All News

ALL ROADS TO THE SAME DESTINATION: TAKE CARE WHEN YOU’RE THERE!

The first part of this heading should probably be less definitive. “All roads” should lead “to the same destination”. For the vast majority who held the North-South cards during this particular Pairs’ session, that was not true. Only three pairs out of 37 did reach 6 with three more reaching the safer 6 slam which, of course, does not score as well if both contracts make, but would be the spot to play in the Teams environment. Do you remember the hands?

 

West leads Q. Plan the play and justify your partner’s faith in your bidding.

Above was the sequence partner and I had in reaching 6. 4, I thought, was any two suiter Michaels style, confirmed as diamonds and spades when I pulled partner’s 4. That produced a rethink from partner who used Key-Card. I decided to be sure that partner knew which suits I had by jumping to slam. The removal back to spades was because we were playing Pairs...…a fair enough sequence without firm agreements.

So, I wondered how our Panel would handle these hands. What would they bid after 3…and was surprised by the routes taken. I was introduced to the concept of what  they thought 4 showed and what another bid, 4, only available after a club pre-empt, did show. Agreement by all? Well, not really. Two people can mean at least two opinions!

Julie Atkinson/Patrick Carter “4: diamonds and a major, with 4 being both majors.”

Matt Brown “Double”:  I think 4 Leaping Michael's should be specifically hearts instead of either major.”

Michael Cornell “Double:  4 shows the majors.  4 is diamonds and hearts. I am left with X and will of course bid spades over heart bids which shows a strong hand but not necessarily this strong.”

Nigel Kearney “Double: I hate doing it with shortage in an unbid major but we are too strong for 3, especially in fourth seat. “

In the “bad old days”, 4 meant diamonds but not anymore, or at least not only diamonds. Some difference on what this bid shows though at least Patrick and Julie agree!

Peter Newell agrees with 4 showing diamonds and a major and would therefore make that bid but believes double should work, too:

Newell: “If partner bids 3, I can bid 3 which would show a hand too good to bid an immediate 3 and probably 2 suited. Were partner to bids 4 over my double, I will bid 4. This is more uncomfortable as it could be a hand that was too good to bid 4 straight away.  So, this will often have more spades, and partner will not expect such a good diamond suit. Not the easiest, but if in doubt keep it simple and hope for the best.”

 

Matt Brown gave me this interesting sequence he and Brad Johnston had to 6 on these cards:

                        West              North            East                South

                                                Brad                                       Matt

                        3                   Pass                Pass                x

                        Pass                4                   Pass                5NT

                        Pass               6                   All Pass

5NT said: “please pick a slam in a different suit, partner, not hearts.” And Brad would, no doubt, have been very pleased with the dummy.

Take care when you’re there   

It looks like you are in a nice contract, 6. They led the Q, a very unthreatening card. Nevertheless, there is more to the play than ruffing a club, drawing trumps, playing diamonds and conceding a trick to the A. Indeed, that line may well see you defeated, deservedly so!

The dangers

A bad trump break. A 5-0 trump break would be unpleasant and terminal but if you ruffed a club, you would not want a 4-1 break, either. Only East would hold 4 spades (pre-emptor just would not hold four, especially in first seat). You would have to guess to finesse on the second round, not a great play when West holds Jx!

A 4-0 diamond break. In itself, this is not a problem because by laying down the ace, you can finesse for the jack whichever opponent shows out. However, you would not want to touch diamonds until all the trumps are drawn.

 

Thus, you really need to test trumps before you deal with your club loser. Rather than ruff your losing club, you can discard it on the second round of hearts. Play A and a spade to the queen. Not only do both opponents follow but the jack appears in the East hand. You have to play K  now, before drawing the last trump not without a degree of risk as the actual hands demonstrated:

 

Had East held the A, then a diamond ruff beats the contract. Yet, West won the trick and could still have given declarer a nervy moment by forcing them to ruff the club. The safe way back to hand is via a third round of hearts, not via a diamond, though declarer should ruff with 10, 100% safe before drawing the last trump and playing diamonds correctly.

In 6, after a club lead, you can test trumps with the ace, ruff a club, draw trumps and test spades as above. If West has the A and no spades (as well as no diamonds!), you can lead a heart from the South hand to very good effect.

What of that pre-empt?

I asked the Panel what they thought of the 3 pre-empt above which looks pretty normal at first glance though there were a couple of “buts” about it. One “but” is having 3-3 in the majors and a void. If partner has a minimum opener with a 5-card major, you may have just pre-empted your side out of game.

The other “but” is whether at this favourable vulnerability in first seat 3 is high enough:

Kearney “4: It pays to pre-empt aggressively and I use the rule of 3 and 4, not 2 and 3. A 3 opening at favourable vulnerability could be much worse than this.”

Cornell “4: The point is that we have 2 opponents and only 1 partner. So, it is 2/1 on that one of the opponents has a good hand. Furthermore, even if it is our hand, our worst-case scenario is probably missing a major game not vul. It is still most likely that if it is our hand, game can make in clubs where we have 6 tricks opposite a club honour. If we open 3 at these colours, partner will often expect a worse suit. 

Who doesn’t open 3 on x xx Qxxx KJ8xxx? That’s not even a bad one by my lights!”

The others seemed more or less happy with 3 at this vulnerability.

Atkinson “3: Pre-empts are tactical and” (here we have) “good position, fantastic vulnerability and appropriate hand. I don’t subscribe to the theory around having 3 card majors.”

So, plenty of food for thought, not just on handling 5-5 hands when the opponents pre-empt (they might pre-empt other suits too where the meaning of the cue-bids is different) but on pre-empting and on playing a contract as safely as you can as well.

Just a lead problem for you for tomorrow. Who said “just”?! The fate of so many contracts hinges on the opening lead.

 

Your opponents are playing Acol, meaning 2 was not forcing. Yet, something persuaded South to go directly to game. Your lead? The answer will be here, tomorrow.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items