Match 2 - Board 34

Board 34
Our side vulnerable

♠ K 7 6 5 2 ♥ 8 3 ♦ A K 10 8 5 ♣ A

RHO opens with one club. I bid one spade. LHO makes a negative double, partner passes, and RHO bids one notrump. I bid two diamonds. LHO passes, and partner corrects to two spades. Partner doesn't need much to raise over a negative double. So either he has a terrible hand or a misfit. We may be too high already.

Fortunately, RHO takes us off the hook. He bids two notrump. Since opener is limited, this bid has little value as a natural call. It should be unusual, suggesting a 2-2-4-5 pattern. Responder should have length in one minor or the other for his negative double. So the knowledge of a minor-suit fit and the doubleton spade makes it incumbent upon opener to bid with that pattern. (Given my two diamond bid, the minor-suit fit is proabably in clubs, but it doesn't have to be.)

Jack did not alert two notrump, so presumably he does intend the bid as natural. Perhaps he worked out, by dealing out random hands for his partner, that it was right for him to bid, and two notrump was least committal way to compete. If so, then I still have a strong suspicion that he's 2-2-4-5. What other "balanced" pattern could he have that would make it the percentage action to compete unilaterally?

I pass, and two notrump ends the auction. A diamond looks like our best lead. Since I expect partner to be short in diamonds, it's better to lead low than to lead an honor. A typical layout might be

	NORTH ♦ x x
WEST ♦ A K 10 8 5		EAST ♦ 9 x
	SOUTH ♦ Q J x x

or

	NORTH ♦ x x
WEST ♦ A K 10 8 5		EAST ♦ J x
	SOUTH ♦ Q 9 x x

The systemic lead is fourth best. But I'm afraid the diamond eight may look high. Partner may think I'm leading a high spot to induce a spade shift when he gets in. To make sure he knows diamonds is our source of tricks, I lead the diamond five. Partner knows declarer doesn't have five diamonds. So, the five should not confuse him.

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

West	North	East	South
			1 ♣
1 ♠	Double	Pass	1 NT
2 ♦	Pass	2 ♠	2 NT
(All pass)

Great! Dummy has a stiff jack. Should I have led an honor? Actually, I guess it didn't matter. I need partner to have an entry anyway to come to six tricks. So a low diamond lead is just fine. Even if I had led an honor, I would be leading low at trick two. So what's the difference?

I must say I don't care for dummy's pass over two diamonds. A singleton diamond and a club fit? Why not bid two hearts? Wasn't he planning on bidding two hearts if I had passed? Why should my bidding his singleton make his hand suddenly better suited for defense?

Partner plays the three and declarer follows with the four. Partner's card should be attitude, indicating that he doesn't have the ten.

What is declarer's shape? Partner would not have corrected to spades with four diamonds, so he must have three diamonds  and declarer must have four. Further, he probably would not have corrected with 2-3 in my suits. (He might give a false preference with a good hand, but I know he doesn't have a good hand.)  So he must have three spades, giving declarer either a 2-2-4-5 pattern or a 2-3-4-4 pattern. As I said before, declarer's unilateral action makes more sense if he's 2-2-4-5, so that's what I'm going to assume. I also suspect declarer has the ace-queen of spades to have bid two notrump in the teeth of partner's two spade bid (although that wouldn't be true if two notrump were intended as unususal). So that gives declarer

♠ A Q ♥ ? x ♦ Q x x x ♣ K ? x x x

and leaves partner with

♠ J 10 x ♥ ? x x x ♦ x x x ♣ ? x x.

The opponents are playing 16 to 18 notrumps. So declarer might have up to 15 HCP for his one notrump rebid. That means he could have either the ace or the king of hearts. But if partner has the heart ace, he has a two spade bid over the negative double. So I'm inclined to place declarer with the heart ace and partner with the heart king and the club jack. Not bad for trick one! I know everyone's shape and can place every honor down to the ten of spades!

Of course, I'm wrong. At trick two, declarer leads the four of hearts from dummy, partner plays the ace, and declarer plays the king. I give count with the eight. Hmmph. Partner should have raised with jack-ten third of spades and an ace. If he had, I would have made a game try of three diamonds, and we would have reached three spades. If three spades makes, there's not much I can do about it. But if three spades is going down one, plus 50 will be a fine score. That seems like what we're destined to get. Partner will play a diamond, and we'll take four diamonds and our two aces.

Wrong again! Partner plays the jack of spades--queen--king. I can clear diamonds myself to come to a different six tricks. But maybe we can do better. What if I play a spade to declarer's stiff ace? Declarer has four heart tricks (assuming from his unblock that he has the heart ten), one diamond, and one spade. Down two. He can't afford to knock out the club ace, or I will play a spade to partner for a diamond return, and we can run both our suits. Nice spade shift, partner. You found a way to beat it an extra trick.

I cash the diamond ace just to clarify the diamond suit for partner. Declarer pitches a club from dummy, partner plays the six, and declarer plays the deuce. I switch to the seven of spades--eight--ten--ace. Oops. What happened? How can declarer have three spades? Does he have

♠ A Q 4 ♥ K 10 ♦ Q x x x ♣ K J x x

or

♠ A Q 4 ♥ K ♦ Q x x x ♣ K J x x x ?

I can't see bidding over two spades with either hand. But Jack and I don't always see eye-to-eye about these things. These layouts would make partner's bidding more sensible. I was wondering why he didn't raise with jack-ten third of spades and the heart ace. Perhaps he doesn't have three spades. Perhaps he did give a false preference.

Now I've let them make this, trying for an extra undertrick. And what exactly did I expect that extra undertrick to be worth? There may be some minus 100s our way. There might also be some minus 110s, since I think more people will be defending club partscores than notrump partscores. So there may be a huge difference between our beating this one and allowing it to score. Furthermore, we may well be the only pair with a chance to go plus 50 or plus 100, so there may be no difference at all between down one and down two.

Declarer plays the deuce of clubs--ace--nine--three.  I cash the diamond king and concede the balance. Making two.

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

So declarer was 2-2-4-5.  Partner's spade ten was clueless. Not only should he know from the auction that declarer has the spade ace, but my carding told him as well. I cashed the diamond ace to clarify that suit, then I led my highest spade to assure partner that I didn't have a spade honor.

As it happens, my assessment of our matchpoint position was wrong (making me wrong for the third time on this deal - or is it the fourth?). There is no difference between plus 50 and minus 120, and there is a difference between plus 50 and plus 100, although a small one. The one pair who played a club partscore their way made four, scoring 130. And no one was minus 100 our way. Most East-West pairs reached game and went for between 200 and 800. Minus 120 is worth eight matchpoints. One other pair defended two notrump and beat it two tricks, so we could have scored nine matchpoint had we done the same.

Even though my play turned out not to matter--and stood to gain if partner hadn't lost his mind--I still think it was wrong. I didn't stop to assess the risk-reward ratio of my play. Even though it's unlikely declarer has three spades, it's hardly impossible. So I think I should have settled for down one. I just got lucky that there was no difference between plus 50 and minus 120.

Score on Board 34: -120 (8 MP)
Total: 282 (69.1 %)

Current rank: 1st