Deal Of The Week: February 8, 2023
On one episode of TV political drama The West Wing, President Bartlet is gifted a number of beautiful chess sets following a trip to a foreign country, and has one placed in the office of each of his top advisors and begins a game with each. To one advisor he gives very simple advice after they get through the opening moves and settle into serious thought: "Take your time. See the whole board."
Of course, in chess, the whole board is in full view. In bridge, 39 of the 52 cards are unseen during the auction and appear only gradually during the play. Often we need to make crucial decisions without knowing what's where. Every bridge player has frustrating "I should have worked that out!" or "I considered that but thought it was too remote!" moments once the cards are revealed.
There's no easy way to teach a player how to see the whole deck. Reading examples of good cardreading very carefully will give you insights into what to think about, and playing experience will sharpen your awareness when there is something strange about a deal that you need to consider, and hopefully, discover the clues that point the way to the correct countermeasure. But straight "what would you do in this situation?" questions don't work very well, because the responder immediately thinks something special is required, and on that basis can usually work out what it is. In real bridge, you're on your own; no guardian angel is going to tap you on the shoulder at the crucial moment and tell you to think again before playing.
But, we'll press on anyhow. Here are three deals from a recent pairs game where visualizing the whole deck might lead to something surprising:
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.
The next day I did not play but was still seeing the whole deck, even with zero cards revealed! At a club where boards are shuffled and not dealt by machine (yes, there still are some!) I had put out three boards at each table and to my pleasant surprise we had enough of a turnout to switch to two-board rounds. I went through the room collecting boards and putting the correct ones out at their new tables a few minutes before gametime. At one table, a player was shuffling one of the boards and simultaneously telling a joke while grinning at the opponents. I saw that he was dealing the cards into what looked like about eight overlapping piles, so I said nothing but made a note of the board number. A few minutes later I returned to the table, where the messy piles were being amalgamated and put into the four slots. I took it to its new starting position, where I said "folks, before we start #17, I think we should first pull cards from #18 and count them face down, for I watched it being dealt and I have my suspicions." Thirty seconds of counting followed before one player shook her head in awe as though I was some famous illusionist and said "well, I have only eleven."
| Previous Deal | Deal Of The Week Index | Next Deal |