Slams

Playing with Agent 99, I find a lot of my blogging focus rests on slam hands. Our bidding style is usually pretty aggressive with strong hands, so we don't miss many. And often enough there's something interesting in the hand.

The first two hands came on consecutive boards against the same opponents. The first one pleased me greatly, because “proper” strip-squeezes are somewhat less common than mere simple squeezes.



The 2H bid showed 15-16 hcp with better hearts than spades, so the jump to 6NT indicated some confidence in my declarer play.

South led the S6, and I saw eleven tricks, counting one diamond. The twelfth could come from the spade finesse, or from an end-play (presumably after a strip-squeeze), or perhaps from a simple squeeze if the DA was taken immediately. I decided that the spade finesse was probably wrong, although after the explanation of the bidding, South had some indication that a spade lead might be good. So I took the SA, led a diamond to the DK, which held, and then unblocked the HQJ. Now the CK gave entry to finish the hearts, discarding diamonds in preparation for the strip-squeeze and the eventual throw-in of North to lead a spade. In accordance with my theory of the distribution, I next cashed the CQ, expecting the long clubs to be with South. However, South showed out. This left me a trick short, but on the other hand, made the spade finesse much more likely to win. So a spade to the JS and the KS completed the squeeze, and North was thrown in to lead a club. Not exactly the squeeze I'd been working on, but close enough.

The next hand was not so good.



The CQ was led, so I ruffed and led to the JD. My thinking was if the finesse won, I could ruff a club, cash the SA, and then play a heart. If the diamond finesse lost, a heart return would help me pick up the trumps, a club would let me ruff, a spade lets me finesse, and if it's a diamond, maybe they'll be 2-2.

No such luck. The diamond return was ruffed for down one (I guessed to drop the HQ). I still kind of like the line, but I don't really know what the best way to play the hand is. As the cards lie, nothing sensible works anyway.

A hand with voids came up in a different session.



We bid this very simply and directly, and I got a trump lead. I decided that ruffing spades seemed like the best plan, and that I needed thirteen tricks for a decent matchpoint score. So I won the CQ, and risked entering hand twice in hearts to ruff two spades low. Then two diamond ruffs provided the entries to ruff a third spade high and draw trumps – no problem.

We played the hand in the first round, and I figured that it was probably above average (slams usually are). Bidding 7C is difficult, with both players discouraged by a void in partner's first suit. But bidding 6C seemed so natural that I was sure others would get there. In fact only one other pair reached a slam – 6NT down 2. Is the hand really that tricky?

The next hand features a question of bidding theory.



With no particular agreement, Agent 99 and I were playing the old-fashioned style where a raise of the fourth suit is natural, indicating that opener has a three-suited hand. I therefore deduced that diamonds was the right strain, and that all her values would be working, so I simply jumped to the slam. This made in some comfort, eventually losing a trick to a failing club finesse.

When I play with Elwood, he favors a rebid structure where (after a 4th suit bid) Opener has a responsibility to show support if possible, or bid no-trumps if possible, or show extra length or strength in his own suits. The left-over “problem” hands are the ones that raise the 4th suit, and they tend to contain exactly three small cards in that suit.

Now, when Elwood described this, it all seemed well thought-through and sensible. But I'm not buying it 100% just yet. On this hand, for example, he would not raise clubs, he would bid 2NT. I could then show diamond support, and I suppose we might still get to slam. But I have to say, I'm less comfortable with that sequence. For one thing, I fear we might reach 6NT. That will probably make in practice, but it can go down, while 6D is very solid.

So what does a raise of the 4th suit mean to you?

The next hand was another slightly surprising top.



This presented no problems when (eventually) the SJ was led from dummy and got covered by the SQ. But we got a top when nobody else reached a slam. One pair even stopped in 3NT and went down.

It is something of a truism that big two-suited hands can be awkward to handle after a 2C opening. For us, since we use the Kokish Relay, the heart-spade combination is even more problematic. So maybe people were opening 1H, and that would make it very difficult to get to slam.

I don't disagree with the basic thesis, but I felt that anything less than a 2C opening just wouldn't do that hand justice. The result was that when I pulled 3NT to 4H, Agent 99 knew that she had too much to stop. Ten points opposite a 2C opening is a lot, and while the minor suit honors are perhaps of dubious value, the major suit honors have grown. I once had the computer generate a few hundred deals that included a 2C opening bid. My observation was that any time there was a positive response of about 8 hcp or more, you wanted to be in a slam. They don't always make, but looking at the two hands single-dummy, you wouldn't want to stay out of it. Agent 99 knows this, so she raised me to slam.