Event 3 - Match 1 - Board 4

Board 4
Both sides vulnerable

♠ J 7 4 2 ♥ A 9 ♦ 7 5 4 ♣ J 8 6 5

Partner opens one diamond, RHO doubles, and I bid one spade. Partner raises to three spades, and RHO bids four hearts. I wasn't bidding if she passed, and I have no surprises on defense. So I pass. Partner goes on to four spades.

I've never cared for auctions like this. As far as I'm concerned, once you've made a limit bid, you're out of the auction unless partner invites you back in. But, putting my personal bias aside for the moment, this bid might be excusable if three spades was based primarily on shape. Perhaps partner is six-four in diamonds and spades. Excusable or not, I still wouldn't do it myself. If partner knows I'm capable of this kind of auction, it puts too much pressure on him to make close penalty doubles. RHO passes, I pass, and LHO bids on to five hearts. Partner doubles.

I suppose I should be grateful for partner's break in discipline on the previous round. But this double makes no sense at all. It's not as if he needs to double to stop me from bidding five spades when I wasn't willing to bid four. So he must be doubling to increase the penalty. If he expects to beat them only one, the imp odds on doubling are rather poor. And if he expects to beat them more than one, why did he sacrifice on the previous round? Unless partner misbid earlier, this double is sheer bravado.

Everyone passes. What should I lead? Partner's likeliest pattern is 4-1-6-2. In general, it's dangerous to lead a weak nine-card fit. If the opponents have bid a lot, the suit rates to be three-one. So, unless there is some urgency to cash your ace, there is probably nothing to gain by leading the suit. And it may help declarer by setting up pitches for him. For example, I might catch dummy with king third and declarer with a singleton queen. Leading a weak eight-card fit is both more likely to be productive (since you are more likely to have tricks to establish in that suit) and, in my experience, tends to be safer as well.

Note this caveat applies only to weak nine card fits. If I had the king or queen of diamonds, I would lead a diamond. With no fillers in diamonds, however, I lead the four of spades.

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

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Sophie	Jack	Jacinta
	Pass	1 ♦	Double
1 ♠	Pass	3 ♠	4 ♥
Pass	Pass	4 ♠	Pass
Pass	5 ♥	Double	(All pass)

It appears partner has a void in hearts. He's probably 4-0-6-3, leaving declarer with 3-6-2-2. Perhaps that explains his four spade bid. Some players advise you to "bid one more than normal" with a void in the opponents' suit. Although that rule seems dangerous to me. Once you internalize it, your idea of "normal" changes, and you wind up with infinite regression problems.

Partner plays the spade king and declarer wins with the ace. So much for spade tricks. It's a good thing I have the spade jack, else my lead might have allowed declarer to pitch one of dummy's diamonds away, which would be quite embarrassing after my lecture about opening leads.

A typical jump raise by opener contains about three and half honor tricks if balanced and about three honor tricks with a shapely hand. (I know it's old fashioned to think in terms of honor tricks instead of high-card points. But I often find honor tricks easier to work with in contructing hands, particularly when you are trying to count tricks on defense.) The king of spades is half an honor trick. Partner should have about two and half left. There are various possiblities. He might have (1) king-queen of diamonds and the ace-queen of clubs, (2) the ace and king of diamonds plus both minor-suit queens, or (3) both minor-suit aces and one of the minor-suit queens. It would be highly optimistic to count on a second-round diamond trick on defense. So, given partner's double, (1) and (2) seem unlikely. If partner has (3), what does that leave declarer?

♠ A Q x ♥ K Q J x x x ♦ K ? ♣ ? x

where one of the question marks is a queen. Personally, I would overcall one heart with that hand rather than double one diamond. But some people think 17 high card points is too much for a simple overcall. Perhaps Jacinta is one of them.

The problem with this construction is that it doesn't matter what I do. We will take our three aces and perhaps partner's club queen. Nothing is going away. For it to matter what I do, I need to credit declarer with one of the aces. I need to consider (1) and (2), even though they each give partner a less attractive double.

If partner has (1), then declarer has,

♠ A Q x ♥ K Q J x x x ♦ A x ♣ x x

If I don't switch to a club on winning the heart ace, declarer can strip the hand and endplay partner.

If partner has (2), declarer has,

♠ A Q x ♥ K Q J x x x ♦ x x ♣ A x

Now switching to a club costs a trick. The diamonds aren't going anywhere, however. Is there anything to gain by not cashing them? Maybe. If declarer happens to have the eight of spades, refusing to cash them gives her the option of trying to make the hand by finessing partner for the spade jack. If she does that, she'll go down two instead of one. So opposite this hand, my best play on winning the heart ace is to return another heart.

Fortunately, partner can help me when I win the heart ace. If he wants a club switch, he will pitch a discouraging diamond.

Declarer leads the deuce of hearts. If I need to switch to a club, I can't afford to duck this. Declarer has no need to play a second heart. She can simply strip the hand and play ace and a diamond. Accordingly, I hop with the heart ace. Partner follows with the three.

So declarer bid this way with a five-card heart suit? That means I get no signal from partner. But it also gives declarer an extra minor-suit card, which means I don't have to worry about case (1). There is no endplay, since declarer either has a third diamond or a third club (in which case a ruff sluff doesn't cost).

Since there is no reason for me to play a club, my choice is between cashing partner's diamonds or going for the sucker play by exiting with a trump. Is there any risk in exiting a trump? Some. If declarer has ace-queen third of clubs, she can finesse me out of my club jack, pitch a diamond from her hand, and make this. But if she has that hand, partner has an inconceivable double of five hearts:

♠ K x x x ♥ x ♦ A K Q x x x ♣ x x

Inconceivable or not, am I willing to bet the contract that partner doesn't have that? And how likely is my ploy to work anyway? For a heart exit to gain, not only must declarer have the spade eight, but she must also play me to be an idiot, failing to cash partner's diamonds for no reason.

On second thought, playing me to be an idiot might not be such a bad idea, because I am an idiot for even thinking about this. We pushed the opponents to the five level, doubled them, and now I'm going to risk letting them make it in search of an extra undertrick? That makes no sense. I play the seven of diamonds. Partner wins with the queen, cashes the ace, then shifts to the six of spades. The six, eh? That means declarer does have the eight. Declarer hops with the queen and claims. Down one.

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

Partner bid this way with a 4-1-4-4 pattern? I guess I can't argue. He was right. Four hearts is making, and four spades is a good save. I'm lucky we weren't sitting in opposite seats.

Would the sucker play have worked? One of the nice things about Jack is you don't have to speculate about such matters. You can find out. I replay the deal, exiting with a trump after winning the heart ace. Jacinta indeed takes the spade finesse and goes down two.

As one might expect, however, my "error" did not cost much. Our teammates were allowed to play four hearts, making, so we pick up 13 imps. The extra trick would have been worth an additional two imps, whereas allowing them to score this (were that possible) would have cost 19 imps. Given that risk-reward ratio, I think I did the right thing.

Table 1: +200
Table 2: +620

Result on Board 4: +13 imps
Total: +12 imps

Event 3 - Match 1 - Board 3

Board 3
Opponents vulnerable

♠ A K J 7 6 2 ♥ 8 ♦ 7 ♣ A J 10 9 5

If I open one spade and partner responds one notrump, I have a problem. This hand isn't good enough to force to game with three clubs, but I could easily miss a game if I rebid only two clubs. Fortunately, I have an Acol two-bid available for precisely this situation  I open two spades, partner responds two notrump (negative), and I bid three clubs. Some play this auction as forcing to three spades, but that doesn't make sense to me. Acol two-bids shouldn't have playability in more than two strains, so why do you a need a forcing three club bid? If three clubs doesn't do your hand justice, bid four clubs.

Over three clubs, partner bids three diamonds. Maybe I'm supposed to pass this. But with a sixth spade and a singleton diamond it seems advisable to bid three spades. Partner bids five diamonds. He must have thought three diamonds was forcing. Or maybe he's just mad at me for not passing three diamonds. Given the original negative response, I can't see how we're going to make this. I pass. LHO, agreeing with my assessment, doubles, ending the auction. West leads the king of hearts.

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

West	North	East	South
Jacinta	Phillip	Sophie	Jack
	2 ♠1	Pass	2 NT2
Pass	3 ♣	Pass	3 ♦
Pass	3 ♠	Pass	5 ♦
Pass	Pass	Double	(All pass)
1Acol Strong two
2Negative

What was wrong with four diamonds? Was partner really worried that we would make five if I passed? Perhaps I should have passed three diamonds, but it didn't seem like a good idea at the time.

There isn't much to the play. West finds the obvious diamond shift at trick two, and the opponents cash their hearts. We lose three hearts and two diamonds for down three.

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

Look at that! The diamond shift wasn't quite so obvious as I thought. Nor is it obvious which diamond to lead. There are plenty of three-card holdings East might have where it would be right to lead the king. Jack third, queen-ten third, and ace-jack third come to mind. I guess Jacinta thought her partner was more likely to hold a singleton than to hold three.

Can the opponents make anything? Four hearts goes down on a ruff, but they can make three notrump. In fact, they can make four notrump. So, technically, five diamonds doubled is par. I'll have to point that out when our teammates complain about our result. Actually, this result might not look so bad to them. We benefited from the pre-emptive effect of the Acol two-bid. After a one spade opening, East-West will probably reach four hearts. And, while it does go down, it may be hard for South to sell out. So, even though we should have played four diamonds at our table (or maybe even three), five diamonds doubled is probably a fairly normal result.

When we compare, we discover our teammates defended four spades undoubled, down two. There is no way to find out from Jack what the auction was at the other table, but they must have had some auction that, like ours, prevented West from sticking in a heart overcall. If West bids, surely East, looking at five potential defensive tricks in his own hand and the high probability that his side can make a game, will double four spades.

Maybe North opened four spades. That's about the only way I can imagine his playing there without being doubled. It's also the only way I can imagine his getting out for down two. If West bids hearts, East will lead the heart ace, and declarer will finish down three. After a four-spade opening, however, East will probably lead a club.


Table 1: -500
Table 2: +100

Result on Board 3: -9 imps
Total: -1 imp

Event 3 - Match 1 - Board 2

Board 2
Our side vulnerable

♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 9 ♦ Q J 9 8 3 ♣ Q 8 7 3

RHO opens with a Polish club, showing, as I understand it, either a weak notrump or a normal one club opening or a good hand. Such an ambiguous call screams for me to act, but no bid appeals, especially at this vulnerability. I pass. LHO responds one heart (natural). Partner passes, and RHO bids two diamonds (artificial), showing a game force with at least three hearts. I double. This might not be such a good idea. With queens in the other two suits, I might regret talking partner out of his normal lead. But I hate going through an entire auction without bidding or doubling something.

LHO bids three notrump. This should be mildly slammish. Even if you generally play fast arrival (which I don't), fast arrival should not apply here. Two notrump can't promise slam interest, because it's needed to allow further exploration for the right strain. Thus, if one doesn't play three notrump as slammish, one has no unambiguous way to show extras without bidding past game. But who knows what Jack thinks? Everyone passes three notrump, and partner leads the deuce of diamonds.

	NORTH Jacinta ♠ A 7 3 ♥ A 7 2 ♦ A 6 ♣ A K 6 4 2
		EAST Phillip ♠ Q 6 5 ♥ 9 ♦ Q J 9 8 3 ♣ Q 8 7 3

West	North	East	South
Jack	Jacinta	Phillip	Sophie
	1 ♣1	Pass	1 ♥
Pass	2 ♦2	Double	3 NT
(All pass)
1Polish Club
2Relay. At least threecard support and strong.

Presumably declarer has the diamond king. As I understand Jack's leads, partner would lead high from three small. So he has either ten third or four small diamonds. (I guess he could have a singleton, too. But, in that case, we might be defending two diamonds redoubled.) Declarer plays low from dummy. It crosses my mind to make a discovery play of the eight. If I'm right that partner can't have three small, the eight can't hurt. And if declarer wins with the ten, I will know right away that partner has four diamonds.

It crosses my mind, but I'm not going to do it. Perhaps it comes from playing with Lowenthal. But I prefer to give partner more leeway on opening lead than that. Not to mention how silly I'd feel if Sophie had brazenly bid three notrump with ten third. I play the jack, and declarer wins with the king. Declarer plays the three of hearts to dummy's ace. Partner plays the four. It appears declarer has four hearts and partner has five. Declarer continues with the deuce of hearts from dummy. It probably can't hurt to pitch a spade. I surely can't afford a club, and I may need the long diamond trick. So I pitch the five of spades. Declarer wins with the queen, and partner follows with the six. Jack plays up the line after his initial count signal, so declarer must have the five of hearts, presumably king-queen-five-three. Now I know enough about the hand to start counting tricks. Declarer has one spade, three hearts, two clubs, and two diamonds. I must assume partner has the spade king, else declarer has nine tricks.

Declarer plays the five of clubs--ten--king. Partner should have either a singleton ten or ten-nine. The eight and seven are too important to part with, so I play the three. Declarer plays the seven of hearts. If declarer had jack-nine of clubs remaining, she would have played a low club from dummy, establishing her ninth trick, so clubs must be two-two. That makes declarer 4-4-3-2. After this trick, declarer will be out of entries to her hand, so I needn't worry about holding on to diamond winners. As long as we prevent declarer from developing a trick in the black suits, she's going down. I can't afford another spade, since that will give declarer a trick if she has jack-ten. I pitch the nine of diamonds. Declarer wins with the king, and partner plays the ten. The ten? What happened to playing up the line?

Declarer plays the five of hearts, and partner pitches the four of diamonds. I see. Declarer has six hearts. Time to reevaluate. Declarer has eleven cashing tricks, twelve if she has the spade king. Our objective now is to stop the overtricks. It would simplify my analysis to know if declarer had the spade king or not. Do I have any clues? The play is more consistent with having twelve cashing tricks than with having eleven. With eleven cashing tricks, the normal procedure is to duck a trick to set up a potential squeeze. So I would expect declarer to duck a club. In addition to setting up a possible squeeze, this would offer her the chance of finding three-three clubs. The fact that declarer isn't ducking a club suggests she has twelve cashing tricks and is trying to take thirteen. It also means that my inference above about two-two clubs was wrong. The reason declarer didn't duck a club was that she doesn't intend to lose any more tricks.

On the other hand, the spade king gives her an awfully good hand. King-queen-jack-ten sixth of hearts and two kings? Six playing tricks opposite a hand willing to force to game opposite a simple response? Surely she would have made a more serious slam move with that hand. I'm changing my mind. I'm going to assume partner has the spade king. But if declarer has only eleven tricks, why isn't she ducking a club? Instead of going for a squeeze, she must be intending some kind of endplay.

What is declarer's shape? Partner's diamond four should show an odd number remaining. But Jack's present count signals aren't always reliable. Fortunately, logic confirms the message of his signal. He would be disinclined to pitch a diamond with ten doubleton remaining, leaving me to guard diamonds by myself. So he must have started with four. That makes him either 5-3-4-1 or 4-3-4-2, leaving declarer with either 2-6-2-3 or 3-6-2-2. The latter seems more likely. Partner might have pitched a spade from five. And, if I'm right that declarer is planning an endplay in spades, she must have three. There can be no endplay with jack doubleton of spades. So I am going to assume that declarer is 3-6-2-2, but I will keep 2-6-2-3 in the back of my mind as a remote possibility.

Declarer pitches the deuce of clubs from dummy; I pitch the three of diamonds. On the next heart, partner pitches the four of spades. Declarer plays the four of clubs from dummy; I pitch the club seven. On the last heart, partner pitches the five of diamonds, and dummy pitches the six of clubs. This is the position I'm assuming, with me still to play.

	NORTH Jacinta ♠ A 7 3 ♥ -- ♦ A ♣ A
WEST Jack ♠ K ? ? ♥ -- ♦ x ♣ 9		EAST Phillip ♠ Q 6 ♥ -- ♦ Q 8 ♣ Q 8
	SOUTH Sophie ♠ ? ? ? ♥ -- ♦ x ♣ J

Which minor should I unguard? If my construction is correct, it doesn't matter. So I might as well assume my construction is wrong. This is where the back of my mind comes in handy. I've already decided that there is a remote possibility declarer was 2-6-2-3. Accordingly, I'll guard clubs and pitch a diamond. (If this is wrong, I can always blame partner. What's he doing holding on to the nine of clubs anyway? He should have pitched it. Then I would know for sure declarer didn't have another club.)

Before I play, however, I need to think about what's going to happen in the end position. This is a familiar matrix. It appears declarer has jack-ten third of spades and is hoping to catch partner with king-queen. She has kept both minor-suit aces in dummy to prevent partner from pitching down to king-queen doubleton of spades. Partner must hold king-queen third of spades and two minor-suit cards. If partner is void in one of the minors, declarer now cashes that ace, forcing partner to come down to a singleton in the other minor. Declarer then cashes the other ace and leads a spade to the jack, endplaying partner. Nicely done.

Except that the endplay isn't going to work, since I have the spade queen. So, when declarer leads a spade from dummy at trick eleven, I have two choices: (1) hop with the queen and cash my club, holding declarer to five; or (2) duck, hoping declarer plays partner for both spade honors. If she does, we'll take the last three tricks, holding declarer to four. If she doesn't--if she rises with the ace when partner leads a spade at trick twelve--she'll drop my queen and make six.

At matchpoints, this problem would be a nightmare. At IMPs, it's much easier. If I trust my teammates to reach six hearts, then it makes no difference whether we hold declarer to ten tricks or eleven. Either way, we gain 11 imps. If I let declarer make six, however, we gain only 10 imps. So there is nothing to gain by ducking. My proper play is to hop and cash my club.

Now I'm ready. I pitch the eight of diamonds. Declarer plays the ten of diamonds to the ace, and partner follows with the seven. Declarer cashes the club ace--eight--nine--jack. Apparently partner miscarded on the first club trick, though that doesn't change anything. Declarer now plays a low spade from dummy. As planned, I hop with the queen and cash the club queen. Making five.

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

Declarer had jack-nine of spades. I didn't think of that. I should have ducked. Then we would see the kind of stuff partner is made of. Declarer would play the nine, and partner must win the trick with the king, not the ten. When he returns the eight, it would take an awfully suspicious declarer not to duck. I apologize, partner, for not giving you the chance to find that play. (Between you and me, there isn't a chance in the world partner would have found it. He should be grateful I didn't duck. I saved him from embarrassing himself.)

As expected, our teammates are in six hearts, making six, so we pick up 11 imps.

Table 1: -460
Table 2: +980

Result on Board 2: +11 imps
Total: +8 imps

Event 3 - Match 1 - Board 1

For those of you who are just joining us, a word or two about the Gargoyle Chronicles. These articles discuss matches I play against the computer program Jack, the winner of seven out of the last ten World Computer Bridge Championhips. The deals are random, and I report on each one. Accordingly, the deals fairly represent the types of problems one actually faces at the table. Bridge books tend to over-represent the spectacular and gloss over bread-and-butter decisions. I believe this tendency leaves a gap in bridge literature. There is a good deal to learn from the most quotidian hands. How do you figure out what is going on? How do you try to conceal what’s going on to the opponents? How do you try to clarify the position to partner? The ability to answer these questions separates the expert from the intermediate player more than the ability to execute a backwash squeeze.

By sheer chance, the spectacular will appear in these articles from time to time. But, most of the time, I simply focus on the questions I ask myself and how I reach each decision. The emphasis is on process, not on results. I am more concerned with how I make each decision than whether it worked or not. As in real life, a decision I take great pains to make frequently turns out not to matter. Or it turns out be wrong, hopefully because of bad luck and not because I made a mistake.

Speaking of mistakes, if I do make one, I report it and try to figure out why I made it. I don't give myself any second chances. I will confess, however, that I take considerably more time in playing these deals than I could ever afford at the table. So I do make fewer mistakes here than I do in real life. Sadly, I still occasionally make them.

I am starting the third event of this series: a round-robin team event, scored at victory points. This is the first board of the first match. There will be nine matches in the event. In this match, my opponents, Sophie and Jacinta, play Polish club. My partner and I play Acol. If you wish to play the board yourself before reading my analysis, clicking on the hyperlink below will bring up a pdb file, which you can load into a variety of bridge-playing programs.

Board 1

Neither vulnerable

♠ A Q ♥ K 9 8 2 ♦ 9 8 3 ♣ A K J 10

Partner opens one diamond. Normally, one responds one heart with this pattern. But with this hand, we may be in slam territory. If partner has, say, ace doubleton of hearts, it's easy to see a four-three club fit offering the best chance for slam. So I decide to bid two clubs, representing my clubs as a five-card suit.

Partner rebids two notrump, showing 15 to 17 high-card points. We are clearly in slam territory now. I bid three hearts, and partner bids three spades.

One never knows about Jack, but this bid should show doubt about the right strain, presumably because of lack of a spade stopper. The fact that partner's high cards are outside of spades is a definite plus. We might even have a grand slam:

♠ x x x ♥ A x ♦ A K Q x x ♣ Q x x

Not that I intend to make any attempt to get to seven. I can't possibly find out enough to bid a grand intelligently. But the fact that seven is odds on opposite the right minimum convinces me that my hand is worth driving to a small slam rather than simply inviting.

Unfortunately, we've wrong-sided notrump. If partner were barred and I had to pick the final contract right now, I would guess to bid six clubs. It's hard to construct a two notrump rebid with no honor in spades or clubs. And as long as partner has the club queen, six clubs can't be a terrible spot. But I'd just as soon avoid a four-two fit if possible to minimize the chance that an opponent has more trumps than I do. While it would be nice to protect my spade tenace, it might not be necessary. Sometimes, we will be able to take twelve tricks without losing the lead.

I don't relish having a sophisticated slam auction with Jack. (No offense, Jack.) But it can't hurt to give it a try, especially if I'm content to set a modest goal for myself: finding out whether partner has three clubs or not. Choosing six clubs whenever partner has three clubs and six notrump whenever he has two is probably better than just blasting six clubs, which is my alternative. I start by bidding four clubs. I hope partner thinks this is forcing.

Partner bids four hearts, presumably suggesting a four-three heart fit. Partner doesn't yet know I'm contemplating a slam, so he's bidding under the assumption that we are searching for the best game. Now that I know he doesn't have a doubleton heart, six clubs has become less attractive. But I decide to probe further by bidding four spades. I still don't think I've shown slam interest, by the way, although Jack may not agree. Four spades, to my mind, simply asks partner to choose between four notrump and five clubs. We haven't necessarily found our best strain yet, and choice of games always takes precedence over exploring for slam. Since how partner responds to a choice-of-games inquiry often helps you in a potential slam decision, this approach seldom causes much of a hardship.

LHO passes four spades, which is a good sign. She might have doubled with the spade king. And, if she choose not to, her failure to double might put her partner off the lead. I'm a little less worried about playing six notrump now.

Partner bids four notrump. If we were on the same wavelength, this would be natural, and I would raise it to six. I know from past experience, however, that Jack plays most four notrump bids as Blackwood. He probably thinks my four spade bid was a slam try, showing the spade ace and confirming hearts as trump. I decide to humor him by bidding five clubs, showing zero or three keycards. If partner bids six hearts, I'll correct to six notrump.

Partner surprises me by bidding six clubs. Well. This was easier than I thought it would to be. Jack must be offering me a choice between six clubs and six hearts. If partner thinks six clubs might be the right spot, surely it is. I pass. LHO leads the five of spades.

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

West	North	East	South
Sophie	Jack	Jacinta	Phillip
	1 ♦	Pass	2 ♣
Pass	2 NT	Pass	3 ♥
Pass	3 ♠1	Pass	4 ♣
Pass	4 ♥	Pass	4 ♠
Pass	4 NT2	Pass	5 ♣3
Pass	6 ♣	(All pass)
14th suit gameforcing
2Ace asking for hearts
30 or 3 aces

I guess I didn't achieve my modest goal. I don't understand three spades or six clubs. This is a pretty silly contract, although I don't see how I could sensibly have avoided it. As I said, if I had decided just to blast a slam instead of trying to have a cooperative auction, six clubs is what I would have chosen. I did try to steer us back into notrump. Other than just deciding that partner's three spade bid bore no relation to his hand, I don't see what more I could have done.

I play the spade ten (might as well find out where the jack is), East plays the deuce, and I win with the ace (the card I'm known to hold). I play the deuce of hearts--four--queen--three, then a club from dummy--four--jack--three.

 If West has four hearts, it would be a good play to duck the club queen. If I return to dummy with the heart ace and repeat the club finesse, she can give her partner a ruff. But it would be dangerous to duck with queen doubleton or third. For all she knows, repeating the finesse isn't an option, since she doesn't know I have the club ten. And she would be unlikely to duck with queen fourth, since she doesn't expect her partner to have a third trump to ruff with. I think I'm safe in assuming the club queen is onside, which means I have eleven tricks.

I have lots of prospects for a twelfth. I can play a diamond to the queen, finding the king onside, or to the ten, finding the jack onside. If that fails, I need three-three hearts or the other diamond honor dropping doubleton or a red-suit squeeze. To preserve the squeeze chances, however, I must play diamonds now. If I play a heart to the ace, repeat the club finesse, then take a losing diamond finesse, a heart return will break up the squeeze.

The opponents' convention card says they do not signal on declarer's leads. I know from past experience with Jack that this does not mean they card randomly (as it should) but that they always play up the line. Against such opponents, the normal rules for falsecarding don't apply. Instead, I must also play up the line. Each opponent will know that her partner doesn't have a card lower than the one she plays, so I will be marked with any low cards I don't play. Accordingly, I play the three of diamonds. West plays the five. Should I finesse the queen or the ten? The king and jack are equally likely to be onside, but the queen has the advantage of being more likely to win the trick. This could be important for two reasons: (1) West might have a singleton heart. (2) Clubs might be five-two. If East, for example, has

♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ J x ♣ Q x x x x

I can still make this if I play the diamond queen.

I play the queen, and East follows with the four. I play another club--seven--ten--five, then cash the club ace--eight--diamond deuce--club nine. I've made six. If I can bring home the hearts or catch someone in a red-suit squeeze, I'll make an overtrick. Neither comes to pass, however. I wind up making only six.

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

Not surprisingly, our opponents are in six notrump making seven (no reason not to play a diamond to the ten in notrump), so we lose three imps.

Table 1: +920
Table 2: -1020

Result on Board 1: -3 imps
Total: -3 imps