Misadventures In Manhattan

I don’t know that this entry is going to be very educational, but here are some of this week’s oddities from my games at the MBC.

On a fairly boring board, I got into an argument with an opponent who is also a director. At some point in the middle of the hand, dummy asked to see a defender’s card (that had just been turned over). “No you can’t”, says the other defender. “You’re the dummy: you can’t interrupt the play at all.” Well, “yes he can”, says I, “he has the right to see the cards played”. And back and forth we went. Anyway, it was all a theoretical barney, not an actual argument argument. But there are conflicting requirements in the Laws. Dummy has the absolute right to follow the play and keep track of tricks won and lost. In order that he be able to do that, the defenders must play their cards in such a way that he can see them, which I think means that he does have the right to ask when a defender turns his card over too quickly. But on the other hand, dummy can’t draw declarer’s attention to a particular card or trick: he really is not allowed to interfere in the play at all. So we were both right, which is a bit confusing. I think the bottom line is that while dummy has that right, he must be very careful about exercising it, in case he gets accused of coaching declarer. Not an issue in this case, but I can see how it could be for some pairs.

The next hand, I picked up
♠5 ♥KT9632 ♦6 ♣KQJ32
and still being a little hot under the collar, I went a bit Australian on him and opened 3♥. Passed out and just made, for close to a top. I don’t remember opening a three-bid on a hand like that before, but with the vulnerability against us (we were, they weren’t) it worked well at stifling the competition. As it happened, even though partner didn’t have much, it was a part-score hand. We can make 3♣ or 3♥, they can make 3♦ or 2NT. But even if they go to 3NT or 4♦, they score better than letting us make 3♥. By contrast, the evening before, I played with Agent 99 and the following hand came up.

I swear to god, a 12-card trump fit and we go two down because they get a ruff. But it was pretty much a top, of course, because they forgot to double or bid on. South thought for a while before passing. Double isn’t totally ridiculous, and would actually have collected a lot of matchpoints (a tad undeservedly) because there were an awful lot of 480s on the traveler. On the other hand, North didn’t think much before passing directly over 5♦: he seems to have very much under-estimated the offensive power of his 6-5 distribution. The combination of his suits and South’s controls makes 6♠ a snap. We left the table as South started in on North’s choice of opening. The commentary was quite sotto voce and calculated, but I wouldn’t have wanted to be on the receiving end of it. Agent 99 remarked that they must be married.

When it comes to bidding over the opponent’s 1NT, I’m definitely a convert to the view that a lot of people don’t do it enough. But there has to be some discretion exercised.

Partner minimized the defence, but we still managed to get them down three for a top. I don’t like the 2♦ call (diamonds plus a major), because there are too many HCP in the short suits. 5-4 distribution and 10-11 HCP is OK, but you want the high cards for offence, not defence. On the other hand, the 4♦ call strikes me as just suicidal. If you want partner to overcall on these sorts of deals, you have to not hang him when he does.