Misadventures In Manhattan

Slams were definitely a problem last week. Not just for us, the opponents didn’t do so well either.

E-W vul, dlr W

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

W    N    E    S
1♣   Pass 1♦   Pass
1♠   Pass 4♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This was distinctly un-enterprising from both sides of the table, but one of them has some excuse. Why West didn’t open 1NT (15-17) I have no idea. That would have made for a completely different auction, of course, but failing to make the bid seems very misleading. Certainly it seems to have fooled East, who would be worth a slam try in any sensible auction (and would probably drive to slam opposite 1NT). But having been primed to expect a minimum-ish opening with club values, she just pounded out 4♠, which West passed without a second’s thought - making all thirteen tricks after I led my singleton.

Game all, dlr S

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

S    W    N    E
1♦   Pass 2♣   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  Pass
Pass Pass

This one isn’t really a slam, but I wanted to include it for completeness. We scored 720 for the second time in the session – I don’t remember ever doing that before.

The opening spade lead forced a finesse at trick one. Partner then crossed to the ♥A and ran the ♣10, crossed back to the ♠Q to cash clubs, and then took the diamond finesse. On the fourth round of diamonds, East (who had lost interest) discarded a heart, and that was thirteen tricks. I did give passing thought to 6♦ before bidding 3NT, but twelve tricks seemed a bit unlikely. Swap the East-West hands and declarer isn’t nearly so happy.

Against the previous pair of opponents, we’d racked up 720 on this one.

Game all, dlr E (rotated)

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

E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

I didn’t think I had quite enough to jump to 3♦, even though I was impressed with my controls and partner was bidding to cover my losers. And I don’t see what else I might have rebid, so that means I have to place the blame with partner. Truthfully, he really is too good to close the auction with 3NT, and for all he knows 4♥ would be better anyway, even if there is no slam. So how about
E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3♥
Pass 3♠   Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥   Pass 6♦
Pass Pass Pass

Knowing us, we would probably finish up in 6♥, but the layout is so friendly that everything makes.

In a different session, I played with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr N

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

N    E    S    W
2NT  Pass 3♥   Pass
3♠   Pass 4♣   Pass
4♦   Pass 4♥   Pass
4♠   Pass 4NT  Pass
6♣   Pass 6♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This finished in a reasonable contract, but with much confusion. I intended 4♦ as Redwood 1430, agreeing clubs. Agent 99 wasn’t sure what suit I was interested in, and treated it as a cuebid. So I thought 4♥ showed the ♣A, and 4♠ asked about the ♣Q (I was thinking 7♣ on a 4-4 fit might have play that 7♠ didn’t), and then I wasn’t sure what she meant by 4NT. Agent 99 thought 4♦ and 4♥ were cuebids, and was happy to hear 4♠ because she figured that set trumps. So then she proceeded with 1430, and didn’t know what to make of my answer.

In the event, everything depended on the spade finesse, and that was right, so the top score went to a pair that punted 7NT. But 6♠ is actually a very reasonable spot.

But what should our auction have been? Should 4♦ be treated as Redwood? I’m still inclined to think so, because if I want to press forward in clubs, it’s my only chance to use the convention. What if I prefer spades? Am I only allowed to bid 4♠, and rely on partner to make a move for slam if advisable? Perhaps so, and make sure to super-accept the initial transfer somehow if I really, really like spades. That sort of rationale would also work for spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, but it looks like we’re screwed if responder has hearts and diamonds. I’ll have to think on it some more.