Problem 1: Opponents are vulnerable

You: ♠ Q J 6   ♥ K J 8 6 2   ♦ Q 4   ♣ J T 5  

Partner opens 1♣ as dealer and RHO bids 4♦, which ends the auction. You lead the Q♠ and see this:

(Q♠ led vs 4♦)

Dummy: ♠ 8 5 3   ♥ Q T 4 3   ♦ (void)   ♣ K Q 9 6 3 2  

You: ♠ Q J 6   ♥ K J 8 6 2   ♦ Q 4   ♣ J T 5  

Declarer calls for a low card from dummy, partner plays the 9♠, and declarer wins the ace and returns the 2♠. What do you do?

Problem 2: Our side is vulnerable

You: ♠ Q T 7   ♥ 5 4 2   ♦ 8 5   ♣ A Q 6 4 3  

RHO is dealer and passes; you do as well. LHO opens 1♥ in third seat, partner passes and RHO responds 1♠. You pass and LHO rebids 2♥, which ends the auction. Partner leads the 9♣ into this dummy:

(9♣ led vs 2♥)

♠ A 6 4 2   ♥ Q 6   ♦ Q J T 6   ♣ J T 2  

You: ♠ Q T 7   ♥ 5 4 2   ♦ 8 5   ♣ A Q 6 4 3  

Declarer looks at dummy for a few moments and then calls for a low club. What do you do?

Problem 3: Both sides vulnerable.

You: ♠ (void)   ♥ A K 3 2   ♦ K T 9   ♣ Q J T 9 8 3  

RHO opens 1♦ as dealer and you overcall 2♣. LHO bids 2♥ and partner raises to 5♣! RHO passes and it is your call. Any ideas?

All of these problems require you to see the whole deck, without actually being able to see the whole deck. Take your time. No points for guessing the right answer; you should have good solid reasoning behind your choices.

Problem 1: Opponents are vulnerable

You: ♠ Q J 6   ♥ K J 8 6 2   ♦ Q 4   ♣ J T 5  

Partner opens 1♣ as dealer and RHO bids 4♦, which ends the auction. You lead the Q♠ and see this:

(Q♠ led vs 4♦)

Dummy: ♠ 8 5 3   ♥ Q T 4 3   ♦ (void)   ♣ K Q 9 6 3 2  

You: ♠ Q J 6   ♥ K J 8 6 2   ♦ Q 4   ♣ J T 5  

Declarer calls for a low card from dummy, partner plays the 9♠, and declarer wins the ace and returns the 2♠. What do you do?

It's a bit surprising that declarer did not immediately start on the diamonds, and it must be the missing Q♦ that is causing this. A jump to 4♦ is not the type of bid that is particularly concerned with the possibility of partner showing up with a void. But we can see a little about the distribution and work a few things out. Partner opened 1♣ and dummy's clubs indicate that partner has three or four clubs but no more, and therefore cannot have five spades, so declarer has a third spade and may even have the 13th spade. Declarer's A♠ leaves very little for partner's opener, and unless declarer is bidding on nine or ten to the ♦KJ, partner must have the A♥, A♣, and K♠ to even justify an opener. Declarer is hoping for something helpful to happen by leading a second spade from what appears to be two inescapable losers in the suit. If we lazily duck this trick and win the third round, we lose a key chance to get an extra trick.

Grabbing the J♠ and continuing with a third spade to partner's king is the winning play. Partner will see declarer follow to the third spade and realize that the 13th spade cannot hurt: and in this case, it makes a winner out of your Q♦ before declarer gets a second chance to drop it!

And what if declarer has the 13th spade? In that case, declarer was always getting it and there was nothing we could do to stop it with spades 3-3.

Problem 2: Our side is vulnerable

You: ♠ Q T 7   ♥ 5 4 2   ♦ 8 5   ♣ A Q 6 4 3  

RHO is dealer and passes; you do as well. LHO opens 1♥ in third seat, partner passes and RHO responds 1♠. You pass and LHO rebids 2♥, which ends the auction. Partner leads the 9♣ into this dummy:

(9♣ led vs 2♥)

♠ A 6 4 2   ♥ Q 6   ♦ Q J T 6   ♣ J T 2  

You: ♠ Q T 7   ♥ 5 4 2   ♦ 8 5   ♣ A Q 6 4 3  

Declarer looks at dummy for a few moments and then calls for a low club. What do you do?

A count of points shows that partner must have some values here: we have eight, dummy has ten and declarer, who opened the bidding, must have at least twelve, leaving about 8-10 points for partner. There's no holding with the K♣ where the nine is the right lead so we can give declarer that card. If we win the ace and partner has led a doubleton or 9 from 9xx, declarer will be able to lead clubs from dummy through me for a straight finesse or perhaps a ruffing finesse. It seems like ducking is the right play.

But is it? Partner may have ♣9875 and ducking may allow declarer to win the singleton king! We know partner has values but chose not to lead a spade or a diamond. With AK in either suit that would have been a no-brainer, so partner's values cannot be quick tricks. Give partner ♠KJx and a diamond winner, and if I let the K♣ win the first trick, declarer has time to knock out the diamond loser before we can dislodge declarer's A♠ and set up our spade tricks. Danger, Will Robinson!

I missed this possibility and declarer had ♠ 9 8 3   ♥ A K T 9 8 3   ♦ K 7 3   ♣ K  

The K♣ won the first trick and declarer pulled trumps and dislodged the A♦, eventually coming to eleven tricks. Winning the A♣ at trick one and switching to a spade gets us a club, a diamond, and two spades. The difference between -140 and -200 was 50%! Arrrgh!

Problem 3: Both sides vulnerable.

You: ♠ (void)   ♥ A K 3 2   ♦ K T 9   ♣ Q J T 9 8 3  

RHO opens 1♦ as dealer and you overcall 2♣. LHO bids 2♥ and partner raises to 5♣! RHO passes and it is your call. Any ideas?

This is the type of question that begs the answer that turns out to be right, so if you chose to do something other than pass, you should have a good reason. My own reason for raising to 6♣, I have to admit, was that I had unique options available to me in this situation. Context in bridge is everything. I was a playing director after a 5-table game became a 5½ table game with a late-but-not-actually-late arriving pair (we had changed the start time to 15 minutes earlier since the last time we had seen them), and we called a player down to play with me to complete a sixth table. My partner's arrival took some time and I was aware when I picked up this hand that this was going to be the only board in the first round we would have time to play. The other two would be scored as averages, and while our side would get 50% for the two unplayed boards, the other side really should be given 60% (since they were not at fault for the boards not being played), so if this worked, the other pair would get some compensation, and if not, they'd be off to a good start and we could cheer them on in their return. As it turned out, the returning pair did quite well even after I stuck them with a zero on the first board. So I was inclined to take a chance and maybe have some fun.

But the more I think about it, the more I like 6♣. Raises to 5♣ in auctions like this are usually two types of hands: absolute pre-empts with clubs and little else, or "this will make it difficult for them to get in but with perfect cards you may have a chance" hand types. If partner has few points and five small clubs or even six to the king, the other side may outbid us, may find their spade fit, and what defense do we have? But if partner has a good hand, my spade void, heart honours and diamond values over the 1♦ opener could be absolute gold! And it was the other option; partner had:

♠ J T 7 6   ♥ (void)   ♦ J 5 4 2   ♣ A K 6 4 2  

Cold on any lead with the diamond honours onside, and they were! Lucky, or reasoned?

JACK, the computer program that has been computer World Champion most years, thinks I was insane to bid 6♣. You can enter a deal into the program, give it an auction up to the point given above, and have it 'analyze the position.' This means that JACK sees only the 13 cards in my hand, and deals the other 39 randomly over and over again, looking for layouts that fit the bidding so far. Whenever it finds such a layout, it checks to see which contracts make and which fail, completing the auction and play for that particular layout, considering each possible call. Once 1000 fitting layouts are found, it gives an average score for each considered call. In this case, it takes JACK most of a minute to find 1000 fitting layouts, and this is the report:

Expected Scores:
Pass 5♣: 239
6♣: -526
7♣: -1076

Expected opponent scores:
5♦: -690
5♥: -893
5NT: -1300

JACK's intention: pass

Since 6♣ making is 1370 and going down one is -100, or -200 if doubled, JACK seems to expect that 6♣ will usually be doubled and go for a number. But 5♣ has about a 40% chance of making to get an average of +239. The opponent's potential contracts at the five level appear to be likely losers as well, going for very large numbers. JACK does not appear to consider spades as a potential strain at all.

However, the 5♣ call is defined by JACK, playing a 2/1 system, as showing 13-15 'total points' (which may include distribution bonuses) and 3+ clubs. Here may be where the computer is going astray. Few players would consider a jump to 5♣ with only three-card support in this auction. They might raise to 3♣ with ♣AKx or ♣Axx or even ♣Kxx or even ♣xxx with some side suit cards and shape. But I think a jump to 5♣ in this context has to be at least four to an honour, with a strong expectation that partner will have AKxx or a fifth club. Throwing out the layouts where partner raises on only three with a near opener has to change the expectations considerably. Or, maybe I am just an incurable optimist!

One thing is for sure. Bridge is an incredibly interesting game when you're "on" and are seeing the whole deck. It is difficult to keep up the focus required to see the whole deck and distractions don't help. On the first problem above I worked out what to do, grabbed the second spade and put partner in with the third, and declarer followed, and then partner thought for some time. I was, of course, hoping for the thirteenth spade to be the next lead, setting up the trump promotion before declarer could get in and drop my doubleton queen. I exerted considerable mental energy silently rooting for a spade return, and after a minute of deep thought partner emerged and said "is it my lead?"

Partner did in fact return the spade and we got a good score.

Canadian Championship News

Official Results Link

The Canadian Bridge Federation's Annual General Meeting takes place at 9am this morning. I would guess this would be set up either in one of the rooms at the north end, or in the CBF playing area itself.

Today is the final in two events: the second day of the Canadian National Teams Championships Flight A, and the final of the Canadian Womens Teams Championship, as well as the final sessions of the Canadian Open Pairs Championship.

CNTC Flight A (teams determined on Tuesday, final played over two days, began Wednesday)

Bart 269 (Brad Bart, Coquitlam BC; Jeff Blond, Brossard QC; Michael Roche - Daniel Lyder, Victoria BC)
vs
Zheng 206 (Andrew Zheng - Terry Du, Maple ON; Mike Xiaofeng Xue, Markham ON; Peter Wong; North York ON)

CWTC Finalists (determined on Wednesday)

Li 86 (Lisa Li - Diana Jing, Surrey BC; Amy Gao, New Westminster BC; Jennifer Hong - Jin Mei Luo, Burnaby BC; Juan Xu, Coquitlam BC)
vs
NPC Mittelman 121 (George Mittelman, Thornhill ON (non-playing captain); Lesley Thomson - Hazel Wolpert, North York ON; Barbara Shnier - Linda Wynston, Toronto ON; Ina Demme, Nobelton ON; Roisin O'Hara, Oakville ON)

Play begins in these matches at 10:00am, and a small portion of the Convention Centre, divided from the rest of the tournament but open to kibitzers, will be the venue for all of the CBF Bridge Week events this week.

Also today: Final sessions for the Canadian Open Pairs Championship, at 1pm and 7pm. To play in the COPC you must have qualified at a COPC Club Game (a list is here), OR, you can purchase qualification for $25 and play (assuming your CBF membership is current). Players may "drop in" to the COPC final tomorrow if they were eliminated from the CNTC or CWTC yesterday, with a quarter-board carryover per player involved in today's team play. (I wouldn't count on getting in unless you let the Directors know of your intentions yesterday....)