Highly Defective Bids and Plays

Frank Stewart is a respected bridge columnist whose work appears regularly in the ACBL Bulletin. In the Dec 2012 issue Frank turns angrily upon a fellow contributor who had the audacity to describe as highly effective a weak 2♥ on the following collection: ♠ 8642 ♥ KJT865 ♦ QJ4 ♣ —. He writes, ‘it distresses me that some players would embrace….flights of fancy that disrespect the partnership nature of the game’, and ‘I question the tendency to bid when no bid is descriptive.’ At least he recognizes that there is method in this madness where an advantage is being sought through chaotic actions that leave everyone in the dark, including one’s partner. He simply doesn’t like it. It’s against the law of political correctitude to question any strongly held belief however misguided, and I hope he sets us an example by getting away with it.

We sympathize with Stewart’s oft expressed view that bridge is a game of logic and discipline which acknowledges that one has a partner who is entitled to use his judgment based on the accurate information provided him. That is an approach that is becoming rare in today’s bridge environment. Increasingly players adopt an individualistic approach. My impression is that whenever I make a highly unusual bid very often I generate a good matchpoint score, and the worse the action the better the result, on average. Of course the tendency is to forget the bad boards. Be that as it may, there are circumstances in which partner for good reason needn’t be told everything.

The chaotic approach is scientific – behind it stands the science of statistics which deals with accumulated random events. One may play with the field patiently waiting out the process by playing for averages and accepting the tops when they are presented. If yours is an average pair in a field of 13 pairs you may have to wait a long time for your turn to win, which requires more patience (and time) than many possess. Alternatively one can strike out against cruel fate and throw the dice playing for tops and bottoms thereby increasing the variability of your end results. You’ll win more often and look bad more often, being on average just your average selves. It’s easier than thinking long and hard. As for long-suffering partners, they have to learn to bear with an errant co-conspirator who is merely doing his best (or worst) to secure a top.

To reasonable folk the strategy of misinformation detracts from the game which doesn’t need more randomness than it legitimately possesses. To such players I present the following case of payment come due. How do you play the following hand on the lead of the ♦T with the bidding as shown?

Playing 2/1 I shudder when I pick up a beautiful 18 HCP hand rich in controls. The bidding promises to be a nightmare. West bids 2NT without a club stopper and East has no accurate way to describe the nature of his powerful support. EW have reached a sub-optimum contract when 12 tricks are available in either major, but, not to worry, at matchpoints overtricks count for a lot in a mixed field. Suppose declarer ruffs the opening lead and finesses the ♥J losing to the ♥K. The ♦9 is ruffed in dummy, South dropping the ♦K. The ♠J is finessed, losing to the ♠Q. The ♦8 is returned, ruffed by South. A heart is ruffed by North.  Somehow declarer has managed to go down 1, but as the saying goes, he has company, 6♠ being bid by some zealots. The passive defenders as usual take only what they are given, but here that was plenty. At our table a crazy preempt got in the way and I found myself as East playing in 4♥.

It looks as if the preempt has done its work, and confusion reigns. Why didn’t Pard bid 3♠?  Anyway, the ♦K is led. Doesn’t that ring alarm bells? North’s penchant for undisciplined preempts is burned in my memory and this looks like one of those as he has a long suit headed by the Queen at best. I play low and ruff in hand to lead towards the ♥AJ6 in dummy, putting up the ♥A dropping the ♥K. Outside honour #1 has just made its appearance. I lead a club to the ♣A and lead a second heart to the ♥9 and ♥J, winning when North shows out. Hmmm. This is looking extremely fishy. So there follows the ♠A and the ♠K dropping the ♠Q, outside honour #2. I had been planning to discard a spade on the ♦A, playing for the clubs to be 3-3. Instead I discard the ♣6 on the ♦A and lead a club from dummy. The ♣Q appears, outside honor #3. A heart exit to the ♥Q and a spade back means I lose 2 trump tricks. Not optimum play to be sure, but a tie for top with the wimps who played 4♠ for maximum safety. Here is the full deal.

It certainly appears the contract would be better played by West in 4♠ (or 6♠), so the preempt seemed to have served its purpose, but a little knowledge goes a long way when facing a player whose errant tendencies are familiar. Prior knowledge is part of the information package we bring to the table, but what if we are facing unfamiliar opponents? Now we must rely on partner’s bidding to reveal the nature of the overcall. Standard methods tend to show overall strength without specific reference to the overcaller’s suit, with the result that 3NT can be missed when each player holds honours there. The natural assumption is that the overcaller has values in his suit. This is no longer guaranteed. It helps to known just how bad the overcaller’s suit is.

Suit Combinations
The Friends of the Forest Handbook contains this advice on the very first page: ‘if the occasion for taking a finesse presents itself, take it.’ Later on it states, ‘losing a trick unnecessarily to rectify the count is just what it says, unnecessary.’ Here is a suit combination discussed under the category of easy decisions: ♥A94 opposite ♥KJ6. ‘The best way to make 3 tricks in the suit is to cash the ace and finesse the jack’. Alright!

Contrarian that I am, I want to prove the book wrong, so playing in 2NT  on a club lead, I win and duck a spade with ♠AKT94 in dummy. Later a heart discard from ♥ KJ6 sets up a triple squeeze in spades, hearts, and diamonds. Being clever may not to be smart – most made more tricks by finessing the ♥J on a heart lead from the Queen and playing the spades off the top. The point is that the best play in a suit often depends on the external circumstances: not everyone is going to make the same lead.

Here is an example where I can show the full deal. How do you play this spade suit for the maximum number of tricks in 3NT: ♠A7 opposite ♠QT654? Suit Play advises playing the ♠A and finessing the ♠T. Love those finesses. Duncan Smith, our local expert on suit combinations, played the ♠A and the ♠Q making 4 tricks in the suit. When questioned by his brother Matt, the internationally respected director, he claimed this was the textbook play. The result was another total top for the Smith brothers.

Personally, at the table I never question a winning play, preferring to think there had to be a good reason behind it. Why dim the warm glow of success? Back home I question everything. The Dictionary of Suit Combinations makes a distinction on which opponent is more likely to hold the ♠K. If the LHO, play the Queen; if the RHO, play the ♠T. There must have been something in the play that suggested to our expert the right course of action, something he was not eager to reveal. Here is the full deal.

The opening lead was the ♣7 to the ♣9-♣T-♣Q. There was the clue. A lead of declarer’s bid suit when there is no sequence behind it, even when that suit is clubs, indicates a tough choice had to be made. Of course, a spade would never be led, but why not a red suit? The tea leaves indicate poor holdings in the red suits, and a possible entry in spades in case the club lead proves successful.

Well, one can see that I missed my chance when the ♠A was led at trick 2. Do you see it? I should have dropped the ♠J. Now Roudinesco recommends declarer duck a spade all ‘round, so I would make my ♠9 and Pard his ♠K. But that depends on declarer buying my having a doubleton ♠KJ. That doesn’t quite fit, although it’s worth a try.

What is the best lead? Recently there has been discussion on short suit leads against 3NT inspired in part by the computer studies of Tad Anthias presented in the book Winning Notrump Leads co-authored with David Bird. It is one of those deceptions that can fool declarers and partners alike, but if one hits a good suit in partner’s hand the deception applies to declarer only. Low from a doubleton is the current practice, so with this hand the ♦2 might do the trick. Now when declarer plays the ♠A and the ♠J drops under it, there is more reason to think it could indicate ♠KJ doubleton with the opening leader holding ♠9832. It might work against a clever declarer who knows what he is doing, but readers of the F-o-t-F Handbook will not be deterred from finessing the ♠T next. The instinct for self-preservation is a wonderful thing. The result can be no worse than the zero we received. I find that I am saying that a lot.

What America is Coming To
Tonight’s sports break is brought to you by  Squeeky Sneakers:
Chicago Bulls 119, San Antonio Spurs 109
……late in the third quarter
I am Barak Obama and I approve this message.