Hands from the past - the Reverend's Coup

The 4th round of the 2007 Gold Cup saw a local derby between two Dorset teams captained by Phil Norman and Keith Bartlett, with the prize for the winner being bragging rights and the chance to take on a seeded team in the round of 32. Keith’s team (Anne Sharples, Barrie Cantello and me) had the better of things, and a couple of weeks later I got an e-mail from Keith that said ‘The draw for round 5 finds us against Allfrey, Forrester, Robson & Bakshi. No trouble then! After we beat them, we probably get Peter Lee's team from Surrey, and then Byrne of Manchester in the quarter-finals.’ In spite of Keith’s optimism, our match against Allfrey was a bit like Weymouth playing Chelsea in the 4th round of the FA Cup. With the bridge correspondents of two national newspapers in the team, the opponents had arranged for duplimated boards with hand records, so that details of any interesting hands could be made available for the delectation of readers of The Times and the Daily Telegraph, not to mention the Dorset Coup. Although we did not manage a giant killing, conceding when 48 imps down after 40 boards, we did have our moments. Here is a hand where Barrie Cantello (aka the Reverend), perhaps inspired by playing in an old rectory, came up with a coup that I had never met before, either in print or at the table. I doubt if Tony Forrester had seen it either, as it caused him to go down in a cold game.

	♠ A9752 ♥ Q532 ♦ K103 ♣ J
♠ Q10 ♥ 64 ♦ A986 ♣ 97653		♠ KJ864 ♥ A8 ♦ QJ75 ♣ A10
	♠ 3 ♥ KJ864 ♦ 42 ♣ KQ842

Forrester declared four hearts after Barrie had opened one spade as east. I led a spade which Forrester won with dummy’s ace to play a club. Barrie took the ace and cashed the ace of trumps. If he had continued with the obvious play of another trump, I am sure that Forrester would have made the contract by playing a top club (throwing a diamond in dummy) and ruffing a club. When the 5-2 club break is revealed, declarer is a trick short but he can ruff a spade back to hand and lead a diamond towards the king for his tenth trick. But after Barrie had taken the ace of hearts he switched to a spade, convincing Forrester (and everyone else at the table) that he had started with a singleton ace of trumps. Forrester ruffed the spade and thought that he might have a winning line on a cross ruff, so he cashed the king of clubs throwing a diamond from dummy. The fall of the ten of clubs was suspicious, but surely it was safe to cash the queen of clubs as East could not have any more trumps. It was something of a shock when Barrie ruffed with a card he could not possibly have – a trump – and played a diamond to my ace for one down. So now you know the Reverend’s coup – cash the ace of trumps when holding A x or A x x and switch to another suit. Declarer is bound to play you for a singleton ace. 

Only one hand from this match ended up in the national press, and even that was not quite truthful. 

 

 I was the West who led the 'dubious' eight of diamonds, but declarer (Robson) did not actually play as described in the article and went one down. Not that it really mattered, as Forrester and Bakshi were allowed to play in four hearts at the other table for a big gain.

Hands from the Past - a Bad Trump Break

One of the most valuable rules of Bridge is David Burn’s Law of Total Trumps. ("When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents.")

It's normally a good idea to keep on the right side of Burn's Law, but not always. My most spectacular piece of law breaking came in a county KO match, where Roy France and I played in five clubs vulnerable with a combined trump holding of four to the jack. In spite of the ludicrous contract, the bidding was not unreasonable, nobody doubled, and we even gained on the board.

The hand comes from the match between Keith Bartlett and Shirley Groome, won convincingly by Shirley, in spite what happened here.

Game all

	♠ 95 ♥ KJ10 ♦ A4 ♣ AK10653
♠ 32 ♥ 5 ♦ KQJ952 ♣ J842		♠ AQJ10746 ♥ 874 ♦ 8763 ♣
	♠ K86 ♥ AQ9632 ♦ 10 ♣ Q97

At my table the auction was brief but eventful

South	West	North	East
1♥	2♦	4NT	5♣

I have to admit that I was East, and my five clubs was an attempt to get a club lead against five or six hearts, and to give the opponents a chance to forget their responses to Blackwood after intervention. Unfortunately this cunning plan backfired when South passed to show one ace, West passed to show club tolerance, and North passed to show even more club tolerance.

I am sure that North (Andy Passmore) was right to pass five clubs - he knew that six hearts would go down on a club lead, and the penalty in five clubs undoubled would be worth more than a game.

North-South could have taken all the tricks, but it is always difficult to find the optimum defence against silly contracts, and they generously allowed me to take a spade, a heart ruff and a diamond (!) for a penalty of 800.

Meanwhile Keith Bartlett and Gary Pick had a good auction to the second best contract on the North-South cards .

South	West	North	East
1♥	pass	3♣	pass
3♥	pass	4♦	pass
5♣	pass	6♥	double

28 imps hung on the choice of opening lead. East's double was Lightner, which asks partner to find an unusual lead and is usually based on a void. Perhaps South should have removed to 6NT (which makes on any lie of the cards), but West failed to get the message and led a diamond. Declarer quickly wrapped up all the tricks for 1860 and a 14 imp swing.

Torquay 2009

Which discard system do you prefer? Several people at my local club play a system called Dodds, where any discard conveys a message about your holding in another suit, the exact meaning depending on whether the card is high or low, odd or even, red or black, or if it’s Tuesday or Thursday. I ought to make the effort to understand it, but life’s too short at my age.

Instead, I get my own back on the Dodderers by telling them that my discards are ‘KWTL’. When this results in a puzzled look, I explain that KWTL is not a country music radio station in Oklahoma, but stands for ‘keep winners throw losers’. KWTL ought to be a simple system to play, but it’s not always that easy…

In the Torquay Swiss Pairs my right hand opponent is a leading tournament player, though his partner is unknown to me. On the last hand of the match, honours are about even when I pick up

♠ 5 3 2 ♥A K J 10 ♦ 9 5 4 ♣ A J 7

and hear partner open a reverse Benji two diamonds. I relay with two hearts and partner bids two spades to show a hand with eight playing tricks in spades. I set the suit by raising to three spades, and partner makes a cue bid of four diamonds. I am going to bid a slam so I wheel out 4NT, key card Blackwood, getting a response of five diamonds to show three key cards. I make a further enquiry with five hearts and hear six diamonds, showing the queen of trumps and the king of diamonds but no king of clubs.

I could bid six hearts now, to confirm that we have all the key cards and maybe to suggest a grand if partner holds the queen of hearts, but that would take us into uncharted waters and I am going to settle for a small slam. I can count eleven top tricks and the contract will depend on a heart finesse at worst. As it is pairs I go for the maximum and bid 6NT.
West leads the king of clubs and I see

♠ A K Q J 7 6
♥
♦ A K 7
♣ 8 6 5 4


♠ 5 3 2
♥ A K J 10
♦ 9 5 4
♣ A J 7

Rats. I hadn’t thought of that. So much for taking a heart finesse for my twelfth trick. On the opening lead East plays the nine, which could be the start of a peter to show a doubleton, so it looks as if West has four or five clubs to the K Q 10. How do you rate my chances now?

If West has the expected club holding, the contract is odds-on. East is more likely to hold the queen of hearts (he has fewer clubs and more vacant places in his hand for the other suits), and in that case there will be a double squeeze as neither opponent will be able to guard diamonds in the end game. I might even be able to win the last trick with the seven of diamonds and claim a free beer, although it is the first match of the day and I do not normally start drinking at 11.30 am.

I duck the first trick to tighten the position for the squeeze. West switches to a low diamond, so I win in dummy and cash the spades. There is no need to count the opponent’s hands - I just need to keep track of whether they unguard either minor - and I don’t look too closely at their discards. I throw a heart and a diamond, but then I have to discard the jack of clubs. That shouldn’t matter, as if West holds K Q 10 he will still be in sole charge of the suit.
I come to hand with the Ace of clubs. By now East will have been squeezed out of his guard in one of the red suits. If he has unguarded diamonds, two rounds of hearts will now squeeze West in the minors.

I cash the top hearts and the queen falls from East so I claim my slam, only slightly disappointed that I did not take the last trick with the seven of diamonds. All this has taken a while, so there is no time for a post-mortem and we move on to the next match, feeling quite satisfied at having made a slam on a double squeeze.
It is only after the session when I study the hand records that the full deal is revealed as





No squeeze was needed, as after ducking the opening lead I had twelve top tricks. Or I did until I threw the jack of clubs away, an abject failure to follow KWTL. Fortunately East let me off the hook as he also violated KWTL by discarding a third heart rather than a diamond. If he had kept three hearts and three clubs I would have gone down in a cold contract.

A final point about the bidding - I only chose play in no-trumps because we were playing pairs. It occurred to me afterwards that the auction had revealed a lot about partner’s hand but almost nothing about mine, so there was a good reason for my hand to be declarer at any form of scoring. I don’t think that East would have misdefended if my hand had been on the table.