|
Hand 33 Tuesday 29th June 2010
Love All … dealer North
| | ♠ A 9 ♥ A 9 ♦ A 9 5 3 ♣ K Q 10 7 2 | |
| ♠ K Q 5 ♥ 8 7 6 4 ♦ Q 10 7 2 ♣ J 3 | | ♠ 8 7 6 4 3 ♥ Q 3 2 ♦ J 6 ♣ 9 6 5 |
| | ♠ J 10 2 ♥ K J 10 5 ♦ K 8 4 ♣ A 8 4 | |
| West
Pass Pass All Pass | North 1♣ 2♦ 2NT
| East Pass Pass Pass
| South 1♥ 2♠ 3NT |
In the uncontested auction, an important principle is that one of the partners assumes the rôle of “Captain of the bidding”. The other partner then attempts to describe and limit his hand as accurately as possible and the ‘Captain’ is able to judge the best denomination and level of the contract. Here, we have an interesting sequence where both players reverse: North’s 2♦ bid shows around 16 – 19 points without primary heart support and clubs longer than diamonds. When South makes a responder’s reverse with 2♠, which is 4th-suit forcing, she becomes the Captain and asks for further clarification … North would then show three-card heart support if he held it or some help in stopping spades so that the hand can be played in NT (North’s first rebid indicated that he cannot have four spades). The 2NT answer suggests the denomination and shows the bottom of the range of strength (16/17 points); with more, he would jump to 3NT. This could be useful information if South were contemplating a slam.
East has an unenviable choice of leads against 3NT. As it happens, everything helps declarer somehow or other. A club would be the least damaging, but I think many would agree with the choice of a spade, which occurred at Table 5. Capturing the ♠Q, North tested clubs with ♣K and ♣A. When they broke even, eleven tricks were assured but declarer had the chance of a twelfth. He could set up the second spade trick (when West would likely play a third round) and then play for a red suit squeeze; after 3 rounds of spades and 5 more of clubs, declarer would have:-
♥ A9
♦ A95 □
□
□
□
♥ KJ10
♦ K8
and neither defender who started with the ♥Q and four diamonds could keep both suits covered. This type is called an Automatic Squeeze because it works against either defender and in this case it’s quite easy to play because there is no need even to count cards – just cash the top hearts first to see if the ♥Q falls … if it doesn’t, see if you have three diamond tricks.
This might be fun, if it worked, but there’s a smaller probability of finding the ♥Q accompanied by 4 or more diamonds than guessing the 50:50 finesse right. On top of this, there’s a principle of match-point pairs play that if you’ve landed in the right contract (it doesn’t always happen to us, does it!) and you haven’t received an unfavourable lead, you should then play with the room i.e. try to play in the same way that you think all the other declarers are playing and thus avoid losing any of the gains you might already have made. So the declarer abandoned thoughts of a squeeze and, at trick four, simply played to his ♥A and finessed the ♥J … when this held, he conceded the ♠K and claimed twelve tricks. There was the slightest of indications that East was more likely to hold the ♥Q than West: she probably would not have liked the idea of leading away from an honour in dummy’s first-bid suit but might well have chosen to lead from small cards through strength. OK, it’s not much of a clue and you wouldn’t bet your life on - it but it’s the natural way to play the suit and likely to be what other declarers are doing anyway.
Looking at the traveller and cards, at the time they were played, a score of +490 would seem likely to be a shared top for N/S. However, if a declarer were in desperate need of an outright top and had got as far as successfully finessing the ♥J, then there was a way to get all the tricks - although it would risk getting only +430 instead. Cashing the ♥K would set up a fourth heart trick and, after three more rounds of clubs, another squeeze would kick in. This would be the situation with the victim, West, yet to discard on the fifth club:
| ♠ | 9 | |
| ♥ | - |
| ♦ | A 9 |
| ♣ | - |
| ♠ | K | N W E S | ♠ | 8 |
| ♥ | - | ♥ | - |
| ♦ | Q 10 7 | ♦ | J 6 |
| ♣ | - | ♣ | - |
| ♠ | - | |
| ♥ | - |
| ♦ | K 8 4 |
| ♣ | - |
and it’s plain to see that the defenders will not take a single trick after this line of play.
| Board No33 None Vul Dealer North |
| Pairs | Contract | Scores | MPs |
| N/S | E/W | Bid | By | Tks | N/S | E/W | N/S | E/W |
| 4 | 8 | 3NT | S | 11 | 460 | | 3 | 11 |
| 5 | 10 | 3NT | N | 12 | 490 | | 9.7 | 4.3 |
| 6 | 1 | 3NT | S | 12 | 490 | | 9.7 | 4.3 |
| 7 | 3 | 3NT | N | 12 | 490 | | 9.7 | 4.3 |
| 8 | 5 | 4NT | N | 12 | 490 | | 9.7 | 4.3 |
| 9 | 7 | N/A | 50% | 50% | 7 | 7 |
| 10 | 9 | 3NT | S | 10 | 430 | | 0.3 | 13.7 |
Norman Stephenson (30/06/10)
______________________________________________________________________________
Hand 24 Tuesday 15th June 2010
Love All … dealer West
| | ♠ K Q 3 ♥ 4 3 ♦ 9 8 6 4 2 ♣ A 8 6 | |
| ♠ 10 6 ♥ A 10 9 7 ♦ Q ♣ K 10 9 7 5 3 | | ♠ 9 7 5 4 ♥ 8 5 ♦K J 10 3 ♣ Q J 4 |
| | ♠ A J 8 2 ♥ K Q J 6 2 ♦ A 7 5 ♣ 2 | |
| West Pass 2♣ [1] Pass All Pass | North Pass 2♦ [2] 3♣ [4]
| East Pass Pass Pass
| South 1♥ 2♠ [3] 3♥ [5] |
There were several instructive points of approach-forcing bidding theory on this hand as it was bid at Table 5 last Tuesday:
(1) Two of the down-sides to overcalling are the risk of penalties and the possibility, if one is outbid, of having helped declarer place the enemy high cards/suit lengths and so play the hand better. Here, the former risk is lessened because East, knowing that West could not open the bidding in the first place, would be more moderate if he were to take any action. Three of the up-sides are the chance of buying the contract (for a better score, plus or minus), interfering with the opponents’ bidding or indicating a good lead for partner. All of these might well be present in this hand and I would say that this is a good overcall at the vulnerability.
(2) Without the interference 1NT would look to be a preferable bid, but now North has to introduce this awful diamond suit; the 2-over-1 might be correct in a technical sense but it could lead to South misjudging the value of any diamond honours she held - e.g. ♦ Qxx might look attractive but would be useless.
(3) This is a reverse, which is primarily shape-showing (hearts are longer than spades) but since it forces preference at the three-level it needs to have the extra strength (3 or 4 points) for that additional trick. Most players need 16/17+ points before they reverse so after an initial 2-level response it becomes virtually a game-forcing bid. Here, a 6-loser hand, with a semi-fit for partner in diamonds, justifies the 2♠ bid.
(4) Had there been no overcall from West, this would have been “4th-suit-forcing” asking mainly that partner describe her hand further … it could be showing a club suit - but not necessarily. There is no question that North wants to play in a club contract here and 3♣ is what is called a “directional asking-bid”. It asks partner to bid NT with ‘an adequate holding in clubs’. Also, as in this case, the ‘directional’ element can come to the fore - it is important that North play the NT contract if she held ♣ Qx
(5) With no help in clubs and minimum strength, North cannot make any positive move. Perhaps, having the 3-card support, raising to 3♦ might have shown the shape better (4-5-3-1); that would have ended the auction because North could not contemplate making 11 tricks in diamonds – only 9 tricks are available.
(6) With a minimum hand for his bidding up to now, no support for partner’s suits and hearing minimum bids opposite, North now decides to ‘play it safe’ and pass … it is very rare to stay out of game after a 2-over-1 plus a reverse and at rubber or teams scoring it would have been a tougher decision to make. Sure, if hearts had split 3:3 ten tricks would then have been possible (4♥+4♠+♣A+♦A) but that would happen only about a third of the time … which makes it a bad bet at any form of scoring.
| Board No24 None Vul Dealer West |
| Pairs | Contract | Scores | MPs |
| N/S | E/W | Bid | By | Tks | N/S | E/W | N/S | E/W |
| 1 | 3 | 2♥ | S | 8 | 110 | | 10 | 4 |
| 2 | 5 | 3♣ | W | 8 | 50 | | 8 | 6 |
| 3 | 7 | 2♠ | S | 7 | | 50 | 6 | 8 |
| 4 | 10 | 3♣ | W | 9 | | 110 | 0 | 14 |
| 5 | 2 | 3♥ | S | 9 | 140 | | 13 | 1 |
| 6 | 4 | 2♥ | S | 9 | 140 | | 13 | 1 |
| 7 | 6 | 3♠ | S | 7 | | 100 | 3 | 11 |
| 8 | 8 | 4♥ | S | 8 | | 100 | 3 | 11 |
Norman Stephenson (16/06/10)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________