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.

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!