All News

Wild Weather and Hands

The dealing machine was certainly in tune with the elements this Wednesday night and threw up some freaky hands with awkward decisions in the bidding and play.

One of the more awkward ones came early in the evening. Holding

AQT6

J

J 

KQ96543,

I heard West on my right open 1. It seemed normal to overcall in my seven card suit and then introduce the “master suit” later in the bidding. You always get to bid spades, don’t you?

West          North                   East            South

1              2                       Pass             2

4              ?

What to do? The clock is ticking.

No 10 second stop card would allow you to work out where you should go from here. Were partner to hold long hearts and an extremely short holding in clubs, they would not appreciate hearing you repeat your long suit now. The same would apply if you dared to mention the “master-suit”. Also, was 4 a serious bid or a pre-emptive one? It was certainly a nuisance bid!

The two things wrong with passing were that you held a potentially good hand, though less so though after partner’s heart bid and the fact that the clock was ticking, well beyond the 10 seconds. Some action had to be taken. Thus, I decided on “double”.

You could call it “a values double”, a “shut up, partner” double (a version of the penalty double), perhaps a negative double. I called it a “do something sensible” double. Is that last title in any bridge book? I might even have added an ”I really do not know what to do” double.

Partner made a good choice despite having a long suit of hearts:

 

Why are “they” always not vulnerable and “we” vulnerable on such deals? Presumably, had West held AKQ to 7 diamonds in addition to everything else, they might have taken a shot at 3NT.

From South’s point of view, the thought of a diamond attack in 4 was not particularly appealing. He was right whichever of the options given he thought my double was. 4 had no play, whichever way a declarer tried.

We did not get the maximum 500 from 4x but +300 proved enough when the opposition found this was not the time to trust “Hamman’s Rule”. (If 3NT is a possible game, bid it!) I have also found good reason to doubt that rule, too, of late. That is for another day. Only half the North-South pairs recorded a plus score and of the 5 declarers in 5, only two of them made this contract, once doubled.

The play in 5

The bidding at these tables may have influenced the contract’s outcome. With West holding an opening hand and a long diamond suit, there was a strong possibility that they held the singleton A.

However, East is in an awkward position after winning the opening diamond lead. One option is not to believe declarer’s jack and try cashing a second high diamond. Although declarer can ruff low successfully, they are not yet home.

There are the twin issues of the fourth round of spades and drawing trumps. Were East to hold singleton A, the contract can no longer be made, beaten by a third round of diamonds. So, declarer must play a heart to the ace and play Q discarding if West ducks. The operation is successful but trumps must be played from dummy. West’s best chance is to take their ace immediately, play a third diamond and hope partner held an original Q8. Not today.

The exit of the J at trick 2 solves declarer’s third loser problem and trumps can be played safely from dummy, twice if necessary.

Finally, East could exit with 2 rounds of trumps hoping that declarer has to take a losing heart finesse. The finesse is indeed what declarer should do, but a ruffing one rather than a simple finesse. The news for declarer is good though they would be slightly miffed to see that the spade position meant it was unnecessary.

Some losing declarer options in 5 along with the no play 4 contract meant that taking the money in 4x proved to be sensible if not optimum on the deal.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items