Who needs a heart stopper?

On this board from the Columbia sectional, I was convinced that I had a simple black suit squeeze against west in 3NT for an overtrick. However, west’s overcall wasn’t as strong as it could have been so he had to only guard clubs. But before I get in to the play, would you have gotten to 3NT?
 

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ Q8 ♥ QT4 ♦ KQ9863 ♣ T5
West ♠ T7 ♥ K973 ♦ 2 ♣ KJ9863		East ♠ KJ94 ♥ A8652 ♦ T74 ♣ 4
	South ♠ A6532 ♥ J ♦ AJ5 ♣ AQ72

South	West	North	East
1♠	2♣	2♦	Pass
3♣	Pass	3♦	Pass
3NT	Pass	Pass	Pass

Who has the hearts is what I was thinking when 2♦ came back to me. I sure didn’t have ‘em but I knew we had the points for game so I bid 3♣ to see if partner could tell me anything more useful. As expected, he eeked out a minimum 3♦ call and I decided to just go for 3NT. Good for them if they can take the first 5 heart tricks.

3NT is pretty much unbeatable. If the defense establishes hearts, that sets up a 9^th trick for me. A spade lead would give me problems but who would lead a spade on this auction?

Against me, the defense started with a heart to the A, and club ducked to the J, ♥K and a heart to dummy’s Q. I then cashed the ♠A and ran the diamonds. Having lost 3 tricks, after the last diamond, dummy still had ♠Q ♣T left and I had ♣AQ in hand.

If west started with both black kings as I expected from the bidding, he would be squeezed, having to stiff his ♣K to keep dummy’s ♠Q from being good. Thanks to the opponents for helping me rectify the count early in the hand to set up a potential squeeze. Alas, west had a crappy 2♣ overcall and I made only 3. However, +600 was worth all the matchpoints. I guess 3NT was just a hard contract to reach whether they overcall or not.

More IMP Pairs

So, a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how I wanted to see more board-a-match games and less Swisses. Being one who claims to be more of a matchpoint player, I stand by that. However, I also believe we should have more imp pair games. The fact that tournaments typically do not have imp pair games is even more surprising than the lack of BAM because most of the bridge that is played online is in the form of imp pairs.

There are 3 NABC BAM events and 1 IMP Pairs Event so it is certainly a form of scoring the ACBL overall thinks is important – why don’t tournaments put these on the regular schedule? I know many people like team games for the camaraderie and also to share the blame for when they lose, and also for the ridiculous masterpoints awarded for team games as compared with pair games. But what I’ve heard more lately is that people like team games because they are different from the regular club matchpoint games. People like to play in a game that’s a different format than what they play at the local club. But then I see other people who say they don’t play on Sunday because all they have are team games and they can never find teammates who they get along with.

What’s the solution to this? IMP Pairs! It’s a different form of scoring and you don’t have to rely on teammates for anything.

I’m not sure if I like pair games better because I like matchpoints better or if it’s just because I don’t get good teammates. But I am optimistic about the teams Sean and I have for Gatlinburg (Greg Roberts and Boyce Robbins), the flight B GNT’s (Richard and Andrew Jeng), and hopefully the 0-5K mini-spingold (hopefully Alli Howard + partner).

Different Views on Defense

Sometimes as a defender there are certain things we know about a hand that our partner doesn't know, whether it be from lack of experience, lack of thought, or simply having a different perspective on the deal.


There was a hand during the Swiss last weekend where I was defending a 3♦. I don't remember the whole hand but dummy started with ♠xxxxx and ♥KQxx of hearts after I had opened 1♥ and partner raised to 2♥. I don't remember the whole hand but at some point after I had taken my ♥A and led a high club spot to declarer's ace, declarer drew trumps and, still having a heart entry to dummy, led a spade off dummy. I held AKx so I went up with the K, declarer dropping the J, and made what I thought was the most obvious club play, even after partner had discouraged clubs when I led them earlier when in with the ♥A. The spades looked threatening to me and I thought leading more spades might set up a spade trick on dummy, allowing him to pitch a club loser on a good spade.


My partner did not see dummy's spade length as being a threat at all as he started with Qxxx in both black suits. Additionally, I had opened a 4 card heart suit (in 3rd seat, playing 2/1) so my partner didn't think there was another entry to dummy. That begs the question: "why didn't declarer pitch on the good heart in dummy before leading a spade?" On declarer played a couple of trumps and my partner decided that I must not have the A of spades because I didn't play it, and that I must have some good clubs because I led them after he signaled that he didn't like clubs, so he held his protected ♠Q and pitched away his club trick.


In reality, the spades weren't much of a threat. If declarer had a spade suit that could be set up, he would have started earlier and even if they do set up, we may not have been getting a club trick anyway. Partner should have realized that I had the ♠A (why would declarer ever play the J under the K if he had the A?) but I could have made it easier for him to know which Q he needs to keep protected.


I probably should make a hand diagram that is consistent with this explanation. Maybe I will, if I ever publish this in a book on defense or if someone starts paynig me to do this. Why don't we have hand records for Swiss team games and knockouts?

Listen to the Bidding

Any expert will tell you that listening to the opponents’ bidding and trying to visualize possible hands they could have that match the bidding is a big part of what makes someone a good declarer. But sometimes it becomes clear that the opponents can’t possibly have all their bids and have to be able to figure out which one of the defenders is more likely to have misbid.

Today’s hand features a hand in the final session of the NABC IMP Pairs where I had a chance to win 11.5 imps but managed to go down in 3♦X and lost 2 imps.
 

Dealer: W Vul: none	North ♠ Qxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ KQJ87 ♣ x
West ♠ Kxx ♥ ATxx ♦ xx ♣ AQxx		East ♠ AJxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ Tx ♣ Jx
	South ♠ xx ♥ J ♦ A9xx ♣ KT987x

West	North	East	South
1♣	1♦	1♠	3♦
Pass	Pass	X	Pass
Pass	Pass

East led the ♣J and it should be pretty clear that neither defender has a trump stack – at least not a good stack. East’s double is surely takeout showing something like a 10-count with roughly 5-4-1-3 shape and this is close enough. With a more distributional hand, east may not offer west a chance to pass for penalty and bid 3♥ instead.

There are 2 ways to approach the play of this hand – cross-ruff all the way or draw trumps and then take the ruffing finesse in clubs. There are 4 top losers and the defense inconveniently took all 4 winners immediately and then tapped dummy by playing a 3^rd round of spades. I could try to continue to cross-ruff the hand but there is a little danger of being over-ruffed with the 10 at some point or I could draw 2 rounds of trumps and take the ruffing finesse in clubs (which is sure to win). Since trumps must be drawn before taking the ruffing finesse and the ♦A is the only other real entry to dummy unless diamonds split 2-2, I opted for a full cross-ruff. I trumped a club low, ruffed a heart, ruffed a club high, ruffed a heart, ruffed a club high, and ruffed my last heart. At trick 12 I finally had to ruff a club with the 8. Down 1 when simply playing ♦K-A and then clubs would have made the hand easily.

I was too focused on the idea that they wouldn’t be doubling me in 3♦ without one of them having 4 trumps (or at least 3) that I didn’t even consider that for east to be short in diamonds, he would have to have too many major suit cards for double to make any sense. And if west has the diamond shortness, the contract is doomed anyway. So, basically, east’s bidding was definitely consistent with 5-4-2-2 shape and really, with us having 9 trumps including the AKQJ, neither opponent could have a trump stack worthy of leaving 3♦X in.

Columbia SC fun

In October, I went to Columbia for the regional and it was the first time I had even gone through the city since their regional in 2006. But since the October 2010 regional, I haven't passed up an opportunity to go there - on the way to/from other tournaments in the Carolinas and even the ACC championship game in December.

The sectional I went to this weekend with David was nice with 3 exceptions: our Swiss teammates were less than stellar, there were no prizes for winning and worst of all the $6 lunch Sunday was a joke (and for about 30 of the 120 people, there was no lunch).

Fortunately we had a huge and delicious breakfast at the Embassy Suites and it left me nice and hungry for chipotle after the game. The Embassy Suites also has unlimited free alcohol from 5:30 to 7:30. And this embassy suites was conveniently located across the street from my favorite bar in Columbia. The ridiculous price i paid for this place: $55/night including taxes, thanks to priceline, about $90/night less than the regular cost.

While I basically dislike the 10 & 3 Saturday schedule, it is good for times like this when I have non-bridge-playing friends i want to visit.

Sent from my iPhone

Gambling 3NT and jumps to slam

Playing with Sean Gannon in the second round of the A/X Swiss yesterday, the auction started:

Andre	North	Sean	South
--	Pass	3NT	Pass
6♣	6♥

Sean and I play the a 3NT opening opposite an unpassed hand shows a solid 7 card minor with at most 1 ace or king outside the suit. Over 6♥, Sean asked: "Do you have any agreement about this 6♥ bid?"

South: "..umm.."

Sean: "Well, if you have talked about this auction, you can have all the imps."

Dealer: N Vul: EW	North ♠ KTxxx ♥ KTxxxx ♦ - ♣ xx
Andre ♠ Qxxx ♥ A ♦ AKQTxxx ♣ J		Sean ♠ Jx ♥ - ♦ Jxxx ♣ AKQT9xx
	South ♠ Ax ♥ QJxxxx ♦ xx ♣ xxx

Sean bid 7♣, confident that I held both pointed aces with one of those suits probably running, and that was passed out! The defense could have taken the first 2 tricks in spades but got off to the wrong lead. Our teammates Alli Howard and Lee Bukstel reached a fairly normal 6♥X, down 2, so we won 18 imps instead of losing 11.

Anyway, Sean and I now have the agreement that if we pass 6♥ in this or a similar auction, we are showing first round control of their suit, sort of inviting partner to bid 7 and if we double, we deny first round control.

We wound up winning flight X with 146 VP on a 120 average.

Exclusion

Today’s post is not a new topic to Andre’s blog: exclusion blackwood. Yes, it is something that is not too frequent; however, how many times have you held a hand but didn’t bid exclusion because you weren’t sure if your partner would be on the same page? Or you don’t know what the responses would be? This is a fairly common problem with exclusion.

My personal least favorite thing about exclusion is just how high it is, especially if I am void in hearts. I always feel like I don’t bid exclusion because almost no matter what my partner has I am committing us to slam. On the bright side this problem can easily be solved! Andre and I have started to play a new way of exclusion that is still at the 4 level. When you splinter you have a hand that might have mild slam interest but not enough points to take another bid over partner’s presumed signoff bid – with a stronger hand we would start with Jacoby. So if we splinter and then bid 4NT over partner’s signoff it is exclusion in the suit we splintered in: 1♠-4♥; 4♠-4NT would be exclusion in hearts. I really prefer this method of exclusion because you are not taking away a bid that was previously defined; I assume most people would take this as standard RKC, but that isn’t really a necessary bid in this auction – why splinter if you were going to keycard over a signoff anyway? It also keeps me at the standard blackwood level.

Over this 4NT Andre and I use 1430 as our responses, but I also want to mention another way of answering. This way loses some of its value if you are playing 4NT as exclusion, but for anyone who may not be convinced enough to switch it is a good thing to think about. The responses are 0 key cards, 1 KC without the Q of trump, 1 KC with the Q of trump, 2KC w/o, 2KC w/, 3 key cards – abbreviated 011223. This seems a little strange at first, but since you are void in a suit there are fewer key cards to be concerned about. Plus, the Q of trump is often a more valuable card that you don’t have room to ask for nor do most people have agreements about. Many people use this response structure over preempts but it may be worth considering over exclusion.

Take the auction: 1♠-2♣; 2♠-3♠; 5♦. Opener has a very strong hand with hearts and a diamond void while responder has a game force with clubs and some heart support. Responder is not very likely to have 2 key cards when opener has this powerhouse, but he could have something like ♠Qx ♥KQ ♦Kxxx ♣Axxxx. Playing standard 3014 responses the auction would continue 1♠…5♦-5♠. Opener has no knowledge of the ♠Q which could easily be the card that would sway the odds in favor of 6. With 011223 responses you would respond 5NT and you could investigate grand if you want to. These responses can get you higher than you are expecting which means you can only bid exclusion if you are willing to go to slam with 1KC and the Q usually, but I think the benefit of knowing about the Q is well worth while.

Anyway I’m writing this on my flight to Louisville for the Nationals where Andre and I will be playing the IMP pairs. This is one of my favorite events and although Andre does love his matchpoints I do think he is fond of IMP pairs as well. Should be a good long weekend before headed back to school!

Suit Combinations: 9 cards missing the KJ

AQ8xx
T9xx

I've seen this suit combination several times lately. Do you know the correct play? That's kind of a trick question. To know the correct play of this suit for a particular hand, you'd have to consider the form of scoring, the bidding, the contract you're in and how likely the rest of the field will be in the same contract, how the field will likely play this suit, and table feel.

There are 3 reasonable lines of play:
1) finesse the Q, then play the ace
2) double finesse (let the 10 ride, then let the 9 ride)
3) play the ace, then lead toward the Q

Strictly mathematically speaking, line 1 will yield more tricks on average, 4.03 tricks to be exact but will leave you with only 3 tricks in the suit 23.43% of the time (when KJx or KJxx or stiff K are offside).
Line 2 nets 3 tricks the same amount of the time it nets 5 tricks (24%) so yields 4.00 tricks on average.
Line 3, which intuitively seems bad, gets you 3.95 tricks on average but if your goal is to play the suit for 4 tricks, this is clearly the best option as only 17.2% of the time will you be held to only 3 tricks (KJx or KJxx offside).

I'm still waiting for the play of the ace to make the contract when either of the other 2 lines results in going down but even when you get a hand where you need to old that suit to 1 loser, only 6.2% of the time will it help, so in matchpoints this safety play is normally not worth the chance of risking a potential overtrick. An exception would be if you have reached a good contract that most of the field is unlikely to get to. Playnig the ace first will get you 5 tricks only 12.4% of the time while finessing the Q first will get you 5 tricks 26.6% of the time as the reward for making an overtrick rates the be same as the penalty for going down if everyone in the field is in the same contract with the same decision.

At imps, the play of the ace first is clearly a winning play in the long run (if the contract depends on losing no more than 1 tricks this suit). In the 14.2% of the time that you'll fail to get an overtrick as compared to finessing the Q, you'll lose an imp and in the 6.2% of the time that you do get an extra trick by playing the ace first, you'll win 10 or 12 imps depending upon vulnerability. Thus, on average you will win (or save) .478 imps when non-vul or .602 imps when vul.