Board 27

Board 27
Neither vulnerable

♠ K 10 9 6 4 ♥ A K 10 8 6 4 ♦ -- ♣ A Q

I open one heart in first seat. LHO and partner pass, and RHO balances with two diamonds. I could bid two spades, but three spades is more descriptive. Partner will know I'm 5-6 and have a rough idea of the strength of my hand. I can then leave further bidding up to him. Since our defensive prospects depend largely on his diamond holding, he will know better than I how high to bid.

LHO bids four diamonds, partner bids four hearts, and RHO bids five diamonds. This is precisely why I clued partner in. I pass the decision around to him, and he bids five hearts, which ends the auction:

	NORTH ♠ 8 3 ♥ Q J 9 7 5 3 ♦ 8 7 6 ♣ 10 8
	SOUTH ♠ K 10 9 6 4 ♥ A K 10 8 6 4 ♦ -- ♣ A Q

West	North	East	South
			1 ♥
Pass	Pass	2 ♦	3 ♠
4 ♦	4 ♥	5 ♦	Pass
Pass	5 ♥	(All pass)

I agree with partner that it's wrong to bid four hearts on the first round. If the auction were to continue, say, double--pass--four spades, he would have a problem. It would be a violation of captaincy to bid five hearts in front of me. For all he knows, his four heart bid gave the opponents a problem and they're stretching. On the other hand, he knows--but I don't--that five hearts is a cheap save. If he passes, I might sell out to four spades not because I think we can beat it but because I think five hearts would be too expensive. In general, you should pre-empt when you know how high you're willing to bid and you want the opponents to make the last guess. When your side is the one making the last guess, you want to keep the bidding low to get as much information as possible. This is apparently what partner had in mind when he passed one heart.

My preference, though, is to start with a simple raise. At least this lets partner know I have support, so my hand won't be a complete surprise if the auction gets high quickly. But I hope it doesn't. I hope the auction is slow and informative, so that I will be able to judge what the opponents can make. If I get really lucky, I may even be able to alert partner to what I have by taking an impossible auction. For example,

West	North	East	South
			1 ♥
Pass	2 ♥	Double	Pass
3 ♥	4 ♥

If you're generally disciplined about not bidding again unilaterally with a limited hand, this auction suggests something unusual. I believe it should suggest this hand, that is, a hand where you would consider bidding five hearts on the first round if it were defined as pre-emptive. Now, if the auction proceeds pass---pass--four spades, you have no need to bid in front of partner. You can pass and let him make the decision.

In any event, I find myself in five hearts. West leads the six of clubs, which makes it easy. I win with the club queen, play a heart to dummy, and lead a spade to my king. The ace is onside, so I make six:

	NORTH ♠ 8 3 ♥ Q J 9 7 5 3 ♦ 8 7 6 ♣ 10 8
WEST ♠ Q J 5 ♥ 2 ♦ A Q 4 3 2 ♣ K 7 6 5		EAST ♠ A 7 2 ♥ -- ♦ K J 10 9 5 ♣ J 9 4 3 2
	SOUTH ♠ K 10 9 6 4 ♥ A K 10 8 6 4 ♦ -- ♣ A Q

At the other table, the first round of bidding is the same, but South bids three diamonds at his next turn. I don't care for this. What's the point of telling partner you have a good hand without offering any idea of what it looks like? West bids four diamonds; North, four hearts; and East, five diamonds. South now has to make the decision himself, and he chooses to bid five hearts. Everyone passes.

At my table, West apparently wasn't worried about my clubs being as good as they were, so he attacked the suit at trick one. Against the less descriptive auction at the other table, West had more reason to shy away from leading clubs himself. He chose a low diamond, hoping to get his partner in for a club switch. This was a nice lead. Just change the layout slightly and it becomes the only lead to beat five hearts. Funny how the more descriptive auction elicits the more favorable lead. It doesn't usually work that way.

After the diamond lead, declarer ruffed, played three rounds of trumps ending in dummy, and led a spade to the king. Is this safe? Suppose West taps him with a diamond. He's down to one trump. He plays a spade. The defense wins and taps him again. If he can't establish the spades with one ruff, he needs to fall back on the club finesse.

There must be a sure-trick line. How about stripping the hand and playing a spade to the nine? Ruff the diamond, trump to dummy, ruff another diamond, trump to dummy, ruff the last diamond, trump to dummy. No, I didn't have a finger left for that last trump. That means I've played six trumps, and I'm now out of trumps in my hand.

How about this: Ruff the diamond, trump to dummy, spade to the nine (just in case West has a stiff ace). West wins and taps me. I play another trump to dummy. I now have two trumps left in my hand. I lead the spade eight. If East shows out, I play low and eventually ruff out West's remaining honor. If East follows low, I play the king. If West wins this, spades are no worse than four-two, and I have three entries left to my hand to establish a spade and get back to cash it. That works.

This is a flaw in Jack's technique for playing hands.  Remember that he deals out random hands and chooses the line that works most often.  If a line works on 100% of the hands he dealt, he'll choose it and may miss a better line that could be found by analysis rather than by trial and error.  While choosing a 99% line instead of a 100% line offends us purists, in practice the cost is small.  This technique should at least prevent him from taking a 70% line when an 80% line is available, something humans are quite capable of, particularly if the constraints are such that the odds are hard to calculate.

Me: +480
Jack: +480

Score on Board 27: 0 IMPs
Total: +76 IMPs