necessitates abandoning the possible 4 contract the opportunity to investigate an alternative 4 is all but lost.
3NT - probably the most pragmatic bid with an unfamiliar partner. Surely the partnership has enough points to conjure up nine tricks, particularly with the K protected on the lead.
I chose 3NT, but South (Pat Cogbill) decided to get into the auction with a 4 bid. Pass from partner, and from North. What to bid next - now regretting the original choice of 3NT.
4 - a real punt, but the lead from the 'right' hand.
4 - but with a guaranteed diamond lead from North, probably leading to at least two diamond losers, and probable club or heart losers (in fact as the cards lie there are spade losers by virtue of South's void).
4NT - hoping to play there, but would partner treat this as Blackwood.
Double - we must be able to defeat the contract.
I should have chosen 4NT, which would have been a probable top board (unless South finds the inspired lead of a club). I made the bad choice of a double. The contract went two off (500) for a near bottom, with most pairs in the sensible 4 contract - making (620, 650). I always preach that Rule Number One in bridge is 'Trust Your Partner'. Pity I didn't take my own advice.
As the cards lie, the sensible auction is 2 - pass - 2 - 4 - 4. If partner doesn't have spades he would obviously pass, and I could have then bid 4.
Note that if not playing Benji Acol, the bidding becomes far simpler. East effectively becomes the first to bid: 1 - 4 - 4. The heart suit never gets mentioned, and therefore ceases to be a distraction.
AFH
|
|
|
|
| December 2008 (Monday 8th.) - Board 10 |
Show Detail |
Playing with Gary against Betty and Margaret on the Monday evening, Gary became declarer in 4 on the following hand.
But first a word about the bidding. Traditional Acolites would question West's raise to 3. Gary and I play the Losing Trick Count in response to partner's suit opening bid. Whilst you obviously still need some points to support partner, the LTC concentrates more on the shape of the hand and whether the points are in the right place. This West hand in response has an '8 loser hand', which necessitates a 3 response. Furthermore, East with his '6 loser hand' is now justified in bidding 4 (his original opening bid implied a 7 loser or better hand).
After the club lead, when dummy was tabled, declarer (Gary) took stock and was optimistic - at least four heart tricks, probably two ruffs in dummy, two spade tricks, two diamond tricks, and a possible spade finesse for an overtrick. His euphoria was dampened when having ruffed the second club, he cashed the A and South discarded (a diamond). He now seem to have two trump losers, the club already lost, and the contract will therefore depend upon a favourable spade position - hopefully the queen with North. But is there a better way?
|
| Show Answer |
Gary showed good technique in the play of this hand. Often in situations like this, the defender with the long trumps can be end-played to lead the trumps himself. On this hand it's true that if declarer plays the trumps (hearts) himself, he is bound to lose two trump tricks (if the J is played from dummy, North covers and subsequently makes both the 10 and 9. If a small one is played from dummy, North plays the 9 and awaits his two trump tricks with the Q and 10).
However what if North's last three cards were the Q109, and has to ruff (with the 9). Dummy has Jx, and declarer has Ax. Now North on lead with two cards, has to lead the suit himself conceding the last two trumps, one to declarer and one dummy. He will in fact have made only one trump trick. This end position can be reached with very minimal risk (certainly a better option than relying on the spade finesse - which loses).
The play so far has been club lead; club continuation (ruffed); A. Now play a diamond to the ace, ruff another club (North follows with the Ace confirming that he originally started with three). Another diamond to the king and return to hand with A. Ruff a diamond in dummy and return to hand with K. The trump situation is now as required
The overall situation at this stage, with declarer having lost one trick, is:
Q109
Q
J5
J8 K7
98
Q8
J
10
Declarer (East) now plays a spade, South wins and dummy discards a club, with North discarding his diamond. On any return from South, North has to ruff - declarer throws his other spade. North then has to concede the last two tricks to dummy's J and declarer's K. It does North no good to ruff his partner's winning spade - he merely swaps winners.
AFH |
|
|
|
|
| November 2008 (Thursday 6th.) - Board 21 |
Show Detail |
For a change we have a bidding problem. Before looking at all the hands and the 'answer', see what decision you would take at the crucial stage.
A very messy auction - the problem starting with West's jump bid of 3. The hand has all the right attributes for this bid in its traditional sense, and most people, myself included, would have no qualms about making the bid. But it does take up a lot of space. Over East's 3 (five spades and at least four hearts), West has a difficult choice, a passive 3NT, which partner is almost bound to pass, or some other forward going bid with slam aspirations. I think 4 is probably correct, which having by-passed 3NT must imply slam interest. East's 4 confirms his 5-5 major shape, but I'm not sure what West should bid next - what's your choice?
|
| Show Answer |
Looking at the traveller, surprisingly most pairs shunned the slam, with only Barbara and Sadie playing in a slam (unfortunately the wrong one). With the high number of tables and boards in play on that night, this was one of the boards that I didn't get to play - so thankfully no decision to make.
As with most bidding problems there is no right or wrong answer, just a matter of opinion, but let's assess the various options.
West ideally needs to know three pieces of information from partner in order to determine the final contract with some degree of certainty. Does he have K; does he have a club honour; is he better than a minimum?.
Pass - really throwing in the towel. You've bid this far, and I feel this is the least attractive bid. However if East is weak with say a 6-5 distribution, it could be the correct bid.
4- the same scenario as 'pass', except that your spade honour cards are better, and maybe it caters better for partner having a six-card spade suit. Hardly a sensible option, and not the bid for me.
4NT - (some form of Blackwood). If the hand is to be played in no-trumps you need to protect the ♣K should there be an ace missing. However partner may be distributional and weak- say something like J10xxx AKxxx K xx. After all, his bidding has indicated nothing extra and we'd all open and re-bid this hand the same, but you'd struggle to even make eleven tricks.
5 - this would say to partner that you require a better than minimum hand for him to progress to a slam. It should also imply that you require some sort of control in the unbid suit, but this understanding would be reserved for a well established partnership who've come across the situation before. However even with a less experienced or an unfamiliar partner it would be one of my prefered bids.
East could bid 6 with a better than minimum hand, but if he holds K he might well bid 6NT.
5- this would probably be my prefered bid as long as I could trust partner not to mis-interpret it. It's a sort of fourth-suit forcing bid or trial at the five level. Partner should realise that you have some control in clubs, and probably not the ace, otherwise you would probably explore slam possibilities via 4NT. A shrewd partner would infer that you have the K and are afraid of the lead through the suit. So if he had Q for support, and a better than minimum hand he would bid the slam (it would be inconceivable that West would be making the bid with only one ace given his previous strong bids). Without a club guard he would probably sign off in 5.
Now time to view all four hands. In fact, over 5 or 5 East does best to bid 6. West is unlikely to take this as out-and-out suit support (having shown at least ten cards in the majors), merely control showing and a means of transfering the no-trump bid to the correct hand (but I wouldn't do it with an inexperienced partner). If in fact East had held Q, the presence of the K, would enable him to bid the slam - in no-trumps.
As I said earlier, West's original jump bid to 3 doesn't smooth the auction. If he just bids 2, it could then proceed 2; 3 (fourth suit forcing); 3; 4 (past 3NT so slam try in diamonds); 5 (a little help) ; 5NT (still interested and played from the correct hand); 6 (good hearts); 6NT. - Easy!! - I must admit that I wouldn't have found this sequence at the table, but the 2 bid does create more room for exploration (East manages to convey his 5-5 shape and minimal diamond help at the five-level).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| October 2008 (September Monday 22nd.) - Board 12 |
Show Detail |
I'm missing a few sessions during October so less hands to analyse, but this hand occurred during September, and is certainly worth discussing.
A bold auction concluded with Ken and Sheila reaching a not unreasonable slam. As East, I led J. Terry the director was breathing down our necks, so declarer had to make some quick decisions as to the best line of play. Unfortunately he went one off, but I'm sure that given a little more thinking time he would have succeeded. You've got hours to think about it - no excuses for going off.
But first a word about the bidding. My view is that you should try to support partner's major suit at the earliest opportunity (more so if playing five-card majors). Otherwise after your 'delayed support bid' (in this case South's 2), in the modern competitive game, at favourable vulnerability the next player is very likely to escalate the bidding making it more difficult to establish a fit at the correct level. All very well, so how do you support partner's five-card spade suit - you can't bid a direct 4, since this would be pre-emptive. I strongly advocate the use of a Jacoby 2NT (or possibly even the older style Baron 2NT), which in its basic form shows a balanced 13+ hand with support for partner's major (at worst three to an honour when playing five-card majors). When you think about it, in a five-card major system the 2NT bid has no other use. Having said that, it would probably have led to the same contract.
|
| Show Answer |
At the table, declarer simply relied on the Q being with East (which it wasn't) and also the K being with East (which it was) - one off.
However North can give himself an extra chance in the diamond suit. Having drawn trumps, suppose he leads J, which East will probably duck (there's no reason to cover!). The ace is played from dummy and the small diamond returned which declarer ruffs. He notices the king fall. This must have originally been king doubleton, otherwise East would surely have split his honours when the jack was played. So over to dummy with A. Play 10 taking a ruffing finesse against west, and discard.....?? (if west covers 10, ruff, return to dummy and play 9 for the same discard).
Not quite planned thoroughly enough. You don't know whether to throw a club (correct play if the Q is right), or a heart (correct play if the K is correct).
So fast-rewind to the start, draw trumps (you can afford to do this - there are still sufficient entries), and immediately play a small club towards the queen, before playing the J. Depending on whether the K is with East or with West, subsequently enables declarer to make the correct discard on dummy's diamond (in this case the club was favourable, so he can discard a small heart) - contract made. If the K had been wrong (i.e. with West) he would subsequently discard a club on the diamond and then relied on the heart finesse. Note this slight extra chance (i.e. honour doubleton diamond with East with the 109 in dummy) does not prevent declarer from adopting the simple line should the diamonds not oblige.
Above, I said that East had no need to cover the J with K. A far-sighted East in fact should cover. If declarer is trying to adopt the play above, he may think that East has both the K and Q, so cannot now afford the ruffing finesse.
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| September 2008 (Saturday 13th.) - Board 3 |
Show Detail |
The bidding on this hand should be straight-forward. After a probable 3 pre-empt from North, East should bid 3NT. Note that after a pre-empt, a fairly balanced hand with 16+ points and a stop in the pre-empt suit should almost automatically bid 3NT. If the remaining points are evenly distributed, 24/25 points should enable the 3NT to make.
After the probable 8 lead from South, who's your money on - East/West to succeed in 3NT, or North/South to defeat the contract.
|
| Show Answer |
Let's listen to the thoughts of North and East as they do battle on this hand (no dis-respect to South and West, but their roles are somewhat passive). But before we do that, we would all agree that East needs to establish his club suit for at least one trick to make the contract.
North: well done partner - it's the first time tonight that you've led the suit I've bid. Let's hope that you can get the lead in order to lead another diamond, before my club entry is used. I'll then clear the diamond suit - I then reckon about three off - ♦Q played.
East: I've read a book a few years ago that said you must duck the opening lead - something to do with cutting communications. So - ♦2.
- North continues with a diamond - with declarer East winning. Declarer then plays a club to South's bare ace. South now has no diamonds to continue with. East wins whatever he exits with, and plays another club, with North winning. However the diamonds are not yet set-up for the defence so he has to concede the contract to East.
- If East had taken the first diamond, and played a club, South wins and still has a diamond with which to exit. But this time North wins, plays a third diamond, and waits with his ♣K entry to run the diamond suit - one off.
- Well done East - what's the name of that book.
- North to partner - "Nothing we can do once he ducks the opening lead - next board"
However let's eavesdrop on a different table and listen to North's thoughts.
North: From partner's lead I know that East has two diamond tricks. If I play the diamond honour he will just duck and eventually I'll lose communication with my partner (the winning line detailed above). However what if I don't play a diamond honour, and let the 10 win......
- East wins (either in hand or dummy), plays a club as before, but on winning the ace, South still has a diamond to play. It doesn't matter whether East ducks this trick or the next diamond, North still has the club entry to then run the diamonds - one off.
An excellent defence from North - end of story - not quite.
At another table at which North has made the good play of letting declarer win the first trick (in dummy) .
East: Clever North - he has ducked the initial lead to preserve communications - I'm probably one off now. But wait a minute, let's try a little deception. I'm in dummy, and it would appear that I need to get rid of any possible entry to North's hand before losing the lead to South. I'll play the ♣Q.
North: Declarer must think I was born yesterday, trying to get me to duck the club. My partner is bound to have the Jack.
♣K played ..... oops!
Looking at the traveller, I assumed that one North/South had found this expert defence. On asking the question ready to congratulate the pair, they admitted that their 100 was in defence to 6♣ (not the best contract missing ace and king of trumps).
AFH
|
|
|
|
|
| August 2008 (Saturday 9th.) - Board 10 |
Show Detail |
Most East's played in 3NT, I assume via a similar sequence. South leads 5 (which would appear to be 4th. highest from at least a five-card suit - you can't see the 2,3 or 4), but only one East succeeded in making. What is your optimum line of play.
|
| Show Answer |
Entries to dummy are somewhat scarce, so play small. North covers with 10, and you win with the Q. (The lead appears to be 4th. highest from a five or more card suit).
The natural instinct is to play on diamonds, hoping to win three tricks in the suit (having talked to a few people afterwards, this was in fact the usual approach). But, natural instincts are no substitute to a few seconds thought. If the defence duck the first diamond, and then win the second and third diamond, each time firing back a club, you cannot then get to dummy, and end up losing two diamonds, two clubs, and either a spade or a heart (or both). Even if the clubs break 4-4, you will end up in hand having to lead away from the spades and hearts, and are bound to go off.
The correct approach is to play for the hearts to be 3-3, or Kx with South, and you are guaranteed to make. Play A, followed by the small heart. Say this is taken and a club returned. Win in dummy and now run the hearts (it doesn't matter whether the defence duck the second heart and take the third one - still returning a club). Having played the five hearts (they are 3-3 so you win four heart tricks), play K. Whatever the defence do now, you still have a club winner in hand, and they cannot prevent you from winning either two spades in hand, or two diamonds in dummy - nine tricks made.
This is in fact is the only realistic line to make - hearts have to behave (as they do). If not, you cannot make (ok - if there is a doubleton AK of diamonds you can make - but this is way against the odds).
AFH |
|
|
|
|