Punting

Some more slams.

Game all, dlr N, matchpoint pairs

♠ -
♥ 7 6
♦ A 7 3
♣ A Q 10 9 8 5 4 3

  [ ]

♠ A 8 3
♥ A Q 10 9 3
♦ J 9 5
♣ K 2

1♣ Pass 1♥ 3♠ 
5♣ Pass 6♣ All Pass 

Surprisingly, we were the only pair to bid this excellent slam. I think most of the credit goes to my partner, for choosing to open at the one level. After that, his jump to 5♣ suggested that he not only had a very long suit, but also some values outside and/or some sort of heart fit. My concern wasn’t whether to raise to 6♣, but rather, might we be missing a grand. I decided that there were too many ways we might have a loser, and that the small slam was enough.

Apparently, most dealers elected to open 4♣ or 5♣. Now it still looks reasonable to me to punt 6♣, but it is much less clear-cut. You might have quick diamond losers; you haven’t heard the spade pre-empt, so if you envision a void in partner’s hand it seems most likely to be hearts; and so on. I can understand a pass opposite a 5♣ opening.

The next bidding sequence looks at first glance like a bit of a punt, but I think it’s actually better than that.

N-S vul, dlr S, matchpoint pairs

♠ K Q 9 6 4
♥ Q 2
♦ K Q 8 4
♣ A 6

  [ ]

♠ A
♥ A K J 5
♦ J 10 5 3
♣ K 10 7 4

1♦ Pass 1♠ Pass 
2♥ Pass 2♠ Pass 
3NT Pass 6NT All Pass

We play weak jump-shifts all the time, so there was no question about my first response. I was already thinking slam though, given any encouragement. The reverse into hearts was definitely that, but I still needed to sort out strain and level. I decided that 2♠ could not be passed – 2NT would have been the “slow down” bid – and that seemed like a good way to get another bid to clarify partner’s hand. I understood the jump to 3NT to indicate exactly the sort of hand he had – minimum for the reverse (about 16-17 hcp), no spade fit, clubs stopped. So 6NT then stands out as the matchpoint choice. Perhaps we’re missing 7♦, but few if any in the field would bid it. Perhaps 6♦ would be safer, but no-trump should be OK. With a combined count in the 32-34 range, it seems doubtful that 7NT is going to be a good bet. No, 6NT is easily the favorite, and yet this was a top shared with one other pair.

A couple of people chose 6♦, but the rest failed to reach slam-level. One that I spoke to didn’t reverse with the South hand. I know that a lot of Americans do require 17+hcp for a reverse, in which case the hand is borderline for the bid, at best. But if you don’t reverse, it then becomes very difficult for either partner to diagnose that the combined hands are at the borderline of slam territory. Agent 99 and I would probably have had a reversing auction, but we could also handle it through the extended-range 1NT rebid, if South chose to go that route:
1♦    Pass 1♠    Pass 
1NT(1)Pass 2♣(2) Pass 
2♥(3) Pass 3♦(4) Pass
3NT   Pass 4NT   Pass
6NT   All Pass
(1) 13-17
(2) Range inquiry
(3) 15-16, denies 3 spades
(4) Forcing
There is some danger that if North gets hypnotized by point-count, he might stop, knowing that the combined count is 31-32 and South isn’t overly enthused about the diamond suit. Certainly, jumping straight to 6NT seems too much. But a quantitative raise to 4NT doesn’t look totally unreasonable, and I think South should definitely accept the invitation if it’s made.

This one you can call a punt.

Love all, dlr S, matchpoint pairs

♠ K 8
♥ A Q 9 4 2
♦ 8
♣ 10 8 7 6 3

  [ ]

♠ A 7 4
♥ K J 7 6 5 3
♦ A 5
♣ A 4

1♥   Pass 4♥   Pass 
6♥   All Pass 

This was with an occasional partner, and we weren’t doing very well. I knew that for the game raise she would have four or five hearts and a little something outside, so the slam wasn’t a complete shot in the dark. If she had any sort of side suit, I would probably have some sort of play for enough tricks. The thing is, I can’t see any way to find out whether the North hand is suitable, “scientifically”. I mean, if it has KQ in one side suit and a singleton in another, slam may have play even if the ♥AQ are missing. There are lots of possibilities, once you start to consider.

Or maybe I’m an optimist. Nobody else bid it.

Trusting Partner

In the last post, I mentioned finding a particular partner inconsistent. A different partner has some set habits that I know I’ll never be able to change, but at least he’s consistent, and I should know how to handle him by now. (That’s another thing to like about Agent 99: at least she’s willing to work at breaking any bad habits she discovers.)

One good habit this guy has is a tendency to hold good suits for his bidding. It’s not always true, but it works often enough to make some decisions surprisingly viable. Look at this. Both sides vulnerable, I dealt and opened 2♣ on:

♠ A K Q J 10 2
♥ A 4
♦ K 7 6
♣ K 9

Perhaps this is a bit aggressive, but I hate to open a hand as good as this at the one level. Partner only needs a couple of queens or so to make game a fair bet. If I open 1♠ and partner says 1NT (face it, he’s either going to pass or say 1NT), what do I bid next? 4♠? Partner is pretty much certain to pass, and yes I’ll make the contract (probably), but also he might have enough for slam, and we won’t find out until we see the dummy. If I had an Acol 2♠ opening available, that would be perfect, but failing that, I’m going with 2♣. Of course partner says 2♦, and after 2♠ he says 3♦. Now what?

This really comes down to whether you can trust your partner. He doesn’t have much, but he has a diamond suit. If the suit has a chance to run, then you have a chance to take six spades, five+ diamonds, and the ace of hearts for a slam. If he might be bidding a garbage suit, you could easily talk yourself past a making game into a no-play slam.

I wheeled out Blackwood and bid 6♠. Partner had ♦AQxxxx, and there were no defensive surprises: opening leader did well to take his A♣ before the rats got at it. This hand was played eight times, six of them in 4♠ making seven, once in 3NT making seven. I think the opening bid gets some credit, but then there’s also my being able to trust his suit.

A questionable habit this guy has is a fondness for playing no-trump when we have a major suit fit. At matchpoints, this sometimes pays well, but other times it leads to a silly result. And he also tends to punt on big hands, not trusting us to construct a sensible auction. The combination can be terrifying: here’s a sample decision.

Nobody vulnerable, 3rd to speak, you hold:

♠ A K Q 6
♥ A J 9
♦ K 9 5
♣ Q 8 6

Partner opens 1♠, of all things, pass on your right.

You could blast straight to Blackwood, on the grounds that you want to be in 6♠ or 7♠ depending on whether partner has one ace or two. You could take a more genteel route to a similar destination starting with a Jacoby 2NT response. Both of these options being available, of course my partner chose to invent a 2♦ response. Now you hear 3♣, so the opener wasn’t psyching, and is probably at least 5-5 in the black suits. So where do you go now? After due consideration, the bid that emerged was 6NT.

This bid is so wrong. It kills any chance of reaching a grand (7♠ is cold). And spades is quite possibly much safer than no-trump. But, given the nature of the field, hardly anyone is going to be in a grand. And 6NT will then beat all the 6♠ bids – except of course it doesn’t, necessarily, because of the overtrick that isn’t there at no-trump. But what do you know – after two passes, we hear double. The opening leader had no idea what that asked for, if indeed it asked for anything specific. His final choice of a heart was less than successful, as the dummy I produced was:

♠ J 9 8 5 2
♥ Q 3
♦ -
♣ A K J 9 4 2

I’m not proud of that sequence from my side either. Of course I should open 1♣.
1♣ - 1♠; 3♠ - 4NT; 6♦ - 7♠;
Smooth as silk, but not in this partnership.

He has two other bad habits in competitive sequences. He always bids “just one more”, and he never pulls a penalty double. Either of those actions may be right or wrong, but you need some flexibility.

At favorable vulnerability, you deal and pass on:

♠ 10 4 2
♥ K 9 6 4 2
♦ 3 2
♣ 8 7 4

Pass  Pass  1♥      1♠
2♥     2♠     3♦     3♠ 
?
Of course you were worth 2♥ - you have to mention five-card support. But who would bid over 3♠?
4♥     Pass   Pass  4♠
Pass  Pass   Dble  Pass
?
Now your partner thinks you have something. You don’t, but since your partner has at most one spade and a diamond suit, we must be making at least eight tricks in hearts, so pulling the double to 5♥ can’t be a problem.
Pass Pass
Of course, and they wrap up ten tricks with little difficulty. Your partner’s crafty 3♦ bid had intimidated them into missing a game that everyone else bid - leaving them in 3♠ plus one would have been a top. Sacrificing in 5♥ doubled would have been above average. Pushing them into the game and leaving the double netted a big fat zero.

But I shouldn’t complain too much – I know he will do these things.

Punting Slams

One aspect of bidding that makes me look forward to games with Agent 99 is slam bidding. With too many of my other partners, to describe their bidding as “unsophisticated” or “rustic” is incredibly generous.

This one came out zero.

N-S vul, dlr S, matchpoint pairs

                       ♠ Q 10 8 4
                       ♥ K Q 10 8 3
                       ♦ J
♠ 9 3 2          ♣ 6 5 2   ♠ J 7
♥ 7 2                              ♥ 9 6 5 4
♦ K 10 7 5       [ ]          ♦ 9 4 3
♣ K Q 10 4                    ♣ J 9 7 3
                       ♠ A K 6 5
                       ♥ A J
                       ♦ A Q 8 6 2
                       ♣ A 8

2♣     2♦
2NT   6NT
Pass

Playing with agent 99, I could rebid 3♠ to show both spades and diamonds. Failing that, I thought the 2NT rebid would at least give him the chance to use Stayman or transfers. No such luck – he wasn’t sure that “I would pick up on that”. I could have slapped him.

Of course, 6♠ is cold while 6NT has no play. I nearly made it anyway. After ducking the club lead and winning the second round, I cashed the major suit winners before leading the ♦J for a finesse. I pondered before playing the ♦Q, because I was suspicious of West. I should have followed my instincts and risen with the ♦A – she had blanked the ♦K to get me down two, a foolish risk since by then she knew I was in the wrong contract.

A better line may be to win the first trick and play it as a strip-squeeze. West should unblock the ♣Q, and East should rise with the ♣J at trick 11. But maybe one of them would get it wrong.

Later in the evening, there was another one.

Game all, dlr N, matchpoint pairs

♠ A K Q 9
♥ K Q
♦ J 5 3
♣ A J 10 7

  [ ]

♠ 8
♥ A J 10 6 3
♦ K Q 2
♣ Q 6 5 2

1♣     Pass 1♥     Pass 
1♠(!) Pass 3NT  Pass 
6NT  All Pass

4♦ led.

I was slightly baffled how a non-forcing 1♠ rebid could come up with a raise to slam, but this particular partner has never been especially consistent. Of course, it never occurred to him that I might pass 1♠, in which case we would quite possibly miss a game. It also didn’t occur to him to open 2NT, bearing in mind that we were supposedly playing the bid as 20-21. And in fact, as he laid the dummy down, he was puzzled why the others at the table were shaking their heads. But at least the final contract was reasonable this time.

The opening diamond lead went to the ace on my right, and was followed by a heart switch, won on the table. On dummy’s other heart winner, West discarded a diamond. OK, I have 11 winners, and it looks like the contract depends on the club finesse, but there’s some distribution about. It has to be right to cash the top spades now. After all, it may be a small chance that the ♠J10 will fall in three rounds, but there is no point in ignoring it. And if there are any squeeze possibilities, I need to get the high spades out of the way. But no luck – both opps follow small three times. Now across to a diamond – both follow – and finish the hearts. West ditches two clubs and a diamond, and so does dummy. Finally, the ♦Q, and West discards the ♣8 as East follows suit with the ♦9 and dummy finally ditches the ♠9. I’m down to ♣AJ on the table and ♣Q6 in hand. I lead the ♣6, and the ♣9 appears. Do I finesse?

I’m still not sure what’s the right reasoning here. If the clubs were 5-0, East would have had five spades headed by the J10. Wouldn’t a switch to the ♠J have looked more productive than a switch to a small heart? Or was he thinking that his only chance was that West had the ♥A? Surely, if he was looking for two quick tricks, a diamond return would have made more sense, on the grounds that we were more likely to be missing the ♦AK rather than two aces. Or, if the clubs were 4-1, the spades would have been 4-4-4-1 also, which is pleasantly symmetrical. In that case, the singleton ♣K is sitting offside, and I need to rise with the ♣A. Isn’t 4-1 more likely than 5-0?

I’m inclined to think that it just comes down to “table presence”. I felt that West was looking at a spade, so this time I went up with the ace. Nobody else did.

                      ♠ A K Q 9
                      ♥ K Q
                      ♦ J 5 3
♠ J 5 4 2      ♣ A J 10 7   ♠ 10 7 6 3
♥ 2                                     ♥ 9 8 7 5 4
♦ 10 8 7 4      [ ]               ♦ A 9 6
♣ 9 8 4 3                           ♣ K
                      ♠ 8
                      ♥ A J 10 6 3
                      ♦ K Q 2
                      ♣ Q 6 5 2

This particular partner and I broke up after this evening’s play. I made a cruel joke at his expense, he took offence, we ended up not speaking to each other, and broke up over the phone the next day. It was mostly my fault, I expect. But on the other hand, it was reasonable for us to stop playing together, regardless of the particular incident that evening. The partnership had worked, to some extent, in the past. But lately I found that I just couldn’t get along with him. His bidding is primitive and just too inconsistent for me – I never know what he has. And his play doesn’t make up for it. It is a decent average, compared to the other people in the club, but not more than that, although I suspect he thinks he is much better than average. But when we reached a low-percentage contract, I noticed I might sometimes be able to salvage a score on the play of the cards. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that he has managed that.