Friday, January 4th 2013

Right-click here for hands.

Board 5: What should North bid with his high-offense, low-defense 0274 freak? J1098xxx should produce 4+ tricks, and AJ9x in clubs two more; that's about six playing tricks and one defensive trick. A common guideline for preempting is that you should be within two tricks of your bid when vulnerable vs. not (the 4-3-2 rule for favorable, equal, and unfavorable vulnerability.) So 3D is highly aggressive, likely to produce a minus score if partner overbids, a large minus if partner is weak, or getting partner off to a bad lead if East declares. If you play a free-wheeling style for weak twos (6 points and 6 cards, with not much attention to suit quality) that seems a reasonable alternative; I prefer to have either a good hand or a good suit or both for my weak twos, so I think I would pass this one.

South therefore opens 1NT and West overcalls 2S. Did anyone pass West's hand? A six-card suit headed by the AJ or KQ or better and 8+ hcp should certainly be bid non-vulnerable; vulnerable, you'd like a bit more solidity in your suit, perhaps AJ10 or AJ98 to limit the damage if the suit breaks badly.

North evaluates game prospects: opener rates to have about 1/3rd of the outstanding high cards and better than two diamonds, so it's reasonable to assume at last Kx or Qxx in support. Likewise partner rates to have either the King or Queen of clubs but not both, and perhaps five points in each major. Many variations are possible but KQx AJxx Qxx Kxx looks plausible. The opening lead would set up spades before the diamonds could be established, so 3NT appears wildly optimistic. At a diamond contract you can expect to lose two trumps and either a heart or club or both. Perhaps partner has less in spades and more elsewhere, but game seems against the odds. I'd aim for a part-score in diamonds.

Standard methods, as discussed in the December 2012 Bridge Bulletin (Bridge Player's Survival Kit) specify that transfers are off, double is for penalty, 2NT is a natural game invitation, and three of a suit is forcing. Well! That doesn't allow competing in diamonds. A leap to five diamonds might work; if they don't double, set you one trick, and can make a spade partial, minus 100 may score well.

Advanced players give up the natural 2NT in these situations to allow competing in three of a suit: 2NT is "lebensohl", asking opener to bid 3C. Responder can then pass or correct to another suit, such as diamonds on today's hand. If the opponents compete to 3S, North can reasonably compete to 4D and double them at 4S. Another scheme is "Rubensohl" or "transfer lebensohl." Everything from 2NT to 3H is a transfer; so responder bids 3C to show diamonds. The biggest drawback to either of these methods is simply remembering them. With some partners I play that 2NT shows game values, but doubt about 3NT, and non-jump suit bids are simply competitive, whether at the two or three level. Any regular partnership should discuss interference over notrump and clearly agree what bids are forcing, merely competitive, and artificial.

What about stolen bid doubles? Those top every expert's list of most despised agreements; if you want transfers, play them at the three level as discussed above. Double is far more useful for penalty, negative or in-between (I like it to show 8+ balanced) than to save one step in your transfer scheme.

OK, let's say North/South are playing transfer lebensohl; North bids 3C to show diamonds. East knows his two red Kings may both be dead ducks, but chances are one will be well-placed or combine with the Ace or Queen in partner's hand, and Qxxx justifies a raise. 3S looks like enough. South, having described his hand with the 1NT opening, has nothing to add at this point -- partner is in charge. West also passes. Double by North needs to be penalty and 4C would show clubs, so North does best to simply bid 4D himself. (Yes, you may have a club fit, but bidding 4C sounds more like 5-5 than 7-4. Stick with the odds -- you KNOW you have 9+ diamonds.)

That really ought to end the bidding -- E/W cannot expect to make 4S and why rescue the opps from a minor suit part-score that migh not make, or chase them into a game that might? When the opps have the cards and land in four of a minor, let it go.

As it happens North loses only the top two trumps, but any plus score N/S scores well, beating the four pairs who failed at notrump and the one who let E/W steal game at four spades.

Suppose they do bid four spades and North doubles as I would recommend. North leads the Jack of diamonds, won in dummy to finesse in spades. West leads a low spade toward the Jack, needing only one finesse if South has Kx and unable to return to dummy if South has K10x and covers. South ducks, West notes the bad break, and is threatened with losing a trump, three hearts, and two clubs, -300 against what was going to be at best a part-score. Declarer wants South to lead a major, so he cashes the Ace of diamonds and exits a club. This gives North a near-perfect count on all the high cards, so North wins with the Jack of clubs and leads a heart through dummy. The badly placed ten, however, insures a heart trick for West, escaping for -100. This seems like a victory until the recap shows all those minus scores for N/S.

Bottom line: discuss with your partners how to handle interference over 1NT. If you do insist on those horrible stolen bid doubles, at least be clear what means what over 2S (and higher bids.) Nothing is worse than one player bidding a suit naturally and the other thinking it's a transfer. Never assume transfers (or practically any other gadget) are "on" over competition without explicit agreement!

Board 22: South opens 1D (or a "short club"); North responds 1S. On point-count and losing trick count South is worth 3S (17-19 value in support); but perhaps South needs to upgrade for his wealth of controls. Try visualising: can you construct a hand for partner with fewer than six high card points and no extreme shape that makes 4S a laydown? If so, bid game, don't invite. How about Qxxxx x xxx Qxxx (opposite AKxx A10xx Axx Kx) ? That seems to work, scoring four trumps in dummy, two red Aces, a club and three heart ruffs in declarer's hand. I think 4S would be well-judged.

Over to North; is 4S a "shut-out" bid? Novices are often scolded for not passing bids when they have already limited and described their hand; but that almost never applies to a responder who has made an unlimited, forcing bid. Four spades merely says "I think we have enough for game even if you are minimum." Responder should cut opener some slack for possibly stretching to game rather than settling for 3S, but responder is in no way barred from continuing if slam seems likely opposite opener's announced powerhouse. On today's hand you would certainly have bid 1S without, say, the King and Queen of diamonds. If that was partner's opening suit I think you are justified in assuming two additional tricks. However, you need partner to have at least three key cards for slam and two to survive the five level. You cannot assume all of partner's values are in high cards, but again over 1D you can be sure all your high cards are working, as well as any short suits in partner's hand. Still, slam appears to be a stretch and at matchpoints it pays to be cautious about slam. Turns out you didn't need to bid the slam: taking twelve tricks would tie for top. East leads the King of hearts and declarer arranges to ruff two hearts in his hand or two clubs in dummy before three rounds of trumps are played. If you think ahead, you'll need to ruff a heart in hand anyway, so ducking the first heart or winning and returning a heart looks best. Let's say you duck, win the second heart, ruff a heart (the lead wasn't likeey to be KQ bare, though that is a risk), cash the Queen of spades, cross with a trump and ruff the fourth heart. You hope, as here, that the player with fewer hearts has only two trumps; if not, you will still take eleven tricks unless someone had a singleton heart or a void elsewhere.