Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 7

Board 7
Both sides vulnerable

♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5

The opponents have the auction to themselves. LHO opens one diamond; RHO bids one spade. LHO raises to two spades; RHO bids two notrump, a relay. LHO bids three spades, showing four trumps and more than a minimum, and RHO bids four spades. I lead the club king.

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

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
Pass	1 ♦	Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♠	Pass	2 NT1
Pass	3 ♠2	Pass	4 ♠
(All pass)
1Relay
2Fourcard support and not a minimum

Since the two notrump relay can apparently be used to find out whether partner has three-card or four-card support, I suppose South might have a game force with four spades. If she has five spades, however, I assume she will have only an invitational hand, else she would have bid four spades directly over the raise.

Partner plays the club eight, and declarer follows with the deuce. Diamonds is the obvious shift, so partner's card (assuming it is high) should suggest that continuing clubs looks like a better idea to him than shifting to diamonds. There is no particular reason to believe partner has the club ace. He may encourage without the club ace if a diamond shift looks wrong.

What can I conclude about partner's diamonds? That's a difficult question. It depends on whether you think partner's signal is prescriptive ("Please shift to a diamond.") or descriptive ("I have something useful in diamonds, just so you know."). As a general rule, the less you know about the deal, the more descriptive your signals should be. So, at trick one, signals are usually descriptive. But not always. It all depends on context, and I think the context here calls for a more prescriptive approach.

Let's move over to the East seat for a moment. On this auction, looking at that dummy, my judgment would be that holding the diamond king alone (without the ten or jack) gives me good reason to steer partner away from a diamond shift. So I would tend to encourage clubs with that holding.

Take these two hands, for example:

(A) ♠ A 4 2 ♥ Q 3 2 ♦ K 9 6 ♣ 10 8 7 3

(B) ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K 10 6 ♣ 10 8 7 4 3

With (A), I don't want a diamond shift unless partner has jack-ten of diamonds, in which case he might find the shift by himself. Simply change the diamond ten to the jack in the actual West hand, and a diamond shift would be fatal:

(A)

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

But if I hold (B), I do want a diamond shift. If I don't get it, I might be endplayed:

(B)

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

Accordingly, I would tend to encourage clubs at trick one with just the diamond king. If the heart suit were more threatening, I would feel different. For example, give dummy king-queen-jack fourth of hearts and take my spade ace away (so there is room for partner to hold the heart ace). Now the diamond king alone would be enough for me to discourage in clubs. Where is the dividing line? At what point are dummy's hearts sufficiently threatening that I would signal for diamonds without a supporting lower honor? I can't say exactly. It's a judgment call.

Elsewhere in this blog I have inveighed against fuzzy, context-based signals, and the discussion above may seem to belie that conviction. So let me clarify. I do think one should have clear rules about what message a signal conveys. You don't want to be in a situation where you know you want partner to play a spade but you aren't sure whether a low card or a high card is the way to ask for it. Judgment must come into play, however, in deciding whether to send that message. After all, we can agree that one spade--three spades is a limit raise yet still leave the dividing line between a limit raise and a forcing raise a matter of individual judgment.

In any event, these considerations are moot, since I'm playing with Jack. Jack isn't even looking at his diamonds, He's looking at his clubs and telling me he has the ace. Pure and simple.

Back over to the West seat. If partner has the club ace, I may need to cash our second club trick. It might go away if I don't. Should I cash the queen or lead a low one? It could be right to cash the queen so that I can stay on play to put a diamond through. Otherwise, partner may be endplayed:

(C)

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

Could cashing the queen could work out poorly if partner is short in clubs? Let's try another layout:

(D)

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

If I cash the queen, partner's ace will drop on the next round, establishing declarer's ten. But so what? We aren't beating the contract on this layout whatever I do. Four small clubs in declarer's hand is a very favorable assumption for declarer, so it is pointless to cater to it. I might as well cash the queen, so I can switch to diamonds at trick three.

Some might argue that a reliable partner can't have (C), that he would discourage at trick one with that hand. Indeed, in a poll I conducted on bridgewinners.com, roughly 80% of the respondents said they would discourage at trick one with (C). But I don't think you should.

Back to the East seat again. Yes, with (C) you want partner to play a diamond, but not just yet. You want him to cash the club queen first. If he doesn't, declarer can make the contract by pitching his club on dummy's fourth heart. If partner knew you had the club ace, you could discourage and trust him to work out on his own the need to cash before shifting. But partner doesn't know who has the ace. If you discourage, how will he know that he isn't supposed to shift immediately?

(E)

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

In this layout, if declarer wins the first trick, the defense is easy. But if she ducks, partner must find a diamond shift at trick two. It shouldn't be too hard for declarer to find this duck. You might as well give West his entry now while he is still somewhat in the dark.

Holding (C), then, you must encourage to get partner to cash the club queen. How do you get him to shift to diamonds at trick three? Actually, I doubt that's a problem. If partner held the diamond jack, a diamond shift would be dangerous. But he doesn't, so a diamond shift at trick three looks pretty routine. It's a perfectly safe exit, and it might be productive. Why would he ever not play a diamond at trick three? The idea that you somehow need to tell partner to lead diamonds comes from focusing on your own hand rather than looking at the deal from partner's perspective.

You have a difficult problem, however, if you switch the jack and ten of diamonds:

(F)

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

Again, you must encourage so partner will cash the club. But he will be hard pressed to find a diamond shift at trick three on his own. How can you get him to do the right thing? One possibility is to take charge. Overtake with the ace and return a suit-preference three of clubs. Obviously, this could work out badly. Even if you aren't playing with Lowenthal (who might have king empty fourth), this maneuver might still lose a trick by force. And, if it doesn't, partner must still work out why you did this. He might attribute it to something less obscure, like holding ace doubleton of clubs.

I think the best solution is to signal with the seven. The seven is high enough that partner will probably think it is encouraging and will cash the queen. Now you play the eight. By playing up the line, you negate your original message. The seven becomes discouraging in retrospect, and partner might work out that you want a diamond shift. He might get this right even if he doesn't suspect your equivocation. He might think you had ace-eight-seven third all along. The bridgewinners were about evenly split between encouraging and discouraging on this one, which I don't understand. If you think it's right to discourage clubs with (C), why would you change your mind with (F)? Two people did choose the seven, but no one said why. I don't know if they were intending to follow with the eight or not.

Back to the West seat on the actual deal. I cash the club queen. Partner plays the three; declarer, the ten. The three should be count, so partner should have ace third or fourth but not ace fifth. Comments in the aforementioned poll indicated that some would play this card as suit preference. All I have to say about that is, "Arggggghhhh!" (No offense intended.) I'd rather take suit preference off the card altogether than worry that partner would give me suit preference here. This should be count, because I might need to know if it's safe to continue a third round of clubs. Clarifying your holding in the suit led always takes precedence over suit preference unless your holding in the suit led is clearly immaterial. Playing a third club is a serious possibility, so your club length is hardly immaterial.

Fortunately, I don't need to worry whether Jack agrees with me or not. I see no reason not to switch to a diamond. I play the diamond deuce--eight--six--five. Declarer appears to have at least king-jack-nine-five. The missing diamonds are the seven, six, and three. I don't know if Jack would play high (count) or low (attitude) with two small. (He should give count, since his failure to win the trick is all the attitude I need. But that's a bit subtle for Jack.) In any event, I don't think Jack would play middle from three. So declarer has five diamonds. We need two major-suit tricks to beat this. Declarer has at most two hearts, so the two tricks will have to be either the ace-queen of a major or the heart ace and the spade queen.

Declarer plays the three of spades from dummy--four--ace--seven. Then deuce of spades--ten--jack--queen. This looks promising. If declarer could afford to lose a spade trick, she would have taken the safety play (cashing dummy's king, then leading low toward her hand). This line indicates she couldn't afford to lose a spade trick, so she must be going down.

No, wait. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. If she has a doubleton club, she has a safety play. But not if she has three. If I have queen-ten fourth of spades and she plays king of spades, a spade to her ace, and another spade, I can hop and tap dummy to promote my spade ten. Furthermore, even if she has a doubleton club, the "safety" play isn't so safe. What if she loses to a doubleton queen of spades in my hand and I give partner a diamond ruff? I take it all back. This isn't as promising a development as I thought.

Partner returns the nine of spades to dummy's king. I pitch the four of diamonds. Declarer plays the seven of hearts--deuce--ace. I guess that's it. There is no prospect for a fourth trick.

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

So declarer did have a doubleton club and might have taken a safety play in spades. Whether she should or not is hard to say. A priori, it's more likely that the safety play is necessary than that she will run into a diamond ruff. But we didn't defend as if trumps were breaking badly. We might have tried the effect of three rounds of clubs if that were the case.

The contract and result were the same at the other table. But I'll bet they didn't spend nearly so much time as we did discussing the board. This is a pretty innocuous-looking deal, isn't it? If you were kibitzing when it was played, would you suspect this deal would spawn three poll questions and merit 2,000 words of commentary?


Table 1: -620
Table 2: +620

Result on Board 7: 0 imps
Total: +18 imps