Déjà vu all over again.

Since Covid we have played all of our knockout matches online, which has some advantages in avoiding travel and being able to play a wider range of opponents. But when we were drawn against David Mossop's team of professionals in the third round of Crockfords, we were surprised that they insisted in playing the match face-to-face even though Mossop had to travel from Switzerland and Diego Brenner from Barcelona.

In the first set Ann and I missed a good slam that was bit by the Hackett twins, but we had a few small gains and only trailed by 4 imp. The second set was rather more exciting.

On the first board I was on lead with  ♠ 10 4 3 2   ♥ K J 10 8 5   ♦ K Q 3   ♣ 8   after the auction 2♥ - 4♣ - pass - 6♣. Ann's 2♥ was weak with hearts and a minor, and 4♣ showed clubs and spades. Fortunately I had an obvious diamond lead and we took the first two tricks for a gain of 12 imps when Keith and Roger stopped in 5♣.

Two boards later came this

Ann led a club to the jack, king and ace and declarer now played a heart to the ten which I ducked in tempo. The contract makes easily if declarer plays for a 3-2 heart split, but he was worried that Ann might have king jack to four hearts, so he cashed a top spade and led a diamond up. I won and cleared the clubs, and when declarer took another heart finesse I was able to cash the clubs for two down and a gain of 11 imp when 4♠ made at the other table. Gunnar had a little chunter to himself but was kind enough to say 'good duck'. 

The opponents missed a slam and then came this declarer play problem. (Hand rotated for convenience). West led a spade to the ace and a spade was returned. I took the king and cashed two rounds of trumps to get the bad news. Now I can either cross to the ace of clubs to take a diamond finesse and ruff the third diamond in dummy, or just take the club finesse. If the minor suit kings are split than both lines will work or both fail, so the critical case is where both kings are in the same hand.

It seemed to me that it was slightly better to play West to hold both kings.  He has more vacant spaces in his hand as he has the singleton trump, and with small cards in a suit he might have led that suit rather than a spade. I'm not sure if this argument is totally sound, but the club finesse worked and we gained another 10 imps when Paul Hackett took the diamond finesse at the other table.

 

The next board brought a further 11 imps when Hackett and Brenner lost the first six tricks in 3NT instead of making an easy 4♠, and we had won the set by 56 imps to 8! That was not in the script.

The sponsor had now played his quota of boards and retired to the sidelines, leaving his four pros to try and retrieve the situation, but the third set was fairly quiet and we only lost four imps. 40 imps up with only eight boards to play - could we hang on?

 

We needed a lot of part scores or flat games but the great dealer had other ideas, giving us only one part score and potential for game swings on all of the other hands, but with two boards to go we were still 21 imp ahead. This was the penultimate board and the auction at our table

At the other table our boys had no good reason to bid and the Hacketts had an unopposed auction to 4♠. Brenner's decision to open his nine count worked out very well and the 3♣ fit jump enabled them to find their double fit. But I should both have bid on to 5♠ which would have saved a few crucial imps.

 

This was the final hand, where both tables played 4♠ on the nine of diamonds lead.

At our table Brenner covered the opening lead with the jack and ruffed Ann's queen. Now he played a trump to dummy and led the ten of diamonds, which Ann correctly ducked and I ruffed as declarer discarded a heart. I now cashed the ace of hearts and gave Ann a heart ruff, but that was the end of the defence as declarer could cross to dummy in trumps and take a ruffing finesse to finally set up a dimaond winner. 

 

I would have done better to return a trump rather than playing ace and another heart, but declarer can still prevail by ruffing out the diamonds and leading a low club from hand. Would Brenner have found this? I expect so but we shall never know.

 

At the other table West had entered the auction with a double on the second round, so declarer played him for a 5-5 shape. After the same start declarer played two rounds of trumps and tried to cash the ace of diamonds but West ruffed and exited with the king of clubs. There is still a way to make double dummy, but this is not at all obvious and the contract failed. This gave the opponents a 10 imp swing to win the match by 3. 

It was disappointing to lose and we can all think of several hands where we could have done something different to change the result. But at least we gave a top professional squad a good run for their money and can always look back on the 56-8 set. 

In August 2018 we also played Papa Hackett in the semi final of the Faulkner. We lost by 3 imp in that match as well.

Better to be Lucky than Good

In our second round Gold Cup match we scraped a single figure win against a team from London, helped by this rather fortunate slam deal.

Chris and Keith had stopped in game, so a lot of IMPs were riding on whether declarer could bring home his slam.  Declarer ran my club lead to the jack and ace, cashed a top spade, crossed to the ace of hearts and took a losing trump finesse. I exited with my last trump and declarer unblocked the king of hearts, crossed to the ace of diamonds, cashed the queen of hearts and returned to hand with a heart ruff. He then ran the remaining trumps, hoping to squeeze Ann in the minors. (The squeeze would also have worked if I held the king of diamonds and queen of clubs, but in that case I would probably have led a heart.) Unlucky for declarer.

Or was it? Go back to the bidding where North has shown a diamond control but South has denied one. Surely this suggests a diamond lead if West doesn't hold the king? And if Ann did hold the king of diamonds, I could have broken up the squeeze by returning a diamond when I won the queen of trumps. Given that I am likely to hold the king of diamonds, maybe declarer should play king of hearts, ace of clubs, queen of hearts throwing a club, club ruff and run the trumps to squeeze me in the red suits. But I don't mind being insulted if it means that we gain 13 IMP.

I think the best line is to win the opening lead in dummy and take an immediate trump finesse - better than cashing a top trump first as Qxxx is four times more likely than singleton queen. Then you can come down to a three card ending with ♥10 ♦Q ♣7 in hand and ♥AQ8 in dummy, winning if the hand with long hearts has either the king of diamonds or sole control of clubs. It's an easy game when you can see all four hands.

Winkle Picking

The Expert Game is Terence Reese's classic book on card play, first published in 1958 and widely considered to be one of the best bridge books of all time. In the last chapter Reese describes three types of 'secondary' squeeze - so called because a trick must be lost in the end-game - and gives them descriptive names; the vice, the winkle and the stepping stone.

You might think that these obscure squeezes are only of academic interest, but one came up on this hand from last Friday's Allendale pairs. West led the two of clubs against Ann's 3NT. There only appear to be eleven tricks, but watch what happens...Can you believe that declarer might make two diamond tricks in the end game?

Declarer wins the first trick with the ace (an essential move to avoid blocking the suit) and runs eight winners in the major suits. West is forced to release a diamond, leaving this position. 

 

Now declarer plays a club to the ten and exits with a diamond, leaving the opponents to choose their poison. The defence can win the diamond in either hand, but must then concede the last two tricks.

It's a shame to spoil a good story, but honesty compels me to record that it wasn't quite like that in real life. Ann slipped at the final hurdle by cashing the king of clubs at trick eleven, although East returned the favour by playing the ace on the diamond lead from dummy.

When I dug out The Expert Game from an obscure corner of my bookshelf, I discovered that the play on this hand is a winkle, 'a rare squeeze in which a trick is offered to the defenders but whichever wins the trick is then endplayed'. Declarer winkles an extra trick from the diamond suit where both opponents hold top cards.

The Official Encylopedia of Bridge gives this remarkable hand as an example of a winkle. It also features a suit of Jxx facing 10xx where declarer makes two tricks. But the similarity ends there; this hand occurred in the US International Team Trials rather than a local duplicate, the players were Hall-of-Famers rather than honest hackers, and the winkle brought in a slam rather than an extra overtrick in a mundane 3NT.

 

 

The silly final contract was due to a bidding misunderstanding. North thought that 4♠ was a two-ace reply to Gerber (!) while South thought that 4♠ was natural and implied a singleton heart. 

West led a diamond; declarer finessed, threw a heart on the ace of diamonds and ruffed a diamond. He then crossed to the ace of clubs, ruffed another diamond to remove the king and cashed two trumps ending in dummy. The established queen of diamonds forced East to throw a heart and declarer now played the the queen of spades and a spade to the ten and king. He then exited with a heart - the defence could win in either hand but then had to concede the last two tricks.