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.

So Near, So Far

In the semi final of the Faulkner Salver we were up against the all-international team of Brian Senior, Paul Hackett, Sandra Penfold and Norman Selway. Our realistic expectations were to avoid a complete mauling, and things seemed to be going according to plan when we were 29 imp down after 20 of the 40 boards. Then the tide started to turn - we only conceded 10 imps in the second half and gained three game swings, but it was not quite enough and we lost by 3 imp.

This was an early deal

Barrie's 4♦ was a bit aggressive, but I would still have bid 4♥ if he had made a responsive double over 3♦. 

I ruffed the diamond lead and then played to set up clubs; ace of clubs, club ruff, return to hand with a spade, club ruff. The 3-3 break was good news but when I played a second round of spades East ruffed and forced me with a low diamond. She could now be counted for a 1453 shape. I ruffed the diamond and played a winning club which collected three trumps; six, queen and king. East played another diamond which I ruffed and I was now down to a single trump in each hand while East still held the jack and ten. So I played another winning club discarding dummy's last diamond. East ruffed and exited with a diamond on which I ditched the king of spades while ruffing in dummy. A winning spade forced East to ruff with her last trump but I could overruff with the ace and win the last trick with a club. You can follow the play by clicking on 'Next'.

It was a really neat hand, extracting all of the opponents' trumps without playing a single round. Subsequent analysis with Deep Finesse showed that drawing even one round of trumps would have been fatal. I could also have made the contract by playing a spade instead of a club at trick 8, although the ending would have not been so elegant.

The play at the other table was a comedy of errors. Senior and Hackett had a bidding mix up and finished in 4♠. East led a top diamond which declarer ruffed to play ace and another heart. West ruffed this which was not necessarily fatal but the switch to the queen of diamonds allowed declarer to establish a diamond trick and make the contract.

Neither team distinguished themselves on this slam deal but we lost a big swing. This was the auction at our table

At our table (playing Acol style) Barrie's 4♥ locked us into the wrong trump suit. To be fair to the Rev, I gave his hand to a couple of other decent players and they both suggested 4♥ or a 4♣ splinter.  I think that it is better to rebid 3♠ over 4♥. If partner bids 3NT you can always revert to 4♥. The spade grand is a reasonable proposition, making if hearts are 3-2 and spades not 4-0, with some extra chances if spades are 2-2.  I make it about 65%.

Six hearts by South is not a great contract, but after West led a club it only needed a 3-2 trump break. No such luck, and I ended down three.

At the other table Hackett and Senior were playing 2-over-1 game forcing, so East was able to rebid 2♠ and there was no danger of playing in hearts, but for some reason they stopped in five spades. Their reward for missing a 98% slam (or 100% if you managed to find 6NT) was a gain of 14 imp. Sometime life just aint fair.

This hand was my biggest regret

My 3♣ was supposed to be weak, although anything goes opposite a passed partner. Barrie led a club to the king and ace. I cashed another club and started thinking. Too late. Eventually I switched to a trump which did not trouble declarer. What I needed to do was take two clubs and switch to the two of spades in tempo. If declarer reads that as a singleton he would go up with the ace and try to draw trumps - down two. Though he might wonder why North had not opened a weak two with K J to six spades. We will never know. At the other table Norman Selway played the same defence, so it was a flat board but a missed opportunity.