Board 6
Opponents vulnerable
Opponents vulnerable
♠ J 10 2 ♥ Q 7 5 ♦ J 7 5 ♣ A 10 9 8 |
RHO passes, I pass, and LHO opens with a Polish club (showing either a weak notrump, a natural one club opening, or at least 18 high-card points). Partner overcalls with one heart, and RHO bids three clubs, which is explained as showing 10 to 12 points and five or more clubs. I've never played Polish club, but I don't see how that treatment makes sense. Isn't partner's likeliest hand a weak notrump?
Given the opponents could be in a silly spot, I see no reason to stretch with three hearts. If we have a game, I'll hear from partner again. And I suspect we have a better shot at a plus score defending three clubs than declaring three hearts. Of course, I may regret not raising hearts if LHO bids three notrump and partner chooses to lead something else.
I pass, LHO bids three notrump--pass--pass to me. Exactly the auction I was worried about. Should I double to make sure partner leads a heart? I do have a double stopper in dummy's long suit. But for all I know they can take nine tricks outside the club suit. Or perhaps they can even afford to lose two club tricks if partner doesn't have a side entry. For that matter, why am I even so sure I want him to lead a heart? If he has, say, ace-jack-ten fifth of hearts and out, a heart might be the only lead to let them make it.
All in all, doubling seems like a bad idea. I pass, and partner leads the king of spades.
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 3 ♥ K ♦ 10 9 8 6 ♣ K Q 7 4 2 |
||
EAST
Phillip ♠ J 10 2 ♥ Q 7 5 ♦ J 7 5 ♣ A 10 9 8 |
West | North | East | South |
Jack | Jacinta | Phillip | Sophie |
Pass | Pass | 1 ♣1 | |
1 ♥ | 3 ♣ | Pass | 3 NT |
(All pass) | |||
1Polish Club |
Since declarer appears not to have a natural one club opening (and can hardly have a weak notrump), she must have at least 18 high-card points, which leaves partner with at most six. If I credit partner with the king-queen of spades and a side jack, how many tricks does that give declarer? Four diamonds (I hope only four), two hearts, and one spade. All she needs is two club tricks, so I have to hope partner's jack is the club jack.
Dummy plays the three of spades. The fact that partner led the spade king without the jack or ten suggests he is leading a short suit, hoping to find me with length. If so, I don't like our chances, so I might as well assume that's not the case. Perhaps partner decided to lead the king rather than low from king-queen-nine fourth. I play the jack, and declarer wins with the ace. That's a surprise. Why isn't she ducking this trick?
Before I turn my card over, I need to figure that out. Any time declarer does something unexpected, it's time to stop and think. Often, there is only one explanation for declarer's play, and if you take the time to work out what it is, you will be double-dummy from that point on.
The usual reason for spurning a duck at trick one is that you are afraid of a shift. What shift could that be? Perhaps she is afraid of a heart shift, which would kill the entry to dummy's clubs. Maybe she has this hand:
♠ A x x ♥ A J x x ♦ A K Q x ♣ x x |
She intends to play partner for the club ace, taking a spade, two hearts, four diamonds, and two clubs. But a heart shift at trick two might kill the only entry to the second club. (She might have a diamond entry. But not if I have jack fourth of diamonds.) Whether this is the right line or not doesn't concern me, since I'm not declaring. But it's certainly a reasonable line. And it's the only explanation I can think of for winning the first trick. This construction does give partner a rather questionable one heart overcall:
♠ K Q 9 x ♥ x x x x x ♦ x x ♣ J x |
That looks more like a one spade overcall to me. But it wouldn't be the first time I disapproved of Jack's bidding.
Now that I know declarer's plan, I know what to do. When she leads a club to dummy's king, I'm going to duck. We don't have enough cashable tricks to beat this, and I have nothing constructive to do with the tempo. So there is nothing to gain by winning the trick. Declarer will then play a diamond to her hand and a club to the queen, allowing us to cash three clubs and three spades for down two. Come to think of it, this beats it one even if partner did lead a three-card spade suit. I guess it was pre-mature to give up on that layout. OK. I'm ready. I turn my jack of spades over.
Declarer plays the diamond queen, Why cash a diamond? Is she unblocking with ace-king-queen tight? No. Partner plays the four, which must be from four-three or four-deuce doubleton. I play the diamond seven, following the routine procedure of giving false count when holding the jack. (It's hard to see how it will matter here. But it pays to be consistent. In my opinion, partner is entitled to assume I don't have the jack if I give correct count.)
Declarer plays the five of clubs--three--queen. I duck as planned. Since I want declarer to think partner has the club ace, I play the eight of clubs, as I would if I had ten-nine-eight.
Declarer plays a diamond to her ace. I play the five and partner follows with the deuce. I expect another club, but declarer cashes the king of diamonds, on which partner discards the heart deuce. What's this? Declarer is now out of entries to her hand and hearts are still blocked. What's she up to? Time to pause and take stock again.
If declarer is stranding her heart ace, she must be intending to force us to play hearts for her. It appears she is abandoning the idea of playing for the club ace onside (And I thought I ducked smoothly!) Instead, she is playing me for the heart queen (or no spade entry, which seems wildly unlikely given my play at trick one). She is going to cash diamonds, cash the heart king, and play a spade. If partner began with a singleton club or with ace doubleton, then there is no way for us to avoid handing declarer her ninth trick. Say, for example, that partner began with a singleton club. Then this will be the position in the endgame:
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 ♥ -- ♦ -- ♣ K 7 4 2 |
||
WEST
Jack ♠ Q 9 x ♥ x x x ♦ -- ♣ -- |
EAST
Phillip ♠ 10 2 ♥ Q ♦ -- ♣ A J 10 | |
SOUTH
Sophie ♠ x x ♥ A J x ♦ -- ♣ x |
Except it isn't going to work, because partner has another club, and it's the jack, not the ace. So this will be the end position
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 ♥ -- ♦ -- ♣ K 7 4 2 |
||
WEST
Jack ♠ Q 9 x ♥ x x ♦ -- ♣ J |
EAST
Phillip ♠ 10 2 ♥ Q ♦ -- ♣ A 10 9 | |
SOUTH
Sophie ♠ x x ♥ A J x ♦ -- ♣ x |
Declarer's line fails because the heart ace is stranded. Could she have made this by not cashing the third diamond, retaining communication to her hand? We would reach this position:
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 ♥ -- ♦ 10 9 ♣ K 7 4 2 |
||
WEST
Jack ♠ Q 9 x ♥ x x x x ♦ -- ♣ J |
EAST
Phillip ♠ 10 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ J ♣ A 10 9 | |
SOUTH
Sophie ♠ x x ♥ A J x ♦ K x ♣ x |
So declarer must cash three diamonds to strip me of my exit. But she must also retain a fourth-round diamond entry to her to hand to avoid stranding the heart ace. The way to do that is to take a finesse against my jack of diamonds. When she played the eight of diamonds from dummy, she needed to let it ride. She could then play a diamond to ace, a heart to the king, and a spade. There is no longer any defense. What a great hand!
Back to the actual problem. In case you've lost track, this is where we are, with declarer on lead:
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 ♥ K ♦ 10 ♣ K 7 4 2 |
||
EAST
Phillip ♠ 10 2 ♥ Q 7 5 ♦ -- ♣ A 10 9 |
♠ A x x x ♥ A 10 x ♦ A K Q x ♣ x x |
That's a pretty good 17-count, though. Perhaps she upgraded it. And it does give partner a less questionable one heart overcall. (Though Adam Meredith might still overcall one spade.)
Declarer leads the five of spades from dummy. I hop with ten. Declarer plays the four, and partner plays the nine. Yes. That confirms it. Partner is indeed 3-6-2-2. He wouldn't play the nine of spades with queen-nine-small left. Instead of playing a spade as I intended, I must play the heart queen, establishing partner's hearts before declarer can set up her long spade.
It is strange, however, that declarer made no attempt to make this contract. She could have played partner for the club ace (which wouldn't work) or she could have played for three-three spades (which would). The line of play she chose makes no sense at all unless she has the heart jack. I'm inclined to think partner miscarded, dropping the nine instead of the ten from ten-nine fourth remaining. Still, it can't be right to play a spade, since I'm 100% sure about the count. As weird as it is to signal with the nine while holding the ten, it's even weirder to give false count in hearts, then drop the spade nine under my ten for no reason.
I play the queen of hearts. Declarer wins with the ace, then cashes the jack of hearts. Oh, well. I pitch a club. Declarer plays a club to the jack, king, and my ace. Partner has a high heart and a high spade left. I'm not about to cash my last club and give him a chance to pitch the wrong thing. I play the spade deuce, and partner claims.
NORTH
Jacinta ♠ 8 5 3 ♥ K ♦ 10 9 8 6 ♣ K Q 7 4 2 |
||
WEST
Jack ♠ K Q 9 ♥ 10 9 8 4 3 2 ♦ 4 2 ♣ J 3 |
EAST
Phillip ♠ J 10 2 ♥ Q 7 5 ♦ J 7 5 ♣ A 10 9 8 | |
SOUTH
Sophie ♠ A 7 6 4 ♥ A J 6 ♦ A K Q 3 ♣ 6 5 |
Did I err in ducking the club? If declarer was 3-4-4-2 as I was assuming, I allowed her to make it, albeit by a line few declarers would find. Had I taken the club ace and returned a club, nothing bad could happen. (Taking the club ace and playing a spade works as well provided partner plays a club after cashing spades to get me off the club-heart squeeze. It's better if I play clubs myself to take the pressure off partner.) On the other hand, ducking and hoping declarer would play partner for the club ace was my only shot to beat it on the actual layout. I suspect ducking was the right play, but I still have to give myself a charge for not appreciating the risk I was taking.
Might declarer find the winning line with 3-4-4-2? Perhaps. If she is confident for whatever reason that I ducked the club ace, what else is there to do but try for an endplay? But to execute the endplay, she must guess diamonds. If partner is three-one in the minors, she must cash the top diamonds. If partner is two-two in the minors with both jacks, she must cash two diamonds and play the third diamond to dummy. And if partner is two-two with only the club jack, she must finesse against my diamond jack. Note that, as the cards lie, if the defense can be counted on to give honest count but do not play mandatory false cards with the jack, declarer can work out the lie of the diamonds. West plays the diamond four on the first trick; East plays five-seven. West must have the deuce and East must the jack. But if they do play mandatory false cards with the jack, South can't read the position. West plays the diamond four; East plays seven-five. She knows one defender gave correct count with two small and the other gave false count with jack third. But there is no way to know which defender is which. This is the principle behind the mandatory false card. It allows you to give honest count to partner without revealing the count to declarer. But I've never seen it work in quite this way before.
Our teammates also made three notrump, so the board is a push. A classic Gargoyle Chronicles deal! Lots of things to discuss. But the board is a push and every decision I made proved to be immaterial.
Table 1: -600
Table 2: +600
Result on Board 6: 0 imps
Total: +14 imps
Just as a curiosity: doesn't the "falsecard with the jack" agreement effectively create an encrypted signal -- which even the WBF forbids?
ReplyDeleteShh. Actually, I don't think it fits the definition of encryption, because partner doesn't necessarily have the "key." In fact, if declarer has the jack himself, he is the one who has the "key" and each defender is in the dark. In that respect, it seems to fall in the same vein as "10 or 9 shows 0 or 2 higher," which is perfectly legal.
ReplyDelete