1850

Game all
Dealer West

• 76
• Q75
• J
• K986532

• AK109843
• 94
• 65
• Q7

N

W

E

S

• 5
• AK10832
• K1094
• J10

• QJ2
• J6
• AQ8732
• A4

West

North

East

South

Paul

 

Jonathan

 

Julian

 

Cath

3

Pass

Pass

3NT

Pass

Pass

X

?

My team guessed much better than our opponents on this board from the Pachabo (where the scoring is an unusual mixture of aggregate and point-a-board).

Holding the South cards, you view to try 3NT when left-hand opponent's pre-empt is passed round to you. This gets doubled on your right, now what?

Click here to show (or hide) the answer

The auction started the same way at both tables. Against us, South decided to run to 4, but unluckily she found East at home in diamonds, and lost 1100 (she could have got out for 800 if she'd ruffed the third heart with a middle trump). For us, Cath bravely stood the double, and the contract turned out to be unbeatable. Julian passed too (which looks right to me). West led a heart, which would have taken nine tricks if East had had a second spade. But he had only one of them, so he ducked at trick one and Cath cashed her nine tricks, reasonably refusing the diamond finesse.

Simply but difficult to see

E-W Game
Dealer East

• AQ6
• AQ8
• QJ8765
• 8

• 1053
• 42
• 103
• AJ10643

N

W

E

S

• 74
• K109765
• A92
• Q7

• KJ982
• J3
• K4
• K952

West

North

East

South

Jonathan

 

Paul

 

-

-

2^Multi

2

Pass

4

All pass

 

Cath

 

Julian

-

-

2^Weak

Pass

Pass

3

Pass

3

Pass

4

All pass

This weekend I played in the Pachabo - a competition for the winners of English county teams-of-four events. The format is all-play-all with three-board matches, using an unusual mixture of point-a-board and aggregate scoring (the aggregate uses a rather rum ratio method to convert to Victory Points).  The scoring method contributes to the fun, and the dealing computer helped with a lot of interesting hands.  I got several of them wrong, and so did my team-mates, so I was surprised when we took the lead at about noon on Sunday and held on to win.

This deal was an early play problem.  If I've remembered the auction at our table correctly, South's overcall was aggressive but North gave her some latitude (he may have been unclear about what slam tries were available - note to self: discuss this with partners).

But it's a play problem.  At both tables, West led the four of hearts to East's king and East returned the ten of hearts, suit preference for diamonds, won in dummy (one day I'll play in a game where East gives false suit preference, reasoning that West can't be ruffing the trick or declarer wouldn't have ducked.  But not yet.) Once you've placed the ace of diamonds, the ace of clubs has to be with West, so you know the hand is pretty much as in the diagram.  How do you play?  If you like this sort of problem, think about it before reading on.

At my table, declarer, fearing club forces if she played on diamonds, cashed one trump then tried the effect of playing a club herself.  I didn't cover, so Jonathan won the trick with the ten of clubs.  He read me for the ace of diamonds, but could see no fourth trick for the defence if he played a diamond - declarer could afford to ruff a heart return high - so he defended well by returning a trump.  Declarer won in hand and played the king of diamonds, which I ducked, and a second diamond to the jack and my ace.  I knew enough about the hand now to lead the queen of clubs: in desperation declarer tried covering it and went two off.

At team-mates' table, declarer played a diamond off dummy at trick two.  East rose with the ace, so declarer unblocked the king, ruffed the heart return high, drew trumps and made eleven tricks.

Well played, but what if East ducks the diamond?  You continue the suit, knocking out the ace, but East switches to a club (it needn't be the queen) and again you can't enjoy dummy's red cards. So what's the right line?

It's strangely difficult to see, but when the king of diamonds holds, declarer should change tack by playing a trump to dummy and discarding his remaining diamond on the ace of hearts.  If West ruffs, declarer has two trump entries to dummy to ruff down the ace of diamonds and run the suit (or one trump entry and a club ruff, if he's carelessly blocked the spades).  If West discards a diamond instead of ruffing, he'll have the same losing option when declarer next runs the queen of diamonds.  And if he declines that one too, declarer ruffs out the ace of diamonds, draws trumps ending in dummy, and makes an overtrick.

Too safe?

N-S Game
Dealer West

• 97
• Q6
• AKQJ106
• K104

West

North

East

South

Pass

Pass

1

2^Multi

3^{fit jump}

Pass

Pass (!)

?

You are South. Your call?

Love all
Dealer West

• KJ6542
• 4
• A75
• Q53

West

North

East

South

1

Pass

1

Pass

2

Pass

2

?

You are South. Would you have bid 2 directly over 1 if that were natural? Would you bid 2 now?

These hands come from last Saturday's Garden Cities Trophy Final.  On the first one, either East has passed by mistake, or, much more likely, his opening bid was a misrepresentation.  Partner is therefore likely to have a few high cards, making double a reasonable call.  But no one has much experience of this position, and the player at the table elected to pass, scoring +150 instead of the +500 or +600 (in 3NT) which were available, and losing 11 imps.

On the second, there's no particular reason to suspect anything afoot, but as it happens East, the redoubtable Gunnar Hallberg, has introduced a diversion on a 3325 5-count, and found his partner with 1543.  Each side can make nine tricks in its major suit fit.  But the spade spots were too few for me, so I lost 6 imps.

It's unusual to see two outright psyches like this in one afternoon: they're rather rare nowadays because they're more dangerous than the once were - the modern partner will often compete to what he thinks is the level of the fit.  Norberto Bocchi, the Italian world champion, wrote an article recently decrying a different sort of psyche - a safer and therefore more common one - in which a player asks a question in the bidding without having any real interest in the answer, in order to deceive his opponents about the nature of his hand: Bocchi's example is a long-suit game try on a hand which is always going to bid game anyway and hence need not have the long suit it represents.  In Bocchi's opinion, this sort of "controlled psych" should be banned.  I respectfully disagree; there's no need to ban anything, all we need is full disclosure: if a bid is simply an asking bid then it should be explained as such.  If it shows something - the game try presumably promises at least game-invitational values, and partner can double on that basis if opponents bid - then that should be explained also.  Players have got used to saying whether a Stayman enquiry promises a 4-card major, then can cope just as well with specifying whether a long-suit game try actually promises a holding in the suit bid, or if, more precisely, it asks partner to evaluate his hand opposite an invitational hand with such a holding.

I'm against banning things, and in favour of fair play.

Incidentally, the 1 psyche above is a bit safer if you're playing fit jumps.  Does anyone object to fit jumps on that basis?

Look for a better move

Love all
Dealer North

• A954
• K86
• Q109
• A86

• QJ62
• J4
• J76
• Q1094

N

W

E

S

• 108
• 109752
• K853
• K3

• K73
• AQ3
• A42
• J752

West

North

East

South

 

Jon

 

Paul

-

1^~11-15

Pass

2^{art. force}

Pass

2^{4 spades}

Pass

3NT

All pass

This was an instructive hand for me at the local club.  North, playing a strong-club system, opened one spade, I enquired and discovered only four spades opposite (possibly with a longer minor) and bid the inevitable 3NT. West led the four of clubs, which went to the king, and a club came back won by dummy's ace.  East had shown more than the usual interest in partner's diamond bid, so I ran the queen of diamonds, winning the trick, before ducking a spade, won by East, who switched to a small heart.

At this point I had eight top tricks, with a 3-3 spade break the only simple chance for a ninth.  However, I saw that if West was 4324 I could strip the hand and exit with the fourth round of spades, making the jack of clubs at trick 13.  So I tried the spades, then cashed my red winners ending in dummy.  The last of these was a heart, perforce, on which West discarded the jack of diamonds instead of a club as he should have done, so I did indeed make the jack of clubs at the end.

West, the dominant member of the opposing partnership, told his partner she should have covered the queen of diamonds. But it was I who was in need of instruction: obviously I should have cashed the hearts before the spades.  At this stage, West can't afford to throw a club, and does have to discard a diamond.  (There are other ways to squeeze West, but this is the simplest.)

The standard was quite mixed, and there was instruction of a different sort available on other hands also:

Game all
Dealer North

• 9
• AK65
• Q84
• QJ1053

• J8732
• 10972
• J75
• K

N

W

E

S

• KQ106
• J3
• A932
• 962

• A54
• Q84
• K106
• A874

West

North

East

South

Paul

 

Jon

 

-

1

Pass

3NT

All pass

I led a spade, and declarer, a very inexperienced player bravely stepping into the lions' den, won the third round. I was feeling confident until something about declarer's demeanour disturbed me. Perhaps she didn't know enough to take the club finesse...

-600.

N-S Game
Dealer East

• AJ86
• none
• KJ10762
• J98

• 1093
• 1062
• none
• KQ107653

N

W

E

S

• K
• KQ83
• A8543
• A42

• Q7542
• AJ9754
• Q9
• none

West

North

East

South

Jon

 

Paul

 

-

-

1^{strong club}

2*

Pass

2

Pass

2

4

5

All pass

There was no attractive downgrade available for my 16-count, so I opened a club despite the singleton king of spades. South bid two clubs, alerted by North.  Jon enquired, and was told that two clubs showed a strong hand.  North ought to have known that we were playing a strong club system since we'd had a long strong-club auction to five clubs on the previous hand, but something made him remind her of our system, and she corrected the explanation to "clubs".  After one more round of bidding it was obvious to him that South had nothing of the sort, so he clarified matters by bidding four clubs.  It now seemed likely to us both that South too had forgotten our system and ignored our alert, and attempted to make a Michaels cue-bid.  Some Norths might have worked that out also, but this one passed and I bid the obvious game.  South led the ace of hearts, so we were swiftly one off.  Which gave us a fair matchpoint score, since four spades is easy to make.

Subsequent conversation revealed that North in this long-standing partnership had no notion that they might be playing Michaels, whatever the meaning of the one club opening.