Don't Lead Unsupported Aces!

Dealer:  West Vul: N/S	Michael ♠AJ53 ♥5 ♦AQ32 ♣T652
Eddie ♠84 ♥A8632 ♦JT7 ♣J84		Molly ♠K9 ♥T94 ♦K965 ♣KQ97
	Leah ♠QT762 ♥KQJ7 ♦84 ♣A3

South	West	North	East
Leah	Eddie	Michael	Molly
	Pass	Pass	Pass
1♠	2♥	4♥1	Pass
4♠	All Pass

4♥¹ = Splinter

Opening Lead: ♥ A

Playing with Leah in a recent STaC, we played in 4♠ with this hand. Despite the fact that I didn't think my hand was strong enough to open, I thought it was strong enough to force to game when Leah opened 1♠. This seemed like a perfect opportunity to pull out a convention Leah and I recently agreed to play, a splinter bid.

Unfortunately Leah's points were mostly in hearts, making my singleton heart not very valuable. Luckily we were playing against Eager Eddie. Eddie led his ♥A, hoping I had one. I guess he was worried that if he didn't take his ace now, my singleton might go away.

I can't tell you how many doomed contracts I've made because the opponents led an unsupported high card for me. This hand was no different. If Eddie leads anything other than a heart, Leah will eventually lose 4 tricks and get set. But by leading the ace Eddie made Leah's KQJ of hearts good. She was able to use these hearts to discard 3 clubs from dummy, allowing her to ruff her ♣3, and make the contract.

Look what happens if Eddie never leads hearts. He can save his ♥A to take Leah's ♥K (or Q or J). Now she only has 2 good hearts and that isn't enough to get rid of either of dummy's minor suits.

Why do people like Eddie like to cash their aces early?

I think this is a psychological issue. People remember when they didn't take their ace and then never got it good. What they don't recognize is all of the times they led their ace prematurely and gave up tricks because of it. Make declarer work to knock out your aces, don't give gifts!

Congratulations to Unit 109

One of my favorite local bridge traditions is the annual Challenge Match between Units 109, 110, and 146 (Richmond, the Peninsula, and Tidewater, VA). Every year, these 3 units send a group of teams from different flights (this year it was 10 teams), and they play against each other in team matches. The unit whose teams do the best takes home the trophy.

At the very top level bridge players represent countries in world championships. There's no reason not to do this at smaller scales too. I find that it adds a level of fun and camaraderie in something that we often forget is just a game.

Like the past few years, William and I had the honor of being on one of the teams for our Unit (110). Unfortunately, like we seem to do in a lot of events, we started slow, including bidding to two unmakeable slams due to miscommunication.  After lunch we came back strong, winning 3 of our last 4 matches. This was aided by two (makeable) slams that we bid that were missed at the other table. Though we won only 3 out of 6 matches, we did win by slightly larger margins than we lost by to earn 67 out of 120 victory points.

Anyway, for the 2nd year in a row, the Richmond Unit (109) pulled out the victory and so, kept the trophy. I should have taken a picture of it to post here - sorry, I still need to work on my blogging skills.

And just so this isn't a completely bridge free post, here is one of the auctions where we got to an unmakeable slam.

Michael ♠AKQT5                         ♥AQJ7 ♦AK ♣T5 William ♠J843 ♥K43 ♦8752 ♣J7

West East Michael William 1♣ 1♦ 2♠ 3♠ 4♦ 4♥ 6♠

William and I are trying out Precision. 1♣ shows a strong hand, 1♦ shows a weak hand, and the 2♠ shows a very strong hand with spades. (i.e. a strong 2 type hand). 3♠ shows 4-card spades support and the 4♦ and 4♥ are cue bids showing controls.

We showed controls in diamonds and hearts. What about clubs? This was the problem. The opponents won the first two tricks with the ♣A and ♣K, setting us a trick. Cue bidding is supposed to prevent this problem. I thought I had denied a clubs control when I cue bid 4♦. Therefore, I assumed that when William bid 4♥ he was implying a club control, too. (otherwise he would have just bid 4♠). Obviously William had a different thought.

Which of us was right? Well, there is no universal answer. It comes down to how you cue bid. Do you only show first round controls? Do you show shortness in addition to aces and/or kings? Different partnerships do it differently. What is important is to make sure you are on the same page as your partner.

We had a second chance to see if we were on the same page later in the day with this auction.

Michael ♠QT5 ♥KQJT5                         ♦KJT ♣AK William ♠K2 ♥A843 ♦A852 ♣973

West East Michael William 1♦ 2♥ 3♥ 4♣ 4♦ 4NT 5♥ 6♥

The 2♥ bid was a strong jump shift showing 18 or more points. Again we got into a cue bidding auction where 4♣ and 4♦ were cue bids. So what about spades? During a break we had discussed what went wrong on the first slam and we didn't make the same mistake again. This time William had a spades control (the suit I implicitly denied by bidding 4♣ rather than 3♠). The opponents led a diamond, giving me a free finesse, so I only lost the ♠A.  Yeah, maybe we were a little lucky, but at least we were on the same page.

Creating Extra Chances

Dealer:  South Vul: All	Michael ♠A62 ♥A9753 ♦86 ♣QJ3
Harry ♠KT4 ♥QT2 ♦942 ♣T985		Annie ♠J73 ♥86 ♦AKT75 ♣742
	William ♠Q985 ♥KJ4 ♦QJ3 ♣AK6

South	West	North	East
William	Harry	Michael	Annie
1NT	Pass	2♦	Double
2♥	Pass	4♥	All Pass

Opening Lead: ♦ 9

I played this hand at a recent club game.  As you can see, there is no legitimate way to make 4♥, but I could have given myself more chances than I did.

First, a note on the bidding.  Michael and I had discussed that my completion of the transfer showed 3+ hearts.  However, what do the follow-up bids mean?  If Annie hadn't doubled, a Jacoby transfer followed by a jump to game would show mild slam interest (otherwise, just he would just transfer at the 4-level).  Now that the situation has changed, the jump to game is just that.  There is no need to bid 3NT before 4♥ since he knows there is a fit.  A 3♦ bid would now show the slam interest.

On the play, Harry dutifully led a diamond, Annie cashed the top two diamonds, and then thought for a while about what to do next.  I was also thinking about what to do and saw that if she led a spade, I would need to pitch my second losing spade on the ♦Q immediately to avoid losing 2 spades.  Since I had a spade to lose regardless, I needed to play hearts for no losers; the simplest way was to find Annie with the queen.

After a long deliberation, Annie led a club.  Not thinking about the tempo advantage gained from this, I went ahead with my plan.  I cashed the ♦Q, pitching a spade, led a heart to the ace, and finessed the ♥J on the way back.  It lost, and I lost the ♠K as well for down 1.

So what could I do?  I'm always going to lose the protected, offside ♥Q and the ♠K in addition to the two top diamonds, right? On this hand, sure, but in general, the cards are not always poorly placed.  I should have thought about what the club lead at trick 3 meant.  Why didn't Annie lead a spade as I expected her to?  Maybe she didn't want to lead away from her ♠K.  If that was the case, I could have tried for a swindle.  If I let the club run around to the board and lead a low spade, she may now expect that I have the AK of clubs and play her partner for the ♠Q, ducking the low spade lead.  Suddenly my spade loser disappears.

I have a tough time looking past the "real" chances for a contract to see where I might induce mistakes from my opponents.

Implicit Length Showing

Dealer:  South Vul: N-S	Betty ♠Q ♥KQT63 ♦J832 ♣JT9
William ♠A4 ♥J9752 ♦T ♣A8762		Michael ♠JT852 ♥84 ♦75 ♣KQ54
	User123 ♠K9763 ♥A ♦AKQ964 ♣3

South	West	North	East
User123	William	Betty	Michael
1♦	2NT	Pass	3♣
3♠	All Pass

Opening Lead: ♣ A

Playing on BBO, William and I were playing against a partnership that didn’t know each other. We set their 3♠ contract, but why were they playing spades instead of diamonds?

First, some background for those of you not familiar with BBO. It’s a great place to play bridge online, either with people you know, or with random people. However, if you are playing with a random partner, it is easy to end up on a different page from your partner as to what bids mean.

Put yourself in Betty's shoes. You hold:

♠Q  ♥KQT63  ♦J832  ♣JT9

What do you think your partner has after the bidding has started as follows?

1♦  (2NT)  P  (3♣)
3♠   (P)   ?

The only thing you know about your partner's 1♦ is that it could be short, but otherwise, your partner is playing Standard American. Betty's reasoning was that since partner didn't rebid diamonds, his diamonds must be short. Therefore she couldn't risk going to 4♦. Do you agree with her?

Let's think about what User123 has. First, could he have only 4 spades? It seems odd to compete to the 3 level with only a 4 card suit, but I suppose it is possible. If south only has 4 spades, diamonds is clearly a better fit than spades, so Betty should correct to diamonds even if User123's diamonds are short.

It is more likely that User123 has at least 5 spades, in which case playing in spades isn’t horrible. Except… if User123 has 5+ spades, why didn’t he open spades? Why would he open 1♦ with a 5 card major? The only reason is because south’s diamonds are even better than his spades. If this is the case, clearly diamonds is a better contract than spades.

So yes, Betty was correct that south didn’t explicitly promise longer diamonds, but had she thought through what partner could have to bid the way he did, she would have rebid the diamonds. This would have prevented a bad board for them (and the online recriminations that came afterwards in the chat window).