Pin the Ten and Squeeze on the same deal

October 20th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  3 Comments 

Last weekend at the Athens, GA sectional, i got to play this fascinating deal in the Saturday afternoon open pairs.

I probably would have jump-shifted to 3♦ with Bob’s hand and probably would have pulled 3NT to 4♥ but then I wouldn’t have had the chance for this great play.

West led a low club, which went around to my queen. It’s a fortunate lead for me but still fairly normal. I proceeded to test hearts, and when I saw that they were would run, I led the ♦J, not wanting to make all of my discards yet. This diamond play keeps the dangerous opponent off lead (east is the dangerous opponent because a spade through my K could be fatal) while potentially setting up a third diamond trick. When the ♦J held the trick, I cashed the ♣A and ran hearts, hoping for a squeeze against east. Here is the position with the last heart to be played.

Since east started with 4 diamonds to the Q and the ♠A, I was able to take all of the tricks. East can’t pitch a spade or my SK will be my 13^th trick, but if he pitches a diamond, dummy’s low diamond will win the 13^th trick. Kinda cute. Sean will appreciate this – I know how he loves pinning ten doubletons. Here is one time when it is clearly the right play.

Yes, east could break up the squeeze by covering the ♦J with the Q – that would cut off the entry to my hand so the ♠K no longer is a threat card and east would be able to win trick 13 with the ♦9. However, covering looks and feels wrong.

Actually either opponent could be squeezed – if west started with ♦Txxx and ♠A, he would be equally squeezed despite having the A behind the K because in the 3 card ending, I can still hold both the spade threat and the diamond threat.

Anticipating Partner Getting Squeezed

August 8th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  1 Comment 

Saturday afternoon at the Columbia, SC sectional, I declared this fascinating hand against one of the top pairs in the area.

First off, it’s an opening lead problem for west. I think the ♥A stands out but I would not be opposed to a spade lead. With AQx, there shouldn’t be any danger of giving declarer 2 heart tricks as long as partner has a halfway decent overcall.

Hugh led ♥A and ♥Q, both winning. Playing standard signaling, Greg played the 7 and then the 9. Declarer followed with the 2 and 3 as dummy shed a diamond. Do you lead another heart? Why?

Let’s examine the possibilities from Hugh’s perspective. In light of this dummy, you can count 7 tricks for declarer and clearing hearts will give him an 8^th. A) If declarer has the ♠K, you must cash out – lead another heart, and partner will figure out to cash as many diamonds as possible after taking the ♥K. B) If partner has the ♠K and declarer the ♦A, declarer has 9 tricks unless partner has KQJ. In that case, a diamond lead is necessary to set the contract. That would give declarer 5 or 6 hcp depending on the CJ. C) If partner has both the ♠K and ♦A, it would at first seem that clearing hearts is the way to go as declarer will still be left with only 8 tricks, but that opens up partner to a squeeze. This is definitely the most likely scenario for setting the contract but you need to lead a spade at trick 3.

What about east’s signaling? The 8 at trick one is definitely encouragement but does the 9 at trick 2 suggest a switch now that he realized declarer’s stopper is ♥JTxx? If so, does it suggest spades or diamonds or is it up to the opening leader to figure out which one makes more sense. I’m inclined to think it suggests that partner find a switch but I’m not sure. The spade is obviously the killer on this deal and it’s much easier to find in imps than matchpoints because the threat of declarer having the SK and having red suit tricks go away is too high by not continuing hearts.

At the table, they continued hearts. Executing the squeeze is pretty simple. I won the 4^th round of hearts and runs clubs. Surely the spade finesse is losing (♥K and ♦A probably isn’t enough for most people to overcall 1♥) so it’s right to play for east to have the ♦A and ♠K. Here is the ending with one club to go.

If east discards the heart, throw him in with a diamond and he has to lead a spade into dummy. If he throws a spade, drop his now-stiff K. If he throws the diamond, claim.

On the actual deal, he threw the ♦A, which actually is the only legit way to still be able to potentially set the contract. He would need Hugh to have the K, a very slim possibility.

In the post mortem

July 5th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  11 Comments 

Me: “Do you think the declarer was really good enough to make that play?”
Sean: “Who was playing the hand?”
Me: “Eric Rodwell”
Sean: “Yes.”

King of the Miami Endplay

June 26th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  7 Comments 

I saw several interesting declarer play problems this week in club games. The ones that I made more tricks than I should aren’t as memorable as the ones I went down in. While I often make excellent declarer plays, I have successfully executed several Miami endplays lately.

First off, this is an interesting bidding problem. There are major flaws with any way you choose to bid the south hand. I think opening 1♣ and rebidding 1NT is best lie, but I really wanted to open 1♥. I wish I was playing canape as this hand would be great for a 1♥ opening. In 3NT, west led his 4th best heart (which was the 6 and the 5 was still unseen) to east’s 10 and my Q. How would you play from here?

Not wanting another heart lead through my tenace so soon, I opted to cross to the ♠A and take a losing diamond finesse. In retrospect I think leading a club to the 10 is right because that’s the suit is reasonably likely to produce 4 tricks via a double finesse and even if both club honors are off, east may not have a third heart. West thought for awhile after winning the ♦K, guessed well not to play his partner for the ♥J and led a low spade. I won this, crossed to my ♦A, and now played a club to the 10. This lost to the Q and east led a heart to the T and dummy’s Q.

The fact that east did not return a heart implies that he has a 4th spade and another entry, presumably the ♣K. I cashed the ♦Q with everyone following. I cash the long diamond, seeing 2 heart discards from the opponents (both higher than the opening 6 so it is still not clear whether the opening lead was from 4 or 5) Now I have 9 tricks – 3 spades, 2 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 1 club. How might get a 10th? Or better yet how can I turn that into 8 tricks?

With 7 tricks in the bag, I am left with ♠x ♥3 ♦- ♣AT in dummy and ♠- ♥AJ2 ♦- ♣x in my hand. At this point I am convinced that east has the protected ♣K left so finessing the club again or trying to drop the club K is out. If clubs are coming in for one loser, I’ve already lost ground to the field by not attacking clubs earlier so I kind of have to play for both clubs to be offside now.

If west started with ♠Jxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx, I can endplay him by cashing the club and playing the last spade.

If west started with ♠xxx ♥Kxxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx, I can endplay him by cashing the club and ducking a heart.

If west started with ♠Jxxx ♥Kxxxx ♦Kxx ♣x, I can endplay him by throwing him in with a spade, and whether or not I cash the club first doesn’t matter.

If west’s original hand was something else (3 or more clubs), which I’ve decided is highly unlikely, I can surely make 4 by either finessing or dropping KQ tight with east.

I opted for the first line, playing west for 4-4-3-2 distribution. When I led the spade, east claimed the last 3 tricks with 2 spades and the ♣K for down 1. West actually had hand #2 so cashing the ace and ducking a heart would have gotten me most of the matchpoints for making 4.

Note that only line #3 is safe – no possible distribution can result in being set. The worst case scenario for exiting dummy with a spade before cashing the club is that east takes 2 spades and then you have 2 aces for the last 2 tricks. Line 2 risks going down when east has a heart high enough to hold the trick and 2 more spades.

Trying to avoid the finesse

June 8th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

At the club last night, Joel and I bid this 33 hcp spade slam and unsurprisingly, I was the only person who made only 6.

In our auction, the 1NT rebid showed 15-17, 2♦ was artificial game forcing, 3♠ was a slam try, 4♠ said “I hate my hand,” 4NT was RKC, 5♦ showed 1, 5♥ asked about the Q, 6♣ showed ♠Q and ♣K and tends to deny the ♥K (5NT would have shown it and the ♠Q). West led a diamond. How would you play this hand?

You can guarantee making 6 by just drawing trumps and taking a heart finesse for an overtrick. That also leaves open the possibility of ruffing out 1 club (making 7 when spades are 2-2 (40%) giving you a late entry to dummy and clubs are 3-3 (35%) giving you a 3^rd discard for the last potentially losing heart in hand). This line is 100% for making 6 and will make 7 slightly more than 60% of the time.

Noting that getting a 3^rd club trick is enough to avoid having to rely on the heart finesse, someone not unlike myself might attempt to ruff a club before trumps are all in. This would all be moot if spades were 4-0 because then there definitely would be no entry to the long club.

Anyway, after playing a high trump from hand with both defenders following suit, I planned to play ♣A, ♣K, ruff a club high, go to dummy with a trump and ruff another club high if necessary, and get back to the good club while drawing the 3^rd round of trumps. This line succeeds when clubs are 4-2 either way or 3-3, about 84%. Of course, this line does risk going down when clubs split badly and the heart hook is offside (8%).

LHO trumped the first round of clubs. The heart hook was on so I still made 6 for no matchpoints. Don’t you hate it when you take a superior line of play only to find out that the inferior line would have worked?

Mediocre players would draw trumps in 3 rounds, realize that they can’t set up clubs and get back to them, so they pitch 2 hearts on the diamonds (perhaps realizing that it doesn’t help at all) and then take a heart finesse. Expert players search for a way to make 7 that is better than just drawing trumps and taking a finesse.

Since nearly everyone, even fairly weak players, would reach 6♠, the consideration of playing safe to make the contract shouldn’t really be an issue in matchpoints. Playing imps, the 20% extra chance of an overtrick is never worth the 8% chance of an undertrick, especially in a slam where an undertrick will cost 12 imps.

Balance between convenience and fairness

May 17th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  4 Comments 

During the GNT qualifying sessions Saturday, flaws in ACBLScore and maybe in the conditions of contest for team events as well were discovered. The D7 flight B game had 20 teams with 4 teams qualifying for the semi-finals Sunday morning.

The teams were divided into 2 relatively equal 10 team groups, with the top two from each group qualifying. I surely expected this to be a full round robin with 9 rounds of 6 boards, arranged such that the highest seeds play each other toward the end. This looks like clearly the best way to narrow the field to 4 teams. However, possibly because the championship flight GNT was running concurrently with 8 teams (and therefore a full round robin of 7 matches), the flight B game was also run as seven 7’s but with Swiss pairings rather than a partial round robin such that everyone plays a relatively equal strength of opponents. To me, that seems most fair, since the goal isn’t to find a winner through the 2 session qualifying.

My team finished with a somewhat respectable 87 VP on a 70 average but that wasn’t good enough to make it through such a big cut – we definitely saved our best bridge for the Sunday Swiss in the concurrent sectional, in which we scored 96 on a 60 average.

The interesting/controversial thing was in the other group where one team withdrew after 4 rounds. The computer assigned 3 of the lower teams to a round robin for rounds 5 and 6. After round 5 there was a dilemma: the Fordham team had played everyone except the 3 teams in the round robin and the one that withdrew. Clearly they had not gotten the best of draws so far and the pairings for round 6 only made it worse. The Fordham and Boyd-Bowman teams were well ahead of the rest of the field and instead of breaking up the round robin or assigning them to play the withdrawn team and giving an artificial 14 VP or something like that, the two top teams in that group were paired against each other again. Fordham wound up just missing the cut and Boyd-Bowman wound up winning the event.

Should ACBLScore have been able to anticipate this potential problem and assign different teams to the round robin? Should it check that the teams toward the top of the pack be less likely to have to have a playback?

Should withdrawals be allowed in the middle of GNT qualifying events (or other similar events)? Should the conditions of contest be changed to make a field too big for a full round robin (or a full round robin within 2 separate brackets) to be played as a Swiss with the whole field? That would eliminate any potential problems with playbacks and withdrawals since there would be a larger pool of teams to pick from.

If we are allowing the potential for this to occur, should the round robin be broken up (have the round robin be continued in round 7 so that one of the round robins teams can play the team that has no opponent in round 6, thereby having to have a 1 round robin in round 6)?

Should the format of GNT qualifying change so that there isn’t such a huge cut at one stage – maybe with 20 teams, maybe qualify 8 teams and play another round robins with carryover.

At sectionals and club games and side games, I can understand running a movement because it’s easier or quicker but in major events, events should be as fair as possible, even if it’s a little less convenient.

Found the 4-4 Heart Fit, Then Decided to Play in Spades

March 16th, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  2 Comments 

Vision Airlines actually does exist and the $119 round trip from Atlanta to Louisville wasn’t bad. Neither flight had more than a dozen people on a 30 seat Dornier 328 propeller plane – not any less comfortable than the Canadair planes that Delta uses for the ATL-SDF route. However, I wouldn’t recommend that anyone stay up all night, take an early flight home Monday morning, drive an hour and half to get to work, and work nearly a full day. I guess the hour I slept on the plane was enough to get me through the day, but as soon as I got home I slept for 13 straight hours.

To Take a Safety Play or Not?

February 2nd, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  No Comments 

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ KJ94 ♥ A97 ♦ AKT42 ♣ 5
West ♠ 73 ♥ KJ632 ♦ QJ7 ♣ J93		East ♠ Q862 ♥ QT5 ♦ 6 ♣ Q7642
	South ♠ AT5 ♥ 84 ♦ 9853 ♣ AKT8

Will you explain your bid for my partner

January 23rd, 2011  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  7 Comments 

Friday at the Macon Sectional with Meg, which she and I dominated by the way, she opened 1NT and we had the auction: 1NT-(2S)-3NT-P-P-P. 3NT was alerted and LHO asked before passing over 3NT:

“Are you playing Lebensohl?”

“Yes.”

“Okay.” Pass.

After the final pass, LHO asked: “Will you explain to my partner what Lebensohl is?”

Meg says “You can’t ask for your partner.”

“Well, then explain it to me.”

If she had just started with “please explain” from the very beginning, there would have been no issue but once it became clear that she did not need a further explanation but only wanted it for her partner’s benefit (so her partner wouldn’t lead into Meg’s AQ, maybe), it became unethical. I think Meg went ahead and reluctantly said that it showed game values without a spade stopper.

Moral of the story is that once it becomes clear that you understand the auction, you are not entitled to ask more questions about it. It is your partner’s responsibility to ask for herself. If your partner isn’t experienced enough to know that she has that option, you can kindly explain that after the hand or session.

Cluelessly Breaking Up My Squeeze in 6NT

December 17th, 2010  ~  Andre Asbury  ~  1 Comment 

Last night was the annual Christmas party at the local club. I must say, my partner and I had copious amounts of alcohol – he finished a bottle of wine by himself, and I had several glasses of pepsi and malibu (we were probably the only two people drinking), not to mention all the food from the potluck. Despite that and the hand I’m writing about today, we still wound up with over 60%. Clubs really should do this more often – have potluck dinners. As usual, my dish was one of the few empty ones at the end of the night, and it’s not because I didn’t make enough; it’s just that good.

Anyway, on to the bridge… My partner and I bid to 6NT by me (west) on these cards.

Dealer: E Vul: EW	North ♠ xxx ♥ J9xx ♦ xx ♣ AT9x
West ♠ AKQJT ♥ KTx ♦ xxx ♣ xx		East ♠ x ♥ Ax ♦ AKJ9x ♣ KQJxx
	South ♠ xxxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ QTx ♣ xx

6D in the 5-3 fit has a sure club and diamond loser, 6C in the 5-2 fit has 2 sure club losers, 6NT is makable on a double squeeze but I’m totally not convinced that’s the right line, but 6S in the 5-1 fit makes pretty easily since spades split 4-3 by either ruffing a heart in dummy or ruffing out a club to set up a long club.

In 6NT, north led a diamond, which is probably best. If nothing else, it cuts down on entries for a later squeeze. I tanked for awhile, took the ace and continued with the CK and CQ, both holding. I tanked again. Now I could play for clubs to be 3-3 or play for something good to happen in diamonds. It turns out I should then lead a diamond and south won’t be able to take a club now, but I decided it’s not very likely north led from 2 small and ducked the club ace twice, and squeeze possibilities looked grim now. This was not against a good pair. So, I played for clubs to split and went down 1.

Let’s see how the squeeze could materialize. If north takes one of the first 2 clubs and leads another diamond, I can cash the 3rd round of clubs, run the spades and reach a 3 card ending. On the last spade at trick 10, north, must unguard hearts to keep from making dummy’s club good, therefore dummy can throw away the club. Now, south must also unguard hearts to keep from making dummy’s diamond good, and the heart ten would take trick 13. Making 6. Simple.

Dealer: E Vul: EW	North ♠ ♥ J9x ♦ ♣ T
West ♠ T ♥ KTx ♦ ♣		East ♠ ♥ Ax ♦  J ♣ x
	South ♠ ♥ Qxx ♦ Q ♣

But, is the squeeze still there if north ducks clubs twice? You can’t rectify the count now without risking losing both club tricks or a club and a diamond. So, on the run of the spades, you can reach this ending with one spade left to cash:

Dealer: E Vul: EW	North ♠ ♥ J9x ♦ x ♣ AT
West ♠ T ♥ KTx ♦ xx ♣		East ♠ ♥ Ax ♦ KJ ♣ Jx
	South ♠ ♥ Qxxx ♦ Qx ♣

North can safely pitch a diamond and south a heart. The best you can do now is play AK and a heart and hold south doesn’t unblock the Q to get himself endplayed. I think I would have been able to execute the squeeze if north had cooperated, but she made what turned out to be an excellent duck of clubs twice.