|
| Contributions are welcome |
 Members are encouraged to contribute to this column. To do so please submit your idea (preferably containing details such as the date and board number, the bidding and your text) to either Morgan Bunday or John Crosher. Don't worry too much about the precise format, the editor should be able to knock it into shape for BridgeWebs.
|
|
|
|
| Bridge is an easy game... at double-dummy (6 Oct 2016) |
|
|
|
|
The Humble Cup heat at Royston on 6th October threw up a number of "big" hands well-suited to the Teams format. At our table, for example, the very first deal was board 6 which turned out to be a laydown grand slam... congratulations to the two pairs who bid it. Also well done to my partner who was the only one to find the 6♦ slam on board 24. But I want to concentrate on a third hand, board 12.
This was a tricky hand to bid. At our table we ended up in at 5♦ contract as shown after I decided to rescue partner out of a 3NT contract. (South's double of 1♠ is a "negative double", showing hearts),
But let's concentrate on the play: what would you lead as East against 5♦ and what's your plan for the defence? When you've decided, click on Show Answer to see whether it would have been "all right on the night".
|
|
|
|
The "obvious" plan for the defence is to cash ♣A to have a look at dummy (click on Show All Hands to see the details), then maybe cash ♣K and ♠A hoping to defeat the contract straight away. Not a winning line as the cards lie... in fact, rather the opposite.
The bidding has given away a couple of big clues about declarer's likely holding. Firstly, declarer's bidding has shown at least five clubs, and your club holding of ♣AK97 could well prove an unpleasant surprise for him — assuming you don't lead clubs, that is. Also, by leading ♣A you are exposing your ♣K to a ruffing finesse if dummy only has a singleton club (a void would be even worse). However, as the cards lie on a top club lead, all is well. Declarer clearly has two club losers off the top, so perhaps you decide to cash a second club at that point.
So where do you look for the setting trick? Tempting as it is, you should be very wary of laying down ♠A in hope rather than expectation. You have 5 spades, partner has supported your spade overcall so must have at least 3, and dummy is now revealed to have another 4. Do the sums... declarer can have at most one spade, and from the bidding looks quite likely to be void. If he is, playing the ♠A is bound to be a disaster.
Another consideration is that if declarer does have a loser in spades, it can't run away. The only suit in dummy on which he could conceivably discard a loser is spades itself. In fact, as the cards lie the only continuation that allows the contract to be made at this point is the ♠A, whereas passive defence (another club or a trump) or a heart switch hold declarer to 9 tricks.
Come to think of it [several days later], it occurs to me that declarer could have had the singleton ♥A and a losing spade, in which case it would be vital to cash the ♠A at this point. Which just goes to show that bridge is not an easy game (especially defence)!
Anyway, back to the real world. At our table, Bernard and Margaret Eddleston (visitors from Hitchin Bridge Club) were defending. Bernard was on lead, and (to my mind, correctly) decided against a club lead having considered the bidding, and selected the ♠A instead, hoping to hit partner's suit. This looked to be an unlucky guess — don't forget, he hadn't seen dummy at that point, otherwise he might well have preferred a heart. I ruffed, immediately cashed ♦A, crossed to ♦K, threw my two heart losers on the established spades, and then started on clubs.
But with the diamonds breaking 3-1 and the clubs breaking 4-2, I had already blown the contract, and I was given no further favours from this experienced pair. Their accurate defence from now on saddled me with an inescapable third club loser, as repeated forces in hearts and spades by the defence gave nothing away.
Can you spot where I went wrong?
As is often the case, it was right at the beginning... I must cross to dummy without first drawing an additional round of trumps. That way I still have trumps to spare in dummy to both ruff a losing club (high) and return to hand with a trump to draw the remaining trumps. The excellent "Play it again" double-dummy facility in BridgeWebs demonstrates the winning line nicely.
And what's the real moral of the story? Well, there are several.
For the defender on lead, don't despair just because the opening lead doesn't work out, there may still be chances to defeat the contract.
For declarer, if you get a fortunate lead at trick one, all the more reason to plan the play carefully and think long and hard before playing to trick two, especially if it looks like a key contract — there's plenty that can still go wrong.
And of course, the most obvious point of all... bridge in the real world is not played double-dummy. Anyone can spot the killing defence to 5♦ seeing all four hands (a heart lead works rather well as it happens), but that's not the point. When it comes to the opening lead, for example, you have to do your best from what you can see in your hand, and what you can infer from the bidding.
Dave Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| That rare beast, the Acol 4NT opener. 18 Aug 2016. |
|
From the South position, hand 15 looks exciting. But then you look at the hand, hunker down and think. How should such a valuable hand be bid?
It has 15 hcp. If everything splits reasonably well you have 11 tricks. The chances of it being left in 1 heart is almost zero, but what do you rebid? 3 Clubs is reasonable but it doesn't get the strength across and may be passed, but even if not you still have a horrible rebid after that – 4NT? (and the opponents may join in? Given the hand has a 7-5 distribution, the odds are the opps have a long suit).
Playing a strong 2 system, 2 hearts (or Benji 2 clubs) again it doesn't seem to show the playing strength. If you bid an Acol 2 clubs, then if partner has a good hand we are probably in 7 NT if partner has a 14 count say. My advertised 23+14 is enough points for the grand slam, BUT not what you want to hear necessarily with this shape.
There is a rare Acol opening bid however, of opening 4NT which asks for partner to bid a specific ace, or bid 5NT if he has 2. The problem with this is... I'm missing 3 !! Plus the clubs aren't totally solid.
The problem with the club suit first - I thought we'd run out of bidding space before finding out partner's club suit quality, so I have to assume it's solid.
Then what is partner's heart distribution? My 7 to the KQJ could just about cater for partner being void. So, assume either partner isn’t void, or else they are split 3-3 with the opponents.
If I open 4NT, and partner has only the ace of diamonds, we can subside into 5 hearts. If he has the ace of hearts OR spades, then 6 looks great. If he has 2 and bids 5NT, then the odds favour ace of diamonds and spades (my short suits), or if he has hearts and spades, and the clubs break badly, then in either case 6 hearts is still the correct bid. If has all 3, he's going to go potty and try 8NT !!! but maybe that's OK …..
So, with the opponents starting to yawn, the 4NT card was placed on the table, partner duly responded with 5NT and was very surprised indeed when I chose to subside in 6 hearts.
Reveal all the hands....
|
|
With the unsurprising ace of Spades lead the contract was quickly made. Partner’s comment after was 'You can only make that bid when you are missing a specific ace'.
Rules have to broken sometimes ….. :) They don’t cover all cases.
The other results for the hand: 2 were in 7 hearts (opening 2 clubs?), 3 others in 6 hearts, 1 not in game, another in 5 hearts and finally a brave soul in 5 spades.
Don't be afraid to engage brain before picking out one of those cards from the bidding box.... :)
Author’s name witheld, by their request. |
|
|
|
|
| How the other half bids. 14 April 2016 |
|
Playing on 14 April, Ron and I were sitting N/S on Board 16 against Paul & Kevin.
The opening 2♦ bid was explained as “Multi”. The 2♥ overcall was queried by East, who couldn't believe my bid and asked if it was “natural”. Ron explained that we don’t come up against multi 2♦ very often and had to assume it was. Before clicking "Show all hands", how would you have bid as West (whether or not you use multi), and what contract would you have ended in?
|
|
I justified my 2♥ overcall as I do have 5 of them and it might give my partner a direction as to what to lead.
It so happened that our score ended up 50/50. But from the other scores on the hand, both EW & NS could have done better:-
The hand was played 8 times and, from the Dealmaster, E/W can make 3♠. From the results, 4♠ was made 4 times although bid only once. N/S played the hand twice in 2♥ and once in 4♦ - which only went one off, giving N/S a clear top.
I’d like to suggest an alternative set of bids if you don’t use Multi 2♦.
1S Dbl (1) 2H
3D (2) All pass
- I can support any of the other 3 suits – just about
- Maybe a bit optimistic particularly as we’re vulnerable
Perhaps this is how Dave & Roger got to 4♦ but they are quite assertive bidders. Whenever Ron & I see we’re playing them next, I always say, quietly, “We will not be mugged.” – but often are.
Malcolm Dean |
|
|
|
|
| Goulash time......17 March 2016 |
|
For those who didn't play it, here's one of the most exciting deals at Royston in recent memory, board 7 played on 17th March 2016. It reminds me of that old bridge joke "What do you call a 9-card suit?"... "Trumps!"
Of course, with computer dealing, hands like this are bound to crop up now and again (as are flat 4333 pass-outs with 10 points all round). It's simply down to the much-misunderstood law of averages!
The bidding given is as it was at our table. I was playing North, and a recent newcomer to our club had the mixed blessing of being dealt the West hand with that 9-card spade suit. Here's some background to our bidding for those who are interested:
South opened a weak-two 2♥ and West sensibly overcalled 4♠ with that shapely 6-loser hand. I briefly considered bidding 5♦, but raising to 5♥ seemed a much better option, keeping the diamond suit up my sleeve, metaphorically speaking. I could well have bid an immediate 6♥ with my excellent controls in the black suits (my ♠A looks especially valuable), but Roger has been known to open a trifle light on occasion, so I decided on the more conservative approach.
That looked like a wise decision when Eric "wielded the axe" and doubled 5♥, which was passed round to the unfortunate West, who was clearly squirming, inwardly at least. We've all been there — do you "trust your partner" who could have 3 certain defensive tricks in his own hand but may well be relying on you for at least one trick in spades? Or do you follow your instinct and rebid spades, which could well go for a large penalty, vulnerable doubled, with the inevitable reproachful look from partner?
What did you do, or would you have done in West's shoes?
|
|
With a hand worth absolutely nothing in defence but worth 7 or 8 playing tricks with spades as trumps, West made the sensible decision of taking out the penalty double and saving in 5♠. But she did look slightly anxious when I doubled in turn, without hesitation.
For those pairs who still play Acol strong-twos, the bidding is essentially the same. South will pass, West will open 4♠ and the subsequent bidding could well go as before, except that North can now only bid 5♦ as he has no way of knowing about their 9-card heart fit. East is now even better value for a penalty double, expecting to make at least four tricks if partner has ♠A, but West should still take-out the double, as before.
Now for the play:
I kicked off with ♣9, and dummy went down with ♣AQJ106, so some declarers might be tempted by the finesse. But West was up to the challenge and went straight up with ♣A — the club lead looks like an obvious singleton from the bidding (otherwise, surely a heart lead would have been chosen).
Now a small trump from dummy, covered by the ♠Q, ♠K and ♠A. Phew, relief for declarer who was probably fearing the worst, with ♠AQ on her left. So that's trumps almost cleared for only one loser.
Now I'm on lead again, as North. How irritating... I want my partner to be on lead so that he can give me a club ruff, but how to give him the lead? Well, South could be void in diamonds I suppose, and playing out ♦A and another may do the trick. But it seems more likely that declarer is the one who's going to be short in diamonds, on the bidding... and anyway, it looks pretty certain that partner had a singleton trump from the play on the first round of trumps.
So with my heart in my mouth, I underled my ♥A in a desperate / risky / inspired attempt [you decide] to give Roger the lead — surely he wouldn't open a vulnerable weak-two as dealer without a top honour in hearts?!
My faith in partner was fully justified... Roger won with the ♥K, cashed the ♣K and led a third club for a ruff.
I was mentally totting up the score for 3 down doubled vulnerable, when declarer ruffed high (a loser-on-loser diamond discard works equally well) to restrict the defence to four tricks. That's two down doubled for a 500 penalty to EW, which could score very well for them if NS have game on for 620+ (as is indeed the case).
Note that if declarer had risked the finesse on the opening lead, it would have been 3 down for an 800 penalty, and a likely bottom for EW. And my underlead would also have gained a crucial trick if declarer's clubs had been ♣Kx rather then ♣xx, but as the cards lay it made no difference. Oh well, they say virtue is its own reward?!
In fact, the scores on this board were predictably varied, all the way from +710 for 5♥ by South making all thirteen tricks, via -200 for 6♥ doubled down one, to -790 for 4♠ doubled by West just making. Some played in 5♦ which can also make, but is likely to go one down when East leads a spade and North tries for a spade ruff, which is foiled by the 9-1 split in spades and an "overruff" by East playing ahead of dummy... slightly unlucky!
Even bigger scores are possible, as the 6♥ slam by South is tricky but makeable (rather like 5♦ by North), and almost every plausible contract is likely to be doubled, by either side. With all four players having a singleton, both declarer and defence have a number of pitfalls awaiting them in the play on many lines. Try the deal with BridgeWebs "Play it again" and see how you'd have done in your preferred contract.
On this occasion we had to settle for a penalty of two down doubled vulnerable and hope for a top, while fearing a bottom (+500 was an average plus, as it turned out). I was happy with that, plus all that extra excitement thrown in. I'd say that was pretty well bid and played by everyone at the table, especially West.
Dave Simmons |
|
|
|
|
| How's your hold-ups? 14 Jan 2016 |
|
How's your Hold-ups?
Most of you will be aware of the standard bridge technique of the "Hold up", especially useful at NT contracts. Board 11 at Royston on 14th January gave an extreme example of how useful this technique might be to both declarer and defence on the very same board.
There's nothing much to say about the bidding shown (it's standard Acol, where the 2C – 2NT sequence shows a balanced 23-24 points), except that the 3♣ response to 2NT is of course Stayman. This Hand of the Month is all about the play.
North duly makes the conventional No Trump lead of ♣5, fourth-highest of his longest and strongest suit, and is dismayed to see dummy put down a 5-card club suit, his partner showing out immediately. Note that the club suit is now an open-book to both declarer and North, which is why I've chosen not to conceal any hands on this occasion — this deal is played almost double-dummy as we shall see.
Declarer wins the opening lead with the ♣A and sets about forcing out North's King by leading the ♣Q. A hold-up by North is clearly indicated as declarer is marked with three clubs, and North must hope that there is no easy entry to dummy (South could well have something like the ♠AJ over dummy's ♠K10). If North thoughtlessly wins this second club trick, the hand is routine and 11 tricks duly roll in with careful play.
But North is one of the club's stronger players, and doesn't fall for that. So declarer leads his final club. Now what...
Click on Show Answer if you're still with me.
|
|
... This is a rare case where a hold-up on the first three rounds of a suit is required! North can work out at trick 1 that the club suit is blocked, so if he also holds up on the third round of clubs, declarer needs not one but an unlikely two entries to dummy, the first to establish and the second to run the long clubs. North's third-round hold up has killed dummy's long club suit stone dead. Let's see how the play would go.
Declarer is probably more irritated than dismayed by the marathon hold-up, as it looks like he has a second entry to dummy with the ♦10 assuming the suit breaks 3-2. He cashes two top diamonds, and that wipes the smile from his face — the suit breaks 4-1 and his second entry has disappeared.
The best he can do now is to cross to the ♠K and take the marked diamond finesse, for 10 tricks (see what I mean about double-dummy). The defender's clever play has saved a crucial overtrick, which often makes a significant difference at Match Points, especially when the contract appears to be a "routine" one like this, on the bidding.
You may think opportunities for triple hold-ups at bridge are rarer than hen's teeth, but consider the opening lead again, after a slightly different auction of say 2C – 2D – 3NT. On this bidding, there's quite a good case for considering the lead of a heart or spade (as the opposition haven't looked for a major suit fit via Stayman).
On a good day, North may hit on the inspired lead of ♥J rather than the regulation low club. Bingo, the lead strikes gold, and now declarer is in big trouble, cursing his luck that the defender has found the one lead that can trouble him.
Now the only way he can make the contract (barring an unlikely singleton ♣K) is to pray that the defender with the club stopper also has the shorter hearts. A hold-up is no good, nor is a double hold-up as the cards lie. But a triple hold-up of the ♥A does the trick, exhausting North of hearts, so that when he gets in with his club stopper, he can do no further damage. Declarer just loses three hearts and a club.
So there you are... a routine 3NT making on the nail, with optimum double-dummy play by both defence and declarer, for a flat board... well, maybe in the Bermuda Bowl. 
On the night, anything from 8 to 11 tricks were made by West in NT, and several pairs ended up in diamonds somehow, making from 10 to 12 tricks. One pair even managed to bid and make a small slam in 6♦ despite the bad breaks in both minor suits... you try it, it looks impossible to me!
Which all goes to show that there's no such thing as a standard contract at club bridge.
Dave Simmons |
|
|
|
|
| Big hands aren't always easy. 12 Nov 2015 |
|
At our annual Children in Need Sims challenge on 12th November 2015, those sitting East picked up an exciting hand 9. But getting into the right contract was somewhat of a challenge, especially against a competitive opposition.The difficulty is not uncommon, where a minor suit contract is possible but the opponents find a major suit fit. So as EW how would you bid it (or did bid it) to reach the small slam without just guessing and trusting to luck?
|
|
Even if N takes the unusual step of passing, EW still don’t have an easy route to slam. In that case cue bidding would show AK of Hearts enabling E to bid 6C.
However, the more usual route is for N to open 1S.
If EW use strong jump overcalls a bid of 3C may get EW on track to game or slam, which may or may not depend upon what S bids. But intermediate jump overcalls are more popular and require E to make a Take-Out Double, indicating opening points and a tolerance for the other suits, or, as here, a strong unbalanced hand – all will be revealed on the next round.
Now, it’s over to S. Responding to 1S followed by an overcall, modern best practice is to use raises pre-emptively and to raise partner to the level of the fit, i.e. to the total number of trumps held. So, over 1S-double, best bid is 3S, which at least puts doubts into the mind of W. Over 1S-3C, 3S isn’t that discouraging to W, who should simply bid 4H, leaving partner to go back to C. However a bolder bid is 4S which forces W to the 5 level. A simple raise of N to 2S should make it easier for EW.
By the time it gets to W there’s already been a lot of bidding and may leave W uncertain about where to go.
1S-3C-3S-? W should bid 4H.
1S-3C-4S-? 5H might be left or raised to 6H. 5C may be passed. Anything else is guesswork.
1S-double-3S-? W needs courage to bid 4H and may simply pass.
1S-double-2S-? Easy 3H bid.
If W has bid 4H, even if N bids 4S, it’s reasonable, but a bit of a guess, for E to get to 6C, and it may be best for E to simply punt 6C and hope for the best, rather than to try Blackwood. Simple Blackwood is only a slight help here (as with many minor suit small slams); 4NT-5C, would be left, but doesn’t show enough to be certain of 11 tricks, and 4NT-5D doesn’t show enough to feel certain of 12 tricks but 5C has been passed and so 6C has to be bid. A 4NT-5H sequence, however, would lead on to 6C, 7C or 7NT – but that doesn’t apply here as NS must have something to bid S to the 4 level, even if overbidding.
If W is persuaded to pass, EW may not get to game or NS may steal the contract in Spades.
Well done to those three EWs who got into 6C, especially if it was by a controlled sequence and not merely good fortune!
Morgan Bunday |
|
|
|
|
| Hand of the 20th Century |
|
I think you might find this interesting or amusing. It demonstrates starkly how the lie of the cards can alter the balance of strengths between the opposing pairs.
It was a hand I played which enabled me to win the 1978 (I think) Insurance Pairs Championship by a single point. This was the only bridge tournament I had ever won, until very recently of course!
I dealt as W and with a reasonable 2-suiter I opened 1H. From then on, the bidding did not take the course I might have expected. N doubled, partner passed, and S bid 3NT. I passed, and as I considered my opening lead, partner emerged with a double.
Believing that declarer had the Heart suit covered, I led my second suit, Clubs. When dummy went down the above is what I saw.
Before clicking Show all hands, can you spot the unfolding disaster that poor NS were about to suffer?
|
|
Declarer tried the 9 and I was pleased to see partner's 10 hold. He returned a small Heart. I covered declarer's card and returned another Club. Partner won with Q whilst declarer discarded a Spade. Another Heart was returned and my holding of AQ1085 was good enough again. I returned a third low Club, this time declarer tried the 7, but partner had the 8. A third Heart return was won and I cleared the Hearts with A, 5; then did the same with my remaining Clubs.
At this point we had taken the first 10 tricks but my partner had only turned up with a mere 2 points for his double. Also declarer had not claimed the remainder. So I found partner with the Spade Ace for 7-off and 2000 points (as it was).
Kevin Clark |
|
|
|
|
| DO try this one at home - 8 Oct 2015 |
|
This was board 16 from the 8 October match. There was nothing spectacular in it, but was an interesting game of 'chances' and so worth a visit.
The bidding was pretty nondescript , with declarer (South) bottling in 5 spades [yup, I'm boring !]. Three others pairs did try the slam, though if you look at the results, without success.
The opponents lead the ace clubs, and presumably with a negative from partner decided that I had a club ruff possibility so switched to a trump, won in hand.
Before clicking “Show all hands” can you find a play that gives you the 12th trick.
|
|
A quick count of the hand is 6 spades, a heart, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs [politely presetup by the opposition]. 11 tricks. A 12th can come from the diamond finesse, maybe?
I took out trumps, finding the 3-1 split [expected of course, but was hoping] ending in dummy and removed the club blockage. Again, a quick check of the hand shows the same number of tricks, but this time showing a problem. If the diamond finesse fails, there is no longer an entry to dummy. [I was hoping for a 2-2 split so my entry was assured if things went well]. In pairs the overtrick is very important, of course, so was worth considering what to do next. …..
First glance, it’s hopeless. So one does what most people do in this situation, you run off the winners and hope! Now its just a case of how to do that …
There's a slight chance that one person has a doubleton queen, in which case the jack is good. However, we can find that out later ….
There's a slight chance that both big hearts are in the east hand, and on leading hearts from dummy, east is sleepy and doesn’t rise with a big one [but east is a good player, so say that's silly].
At the table based on the above, I lead a heart, east played low, and I played the ace, west dropping the ten.
Then the tried and tested method , I ran off ALL the trumps. At some point West dropped the queen of hearts [joy :) ]. Presumably he kept his 3 small diamonds so I was kept in the dark as to distribution and the queen hearts was always going to drop on his partner's king.
If you look at the position on the last 4 cards as I played the last trump ….
The West hand is irrelevant. East however has to keep his king of hearts and still cover the diamond situation. Whichever he throws, he gives declarer a trick. At the table he threw his heart king, so we made the final 3 tricks. If he had thrown the diamond, I'd cross to the diamonds and drop his queen.
Analysts showing this sort of hand say this and that. Me, on the other hand, hadn't much hope when I did this, but I stuck to the following rules: When you get into this sort of situation and you need to run off your winners and hope, then the key elements are:
- lose all the tricks you want bar one. In this case I had 11 top tricks, and I'd lost one, leaving one 'in the wash';
- leave a menace situation in both hands [in this example the hearts weren’t 'pure' as I was missing both top hearts after playing the ace, but dummy was keeping diamonds fully occupied;
- run off all the long suit [if trumps, don’t keep one back just in case]. On this hand for example if I had kept one back then East had a spare card to throw and could afford to keep both menaces intact.
Having done that, carry it out !
Note : The above play is called a simple squeeze. If it hadn't worked, I would have still made the tricks I could count, so it was adding to my chances of making more. It's a very simple technique and worth adding to your armoury as you just need to comply with the above points, and hope the defenders have to, or inadvertantly, ditch their winning cards on your winners.
Good Hunting !
Keith Darley
|
|
|
|
|
| The minor suit quandary - 22 Sep 2015 |
|
This hand played by one of our members at the Andrew Robson Bridge Club is a good illustration of that not infrequent situation when the bidding finds a fit in a minor suit. Before clicking Show all Hands, at duplicate pairs what should East bid next?
|
|
5♣ looks safe or more cautiously a 4♣ bid that will be raised to 5♣ by West. But what if East hopes that West's continuation to 3♣ must mean some extra values and bids 3NT?
North will likely lead one of the two unbid suits:-
If a spade is lead, then West can make 11 tricks by setting up 2 diamond tricks, rather than playing on the heart finesses which would risk the 3NT contract.
If a diamond is led, then West does not make the extra spade but still makes 10 tricks. A heart lead from North could keep the contract to 3NT if West takes the heart finesse. Even then South still has to place North with the 10♥ .
In the unlikely event of East playing the contact in 3NT, then a spade lead from South will hold it to 3NT but much more likely that South will lead A♦ to look around and then it does not matter if South makes a switch because then East can still set up 2 diamond tricks, with 5 clubs 2 spades and a heart making 10 tricks.
The take-home message is 3NT is so often a better contract than 5 in a minor.
Jules Davidoff
Dave Simmons contributed this additional thought:-
If you believe some writers on the game, see (*) below, after agreeing a minor suit fit, any subsequent suit bid simply shows a stopper, with a view to finding that vital 3NT contract as opposed to game in a minor. This is certainly an interesting approach, and would work perfectly here.
So in this case, the EW bidding might go 1♥ 1NT 2♣ 3♣ 3♠ 3NT
The 3♠ bid is confirming a spade stopper (and implying a lack of a diamond stopper, otherwise they'd have bid 3♦ instead), so responder can confidently rebid 3NT, with the diamonds stopped. If the diamonds were wide open, he'd rebid 4♣ and EW would end up in the only safe game contract, 5♣.
Not sure whether this "stopper-showing" style of bid is the Andrew Robson way, though. I suspect he might be in favour of just punting 3NT regardless (at MPs anyway), on the basis that the less you bid, the less you give away -- let the opposition find the killing lead if they can. It works well enough for most of us, most of the time.
(*) This was one of many interesting ideas mentioned in a stimulating and subversive bridge book by Paul Mendelson which I read recently ("The Golden Rules of Bridge"), highly recommended. To give you a flavour, the book's opening sentence is "The Golden Rules of Bridge... There are no rules!" How can you dislike a book that starts that way?
More recently, the Bernard Magee bidding quiz (in Mr Bridge's magazine) features precisely the same idea in the two consecutive latest issues (September Question 11, October Question 11 again). Perhaps Bernard has just read Paul Mendelson's book too, looking for some useful tips?! To be fair, Bernard Magee is no Andrew Robson (or Paul Mendelson, for that matter), but his Acol bidding advice is in general perfectly sound, and I've learnt a lot from his quizzes -- even though I prefer playing 5-card majors nowadays.
Dave Simmons |
|
|
|
|
| A seaside saga - 21 Aug 2015 |
|
To celebrate the last ever EBU Congress at Brighton, two players from the club attended the Open Pairs on Friday 21st August, and were rewarded with some strong opposition, and some exciting hands. So for a change, let's have a look at one of the boards played there.
Jules and Dave were up against a pair of "little old ladies" (always the most dangerous opposition) about half way through the event. Dave failed to defend the first board of the round accurately, and let a 4♦ doubled contract slip through, for a resounding bottom. The very next board from that session (board 18), was a stand-out board for excitement, and I can't help thinking that our intrepid pair were a shade unlucky to get a second consecutive bottom on this one.
The bidding was "routine" (see above)! Jules opened a pre-emptive 4♥, West competed with 5♣, and Dave followed Andrew Robson's advice of "giving the opposition the last guess" by bidding 6♥ rather than 5♥.
This had the effect of encouraging East to bid a brave/foolhardy 7♣, perhaps on the basis that "when you haven't a clue who's making, bid one more". Dave doubled the grand slam to complete an eventful auction... if 7♣ makes, it's a bottom anyway, so it's in effect a "free" double. Sacrificing in 7♥ seems rather pessimistic with defensive chances in at least two suits, and a sacrifice in 7♥ doubled at unfavourable vulnerability is unlikely to score well even if 7♣ does happen to make.
Against the contract of 7♣ doubled, Dave selected the lead of a top heart (♥Q to be precise). The heart lead is of course purely passive, intended to give nothing away against a grand slam -- with a probable twelve hearts between the NS hands, a heart winner would indeed be a surprise.
The lead is ruffed as expected, and declarer crosses to hand with a trump, plays off ♠A and leads ♠10, North playing low smoothly. The moment of truth has arrived. There are two obvious lines to make the grand slam. Declarer can either run the spade, hoping that North holds the ♠Q, or go up with the ♠K and ruff two more rounds of spades, hoping that the ♠Q drops in four rounds. If either line works (and she picks the right one), the losing diamond goes away on dummy's spade winner.
Declarer thought for a few seconds, and... well, what would you do? Click on Show Answer to find out what happened.
|
|
She chose the simpler line, and ran the spade. South is certainly less likely to hold the ♠Q as he's shown extreme length in hearts, so is likely to be short in spades. But South could hold something like 8 hearts and ♠Qxx on the bidding, and the odds against a 5-1 split in spades are also quite small. Not much in it either way, in my opinion. Maybe toss a coin time?!
Click on Show All Hands to see the gory details. Declarer decided to finesse, guessing right of course, and was claiming all thirteen tricks a few seconds later. But note that the equally reasonable line of going up with the ♠A and trying to ruff out the ♠Q happens to fail as the cards lie.
Looking at the traveller afterwards, the vast majority of results were 6♣= / 6♣+1 by West and 6♥-1 by South (the contracts often doubled, both ways). Our opponents were the only pair to bid 7♣. And if 7♣ goes just one down, we get a near top with 32 Match Points, but as it was we got an absolute bottom and a Eurovision-style "null points".
Getting 32 MPs on that single board would have dragged us up by a few percent, scraped us into the top twelve in the rankings and earned us half a Blue Point for our trouble. But it was not to be.
Oh well, next year at Eastbourne... see you there?!
Dave Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
| Play it again... the usual suspects. 2nd July 2015 |
|
Ever wonder where those predictions on the website (and the paper handouts) come from? They claim to tell you that one side could have made some contract with more tricks than you managed to get, but never explain how. The "Play it again" button, available after a recent upgrade to BridgeWebs, gives the answers.
This hand is from the Mavis Drake Challenge Shield evening, board 20. it was a possible small slam played in Spades by East, or in NT by West. Apparently West always does better than East in these contracts. For No trumps it is clear why ... a club lead will take the first 5 tricks. But how do you make 12 tricks if West is the declarer?
The answer is below, but you can also find out for yourself. Go to the 2nd July results (via the Results option on the left menu) , click "ScoreCards" (or click your name if you played this board), go to hand 20, and click on the new "Play it again" button. If you're using Play it again for the first time, you may need to click on the BS Online button at this point.
Now you can select the contract - let's go for NT by West in the table at bottom right - and see what happens. You should see North's hand (he is on lead) laid out like Scrabble tiles, with 12 green cards and one yellow card. Green is good. Yellow costs tricks.
Try anything except K♦, for example J♥. Now you can take that trick in either hand of course, but for some reason only the K♥ works. If you keep playing Hearts you will get another surprise. Also, try again, but don't put the K♥ on and see what cards South has to play to stop you.
Also in the Answers section are some Casablanca quotes. Of course, they never said "Play it again". They also never said "We'll always have pairs". But they nearly did.
|
|
ANSWERS
In a NT contract played by West North can try any lead except K♦ to start. Let's try J♥ which we see must be taken by K♥ and then assuming it was a singleton lead hoping to set up partner we can finesse the hearts and run the spades, also taking advantage of the QJ dropping doubleton. On trick 10, North has no safe discard. He has to keep A♣ and K♦ but can only hang on to one other card. If he keeps a club, the K♦ will drop. if he keeps a diamond he can be thrown in with the A♣ and will have to lead away from his Kx. Of course, being double-dummy, declarer has no problem "guessing" this situation! In reality, declarer would be much more likely to simply run the Q♦ at this point and hope the finesse worked, a 50% shot.
You can also try the spade contracts. West as declarer is safe. It will play the same way as a NT contract. East as declarer (click East/spades in the box) turns out to be unable to avoid a club or diamond loser, but only if South starts with a club honour as the opening lead.
You can find the rest of the answers for yourself, meanwhile some more bridge-related quotes from Casablanca.
Start of the evening/afternoon
Captain Renault: Carl, see that Major Strasser gets a good table, one close to the ladies.
Carl: I have already given him the best, knowing he is German and would take it anyway.
New partner
Rick: I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Arguing with partner (as if we would)
Rick: Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I've done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: you're getting on that plane.
Discussing partnership agreements
Sam: You must remember this...
Playing in tempo
Sam: The fundamental things apply... as time goes by
Defensive technique
Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart.
Captain Renault: That is my least vulnerable spot.
Opening leads
Ilsa: We said no questions.
Rick: ...Here's looking at you, kid.
Rick: I'm sorry for asking. I forgot we said "no questions".
Ilsa: Well, only one answer can take care of all our questions.
Building confidence
Laszlo: This time I know our side will win.
Laszlo: I know a good deal
Dummy objecting to Declarer's choice
Rick: You played it for her, you can play it for me!
Sam: [lying] Well, I don't think I can remember...
Rick: If she can stand it, I can! Play it!
Peter Rice |
|
|
|
|
| Bid Boldly, Play Safe! - 19 Feb 2015 |
|
The title of a classic early book on bridge was "Bid Boldly, Play Safe!" by Rixi Markus, a formidable player who wasn't too bothered with the niceties of Best Behaviour at Bridge, by all accounts.
Her advice applies to rubber bridge and Teams, but rather less so to MP Duplicate, where almost the precise opposite advice usually applies.
However, on Board 16 from 19/February, the EW pairs had the opportunity to carry out her advice, in both bidding and play.
I opened a weak-two 2♦ (Benji? no thanks!), Roger bid an immediate 4NT (RKCB) and was rewarded with a perfect hand opposite. My 5♠ was the standard RKCB response showing 2 controls plus the Queen of trumps (control = any ace, or King of trumps). Then it's just a matter of Roger picking the best slam. An ultra-cautious 6NT (at MP maybe), or a grand slam in diamonds, hearts or NT? Roger opted for 7♦ (no need to risk 7♥ or 7NT, as making a grand slam in any denomination will almost certainly score well at MPs). A boldly bid grand slam by Roger, when every other pair stopped in game.
Dummy went down, and I crossed my fingers for a 3-2 diamond split, as the slam looks cold so long as the trumps break -- and they do.
Bearing in mind Rixi's advice, how would you plan the play in 7♦ on
a) a spade lead
b) a club lead
Click on Show Answer once you've had a think.
|
|
In 7♦, your only thought should be making the contract. Once the trumps break 3-2 (phew!), is there anything else that can go wrong?
Well, the hearts could still break 4-0 and one defender may have ♥Jxxx. Stranger things have happened.
On a spade lead, it's pretty straightforward. Draw trumps, cross to the hearts, and even if they break badly, you can ruff a heart, and cross back to the ♣A and claim all 13 tricks.
On a club lead (which was what I got), not quite so easy. If South turns out to have all four hearts to the Jack, then all you can do is curse your bad luck, smile through clenched teeth, and congratulate your opponents on their defence. But if North has all four hearts, you can still make, so long as you play carefully. Draw trumps, play a heart to dummy discovering the bad break, cross back to hand with a spade, and take the marked finesse in hearts.
Did I follow this line? Well, I cannot tell a lie... in the excitement of playing only the second grand slam of my life, I just ran all the trumps on the unlikely chance of a defender discarding a heart, and then crossed to dummy and ran the hearts from the top. If the hearts happen to break 4-0, it's now too late to do anything about it.
Not a difficult hand, but easy to play carelessly in the heat of the moment. Click on Show All Hands to see that on this occasion I got away with it -- the hearts broke, and 7♦ makes with two overtricks!
But next time, I'll try and remember Rixi's excellent advice before I play the hand... not the next day!
Dave Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|