Saturday, March 5, 2011

Match 2 - Board 44

Board 44
Our side vulnerable

♠ Q J 6 3 9 J 10 7 6 4 ♣ Q 6 4

LHO opens one club. The opponents are playing Polish Club, so this shows either a normal one club opening bid or a weak notrump or a strong hand of any shape. Partner bids one heart, and RHO bids one spade. I pass. LHO raises to four spades, which is passed back to me.

Should I double? I have a pretty good hand for defense: a singleton in partner's suit, a trump stack, and enough junk in the other suits to give declarer problems. The opponents will probably take fewer tricks than they expect to. But I have no idea how many tricks that is. That may mean they will make only four when they would normally expect to make five. So I can't justify a double. If LHO had bid three spades and RHO had passed, I would have a better case for doubling, since nine tricks is probably their expectation. (And, if it isn't--if the opponents have somehow underbid and belong in four spades--then we are destined for a bad board anyway.)

I pass. I lead a heart, not so much to get a ruff as to threaten declarer with a ruff, so he won't take a safety play in spades. Lowenthal's Fourth Law of Opening Leads: The lead of a short suit is an attempt to force declarer to draw trumps.


NORTH
♠ A K 5
7 6 5 2
Q 9
♣ A 9 7 5


WEST
♠ Q J 6 3
9
J 10 7 6 4
♣ Q 6 4




West North East South
1 ♣1 1 1 ♠
Pass 4 ♠ (All pass)
1Polish Club

Four spades? This is the second board in a row where Jack has lost his artificial mind. Was there something special about South's one spade bid? No. I ask Jack about it. He claims it shows 6 to 20 high-card points and 4 to 13 spades. I guess if you credit partner with the average of all hands that meet those criteria, you would want to be in four spades. But it does seem better to let partner refine his description a bit before you commit yourself.

Partner wins with the king; declarer plays the four. Partner cashes the heart ace, and partner drops the jack. He should have played the queen, the card he's known no hold. If I thought declarer might be ruffing the third heart. I would certainly think about pitching a club, then a second club when declarer ruffs. I don't know whether that defense makes sense or not. But now I don't even have to think about it. I pitch the four of diamonds.

Partner continues with the eight of hearts. He has ten-eight-three remaining, so this is his middle heart. While Jack is not big on suit-preference (one of our areas of agreement), he does give suit preference when giving a partner a ruff. So this should mean he doesn't have a minor-suit honor. Declarer plays the heart queen, and I ruff with the spade three.

If partner has no high cards in either minor, the diamond jack should be a safe exit. If partner had led the heart ten to show a diamond card, I wouldn't shift to a diamond, since I wouldn't want to break the suit if declarer had ace-eight fourth. I would switch to a low trump instead, assuming declarer could not afford to duck, especially with diamond losers he needed to ruff in dummy.

I lead the diamond jack--nine--deuce--ace. The fact that declarer blocked diamonds to get to his hand suggests he's about to take a double finesse in spades. Can he really do that? I don't see how he can afford to. If he loses a spade trick to partner, I'll score an overruff with the other honor. If declarer leads the ten, it could be right to cover. (Partner could have eight-seven doubleton for example.) But I really don't think he's going to let the ten ride. So, if he does lead it, I'm calling his bluff and playing low.

Declarer doesn't play the spade ten; he plays the deuce. I play the six, and declarer wins in dummy with the king. Partner plays the seven. Declarer cashes the ace--eight--four--jack.  So partner did have eight-seven doubleton. Declarer presumably is either 4-3-4-2 or 4-3-3-3. In the former case, we have no more tricks other than my queen of spades (on the assumption that partner has denied the club king with his suit preference signal), so I might as well assume declarer is 4-3-3-3. If so, we'll score a club trick unless declarer has king-jack-ten of clubs and guesses to finesse against me.

Declarer cashes the diamond queen--five--three--six. He then ruffs dummy's last heart with the nine of spades. It's frequently wrong to overruff with the master trump. In this particular layout, it doesn't appear to matter. But I decline to overruff on general principles. I pitch the four of clubs. In theory, I can't afford this pitch, because declarer might have king-jack-small. In practice, declarer will never guess to drop my queen, so the pitch is perfectly safe. And the fact that it is apparently unsafe may persuade declarer I don't have the queen if he does happen to have a guess. The one thing I can't do is pitch a diamond. Declarer could then cash the diamond king and toss me in with a trump.

Declarer cashes the diamond king, pitching the five of clubs from dummy. Partner follows, so declarer is indeed 4-3-3-3. Declarer now cashes the club king--six--seven--three. If partner's three is honest, declarer doesn't have king-jack-ten. Even though I said declarer would never guess to drop my queen if he has king-jack small, I must admit to find myself holding my breath. Declarer plays the deuce of clubs to the ace. Partner does have the club jack, so declarer is down two.


NORTH
♠ A K 5
7 6 5 2
Q 9
♣ A 9 7 5


WEST
♠ Q J 6 3
9
J 10 7 6 4
♣ Q 6 4


EAST
♠ 8 7
A K 10 8 3
8 5 2
♣ J 8 3


SOUTH
♠ 10 9 4 2
Q J 4
A K 3
♣ K 10 2


One other pair reached the same peculiar contract with the same result. Everyone else was in a sensible three notrump, making three. We get 11 matchpoints. I could have picked up another matchpoint by doubling.

So why did declarer bid four spades? Why not two spades? To find out, I replayed the deal with myself as North. I raised South's one spade response to two. South bid three notrump, and I passed. I then asked Professor Jack to critique my bidding. "Two spades is too passive," he said. "With this hand, you'd do better to bid game." So this really and truly is a disagreement over hand evaluation? Pretty scary.

Score on Board 44: +200 (11 MP)
Total: 345 MP (65.3 %)

Current rank: 1st

1 comment:

  1. This is a manifestation of one of the major weaknesses of bridge software. In undefined auctions at low levels, when partner is not closely limited, they do not have a "how can I find out" module which would allow them to consider all possible low-level bids to see if they could use them to gather more information.

    Instead, they generate deals consistent with all of the wide ranges for the other three players, then take the unilateral action that averages the most points.

    ReplyDelete