Event 3 - Match 3 - Board 8

Board 8
Neither vulnerable

♠ A 5 ♥ K J 9 4 ♦ 6 4 ♣ Q 8 7 5 2

LHO opens one club, alerted as showing "at least a doubleton." Of course, that doesn't mean it could be a doubleton, but I'll assume that's what RHO meant to say.

Partner overcalls one heart, and RHO bids one spade. I could cue-bid to show a limit raise or better. But why be so delicate? Are we really going to buy this in three hearts? The opponents have the master suit, and this is probably their hand. Sometimes when you hold the heart suit it's better to overbid slightly and force the opponents to guess what to do. This is particularly true if you can't tell from your own hand what you want them to do. If you don't know whether they should bid four spades or not, why should they know?

I bid four hearts (showing at least a doubleton). LHO bids four spades; partner bids five hearts. Not to be outdone, RHO bids five spades. Since I have more defense than I might have for my four heart bid, it's tempting to double to make sure partner doesn't bid again. But that isn't necessary opposite a disciplined partner. If partner were contemplating bidding again, he should have involved me by bidding five of a minor. We don't rate to beat this two tricks. So there is little reason to double except to stop partner from doing something he shouldn't do anyway. Accordingly, I pass. Five spades ends the auction.

I don't see any need for partner to be on play at trick two. On the other hand, it might easily be necesssary for me to switch to a diamond at trick two. So I lead the heart king.

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

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Nathaniel	Jack	Marcus
	1 ♣1	1 ♥	1 ♠
4 ♥	4 ♠	5 ♥	5 ♠
(All pass)
1At least a doubleton

Dummy wins with the ace, and partner plays the heart eight. As I play, a high heart suggests that the obvious shift (diamonds) is a bad idea. I know some would play this card as suit-preference, but that's a serious error in my book. Longtime readers of this blog might want to skip the next three paragraphs, since you've heard it all before. (Unless somehow I still haven't unconvinced you. In which case, please read on.)

Let's call my method of signaling Method A: Discouraging in hearts suggests the obvious shift (in this case, diamonds). Encouraging ostensibly suggests I want hearts continued. But partner must be alert to the fact I have no way to ask for the less obvious shift (in this case, clubs). So he is free to use his judgment and shift to clubs if that seems likelier to be productive than continuing hearts. The more common method of signaling is Method B: If a heart continuation is logical, my card is attitude. Encouraging suggests hearts; discouraging suggests the obvious shift. If a heart continuation is illogical, my card is suit preference.

Note that if a heart continuation is clearly logical or clearly illogical, it makes no difference which method I play. Either method will work. But if one of us thinks a heart shift is logical and the other thinks it isn't, (A) is clearly superior. Playing (A), if I want a diamond shift, I am going to get one, since a low card always suggests diamonds. Playing (B), if there is any confusion, I am guaranteed to get the wrong shift whichever shift I want.

There will always be some hands where it is unclear whether a heart continuation is logical or not, and I don't think you can devise sensible rules to eliminate these ambiguities. Even a rule like "a heart continuation is illogical if dummy has a singleton heart" (which many people play) is demonstrably wrong. Sometimes you want to continue hearts because you want to defend passively. Sometimes you want to continue hearts to tap dummy's trumps, promoting a trump trick for the defense. Yes, there is point somewhere along the continuum where a heart continuation becomes illogical. But how do you define where that point is? Or, more importantly, why bother to define where that point is? What do you gain by switching from attitude to suit preference? How can it possibly be right to play "high" for diamonds in some cases and "low" for diamonds in other cases based on some subjective criterion about which you and your partner might disagree? Sometimes one must make tradeoffs in choosing one method over another, and different people may evaluate the tradeoffs differently. But here I see no tradeoff. I don't see that (B) offers any advantage over (A).

Jack, of course, plays neither (A) nor (B). He plays (J). He is simply showing the heart queen with his signal. Thanks, Jack.

Declarer plays a low club from dummy, partner plays the king, and declarer ruffs with the four of spades. Why is declarer ruffing clubs to his hand? It looks as if he's missing king-jack of diamonds and is trying to strip the hand for an endplay. I play the club deuce.

Declarer ruffs the deuce of hearts in dummy. I play the four; partner, the six. I haven't seen the three yet. Partner should be giving count, but Jack tends to play up the line in these situations. So the three is probably in declarer's hand. That gives partner a 1-5-4-3 or 0-5-5-3 pattern. (I refuse to believe he bid five hearts with 2-5-3-3.)

Declarer ruffs a club with the six of spades. Partner plays the nine; I play the five. Declarer leads the elusive three of hearts--nine--spade three--heart seven. He then ruffs out partner's club ace with the spade seven.

We are down to this position:

	NORTH Jack ♠ J 8 ♥ -- ♦ A Q 7 ♣ J 10
WEST Phillip ♠ A 5 ♥ J ♦ 6 4 ♣ Q 8

We need to score two diamond tricks to beat this. If partner is 0-5-5-3 (making declarer 7-3-3-0), what are our prospects? Declarer will lead a trump. If I win and play a diamond, declarer can simply duck and partner is endplayed. To stop the endplay, I must win and play a trump. But then declarer doesn't need an endplay. He can concede a trick to my club queen, then pitch his last diamond on dummy's good club. I can't beat this if declarer is 7-3-3-0.

What if partner is 1-5-4-3 (making declarer 6-3-4-0)? Declarer leads a trump. Now if I win and play a trump, declarer is a trick short. Do I need to win it? Can I afford to duck in case partner has a stiff king of spades and no jack of diamonds? If I duck and partner follows low, declarer can abandon trumps and duck a diamond to partner. A diamond return into dummy's ace-queen is obviously fatal. If, instead, partner returns a heart, declarer pitches a diamond, ruffing in dummy. Declarer is now down to two trumps and two diamonds, and I am down to the spade ace, one diamond, and two clubs. Since I have two clubs, I can't stop declarer from scoring both his trumps. He ruffs a club, plays a diamond to the ace, and ruffs another club. I end up ruffing partner's diamond winner with my spade ace at trick thirteen. So I can't afford to cater to a stiff spade king in partner's hand. Not that I'm too worried about it given the auction.

Declarer leads the spade queen. I take the ace as planned, and partner follows with the ten. I play a trump. Declarer wins in dummy, and partner plays the diamond eight. Declarer now leads the ten of clubs. Partner pitches the heart ten, and declarer pitches the diamond deuce. I win with the queen and exit with a heart, which declarer ruffs. Declarer is left with three small diamonds in his hand. Dummy has ace-queen of diamonds and a good club. Declarer takes a losing diamond finesse and is down one.

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

Declarer was out of trumps. The only reason he could afford the diamond finesse was partner was out of hearts. Partner erred by pitching a heart on the ten of clubs. Had he pitched a diamond instead, we would beat this two if declarer tried to make it by finessing the diamond in the end position. Of course, it would be pretty foolish of declarer to do that. If I had the diamond king, I wouldn't be putting him in his hand. Upon winning the club queen, I would just return a club and lock him in dummy. But it can't hurt to give declarer a chance to be foolish.

I suppose I shouldn't complain about partner too much. He did bid five hearts, after all. I doubt very much I would have done that. I don't expect to make it, and declarer doesn't have a source of tricks in a minor, so it seems unlikely four spades is making. Accordingly, I would pass. That is such a poor decision in practice that I wonder if I'm missing something. Why is Jack's judgment better than mine? I presented this hand in a bridgewinners.com poll to see if anyone had any insights. Over 80% of the respondents chose to defend. So either Jack knows something we humans don't or he was just lucky.

This board is yet another push, the fourth one of this match. We win the match by two imps and pick up a mere 16 out of 30 victory points. I was certainly right not risk a double. The extra two imps would have picked up no victory points, so the risk-reward ratio was infinite. Fortunately, 16 victory points is enough to stay in the lead.


Table 1: +50
Table 2: -50

Result on Board 7: 0 imps

Result on Match 3: +2 imps (16 VP)
Current Total: 58 VP

For our next match, we play William and Harry, another Majeure cinquieme pair. I didn't even know William and Harry played bridge, although I know their mother was a big fan of the game.