Free Weekly Instant Tournament - September 23 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

The auction begins with two passes to you. You hold,

♠ 9 6 5 4 2  ♥ K Q 10 6 3  ♦ A 2  ♣ A.

The first bridge book I ever read was Charles Goren's Contract Bridge Complete. In it, Goren set out suit-quality requirements for biddable suits. For an opening bid, a four-card suit had to include at least four HCP. A five-card suit had to have at least one honor. Requirements were loosened for later rounds of bidding but not abandoned altogether. Even when responding to Stayman, for example, you weren't supposed to show your four-card major unless it was headed by at least queen-ten.

I actually followed these rules for awhile. It soon became clear that no one else did, but I assumed that was because they didn't know any better. What I didn't realize was that expert opinion had changed since Goren's book. People had come to appreciate the importance of four-four fits. They had noticed that four small opposite four small is worth two tricks instead of one if it is trump and the suit breaks normally. And you can't get to those four-four fits if no one bids the suit.

The first expert I know of to advocate bidding on suit length alone and ignoring suit quality is William Woodson. He advocated this style in what he called his "electronic" bidding system. (I suppose "electronic" was the most futuristic adjective he could think of in the 50s.) This principle applied even to weak-two bids. While others were insisting you needed two of the top three honors for a weak two-bid, Woodson maintained that any six-card suit was acceptable. Suit quality was irrelevant. You looked at your length and nothing else.

By the time I started playing in the late 60s, no one was bidding two diamonds over Stayman because their four-card major was too weak to bid. Still, most players did not go so far as Woodson in ignoring suit quality altogether. And rightly so. As is often the case with extreme points of view, the best approach lies somewhere in the middle.

Which brings us to this deal. Could it be right to open this hand with one heart rather than with one spade? There is no doubt one spade could work out poorly. If the auction proceeds one spade--one notrump--two hearts--two spades, you are probably in the wrong strain. On the other hand, if you open with one heart and partner bids one notrump, what do you do now? No action appeals. If I were playing Flannery, I might decide to treat spades as a four-card suit and open with two diamonds. But in standard methods, four-five in the majors is an awkward pattern. Why go out of my way to treat the hand as a pattern the system doesn't handle well? 

If you take one of the aces away, there is more to be said for opening with one heart. Now the auction rates to be competitive, when bidding where your high cards are is more important. But with this hand, I expect to buy the contract, so I open with open spade.

Partner bids two clubs, Drury, showing at least three spades and invitational values.

I could simply bid four spades. That's probably where we belong, and bidding it directly keeps the opponents in the dark. It may induce a poor opening lead or make the defense to the first few tricks harder. On the other hand, four hearts could easily be a better contract than four spades. In hearts, I may be able to pitch spades on minor-suit tricks in dummy. Or, if spades break four-one, I may even be able to ruff a spade loser.

It's not at all clear which consideration is more important, but, perhaps feeling guilty for not bidding hearts the first time, I decide to look for a heart fit. I bid two hearts.

Partner bids three clubs, I bid four hearts, and partner corrects back to four spades, ending the auction. LHO leads the eight of hearts.

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

West	North	East	South
Robot	Robot	Robot	Phillip
	Pass	Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♣	Pass	2 ♥
Pass	3 ♣	Pass	4 ♥
Pass	4 ♠	(All pass)

Now I'm sorry I didn't just bid four spades. The lead into my bid and rebid suit is surely a singleton, and now East knows that. Had I bid a direct four spades, he wouldn't know whether the lead was a singleton or doubleton.

I play low from dummy, and East takes the ace. It should make no difference which low card I play. Even if it were possible for West to have a doubleton, that doubleton is just as apt to be eight-six as to be eight-three. But I decide to drop the six anyway. East shifts to the seven of clubs.

What? He must know I have five hearts. Could West have led a doubleton after all?

I take the ace, and West plays the three. I play the spade deuce and West follows with the three. There are situations where it would be right to play the king in an attempt to prevent a ruff. But I assume the defense would have taken a ruff already if it were available, so I see no reason not to make my normal play in spades. I play the ten, and East wins with the queen.

He returns the seven of spades to his partner's ace, and West shifts to the four of hearts. The hand is over. Making four.

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

This seems like a perfectly normal result, but it's worth 86%. Several declarers went down in four spades on weird lines of play.

One player did try a one heart opening bid, but it didn't work out well. His partner bid one trump, he rebid two hearts, his partner raised to three, and he passed. Making three. Score one for electronic bidding.