Silence is Golden

This hand from the Western League match against Somerset set a personal record for the largest gain on a single board at teams-of-eight with four IMP comparisons.

Where Somerset sat North-South, both players chose to open the mouldy 11 count, and both Dorset Easts (I was one) decided to keep quiet. That led to North declaring 3NT, making 9 tricks at one table and 10 at the other.

Events at the other two tables were rather more exciting. Both Dorset Norths chose to pass and both Somerset Easts opened a weak 2♥, which was followed by two passes and a double from North. At one table West chose to stick in 2♥ doubled and lost 1400, while at the other table West jumped out of the frying pan into a very hot fire and lost 1700 in 3♣ doubled. All that added up to a swing of 59 imps on the board. We still lost the match, though only by 11-9.

The Somerset players involved seemed to think that their bids were normal and it was just bad luck. I may be biased, but I’m inclined to disagree.  I remember a piece in one of Martin Hoffman's books where he advised against opening marginal 4441 hands - you  are content if the opponents play in one of your 4-card suits and can show your hand in one bid with a take-out double on the next round if they bid your shortage. And opening 2♥ as East does not have a lot going for it because of the poor suit, adverse vulnerability and a hand playable in two other strains.

Two Black Eights

The Mixed Pairs at the London Year End Congress was a game of two halves. The first session went well and we were lying 7th (out of 76) with 57%.  Then things went rapidly downhill. We started with a lot of boards where we got poor scores without doing much wrong, a few self-inflicted wounds did not help, and we drifted down the field to finish just above halfway.

This slam was my biggest regret - it came near the end and my partner's optimistic bidding was an attempt to recover ground from a run of poor results. Even with my maximum, 6NT is a poor contract, needing both black suits to behave with some small extra chances of a squeeze.

I won the diamond lead in dummy and cashed a top club on which East played the jack. Undecided whether to play East for a singleton or for doubleton honours, I came to hand with a diamond to lead a club up and West solved my first problem by putting in the ten. I won in dummy and played another club to establish my eight. West returned a diamond. Meanwhile East had needed to find two discards, eventually throwing a diamond and a heart after some thought.

East's thinking about her discards gave me hope that she would be squeezed in the majors, so I cashed the eight of clubs, throwing a heart from dummy, and then played off the three top spades. No cigar. East held onto her spades and I lost the last trick to West's queen of hearts for a near zero.

It was only later that I realised that I had missed an extra chance which took advantage of the eight of spades. East's pondering over her first discard strongly suggests that she started with a 4441 shape that included the jack of spades. In that case I can always take four spade tricks if West started with a doubleton nine. After cashing the eight of clubs I should have crossed to the ace of spades and advanced the ten, setting up four spade tricks regardless of whether East covered. Nothing would be lost if East started with J9xx, as I would still be able to play for the major suit squeeze.

This grand slam provided some light relief on the last round. Ann's intermediate jump overcall promised a 6-card suit, so my only decision was whether to play in what looked to be an iron-clad 7♠ or to try 7NT. I chose to go for the jackpot, though in retrospect I should probably have settled for 7♠.

I had expected a heart ruff to provide the thirteenth trick in 7♠ , but with Ann having a singleton heart there was no advantage in playing in spades, and 7NT had the unforeseen benefit of concealing my hand. I won the heart lead and ran the spades, and when a East discarded a club I was able to take 13 tricks for a top on the board.

This hand cropped up the Spectator bridge column - at one table in the open pairs West opened 4♥, North overcalled 4♠, and Zia Mahmood as East found a double! Conceding 1190 for two overtricks in 4♠ doubled was better than minus 1430 in 6♠, but still a poor board for Zia as many North-South pairs were going off in 7♠ or only scoring 500 from a 7♥ sacrifice.

Tollemache 2018

Dorset qualified for the Tollemache final in both 2016 and 2017, although our hopes for what Mr Trump's subjects would call a three-peat were lowered by the absence of the three best players from last year's team, two on the injured list and one lost to a rival team in exchange for a seven figure transfer fee (that's 0.000001 p).

Our hopes were even lower after the first two of seven matches, when we had amassed the grand total of 1 VP out of 40. At that stage our ambitions were limited to avoiding the wooden spoon and winning the local derby against Wiltshire. Fortunately our play improved for the rest of the event (it could hardly get any worse) - we were above average for the remaining five matches and both the minor objectives were achieved.

The most interesting hands were in our match against Surrey, which we lost 20-0 and, in the words of the great Bill Shankly, 'were lucky to get nil'. Here are two of my contributions to the debacle.

Ann's 2♠ was a weak jump shift and North's 3♦ was alerted. I asked about it before making the opening lead and was told that it 'ought to show heart support'. Thinking that we might have a heart ruff I started with the ace of hearts and was very pleased to see a 6-card suit in dummy. Surely partner could ruff the next round, after which a club return would lead to at least two down.  So I continued with a second heart whereupon declarer promptly claimed 12 tricks.

North assured me that her 3♦ did promise heart support, and offered to show me their system file on the tablet which was in her handbag. So I had no redress as it was a misbid rather than an incorrect explanation.

My first thought was to feel rather miffed that I had been misled by two internationals in a long-established partnership forgetting their system, but then I realised that without the inference of North's heart support I would almost certainly have led a spade (5♦ made at the other three tables on a spade lead). The misexplanation had actually led me to find a winning lead. I was just too greedy - I should have cashed the ace of clubs at trick two. If nothing happens I can revert to hearts but on the actual hand partner's king would tell me what to do.

This was the very next board

What do you think that I should bid on the first round? Exclusion Blackwood would have been an option except that we do not play it as it comes up so rarely, so I decided to try and bid the hand scientifically by starting with a splinter bid.  This got us to the par contract, although I had allowed South to make a lead-directing double and the heart lead held us to 11 tricks.

We lost heavily on the board as both Surrey pairs made 6♥ (doubled at one table), when North led a club. Maybe the best tactic with the East hand is just to punt 6♥ on the first round without giving anything away. I ran a short simulation of this problem, generating 30 different hands, and 6♥ was the correct spot on more than half of the hands at double dummy.