Next event

I'm taking a week off. www.bridgewinners.com wants to include my blog on their page and wants to start with board one of the next event, so they've asked me to hold off for one week. Also, starting next week, the new post will appear on Monday rather than on Sunday.

For the next event, I toyed with the idea of a rubber bridge session, but a few practice hands persuaded me to forget that idea. Jack seems to have serious difficulty bidding with a partscore.

Instead, I've decided to do a round-robin team event. I wasn't aware that was even an option until I explored Jack's menus recently. Apparently, you can play a series of eight-board matches against each of nine teams, with matches scored at victory points. Eight-board matches should add a little more suspense to the proceedings. It seems I'm unlikely to lose a long match unless Jack improves significantly or I start becoming senile. But, as I've discovered often enough, you can lose an eight-board match to anybody.

Next week, then, I'll start the first match of the new event. Jack even gives your opponents names to add a more personal touch. I'll be playing against Sophie and Jacinta, who play the Polish Club.

Match 2 - Board 64

Board 64
Opponents vulnerable

♠ A 10 4 ♥ 10 ♦ Q 9 8 7 4 ♣ K J 10 8

LHO opens one club. So much for my plan to pass the board out. Partner overcalls one heart, and RHO makes a negative double. I bid one notrump, and everyone passes. LHO leads the deuce of spades.

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

West	North	East	South
1 ♣	1 ♥	Double	1 NT
(All pass)

One heart? What's that? A lead-inhibiting overcall? Partner was hoping I would bid three notrump and he wanted to stop the heart lead? A take-out double would make more sense, after which we would probably land in a diamond partscore.

I have an easy route to seven tricks: four diamonds and three spades. So my objective is going to be to keep the opponents from taking seven tricks first. Potentially they can take four hearts, a diamond, and two clubs. I will need either to avoid losing to the diamond king or to avoid the loss of two club tricks.

When I first saw dummy, my instinct was to rise with the spade king, preserving the spade entry to my hand. If I play low from dummy and East plays the jack, he will drive my only sure entry prematurely. On reflection, however, that might not be such a good idea. If I rise with the spade king, I give up on picking up the diamonds. That means I must find a club honor onside, else the opponents can cash seven tricks. But if I need luck in the club suit anyway, what have I gained by preserving my spade entry? I might as well play low at trick one. If I'm able to win the trick with the spade ten, I have a chance to pick up the diamonds and not worry about the club suit. If not, I'm no worse off than I would have been rising with the king. In fact, I'm better off. I still might find king doubleton of diamonds onside. Only if that fails am I forced to rely on a lucky lie of the club suit.

I play low from dummy, East plays the five, and I win with the ten. I lead the queen of diamonds--three--ten--king. Oops. East shifts to the six of clubs.

Either this is East's highest club or it's low from honor-seven-six. Given West's opening bid, my percentage guess is to play East for the queen. But if that works, I  take only seven tricks. I doubt plus 90 will be much of a score, since it's hard to see anyone doing worse than plus 110 in diamonds. While it's unlikely East has the club ace, it's not impossible. If he does, I can score 120 by playing the king. In addition, there is some chance that playing the king will entice the defense to persist in clubs rather than shift to hearts. This last hope is probably a pipe dream. I can't construct a plausible layout where it makes any sense to persist in clubs after I play the king. But I have seen such plays work at the table, even against supposedly competent players.

I play the king. West takes the ace and plays the five of hearts to East's jack. What's this heart suit? West has ace-king fourth and East has queen-jack third? Why wouldn't West cash the heart king before leading a low one? I might have a singleton queen, after all. The only reason I can think of to lead a low heart from ace-king fourth is to preserve communication if partner has queen doubleton. Since there would be no need to preserve communication if West has the club queen, this means East has it and I could have made this contract.

East plays the five of clubs. I doubt he's underleading the queen, so my inference must be wrong. The low heart shift was apparently just a mistake. I play the ten, since East can't have that card. If he did, he would have led it, smothering dummy's nine. I know it can't matter, but playing the right card is a matter of pride. West takes the queen and cashes three hearts. Down one.

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

Minus 50 is worth four matchpoints. We beat the pair who allowed two spades to score and the pair who defended one notrump, making one. (As Howard Chandross used to tell me, some hands are a race to see which side can get to one trump first.) As I suspected, the normal contract was three diamonds making three. Even if I had somehow managed to make one notrump, it would not have improved my score. I needed plus 120 to do any better, so my judgment to take an anti-percentage guess in clubs to try for that score was correct.

Should three diamonds necessarily make? I assumed so as I was playing the hand. But that's not entirely clear. Say the defense starts with two rounds of hearts, tapping declarer. If declarer cashes three spades and crossruffs, he'll make it. But what if he decides to play for a dummy reversal? Diamond to the ten, heart ruff, diamond to the jack, heart ruff (with his last trump), spade to dummy, cash the diamond ace. Making four (or five if the club finesse works).

That's a perfectly reasonable line. But look what happens if East is wily enough to duck the first diamond. Diamond to the ten (wily duck), heart ruff, diamond to the jack. Now East wins and plays a third trump.  We are down to this position:

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

Is declarer in trouble? Must he lose two clubs and a heart for down one? Actually, no. He can play three rounds of spades, ending in dummy, and lead a heart, pitching the jack or ten of clubs. The defense can no longer score the club queen.

Why couldn't partner have doubled one club? Three diamonds would have so much more fun to play than one notrump.

Score on Board 64: -50 (4 MP)
Total: 510 MP (66.4 %)

Final rank: 1st (Woo hoo!)

For the next event, I'm trying something new. Stay tuned.

Match 2 - Board 63

Board 63

"Last chance to beat the other couples." (Another Brooks Hughsism. This time I know the reference.)

Our side vulnerable

♠ J ♥ 10 6 ♦ A 5 4 ♣ A Q 10 7 6 5 4

I open one club, partner responds one heart, and RHO bids four spades. I hate putting pressure on partner to act when I have the spade shortness. But there is a fair chance the clubs are stacked behind me. Maybe I would bid if you added the club jack. But with this hand I don't think I can act unilaterally at the five-level. I pass. Partner balances with five hearts.

At a different vulnerability, I would pass without a second thought, since partner might be sacrificing. But at unfavorable, he expects to make this. What could he have? Solid hearts and the club king perhaps? It feels inconsistent to bid on after passing four spades. But I do know considerably more about partner's hand than when I passed. There is a big difference between being able to respond at the one level and thinking you have a fair shot at eleven tricks. And, while partner might be stretching somewhat, hoping to find me with a better than a minimum opening bid, he can't be playing me for as much as I actually have. I have six and a half playing tricks and five controls, two tricks and two controls better than a typical minimum.

At IMPs I would pass, since the risk-reward ratio for bidding slam is poor. If we can make a slam, the opponents rate to have a good save. LHO will be well-placed to judge whether we can make slam or not. So, if he lets us play it, we are probably going down. That means if I bid, I may be risking 13 imps to gain three. This is a point that is often overlooked.

At matchpoints, however, I care only about the frequency of gain. If I think I can make a slam more than half the time, which I do, it's right to bid on. As for what to bid, six clubs seems right. If partner's hearts are solid, he'll correct. If not, clubs may play better. The right bid, of course, is five notrump, offering a choice of slams. But I doubt Jack would understand that bid, so I have to do the best I can. I think he should infer some degree of heart tolerance. I couldn't bid on the previous round, and I would be unlikely to change my mind now with a misfit. Of course, that might be wishful thinking. It's always tempting to think a bid shows the hand you happen to be looking at.

I bid six clubs. LHO bids six spades. Since LHO is saving, it appears I made the right decision. Partner doubles and everyone passes. Now what should I lead? I have no assurance the club ace is cashing. And, if it is, it can probably wait. So I lead the ten of hearts, hoping to make some use of my spade jack.

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

West	North	East	South
1 ♣	Pass	1 ♥	4 ♠
Pass	Pass	5 ♥	Pass
6 ♣	6 ♠	Double	(All pass)

That's some save! A probable trick in each of our suits and the diamond king for good measure! Dummy plays the seven. Partner overtakes with the jack and declarer follows with the four. Partner continues with the king of hearts, and declarer ruffs with the spade queen. That's not good. If declarer is 8-1-3-1, he can now establish a heart trick (using the ten and seven of spades as entries) and pitch his club away. Why did partner think I had a singleton heart? Perhaps my failure to lead the club ace suggested that. Now that I think about, it seems unlikely my spade jack could do any damage. Maybe it was wrong to lead a heart.

Declarer cashes the spade king; partner follows with the deuce. Declarer now leads the club nine. Whew! I survived my questionable lead. I take my ace, and partner plays the deuce. Assuming partner is giving correct count, declarer must be 8-1-2-2. Is there any way to score a second diamond trick? I can't afford to underlead (or duck) my ace. Declarer can take his king, ruff out partner's heart ace, and return to dummy to pitch his last diamond. I might as well just cash the ace and accept my plus 300. That's what I do.

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

Partner certainly wasn't making five hearts. Would I have made six clubs if North had let me play it? It's possible. I might decide to cash the club ace. Not because I expect the king to drop but because I expect the finesse to be futile: North might have saved with a small singleton club.

In the finals of the 1981 Grand National Teams (see The Bridge World, September 1981), I missed that inference. The opponents suspiciously failed to take a cheap save over our slam. Had I deduced that they had a potential trump trick. I would have made my contract. While that result by itself would not have swung the event, it certainly would have changed the dynamics of the match. Who knows what would have happened? If I had considered playing for a bad trump break and rejected it, I wouldn't have felt so bad. But it never crossed my mind until Lowenthal brought it up later. Ever since then, when the opponents spurn a cheap save, I'm at least cognizant of that fact in attempting to construct the layout.

Of course, even if I pick up the trumps, I'm not home yet. I must now decide to take the heart finesse rather than play for a three-two break. That problem I'm pretty sure I would get right. I wouldn't play North to have passed over one club at favorable vulnerability with six diamonds. So I would assume he was either 4-3-5-1 or 3-4-5-1, with the latter being more likely. In that case, the heart finesse looks pretty attractive. Too bad North didn't decide to defend. I'd like to know whether I would have made this contract or not.

One declarer did take twelve tricks in clubs, but he was only in five. Everyone else either went down in something or defended a lower number of spades. Plus 300 is worth ten matchpoints.  It's a good thing partner balanced. Minus 420 would have been worth one matchpoint. Four notrump for takeout would have been a better choice than five hearts, but these notrump-for-takeout bids don't seem to be in our arsenal.

Only one board left. We're probably far enough in the lead that I have nothing to worry about. If I get the chance, maybe I should just pass it out, so we can head over to Shoney's for a hot fudge cake before the crowd gets there.

Score on Board 63: +300 (10 MP)
Total: 506 MP ( 66.9 %)

Current rank: 1st

Match 2 - Board 62

First things first. Please click the 'like' button on the right. The Gargoyle Chronicles now has a Facebook page, which is updated via an RSS feed linked to this blog. So, if you 'like' the page, you will automatically receive a link to each new post on your news feed.

Please invite anyone else you think might be interested to 'like' the page as well. We are rapidly approaching the end of Match 2. Whether there will be a Match 3 or not depends largely on how many 'likes' I get.

Board 62

Neither vulnerable

♠ 8 4 ♥ K Q 8 7 5 ♦ Q 5 3 ♣ Q 8 5

RHO passes, I pass, and LHO opens with one diamond. Partner bids two clubs, and RHO passes. There are some tactical reasons to bury the hearts and raise clubs: (1) Three clubs jacks up the auction and puts a little more pressure on LHO than does two hearts. (2) If I bid two hearts, the auction may get too high, and I may miss my chance to raise clubs conveniently.

But the fact that RHO passed over two clubs makes those reasons less compelling. It's quite possible this is simply our hand, so perhaps I should pay less attention to tactics and more attention to constructive bidding. If RHO had made a negative double, I would certainly bid three clubs. But, over a pass, I'm bidding two hearts.

LHO bids two spades, and partner raises to four hearts. Since partner has heart support and didn't make a take-out double over one diamond, he is unlikely to have three spades. RHO should have at least five spades as well as moderate diamond support, so I fully expect him to bid four spades. But he doesn't. He passes, as do I. LHO passes as well and leads the king of spades. This doesn't add up. Why is the bidding stopping at four hearts with double fits all around? Somebody has done something strange.

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

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

Aha! It's partner. He failed to make a normal take-out double on the first round. He was lucky that it was convenient for me to bid hearts. We might easily have missed the fit had RHO acted over two clubs.

I can't afford to duck this trick, since I don't want West to play three rounds of diamonds next. I win the spade ace. East plays the deuce, and I play the four. The deuce should show a diamond honor (tolerance for the obvious shift), but Jack probably intends it to deny the spade jack.

West should be at least four-six for his two spade bid. So, by the Majority Rule, my percentage play in hearts is to cash the heart ace and float the ten. That is the wrong play, however, when considering the hand as a whole. If West is 4-2-6-1, I can make the contract by cashing the king and queen of hearts, ruffing out the clubs, then returning to dummy with the heart ace to cash the last club. I will give up on that possibility if I start by cashing the heart ace. If I cash the king instead, I can still pick up a singleton jack of hearts (and a singleton nine if I choose to) in addition to any singleton club. Better to cater to all singleton clubs and some singleton hearts than to cater only to all singleton hearts.

I play the three of hearts--deuce--king--nine. Of course! The one card that gives me a problem. Do I play a heart back to the ace in case the nine is a singleton? Or do I cash the heart queen in case the nine is a falsecard and clubs aren't breaking? (If West has jack-nine doubleton of hearts, it doesn't matter what I do. Either play will work.)

If West always drops the nine of hearts from nine-small (as he should), then my percentage play is to cash the heart queen. There are three ways for West to hold nine-small of hearts and five ways for him to hold a singleton club. So cashing the heart queen caters to 15 cases. There are ten ways for West to hold a doubleton club, so a heart to the ace caters only to ten cases. But I doubt West appreciates the need for the mandatory falsecard. If he chooses his card at random from nine doubleton, then cashing the queen caters to only seven and a half cases. In addition, I don't have enough confidence in West's bidding to rule out his being 4-1-5-3. If that is a possible pattern, then cashing the heart ace is a standout.

I play the five of hearts to the ace. West, I'm happy to see, discards the diamond seven. I float the ten of hearts, and West plays the diamond nine. Am I home? I am if West is 4-1-6-2. But what if he's 4-1-7-1? I don't think there is anything I can do about that against best defense, but it doesn't hurt to lay a trap. I cash club ace and unblock the eight from my hand. Maybe if West drops a singleton jack, ten, or nine and East splits when I play a club from dummy, I can work some kind of magic in the end position. West follows with the three of clubs, so there is no trap to set. I have to hope clubs break. I play a club to the queen. Everyone follows. I draw the last trump and claim 11 tricks.

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

It turns our West was four-five after all. Personally, I would pass over two hearts with West's hand, viewing the three-card club suit as a serious liability. If partner has club length also, the hand doesn't fit well. If not, then he doesn't have much, since he will strain to act over the overcall with two clubs or fewer. Some might choose to double with West's hand, but I think a double should show short clubs, not short hearts. In addition to the fact that I'm disinclined to act with club length, there is the consideration that responder may be tempted to pass the double with a club trap. In order to do that, he needs the assurance of some heart length in opener's hand.

Could the trap I tried to set in clubs ever pay off? I hadn't planned anything specific. I was just trying set up the right matrix in case something worked out. This kind of tactic is more common in checkers than in bridge. Thinking more carefully about it now, I can see that East's splitting isn't the only mistake the defense would have to make. Consider this end position:

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

Let's say West had a singleton nine of clubs. East, afraid I might be psychic and thinking he had nothing to lose in any event, split his honors when I led a club to the queen. I drew the last trump, reaching the position above.

Now I exit with a spade. West wins with the jack and plays the queen. I pitch a diamond. West can beat me by exiting with a low diamond while his partner still has a spade exit. But if he woodenly plays his last spade, I ruff and play a diamond, winkling him. There is no need to see this position ahead of time. It's sufficient to know that establishing a tenace over East in clubs is a good thing, so you might as well do it if you can. You can work out the details of how to exploit the tenace later.

One pair reached three notrump and scored 460. Not bad! Two pairs made five hearts, two made four, and one pair defeated three spades two tricks. We wind up with eight matchpoints.

One round left. I don't remember for sure, but I think the last time we weren't in the lead was Board 4. Let's hope we manage to hang in there.

Score on Board 62: +450 (8 MP)
Total: 496 (66.7 %)

Current rank: 1st

Match 2 - Board 61

Board 61
Both sides vulnerable

♠ 5 3 ♥ K Q 6 5 ♦ A J 9 2 ♣ 9 8 4

Partner opens three spades, and everyone passes. West leads the six of diamonds.

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

West	North	East	South
			3 ♠
(All pass)

That looks more like a one spade bid to me. But I guess there was no harm done. Even if we make four, we wouldn't have reached game after a one spade opening. I play the nine from dummy (no reason to advertise my singleton). RHO covers with the ten, and I win with the king.

If I were content to take nine tricks, I would evaluate the merits of cashing the spade ace. But I see no particular reason to think that simply going plus will be a good score, so I'm not willing to give up on bringing home the spade suit. I play the heart deuce, intending to take a spade finesse on reaching dummy. But a funny thing happens on the way to the dummy. I reach it sooner than I expected. West plays the heart nine, dummy plays the king, and East plays the seven.

I can't imagine why East would duck the heart ace, nor can I imagine the opponents' giving false count in a cash-out situation. So I assume that West has the ace and that hearts are four-two. (I suppose it's possible West has ace-nine-three and East has jack-eight-seven, since the hand with the ace can get away with falsecarding. But Jack isn't that sneaky, so I'm dismissing that possibility.)

Why would West duck the heart ace? It makes no sense if he has the diamond queen. But, if he doesn't, it could be right to duck if I have two hearts and three small diamonds. West hopes to play another diamond before dummy's hearts are established. On the actual layout, however, ducking enables me to dispose of a club loser. I cash the diamond ace--three--club deuce--diamond four.

I was intending to take a trump finesse. But now that I know I'll run into a heart ruff if the finesse loses, I'm not so sure I want to do that. (I had anticipated pitching a heart on the diamond ace to forestall the ruff. I wasn't expecting to be allowed to pitch a club.)

Whether or not to take the spade finesse turns out to be a more subtle problem than I realized when I played this deal. With the advantage of knowing that ahead of time, I suggest you pause to decide what you would do. As usual, making the right decision isn't enough. To get full credit, you must make the right decision for the right reason.

I reasoned as follows: If I find a doubleton king on my right, finessing gains a trick. If I find a doubleton king on my left, finessing loses a trick by allowing the opponents to take their ruff. Those cancel out. If West has a singleton spade, finessing loses if it is the king and gains otherwise. Since West will have a singleton king one time in four, finessing is the percentage play.

I play the spade three from dummy. My intentions prove immaterial, since East plays the king. I play the ace, and West follows with the six. I cash the spade queen. West plays the nine, and East, surprisingly, follows with the jack. I lose a heart and a club, making five.

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

Plus 200 is a top. One pair was plus 170, one was plus 140, and four unenterprising pairs passed the board out.

Now I need to figure out why East hopped with the spade king. Of course! He hopped because he didn't know who had the ace. If West holds the ace, East must hop with the king to take his heart ruff. If he allows his partner to win with the ace, he will score his ruff with a natural trump trick. In fact, if West has the spade ace, hopping with the king beats three spades and ducking allows it to score.

That means my analysis above was flawed. If I play a spade from dummy and East plays low, I have good reason to think he doesn't have king doubleton of spades. If I rule out king doubleton onside, then there are four ways the finesse can lose (three offside king doubletons and one offside stiff king) and only three ways it can gain (king third onside). The odds are four to three in favor of refusing the finesse.

Of course, I can't rule out king doubleton onside entirely. East might decide his partner would have acted over three spades with the ace, so there is no point in hopping; or he might simply make a mistake and play low without giving it much thought. So I must judge the frequency with which East will play low with king doubleton and add that to the "finesse" column of the balance sheet above. Since there are three ways for East to hold king doubleton, if I judge he will play low more often than one time in three, I should finesse. Otherwise, I shouldn't.

Fortunately, I know my opponent pretty well, so this judgment is easy. One of Jack's weaknesses is the inability to draw negative inferences, and one of his strengths is that he never falls asleep. So I think I can count on Jack to hop. Therefore, I should have decided to refuse the finesse if East played low.

Why did I make this mistake? I focused too intently on my own problem and forgot to think about the deal from East's perspective. It's hard to examine deals consistently from your opponent's seat rather than from your own, but this deal shows how important this practice can be. I was lucky that East had king doubleton, else I might never have noticed my mistake. If the king had been offside and I had suffered a ruff after finessing, I would have chalked it up to bad luck.

Score on Board 61: +200 (12 MP)
Total: 488 (66.7 %)

Current rank: 1st