It’s been a while since I posted any hands. This one scored well.
E-W game, dlr S (rotated)
♠ K 7 x
♥ x x
♦ x x x
♣ 8 7 x x x
♠ J x x x ♠ 9
♥ x x [ ] ♥ K Q J x x x
♦ A K J x ♦ 10
♣ Q J 10 ♣ A K x x x
♠ A Q 10 8 x
♥ A 10 x
♦ Q 9 x x x
♣ -
1♠ pass 2♠ 3♠
4♠ dble All pass
A♦ led.
I wouldn’t have blamed Agent 99 for passing over 1♠ - ten losers and only 3-card support doesn’t really meet the requirements for a raise. But she chose a good moment for it, and made my life easy. I don’t think I can blame West for choosing the double rather than a venture to the 5-level. Taking the safe plus score seems quite reasonable, even opposite a distinctly distributional partner. East was rather frustrated, being sure that we had cut them out of a game or slam, but she was disciplined enough to stand the double. After all, she had shown her hand with her vulnerable intervention. However, the defence did not go nearly so well as West expected and East hoped.
Rather than opening one of her partner’s suits, West started with three rounds of diamonds, East ruffing the third round with her singleton trump. I took the ♥A at trick 4, and paused for thought. East had shown 5-5 (or better) distribution in the bidding, so had at most one trump remaining. Therefore, I cashed the ♠A to draw it, the ♦Q for a heart discard, and made two heart ruffs in dummy and two club ruffs in hand. At trick 11, West was trump-bound, and had to ruff the ♦9 and then lead into my remaining trump tenace. Down 1, not vulnerable, for -100 compared to -650 at most tables.
It is true that an opening heart or club lead would have led to a bigger penalty. But I don’t think I will do worse than three down (six trumps and the ♥A seems plausible), which is still cheap.
The next hand didn’t score well, but that’s because I butchered the play.
N-S game, dlr N (hands rotated)
♠ 10 4
♥ K
♦ K 6 5 4 3
♣ A J 10 9 8
[ ]
♠ A K Q 9
♥ A J 7 6 4
♦ A
♣ 5 4 2
1♦ 1♥;
2♣ 2♠;
3♣ 6NT;
♥x led.
I’ll choose to believe that it’s her admiration for my dummy play that leads Agent 99 to open hands like that one. Actually, it’s not that far off – replace the ♥K with a small one, but add the ♦Q, and you have a very respectable opening even though there are only 10hcp. But the actual hand doesn’t really have the two defensive tricks that a vulnerable opening as dealer is supposed to show.
I won’t give the details of the debacle that passed for my dummy play. But clubs broke kindly, so playing for split honors and managing your entries properly gives you eleven top tricks (4 clubs, 2 diamonds, 2 hearts, and 3 spades). If you have unblocked the ♠10 and rejected the (losing) heart finesse (if the defence offered it to you), you can arrive at the last few tricks with a choice between playing to drop the ♠J or taking a finesse of the ♠9. And enough tricks have gone by that you should have a decent view of the opposing distribution. If you read four spades on your right, the odds favor the finesse – which wins, bringing in 12 tricks and a top. Nobody else tried a slam on this hand.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Gambling 3NT
The opening bid of 3NT is still played as showing a monster balanced hand by some die-hards. But the majority of people, including almost all experts, seek a better use for the bid. A very large balanced hand can be adequately handled through a 2C opening (or whatever is your conventional strong opening bid). And starting to try and bid constructively at 3NT is fairly hopeless, making the very old-fashioned opening ineffective as well as unnecessary. The commonest alternative is what is called the Gambling 3NT.
The Gambling 3NT was originally part of the Acol system. The opening showed a solid or semi-solid 7- or 8-card minor suit, with one or two stoppers outside. With some help, responder could pass, hoping that declarer could gain the lead and run off nine tricks before the defence could organize five. This might depend on a favorable opening lead, or an ace being on-side, or some such – hence the “gambling” designation.
The modern incarnation of this bid is modified from that original description. These days, a seven card suit is enough, but it is expected to be pretty solid (minimum AKQxxxx). Rather than having outside strength, the opener is expected to have little outside strength, usually defined to be no ace or king outside. Responder still has the option to gamble with a pass, or bid 4C or 5C for pass-or-correct to opener’s suit. There is also a 4D response to ask for a singleton (with no aces or kings, a singleton is the most useful feature opener might have outside his suit). Opener rebids:
After 3NT – 4D ;
4 major = singleton in the bid suit
4NT = no singleton
5 minor = singleton in the other minor
(The reason for reversing the minor suit calls is that it wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea for opener to go past 5C holding a singleton diamond – what if responder was really looking for a heart control?)
This incarnation of the bid is clearly more frequent in occurrence (though still pretty rare), and also fits in to a spectrum of pre-emptive bids that runs from very weak (3-minor pre-empts are often made on 6-card suits these days) to very strong (4- and 5-level pre-empts are usually 8- or 9-card suits). But one obvious weakness of the modern version is that the contract is wrong-sided. Since the responder is the one with the stoppers, it would be much better to have the opening lead running around to his hand. That is why the usual advice for the opening leader is to lay down an ace, so that you get a look at the dummy and can (hopefully) spot the flaw that will give you your defensive tricks. This also is why transfer pre-empts or Alder pre-empts or some such scheme are attractive for this case – if the opening is 3S , responder gets to be the declarer when he wants to gamble, which is much better.
With virtually all of opener’s assets concentrated in one long suit, there is scope for the opposition to have decent prospects of game in one of the other suits. But finding a fit when you have to start at the 4-level is bound to be somewhat problematic. The best idea looks to be to use a defence against 1NT, just a few levels higher. We would go with Multi-Landy:
4C = both majors
4D = one major, unspecified
4H = hearts and a minor (hopefully, the one opener doesn’t have)
4S = spades and a minor
Double can be used to show general values, but clearly you aren’t going to get fat on penalties most of the time. Opener will probably be able to round up at least eight or nine tricks, even without too much in the dummy. So probably it would be better to use an immediate double to show the other minor.
The Gambling 3NT was originally part of the Acol system. The opening showed a solid or semi-solid 7- or 8-card minor suit, with one or two stoppers outside. With some help, responder could pass, hoping that declarer could gain the lead and run off nine tricks before the defence could organize five. This might depend on a favorable opening lead, or an ace being on-side, or some such – hence the “gambling” designation.
The modern incarnation of this bid is modified from that original description. These days, a seven card suit is enough, but it is expected to be pretty solid (minimum AKQxxxx). Rather than having outside strength, the opener is expected to have little outside strength, usually defined to be no ace or king outside. Responder still has the option to gamble with a pass, or bid 4C or 5C for pass-or-correct to opener’s suit. There is also a 4D response to ask for a singleton (with no aces or kings, a singleton is the most useful feature opener might have outside his suit). Opener rebids:
After 3NT – 4D ;
4 major = singleton in the bid suit
4NT = no singleton
5 minor = singleton in the other minor
(The reason for reversing the minor suit calls is that it wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea for opener to go past 5C holding a singleton diamond – what if responder was really looking for a heart control?)
This incarnation of the bid is clearly more frequent in occurrence (though still pretty rare), and also fits in to a spectrum of pre-emptive bids that runs from very weak (3-minor pre-empts are often made on 6-card suits these days) to very strong (4- and 5-level pre-empts are usually 8- or 9-card suits). But one obvious weakness of the modern version is that the contract is wrong-sided. Since the responder is the one with the stoppers, it would be much better to have the opening lead running around to his hand. That is why the usual advice for the opening leader is to lay down an ace, so that you get a look at the dummy and can (hopefully) spot the flaw that will give you your defensive tricks. This also is why transfer pre-empts or Alder pre-empts or some such scheme are attractive for this case – if the opening is 3S , responder gets to be the declarer when he wants to gamble, which is much better.
With virtually all of opener’s assets concentrated in one long suit, there is scope for the opposition to have decent prospects of game in one of the other suits. But finding a fit when you have to start at the 4-level is bound to be somewhat problematic. The best idea looks to be to use a defence against 1NT, just a few levels higher. We would go with Multi-Landy:
4C = both majors
4D = one major, unspecified
4H = hearts and a minor (hopefully, the one opener doesn’t have)
4S = spades and a minor
Double can be used to show general values, but clearly you aren’t going to get fat on penalties most of the time. Opener will probably be able to round up at least eight or nine tricks, even without too much in the dummy. So probably it would be better to use an immediate double to show the other minor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)