Fresh From the 2009 World Wide Bridge Contest

Please don’t think I’m bragging when I tell you that playing in the Friday night session my partner and I score 87% on the last 6 boards and sprinted past a vast multitude of also-rans to finish in 212th place, just ahead of Julian and Justin of Center City, USA, (Sorry, Guys) and just behind Domenico and Gianna of Firenze, Italy (Saluti, Amici). Obviously our local opponents must have become weakened by their previous efforts at dodging the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. For our part we had given away our customary overtricks here and there, but at the end had high hopes of reaching the top 200, but it was not to be. What held us back were 3 boards in which we had no role in the final outcome.

On Board 19 the opponents bid undisturbed to 3NT losing a trick in each suit.

				Score	Frequency
♠ A K 10 6	♠ 8 5	1 ♦	1 NT	460	116
♥ Q 9 6	♥ K 5 4	2 NT	3 NT	430	247
♦ A Q J 8	♦ 10 7 6 4			400	493
♣ Q 7	♣ A 10 8 5			150	234
				120	244

 

Not an auction that would ring any alarm bells. I would bid that way myself. Declarer won the ♠Q lead in dummy (from my Qx), shunned the diamond finesse and collected 9 tricks, losing 1 trick in each suit. I felt we might have scored well as a heart lead can run to the king, after which the diamonds can be finessed successfully, putting pressure on my partner who had to guard both black suits. It looked as if 10 tricks would be taken much of the time. As is so often the case I was wrong as the frequency table on the right demonstrates. Only 363 pairs made 10 tricks or better. +400 was the most frequent result, but 478 pairs played in a NT partial and nearly half of those gathered just 8 tricks, which was good bidding as far as they were concerned.

Really, I don’t mind getting a bad score when the opponents bid reasonably and achieve their objective through competent play. I don’t like it when the opponents take a big position with a 20% chance of success that comes home, but I console myself philosophically with the thought that they gave me an 80% chance of good score without my doing anything to deserve it, and that I will benefit more times than I shall suffer from such actions. Yes, that is what I tell myself until the hurt goes away. What really pains me is when the opponents score well after missing a cold slam. Here is Board 20.

				Score	Frequency
♠ A 7 6 2	♠ K Q 9	1 ♣	3 ♣	1370	295
♥ A K 8 3	♥ 9 7	5 ♣	Pass	690	227
♦ 5	♦ Q 9 6			660	223
♣ A Q 7 5	♣ K J 10 9 3			620	503
				-100	586

 

Pathetically, 5♣ making 6 was the most common result, as most were tempted to play 3NT, which failed more times than it succeeded. We scored well below average because ‘the world’ couldn’t unravel the mystery of 12 easy tricks. The spades were 3-3 and if that wasn’t enough, the clubs were 2-2 as well.

Board 8, our worst result, had a similar theme. I was optimistic at the time, as there were 13 tricks to be taken off the top in 7NT, no less.

		Over a weak 2 ♥		Score	Frequency
♠ A Q 10	♠ K 6 5 4	2 NT	4 NT	1020	275
♥ A 7	♥ 5 4 3	6 NT	Pass	940	225
♦ A 2	♦ K Q 9			520	617
♣ Q J 10 9 5 2	♣ A K 6			440	337
				420	226

 

Pairs who could get to slam were good enough to bid the slam in NT, but they were unable to count to 13 tricks. The most frequent score was in a NT game making 7, which leads me to conjecture that some players may have opened 3♥ on ♠ 8 ♥ KQJT82 ♦ T85 ♣ 842. In his accompanying comments Eric Kokish gave his vote to a 2NT overcall on the grounds that it makes it easy for partner to explore alternative strains. As we all know, Eric gets criticized often for his penchant towards flexibility, but I normally agree with him. Here I disagree. In the early stages I always aim for suit contracts when holding aces, so would have bid 3♣. Obviously steering towards 3NT will be a success only if partner has some club support, and if he has it, 6♣ might prove best. So, 2NT doesn’t appear to be the right approach on this collection, or particularly flexible, for that matter.

Sharing Information

The evidence is overwhelming that players place great value on a contract of 3NT, be it at IMPs or Matchpoints. The scoring favors that approach when the hands are balanced or don’t fit that well, so most of the time it pays to conceal one’s assets and take one’s chances on a potentially unstopped suit. Interference with poor suits has become so common that often one just bids 3NT without the sign of a stopper and see if the opponents can beat it. Often they can’t. However, that playing-in-limbo approach is one of playing the score card, not with the 26 cards a partnership holds. In order to get to the correct contract on that basis, one has to exchange the details with one’s partner, like it or not. Some risk is involved, sure, but the risk is worth taking more than today’s players are willing to assume, obsessed as they are with concealment. Let’s look at our example hands again with this in mind. Here is a better auction.

				Score	Frequency
♠ A 7 6 2	♠ K Q 9	1 ♣	3 ♣	1370	295
♥ A K 8 3	♥ 9 7	3 ♥	3 ♠	690	227
♦ 5	♦ Q 9 6	4 ♥	4 ♠	660	223
♣ A Q 7 5	♣ K J 10 9 3	6 ♣	Pass	620	503
				-100	586

 

Let’s suppose that after 3♣ opener evaluates his hand upwards with a view to possibly playing in 3NT, but not without a firm commitment one way or the other, being flexible, in other words. He begins with a bid of 3♥, presumably showing a stopper there while denying a full stopper in diamonds. Responder bids 3♠ to show a stopper in spades while denying a full stopper in diamonds. If opener had a partial stopper in diamonds (Jx, say) he could now show it by bidding 3NT, which responder would pass. The defenders start with diamonds, cashing 2 tricks, and declarer claims the rest. Trying to hide the situation in diamonds does no harm, and it might even help in the situation shown above where declarer is short in diamonds.

When responder bids 3♠ to deny a full stopper in diamonds, opener can be more optimistic with regard to his chances in a club slam. His 4♥ continuation is a slam invitation, and responder cooperates by showing ‘extras’ in the spade suit, a treatment made possible by the limited nature of his 3♣ raise. His clubs are certainly powerful given that partner is showing slam interest. At this point opener is a lot better off than when he jumped pessimistically to 5♣. He can still bid 5♣ if he feels that way, but 6♣ is clearly indicated.

After a good fit is found, a hand with 7 controls should be evaluated upwards to the equivalent of 23 HCP. Thus, when partner gives a limit raise, the chances of a slam should loom large. It is only a matter of placing the controls in partner’s hand. This applies to Board 8 as well, where the overcall should have been 3♣.

		Over a weak 2 ♥		Score	Frequency
♠ A Q 10	♠ K 6 5 4	3 ♣	3 ♥	1020	275
♥ A 7	♥ 5 4 3	3 NT	4 ♣	940	225
♦ A 2	♦ K Q 9	5 NT	6 ♦	520	617
♣ Q J 10 9 5 2	♣ A K 6	6 ♥	6 ♠	440	337
		7 NT	Phew!	420	226

 

Advancer was willing to gamble at 4NT without the evidence of a fit, indeed, without a denial of 4 spades opposite, so how can she not make an encouraging 3♥ cue bid over a natural 3♣? True, the overcaller has a tough problem, and I would like to suggest 3♠ as a continuation, but let’s suppose that the overcaller retreats to 3NT, fearing that 3♠ would suggest an alternative trump suit. Now advancer should bid 4♣ because she knows that her partner must hold long clubs and considerable strength in the red suits. It is time to show much needed encouragement in clubs. This should not rule out playing in 4NT if the overcaller chooses to bid it. Indeed, having underbid with 3NT, the overcaller is so greatly encouraged, that she bids the 5NT Grand Slam Force asking for the 2 top club honours, and reaches the lay-down slam with more confidence than she must have had when she bid 6NT when partner might hold: ♠ KJ65 ♥ QT5 ♦ KQJ ♣ A76, where 6♣ makes and 6NT doesn’t despite the combined 33 HCP with 4 aces.

Getting Over the Hump at 3NT

I have often partnered a successful player whose attitude towards good hands is this: lacking a major suit fit, bid 3NT. To him 3NT is not just a hump in the bidding highway, it is a roadblock. Why is this true of so many players? First, because they feel that bidding a small slam is not worth the risk, and, second, because they are unable to stop at 4NT, which is always asking for aces. So there is nothing for them between 3NT and 6♣. That is why they put up the roadblock in the first place. Well, one should change that and agree to ways in which one can try for a slam and yet retreat to the relative safety of 4NT, to play.

One rule I like to use is this: once a player signs off in 3NT, direct bids of 4NT are natural and invitational. However, if the player who bid 3NT later cuebids at the 4 level, he is showing the resources necessary to cooperate in a slam exploration, always interpreted within the limitations of his previous bids. One slam try is allowable.

With regard to cuebidding, it is helpful if one can bid aces up the line, but this is not always possible when space is restricted. Players (Meckwell, in particular) have solved the problem of running out of bidding space in major suit slam auctions by introducing the Last Train convention, a bid in a suit just below the major suit game level that shows interest in slam without promising control in that suit. This is easily recognized because the trump suit has been agreed explicitly.

When 3NT is looming large, it may be that a minor suit fit has not been explicitly confirmed, and the priority may be to find stoppers, or even a suitable major suit fit. So it is difficult to maintain generally that a cue bid of 3♠ is a nebulous slam try in a minor – The Last Train to Bootyville. Here is an amusing example from the 2009 USBF Team Trials where 2 Precision pairs failed the test. I suspect it is evidence of a general malaise.

		Pair A		Pair B
♠ A 8 3 2	♠ 5	1 ♦	2 ♦	1 ♦	2 ♦
♥ K 9 6 4	♥ A 10	2 NT	3 NT	2 ♥	2 ♠
♦ K 8 5	♦ A Q 10 6 4 3 2			2 NT	3 ♠
♣ K 2	♣ Q 10 4			4 ♦	5 ♦
				Pass

 

The ‘raise’ to 2♦ showed 10+HCP with a good diamond suit in the context of the Precision system for which a 1♦ opening bid doesn’t promise more than 2 diamonds. Pair A gave a perfect demonstration of how to waste one’s opportunities. Thanks to their uninformative auction, they scored 690, a minor triumph for ’conceal don’t reveal.’ Pair B got over the 3NT hump by using relay methods, but they showed us that sophistication is not a substitute for judgement, only a supplement. 2♥ showed a weak NT opening bid and 3♠ showed a singleton. It seems that all that remained was for opener, who had strictly limited his hand, to cuebid his ♣K after which responder could cuebid 4♥. They had nothing to fear but themselves. Responder might have bid 4♥ anyway. It was not their system that was at fault, but the reluctance of the players to commit to full disclosure. You won’t get to the good slams without it.