A Great Declarer in Action

What makes a great declarer? In a recent club game I watched my partner, John (or ‘Doc’), go about chewing up the local field to the tune of 87 out of 108 over 9 hands (81%). He does it time and time again. Later at home in an attempt to improve my own play, I looked through the hands to see how he does it. This is part of what I found.

First, there is an element that cannot be taught – the killer instinct. Here is my favourite.

John	Bob	John	North	Bob	South
♠ A52	♠ Q94	1♥*	2NT	3♣	Pass
♥  AQJ54	♥  K873	3NT	Pass	6NT	Pass
♦ KJ2	♦AQ87	Pass	Pass
♣ T2	♣ AK	* 11-15	HCP

Some would open 1NT on this hand, which I hate. My 3♣ cue bid showed general strength, not necessarily heart support. 3NT showed the texture of the hand, so 6NT was an easy bid given the limited nature of opener’s hand. A club was led. John later said, ‘I was about to claim 12 tricks, when I thought I should play it out and see what happened.’ As he ran the hearts, North discarded the ♠3 early. At trick 12 John played the ♠A and dropped the ♠K which North had bared from ♠K3 ♥ 6 ♦ T9643 ♣ Q8753.

As you can see, North was a player who bids on garbage, even vulnerable versus not. She calls Precision, ‘a crazy system’. As Sir Francis Bacon noted, the crafty abhor science, the wise use it. Even today there are those who would fight science with silliness. Left to their own devices, most EW pairs preferred to play in 6♥, so even a silly bid contains useful information if declarer is prepared to use it. Strange to say, 2 others achieved the same 1020, so it was not an isolated incident. Nuisance bidding that allows the eventual declarer to place the cards is counterproductive, provided that the declarer has the nerve to pull it off. John has nerve in abundance, an attribute that others lack.

Usually just being in the right contract is enough of an edge. Declarer has to realize he is in a favorable position and not take risks that might jeopardize a good result.

John	Bob	John	North	Bob	South
♠ Q54	♠ J6	1NT*	Pass	Pass	Pass
♥  AJ4	♥  T52
♦ T7	♦KQ9
♣ AK965	♣ QT832	* 14-16	HCP

The field plays 1NT as 15-17 HCP, so West opens 1♣ and gets to play in 3♣, making 110. Thus 1NT has the potential of being a good contract if one can score 8 tricks. The defenders led 3 rounds of spades giving up a trick to the ♠Q. Declarer immediately led to the ♦K, which won. Thereafter he did not court disaster by repeating the diamond play. He cashed his 8 tricks and collected 10 out of 12 matchpoints. I would have repeated the diamond finesse and would have scored 9 tricks, this time. My profit would be small, my risk, great. Doc got the timing right and took no chances.

Some deals are played in a variety of contracts, so that any plus score is good. The result may reflect the inadequacies of competitive bidding as currently practiced. Here is such a deal with the HCP divided  21 -19 where any EW plus scored above average.

 

Dealer: North Vul: EW	North ♠  A5 ♥   AT7 ♦   KT42 ♣   A843
West ♠   J7532 ♥   53 ♦   Q86 ♣   KQ7		East ♠   KT4 ♥   KJ864 ♦   AJ53 ♣   J
	South ♠   Q98 ♥   Q92 ♦   97 ♣   T9652

 

John	North	Bob	South
—	1NT	2♣*	Pass
2♦	All Pass	* hearts or	hearts + a minor

 I avoid non-informative competitive bidding systems that make it easier for the opening side to get it right and for partner to get it wrong. An overcall that takes up no bidding space has to have a lot going for it otherwise. I detest a 2♣ overcall that can be misdescribed as showing ‘a one-suited hand’. This makes it easy for South to double to show clubs even on a poor suit. After asking some pointed questions about the meaning of my Astro-type bid, our South passed. John’s 2♦ bid told me, ‘I prefer diamonds to hearts’. North led a trump, and John played it well on the expectation that North held the 3 missing aces as well as the ♦K.  Yes, we missed our best fit in spades, but most NS pairs scored 110 in 3♣, their best fit. I can guess what happened at those tables.

The opening lead is often critical and the information provided by the auction may make a difference. This is fair, as it works both ways. After the Precision auction 1♦ – 1♠; 2♥ – 3♣; 3♦ – 3NT, what is your opening lead from ♠ QT93 ♥ JT8 ♦ K3 ♣ AT62 ? Next question, would it be different if the opponents were playing 2/1 where 1♦ followed by 2♥ is a strong reverse? Here is the full deal.

 

Dealer: East Vul: Both	North ♠   QT93 ♥   JT8 ♦   K3 ♣   AT62
West ♠   AT52 ♥   K9 ♦   T5 ♣   KJ973		East ♠   — ♥   AQ543 ♦   AQ9872 ♣   84
	South ♠   KJ864 ♥   762 ♦   J64 ♣   Q5

 

John	North	Bob	South
—	—	1♦*	Pass
1♠	Pass	2♥	Pass
3♣	Pass	3♦	Pass
3NT	All Pass	*11-15 HCP

The information conveyed by the Precision auction is vastly different from what would be conveyed by the same auction under 2/1 rules where it normally shows 4 hearts, 5 diamonds, and 17+HCP. With Precision it can be 6-5 in the reds. I am not sure there is general agreement as to what 3♣/2♥ means. Those using 2/1 often apply Lebensohl 2NT after a reverse, so 3♣ would be natural and forcing as it was in our simple auction. To complete the description of my distribution I could have bid 3♥, but I felt on the evidence of a misfit a cautious 3♦ bid was better, a nonforcing bid that did not rule out reaching the optimum contract of 4♥ if partner were to bid again. 3NT had possibilities.

The opening lead was the ♥J run to the ♥K. This came from a player long familiar with Precision methods who has developed a liking for leading from 3-card heart suits against 3NT. Perhaps he thought it best to lead through the second suit bid by dummy. The ♦T was run to the ♦J. South could see the danger in leading a spade and giving declarer a free finesse he could not have taken for himself. He led the ♣Q to the ♣K and the ♣A. North continued clubs and declarer had the rest of the tricks. What made the defence difficult is that the spade honors were split between the 2 defenders, one holding ♠QT9 and the other, ♠KJ8. This is a possibility that defenders cannot ignore, even though it is difficult to project. Perhaps South should have overcalled.

The Bidding Advantage
From these hands I learned nothing that has not been written thousands of times in books and magazines: accurate card reading and good timing produce good results time and time again. Where do the tops come from? In theory one doesn’t score a top unless a defender makes an error. Not to be too negative about it, there is a skill in inducing such errors. There are successful predators who lie inertly on the sea bottom waiting patiently for a little fish, unaware of the danger, to swim by and get gobbled up. Camouflage is an essential component. That is not John’s way. Think ‘Jaws’. By way of contrast, good bidding constitutes an active approach that can generate tops regardless of the quality of the opposition.

 

In a recent article in the ACBL Bulletin about an international individual event, the winner, Chris Willenken noted, ‘With everyone playing a simple and uniform bidding system, … there were no random swings because of method. Matchpoint were generally gained and lost through bidding judgment and technical card play…’ I object to the tone of this statement. Because of the poor quality of the information provided by a simple system, such as SAYC, randomness is increased through lucky guesses in the face of high uncertainty. Swings can be generated by familiarity with the tendencies of one’s partner and/or the defects peculiar to the system itself. Let’s look at a deal where the Good Doctor demonstrated that great judgment and skill can be employed through straightforward use of an efficient bidding scheme. No guesswork was involved.

John	Bob	John	Bob
♠ KQJ32	♠ A4	1♣  (16+HCP)	2NT (11-13 HCP)
♥  —	♥ K75	3♠	4♠
♦ AQ72	♦KJ64	4NT (RKCB)	5♣   ( 1 Key Card)
♣ AKQ4	♣T963	5NT (Kings?)	6♦ (♦K)
		7♠	Pass

The Precision bidding was simple. 1♣ was strong, 2NT was limited and promised a flat hand, 3♠ showed spades, and 4♠ was intended to simplify the auction, a minimum raise, leaving further action to the stronger hand. John employed RKCB despite his void in hearts. The key card shown had to be the ♠A.  Why? Because with the ♥A and spades support, partner would have made an advanced cuebid of 4♥ – he wouldn’t be showing a long suit. 5NT asked for kings up-the-line, and the ♦K filled in declarer’s suit. There was enough information available to bid the Grand. Trump-wise the dummy may have been a bit of a disappointment, but the spades were strong enough to survive the normal 4-2 split. While drawing trumps John was careful to retain all 4 clubs in dummy. This proved necessary when the clubs split 4-1 with the ♣J onside. So, all-in-all, a fairly simple hand to play, but 7♠ was worth 37 out of 38 matchpoints at the recent Victoria Sectional.

I am not sure how one could get to 7♠ using SAYC, but I venture to say it would involve a great deal of chest-thumping masterminding. No pair reached 7♦. Reaching 7♠ was not sheer luck, for without the ♠J Doc would have employed a 3♣ ‘Stayman’ bid over 2NT to obtain more information concerning responder’s shape while keeping alive the chance of a 4-4 minor suit fit. In practice the 5-2 spade fit was superior to the 4-4 diamond fit, both candidate suits containing AKQJ.

Many pairs reached 6NT, making 1020, when the opening leader failed to take his ♥A, which serves as a poor demonstration of skill all ‘round. Should we laud the players who reached 6NT after an uncertain auction that induced a defensive error? Was John’s 7♠ to be considered a random disruption of normal events, or did it demonstrate that at least one player was able to reach the obviously correct contract by a not-too-arduous but subtle route?
It is wrong-headed to maintain that bad bidding promotes good card play. It might better be claimed that bad bidding promotes desperate card play. A good bidder is a good declarer who can project how the play may be pursued to a successful conclusion under a variety of possible conditions.