Board 22
Opponents vulnerable
Opponents vulnerable
| ♠ A 9 7 5 ♥ 7 4 3 ♦ A Q 3 2 ♣ A 4 |
RHO passes. Three and a half honor tricks is hefty for a weak notrump. But the hand is thin. I think I'm about the ten of spades away from upgrading this hand to a strong notrump. I open one notrump (12-14). Everyone passes. This auction didn't work out too well last time. West leads the ten of hearts.
| NORTH ♠ K 8 4 3 ♥ J 8 2 ♦ 10 5 ♣ K Q J 9 | ||
| SOUTH ♠ A 9 7 5 ♥ 7 4 3 ♦ A Q 3 2 ♣ A 4 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1 NT | ||
| (All pass) |
I play low from dummy. (No need to force East to unblock.) East plays the five, and I play the four. East would have played a higher spot if he had one, so the five is presumably his only spot card. It appears he has two honors third or possibly ace-king-queen fourth. West cashes the heart ace. East drops the queen, and West continues with the nine of hearts to East's king. East shifts to the six of diamonds.
If the king and jack of diamonds are in the same hand, it doesn't matter what I do on this trick. The relevant cases are: (A) East has the king; West has the jack. And (B) West has the king; East has the jack. In case (A), I might make three by finessing the queen. I would still need to find spades three-two and be able to duck a spade to East. In case (B), I can make two by playing low, but I would hold myself to one if I finesse the queen. It appears, then, that it's better to play low. Playing the queen, even when it works, may not gain anything. If spades don't break or if West has the long spade, I'm taking the same number of tricks as I would have had I played low. On the other hand, (A) and (B) are not equally likely. If East has the jack, he might have led it, hoping to find his partner with ace-queen-nine.
I don't know if these two considerations cancel each other out or not, but it must be pretty close. Let's try a different approach. What is my goal? How many tricks do I need to take to get a good board? Some pairs may be in four spades, but I don't care about those pairs. I've already either beaten them or lost to them. My decision can't change that. Other pairs may be in a spade partscore making four on a non-heart lead. I don't care about those pairs either, since I have no opportunity to score 180. I care only about pairs in a spade partscore who do receive a heart lead. For practical purposes, I might as well assume that every pair in the room falls into that category.
In that case, if the diamond king is onside and spades break, everyone will be plus 140. The difference between plus 120 and plus 150 will be a full board. If the cards lie less favorably, then some pairs (those who stop in two spades) will be plus 110; others (those who reach three) will be minus 50. The difference between plus 90 and plus 120 will thus be less than a full board. In short, there are more matchpoints at stake when the diamond king is onside than there are when the diamond king is offside. So, even if I judged finessing the queen was 50-50, my expected gain from finessing is more than my expected loss. Since, in fact, I judge it more likely that East has the king than that he has the jack, it must be right to play the queen.
I play the queen, and West wins with the king. You have probably noticed by now that I if I go to great lengths in this blog to demonstrate that a decision is correct, there is a fair chance that it isn't going to work. West cashes his long heart. My only chance to take the rest now is an unlikely spade-diamond squeeze. I pitch a spade from dummy and the deuce of diamonds from my hand. East pitches the decue of spades. That looks promising. There is no two- or three-card holding where a spade pitch makes any sense. So East should have four spades, which will make plus 90 a fine result.
West shifts to club. I run the clubs, trying for the squeeze. There is no squeeze, because my spades are already good. East's spade pitch was from ten third. In all the random deals East generated to choose his play, he never gave his partner queen-jack doubleton of spades. He probably did give his partner queen doubleton of spades. But, since he gives declarer credit for playing double-dummy in his analysis, he didn't see the value in holding spades when his partner has queen doubleton. This is a flaw in the current state-of-the-art in computer bridge that I have no idea how one can program to correct for.
The full deal:
| NORTH ♠ K 8 4 3 ♥ J 8 2 ♦ 10 5 ♣ K Q J 9 | ||
| WEST ♠ Q J ♥ A 10 9 6 ♦ K J 8 7 ♣ 6 3 2 | EAST ♠ 10 6 2 ♥ K Q 5 ♦ 9 6 4 ♣ 10 8 7 5 | |
| SOUTH ♠ A 9 7 5 ♥ 7 4 3 ♦ A Q 3 2 ♣ A 4 |
As it turns out, the overtrick is immaterial. Every other pair in the room is in four spades. Half of them make it; half of them are down two. So this result is dead average.
It's hard to see why everyone is in four spades. If you open with a strong notrump you will get there--and from the right side, since West is unlikely to lead a heart with ace-ten-nine fourth. But I would think that one diamond--one spade--two spades--pass would be the normal auction. The South hand is not good enough for a raise to three spades, and the North hand is not good enough to move over two spades.
Score on Board 22: +120 (6 MP)
Total: 170 MP (64.4 %)
Current rank: 1st
"In all the random deals East generated to choose his play, he never gave his partner queen-jack doubleton of spades. He probably did give his partner queen doubleton of spades. But, since he gives declarer credit for playing double-dummy in his analysis, he didn't see the value in holding spades when his partner has queen doubleton. "
ReplyDeleteIf East gave his partner credit for the QS, why would he not at least pretend to hold QXX instead of keeping a losing diamond? I'm trying to picture a hand were keeping a diamond loser is ever the right thing to do.
" I think I'm about the ten of spades away from upgrading this hand to a strong notrump."
ReplyDeleteBut further down you write:
"But I would think that one diamond--one spade--two spades--pass would be the normal auction. The South hand is not good enough for a raise to three spades...."
Do these two statements not contradict each other?
What are your criteria for a raise to three spades, assuming a strong notrump context (not a weak notrump context with a KS philosophy)?
Surely you will agree that the South hand is better suited to suit play than notrump and has been improved by the one spade response, so if you were originally away the ten of spades from a strong notrump this hand looks to me now well worth more than a minimum strong notrump.
On the other hand, if you frequently raise a one spade response with 3 card support in a strong notrump context, the sequence one diamond--one spade--two spades creates an unsolvable wide range if you have too exalted criteria for raising to three spades. Responder will often have a slightly stronger hand than here and move over two spades and go down or pass when game is lay-down.
Of course this deal supports you up to a point (though half in fact made four spades), but seems to me a bit unfortunate.
Rainer Herrmann
My standard for a raise to three spades is four trumps and 17-18 support points (using Goren's 1-3-5 count for distribution). Since this hand has only 15 support points, even upgrading for being ace-heavy doesn't promote it to a three spade bid. Since I do believe in raising frequently with 3 trumps, this does indeed create a wide range for the two spade bid, and I can't deny that that has sometimes given me headaches. Playing weak notrumps and four-card majors helps some, since I will seldom be balanced for a single raise. Had I treated this hand as a strong notrump, for example, I would have opened with one spade.
ReplyDelete