Somehow we landed in 6NT (part two)

My title quotes that of one of my favorite David Bird books, one which certainly contributed in its way to helping me make the hand in the story below. See also Somehow we landed in 6NT.

I've always been a fan of squeezes. To me, they seem relatively easy. And, because many players think they are something esoteric and don't bother to learn about them, I'm pretty much guaranteed a good board whenever I can find one. The other thing I like about them, and this is really important for me,  is that most of them don't require good card-reading skills. And, generally speaking, once the play is in motion, you don't have to make any decisions at the end. Either it's there for the overtrick, or it's not and you end up with the same number of tricks you always had.

But, while there are many exotic squeezes out there, including the famous backwash squeeze, the bread-and-butter squeezes are relatively easy to recognize and execute. But of these, the ultimate in my opinion is the progressive triple squeeze. I thought it unlikely I would ever get to play one. But all that changed at a recent tournament session. Even then, it required some fairly dreadful over-bidding by my side (mainly my own) and some helpful defensive errors by the opponents before the squeeze trick. That being so, I'm going to deliberately obfuscate the hand to protect the identities of the players. Watch the play unfold from my point of view:

Almost any lead but the one chosen, the jack of clubs, would have scuttled any chance of making the hand. Even so, I could only count eight top tricks after knocking out the DA. At trick two, I can legitimately make the hand by finessing the S9, but I didn't. That line gives rise to a double-squeeze at the end, with hearts the pivot suit. At trick four, East erred by pitching a diamond. He could have recovered by holding up the DA at trick five, but these things are not so obvious in the heat of the battle. The return of a heart was interesting. Surely, East wouldn't lead away from the queen so I rose with the ace. After the first six tricks have been played, and having found the diamond jack, my prospects were looking a bit brighter--I had ten tricks. At this point, I see a chance. If West does indeed have the HQ in addition to the KT of clubs and the SJ, he will be triple-squeezed when I play off the diamonds.  Not only that but the conditions would be perfect for a (two-trick-gaining) progressive squeeze. But for that to work, I must have both round suit threats in the dummy along with the squeeze card (D5), along with the spade threat in hand. Thus the other high heart had to be cashed before crossing to dummy. That of course caters to a possible doubleton queen also.

At trick nine, the squeeze card, D5, is played and you can see that West has no good option. In a progressive triple squeeze, it's usually best to concede the suit that promotes an honor in the opposite hand. That prevents the progression. But in this five-card ending, the hand opposite the squeeze card has an extended menace in spades and thus there is no defense. Here is the whole hand:

Note that in the more normal contract of 4S, there can be no squeeze since there is no possible way of denying West his rightful trump trick, at least not unless you peek and finesse the nine.

Psychopaths and bridge

I've recently read and enjoyed one of last years crop of new bridge books: Shades of Grey by Ken Allan. This is a book about cheating – but in a light-hearted vein – and therefore a lighter, perhaps more easily accessible read than Truscott's The Great Bridge Scandal or Chua's Fair Play or Foul?

I found the whodunnit style rather engaging. As the book progresses, the style turns into a how'd-they-get-caught which is equally interesting. The characters are believable, even if there is perhaps a little too much intrigue for the "Soo" region of Ontario. I would definitely recommend it.

The only odd thing was that people who saw me reading the book would ask "have you got to the naughty bits yet?" These people were apparently free-associating the book with the 2011 erotic best seller Fifty Shades of Grey. I can't say if the latter book has any bridge in it but, strangely enough, the 2012 bridge book does have a few, albeit very mild, naughty bits.

My only complaint is that an important character in the book, Rocky, goes missing and we never find out his fate. It's possible I just missed it, but I don't think so.

I learned a lot about psychopaths in the book, as one of the characters is professionally acquainted with psychopaths and one of the cheaters may be one. Not all sufferers turn to a life of crime but psychopaths tend to have no guilty conscience and do not get embarrassed easily by doing bad or even stupid things.

One of the things that keeps most of from making really idiotic bids at the bridge table is our fear of embarrassment, and possibly our conscience prevents us from treating our partners thus badly.

Our robot partners on Bridge Base Online suffer from no conscience or embarrassment – and therefore can be considered psychopaths. Take for example a hand that arose last week in an ACBL robot tournament. My hand, as dealer at matchpoints with none vulnerable was ♠AKQT7654 ♥Q6 ♦– ♣QT4. Perhaps I began the train-wreck with my 1♠ call. The hand just seemed too good to open 4♠. LHO showed hearts and a minor with 2♠ and partner passed (take note). RHO bid 3♥ and I decided that the time had come to put things to bed with 4♠. But I had reckoned without my partner who so far had underbid his hand somewhat. His call? 6NT.

I watched in some amusement as the opponents wrapped up 9 tricks and then let partner in (their defense was less than optimal – they should have taken the first 11 tricks!). Here is the whole hand:



If you hover over my 4♠ call, you will see that it is supposed to show (according to the Robots' system) a hand with good spades and about 20 hcp. Clearly, my hand was not so well appointed as that! But even so, is it sane for partner to bid 6NT with two suits unstopped?

So, did this result (-400) score the world's coldest bottom? Not at all. We got a 25% board! Although N/S can make 6♠, only one pair (of 24) got there. Many were in 5♠ often doubled. One optimistic pair got to 7♠ which was allowed to make on a diamond lead. Par on this board is actually 7♥X by E/W down 4. Several E/W pairs (our "teammates") were allowed to play (and make!) 5♥, thus saving us from ignominy.

And I should point out that we had company. Five other pairs had the exact same auction and result as ours.

Going down eight (even undoubled) is generally such an embarrassment at bridge (although I have it on good authority that Michael Rosenberg once went down seven –350– in 1NT when his opponents were cold for a grand but were unable to bid) that those of us with a conscience won't do it without being fairly sure of our stoppers. The Robots suffer from no such inhibitions. In short, they are psychopathic bridge players!

When to bid NT slams

This blog is an extension of my earlier entry Somehow we Landed in 6NT, inspired by David Bird's excellent book of that name.  That article reflected on the decision to bid a notrump slam rather than a suit slam.  I've now distilled my thinking into a set of simple rules:

• if it's IMP scoring, play in your best suit;
• if you're bidding a grand slam, play in your best suit;
• if your best suit is a minor, play in it;
• if you know you have a 4-4 fit, play in your suit;
• if you have fewer than, say, 30 hcp, play in your best suit.

If you're still with us, bid notrump, assuming of course that you have stopper(s) in their suit which will be protected from the opening lead.  There, it couldn't get much simpler than that!

Of course, there are always exceptions, such as you can count 13 top tricks, or you have a long running suit, but generally I think these are good guidelines.  See the previous article for more explanation of why these rules are suggested.  But the general idea is that, at matchpoints, you want to earn that extra 10 points provided that you expect to take the same total number of tricks and you expect most of the other pairs to be in the same contract.

Happy slamming!

Somehow we landed in 6NT

The title refers to the excellent and entertaining book of that name by David Bird.  It's full of interesting 6NT hands from top level play and contains many instructive quizzes on how to play such hands, generally based on constructed deals.

The general rule that I've worked out for deciding when to bid 6NT at matchpoints, as opposed to 6 of a suit, is this (leaving aside for now any indications such as a Lightner double):

• if you're in 6♥ or 6♠, and it looks like you'll take the same 12 tricks in NT (and you have good stoppers in any enemy suit, if any), then bid 6NT;
• if you're in 6♣ or 6♦, stay where you are, unless you're fairly sure that you'll make the same number of tricks (or more) in notrump.
  

The reasoning behind this is that most players, at the club rather than the Blue Ribbon pairs, will not find the minor suit slam in the first place so you might as well maximize your chances of making it by playing in a suit (you usually have decent trumps when you're at the six level in a minor).  On the other hand, even the weakest pair in the field will be in 6 of a major when they have a fit with 30+ hcp.  That's when you have to get an edge with the extra 10 points.

A couple of interesting hands came up last night at the club.  On the first hand, all are vulnerable and you LHO deals and passes.  Your hand is ♠9432 ♥AQ942 ♦AQ2 ♣K.  Partner bids 1♠ and RHO passes.  Without going into detail, you discover that partner has both black aces and at least ♥Kxx, a void in diamonds and is enthusiastic about slam.  You will be declarer if the contract is in notrump.  Let's say you know that he doesn't have the ♠K.  Which slam do you want to play in?

I think this is a clear case for 6NT.  If they lead a diamond, your otherwise wasted Q will become a trick.  If they don't you should have time to develop at least four spades, five hearts, a diamond and two clubs.  As it happens, the ♠K was onside and we made 1460.

Of the 16 results on this board, 2 pairs failed to reach slam at all (one of these was a good pair who perhaps had a misunderstanding).  13 pairs played either 6♥ or 6♠.  Only one pair bid 6NT.  Unfortunately, not us.  So, bidding 6NT was worth 6 matchpoints out of 15.  Why only 6?  Two declarers in 6♠ apparently eschewed the trump finesse because a heart ruff was looming.  That's the only explanation I can come up with for not taking all the tricks.

The second interesting board had a somewhat shorter auction.  Red versus white, you pick up ♠T76 ♥AJ52 ♦QJ76 ♣AK and again you are fourth-in-hand.  This time, dealer does not pass.  In fact, he opens with 5♣!  Partner contributes 5♦ and RHO passes.  What's your call?  Obviously nobody will be bidding again unless you choose 6♣.

Assuming that partner isn't a lunatic, you're surely going to bid a slam of some sort.  Which is it to be.  My favorite partner (the one I'm married to) suggested 7♦ which would have scored a nice 14.  My actual partner chose a more conservative 6♦ which was worth 10.5.

I'd like to think that if I had held this hand at the table, I'd have bid at least 6NT, if not 7NT, which would have scored either 14 or 14.5, respectively.  After all, I have two stoppers in the enemy suit and nothing that partner could ruff in my hand, and not much that could be profitably ruffed in partner's hand.

I would have been interested to follow this board around the room to see exactly what transpired at each table.  The deal itself looks like something from one of those goulash tournaments that are popular online:

	♠ AK5 ♥ 87 ♦ AT985432 ♣
♠ 2 ♥ Q93 ♦ ♣ T98765432		♠ QJ9843 ♥ KT64 ♦ K ♣ QJ
	♠ T76 ♥ AJ52 ♦ QJ76 ♣ AK

Just look at that club suit in the West hand!  Nine of them to the T - two straight flushes back to back!  Had I held this hand, there's no way I'd have opened only 5 clubs!  Without the ♥Q, I'd be bidding 7♣, but with the actual hand, I think 6♣ is about right.  That would make it quite awkward for North, although I think 6♦ would still be the choice of the brave.  But getting to play 6♣X would have been worth 10 matchpoints for the preempter.


If you're still with me, there's just one other interesting hand that might also make 6NT on really really bad defense.  I held this hand: ♠T732 ♥T543 ♦4 ♣JT86 as dealer with nobody vulnerable.  Not much to write home about!  I passed, although a psychic 1♠ or 1NT couldn't possibly have yielded a worse score.  LHO opened 1NT (11-13 if I recall correctly), partner showed a single-suited hand and they ended up in 3NT after opener admitted to at least four hearts.  Partner led a diamond (what else?) and dummy came down with ♠AQJ6 ♥J6 ♦QJ8 ♣K932.  The Q was played from dummy and I followed suit.  Declarer played the 9.  The ♥J was led to partner's Q.  He was looking at an original diamond holding of KT7652 with another certain entry (the ♥A).  If my holding was 43 as appeared possible, another low diamond would force the A and all the diamonds would now be good.  Unfortunately, declarer was hiding the 3 and so was able to make three diamond tricks when partner continued the suit.

But now take another look at my hand.  Do you see that I'm triple-squeezed at trick 3?  Fortunately, I know my squeeze defenses and I was careful to give declarer a trick in his hand (by pitching a heart) so that the squeeze didn't become progressive.  As it turns out, with partner holding the HA, the hand can never make 12 tricks but that fatal weakening of our hearts did allow declarer to duck a heart and claim the rest.  Kudos to the declarer for a well-played hand and a deserving top.

Never a dull moment at the bridge club!