Two of my favorite pastimes are drinking beer and playing bridge. Unfortunately, I usually have to remember to do these in the correct order. Alcohol muddles the bridge brain. But there have been several notable exceptions to this rule, particularly when I've been playing with Kim.
The first occurred several years ago now at the Life Master Pairs in Honolulu, our first attempt at that event. We realized what we were up against in the first session and, given our 42% game, decided to go back to our room and have a glass of wine with dinner. It couldn't hurt, right? We'd need at least 58% to qualify and that was simply out of the question in such an event. But sometimes the bridge gods like to play jokes. In the evening session, we scored 62%, winning our double-section (which included Zia and other luminaries) and easily qualifying us for the second day.
The latest happened just this last weekend, playing with Kim in the A/X pairs at the Sturbridge Regional. Nothing really bad happened in the first session but we were a few too many times on the wrong side of average, scoring a disappointing 45.5%. Still, we were going to have fun during the break with many of our bridge friends at the barbecue hosted by Brian Duran on a nearby lake. Should we enjoy the full barbecue experience and have a beer? Why not?
The fun over, we returned to the second session with no great expectations. But, as one of our bridge friends likes to say, the gift box was open! A couple of decent things happened in the first round (four boards) which was worth about 64%. We dropped just half a matchpoint in the second round for 98.2% (!). With two of the seven rounds to go, we were at 73.5% although of course we didn't know that for sure. Although I wasn't estimating, my gut feel was that we were having a 70% game. Only in the last round did we slip a tad below average, finishing with 68.5%. We were greeted by "how was your last round? You guys could win it." Now, it was getting interesting! I'd had a second-place finish in a regional A/X pairs and Kim had actually won a regional pairs event. Otherwise, we'd won a single-session regional Swiss and a two-session sectional together. Now I really wanted to win a two-session open regional event.
The trouble was we were two matchpoints behind the leaders. I quickly checked the scores and found one that had been entered as –790 instead of +790. That's one of the tricky aspects of scoring in a Howell movement – you keep switching directions so it's easy to go wrong. Once we got that corrected, it was more than enough to put us on top. It certainly was quite the comeback!
I'll just mention a couple of good (or maybe just lucky) decisions that helped us along the way:
All vulnerable, you hold ♠ QT7542 ♥ Q9874 ♦ 65 ♣ –. 1♦ on your left, pass by partner, 2♦ on your right, alerted as inverted minors. Your call?
Kim chose 2♠ which was doubled, ending the auction. I produced ♠ K ♥ KT632 ♦ 42 ♣ T8542 without any great enthusiasm, though it seemed at least I had one useful card! Turns out we can actually make 3♥ on this hand, while 2♠ was down 2 for –500. However, the opponents have 6♣, 6♦, or 6NT. Never were we so happy to play in the wrong suit – a shared top for us.
Here's one where a couple of somewhat aggressive bids paid off. I dealt the following hand with nobody vulnerable: ♠ QJT975 ♥ K6 ♦ 876 ♣ A2. What to open? Some might open it 2♠. I know some who would pass and await developments. I don't like to open a weak two with two outside "cards" so I opened it 1♠. This is not as crazy as it might seem, even though it doesn't meet the "rule of 20." On the Zar points scale, this hand evaluates to 26, a minimum opening hand. It's also a seven-loser hand, again worth an opening. LHO passed and Kim responded 2♠, which shows either three-card support or a really flat hand with four spades. RHO doubled and I raised the ante with 3♠ (bidding to our "law level"). This was passed out, allowing me to go quietly off two for a clear top. The opponents could make either 400, 430 or 450 in diamonds, notrump or hearts respectively so even being doubled would have yielded a decent score.
But mostly, we were handed gifts, like the 640 for 2♥XX or the 800 for a "save" against a slam where even game doesn't make. Sometimes you just get lucky. Or just maybe it was our relaxed attitude that arose from the combination of a 45% first session, good food and a beer?
The moral of this story is that bridge is a game in which it is easy to take a wrong turn, but that whatever happens at the bridge table, you should never give up. This applies at the level of your bridge career (or partnership), at the event level, on a particular board, and indeed after any card or bid. When you first realize that you have just made a bad bid or play, set your mind to accept the fact that your bid or play was in fact correct and continue, based on that assumption, from that point forward. And if you have a disastrous start to a session, put it behind you and play to win.
Showing posts with label zar points. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zar points. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
High card points
Have you ever heard a bridge teacher start out this way: "An ace is worth four points, a king three, ... etc."? It's as if those numbers are part of the laws of contract bridge. BTW, I don't really know anyone who teaches bridge this way – hopefully there is no such person.
I'm surprised I haven't written more on this subject here before because it's one of my hobby horses. There was a short reference to the inadequacies of the Milton Work scheme of point counting, later popularized by Charles Goren, in my article on Zar Points, but that's all.
But I was reminded of this yesterday by a very ordinary hand that came up at the bridge club: ♠ J64 ♥ AK72 ♦ A987 ♣ 85. We are red against white and partner deals and opens 1♣ (playing standard 15-17 range for 1 notrump). How do you evaluate your hand? Will you force to game or invite?
Do I hear you saying "Well, I have twelve points so probably should be in game unless partner has a dead minimum?" You don't have twelve points. You have at least thirteen points. Huh?
Much has been written on the subject of hand evaluation. And there are hand evaluators available on the web. Try this one for example: Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator. That gives a value of 12.90. Or you can try this calculator at the Bridgeclub Himbuv site which includes a Zar points calculator. In Zar points, the hand evaluates to 27. However, you can effectively halve this to give you the equivalent in "normal" terms to yield 13.5. Yes, a whole point and a half above what you might have thought.
I'm not sure to what extent the K&R evaluator upgrades honors in the same suit, but it seems to me that the texture of this hand is about as good as you are likely to get in an otherwise balanced hand. The lonely jack of spades certainly can't count more than half a point. But the ace and king of hearts combine nicely. In theory, Zar points does adjust for combinations of honors but the value given above is the raw value based on hcp, controls and distribution only.
If you don't want to perform difficult calculations at the table, however, then you might try to follow these simple rules:
Let's see how this would apply to the hand given above (♠ J64 ♥ AK72 ♦ A987 ♣ 85). It starts with 12. Add half for the second ace. Add another half for the AK combination. Grand total 13.
Of course, the whole evaluation game changes drastically as soon as partner bids and we have a notion of whether we do or do not have a fit. In this case, when partner opens 1♣, our hand does not improve. Yet it's too early to say that it goes down in value. We bid 1♥ and partner rebids 1♠ (or perhaps 1NT). I think 3NT is automatic now.
So, what happened at the table? My partner has great potential but is relatively new to duplicate bridge, although she's played quite a lot of rubber bridge and online bridge. She saw her hand as a balanced 11-12 count and so responded 2NT. I passed with ♠ KQ85 ♥ Q9 ♦ KQ6 ♣ JT43 (a 12 count according to my methods). Par on the board is +140 for making 3S (not an easy contract to find or make) and the next best score is +120 from my side of the table. 3NT from my partner's side should be doubled and go for 500 on a club lead. Needless to say (this wasn't the Blue Ribbon pairs), that never happened.
In practice, the defense at our table was less than optimal and my partner wrapped up 11 tricks for 210, thus exceeding par by 70 points – a triumph you might think. In practice, five pairs (of eight total) bid and made 3NT for 600, one of these from partner's side of the table where surely the final contract should be doubled for a club lead. Bottom line? Our teammates were hopeless on this board, partner did great, and I got an opportunity to talk about hand evaluation. :)
I'm surprised I haven't written more on this subject here before because it's one of my hobby horses. There was a short reference to the inadequacies of the Milton Work scheme of point counting, later popularized by Charles Goren, in my article on Zar Points, but that's all.
But I was reminded of this yesterday by a very ordinary hand that came up at the bridge club: ♠ J64 ♥ AK72 ♦ A987 ♣ 85. We are red against white and partner deals and opens 1♣ (playing standard 15-17 range for 1 notrump). How do you evaluate your hand? Will you force to game or invite?
Do I hear you saying "Well, I have twelve points so probably should be in game unless partner has a dead minimum?" You don't have twelve points. You have at least thirteen points. Huh?
Much has been written on the subject of hand evaluation. And there are hand evaluators available on the web. Try this one for example: Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator. That gives a value of 12.90. Or you can try this calculator at the Bridgeclub Himbuv site which includes a Zar points calculator. In Zar points, the hand evaluates to 27. However, you can effectively halve this to give you the equivalent in "normal" terms to yield 13.5. Yes, a whole point and a half above what you might have thought.
I'm not sure to what extent the K&R evaluator upgrades honors in the same suit, but it seems to me that the texture of this hand is about as good as you are likely to get in an otherwise balanced hand. The lonely jack of spades certainly can't count more than half a point. But the ace and king of hearts combine nicely. In theory, Zar points does adjust for combinations of honors but the value given above is the raw value based on hcp, controls and distribution only.
If you don't want to perform difficult calculations at the table, however, then you might try to follow these simple rules:
- first, calculate your points according to the 4-3-2-1 scheme;
- add half a point for each additional ace beyond the first;
- subtract half a point for each pair of "quacks" (not necessarily in the same suit);
- subtract half a point for a 4-3-3-3 hand;
- add half a point for a decent five-card suit, etc.
- add half a point for good texture (honors in combination) and another if these combined honors are in long suits;
- subtract half a point for each short-suit honor on its own (A, Kx, Qxx);
- when resolving those half-points, round up if you have extra aces and are aiming for a suit contract or if you have extra quacks and are contemplating notrump – otherwise round down.
Let's see how this would apply to the hand given above (♠ J64 ♥ AK72 ♦ A987 ♣ 85). It starts with 12. Add half for the second ace. Add another half for the AK combination. Grand total 13.
Of course, the whole evaluation game changes drastically as soon as partner bids and we have a notion of whether we do or do not have a fit. In this case, when partner opens 1♣, our hand does not improve. Yet it's too early to say that it goes down in value. We bid 1♥ and partner rebids 1♠ (or perhaps 1NT). I think 3NT is automatic now.
So, what happened at the table? My partner has great potential but is relatively new to duplicate bridge, although she's played quite a lot of rubber bridge and online bridge. She saw her hand as a balanced 11-12 count and so responded 2NT. I passed with ♠ KQ85 ♥ Q9 ♦ KQ6 ♣ JT43 (a 12 count according to my methods). Par on the board is +140 for making 3S (not an easy contract to find or make) and the next best score is +120 from my side of the table. 3NT from my partner's side should be doubled and go for 500 on a club lead. Needless to say (this wasn't the Blue Ribbon pairs), that never happened.
In practice, the defense at our table was less than optimal and my partner wrapped up 11 tricks for 210, thus exceeding par by 70 points – a triumph you might think. In practice, five pairs (of eight total) bid and made 3NT for 600, one of these from partner's side of the table where surely the final contract should be doubled for a club lead. Bottom line? Our teammates were hopeless on this board, partner did great, and I got an opportunity to talk about hand evaluation. :)
Monday, July 25, 2011
Zar points
Most players are familiar with Marty Bergen's "rule of 20", amended slightly by Mel Colchamiro to be the rule of "22". In Bergen's original, you count the lengths of your two longest suits, add your high card points and if the total comes to 20, you have an opening hand. Colchamiro says fine, but you should still have two quick tricks. Neither rule adjusts for poor texture – a concentration of honors in short suits and hence no honors supporting each other in the long suits. Still, that should go without saying.
Zar Petrov's rule for opening hands is a little more technical than the simplicity of the rule of 20 but almost as easy to apply at the table. Petrov developed his method of hand evaluation for bidding games and slams based on analysis of thousands (millions?) of actual results. His original posting on the web was lost for a while, but I see that the Bridge Guys have re-posted it here. I therefore don't plan to go into too much detail. The method is summarized on Wikipedia, though the discussion is not good IMO (also the wiki people don't think so).
You might call it the "rule of 26". Again you add the lengths of your two longest suits. To that you add your high card points (A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1). Sound familiar?. Now you add the difference between the longest and shortest suit. Finally, you add the count of your "controls" (A=2, K=1). If the total comes to 26, you're in business! While the rule suggests opening some distributional hands that you might think extreme, it also suggests passing with some balanced, quacky hands that you might otherwise open without much thought. For an example of the latter situation, let's say you pick up this beauty: ♠QJ4 ♥K85 ♦QJ3 ♣QJ62. You might think this is an automatic 1C opening (I wouldn't). But it is woefully inadequate using Zar points: distribution comes to 7 + 1 (the lowest possible) and hcp = 12. You have one control (the HK) so that's 21 only. It could have been worse if your twelve points were all quacks!
Here's an example of me applying Zar points to an opening at the recent Sturbridge tournament with Bruce Downing as my partner. Playing one of the best pairs in the district, I picked up this hand as dealer (all vulnerable): ♠AT7653 ♥– ♦2 ♣KT9542. Note that this hand doesn't qualify by the rule of 20 (or 22). But it qualifies on Zar points (rule of 26) with a couple of points to spare! 12 + 6 + 7 + 3. What happened, you ask? I opened 1♠, and partner (with 19 hcp and a solid six-card heart suit) forced to game with 2♥. At this point, things weren't looking so good. Once we got to 4♥, I surprised partner a little by passing. Result: down 1 (-100) which was good for a 75% board because most people overbid (or underplayed) and were down more.
Zar's main proposal is that the strength of a hand (for offensive purposes) is more or less equally based on distribution and high cards. Since Zar adds these together we get a number which is approximately double the "Goren" number: 26 points to open, 16 to respond, 52 for game, 62 for a small slam, 67 for a grand.
Personally, I use a formula which divides the Zar points by two because that comes much closer to the numbers we all know and love. However, I do hate halves (just as I think it's totally weird that in the USA we halve matchpoints so that we have to add a special symbol "-" to the 10 digits). Really, we should all start using Zars and get used to the numbers being approximately double. While I'm on this particular rant, there's nothing magic about the Goren counts (based on the Work 4321 method). All other things being equal and in the play of relatively balanced hands, each 2 Goren points is worth approximately one trick (a Queen you have is one that they don't have). This assertion, by the way, is based on the analysis (by Matthew Ginsberg, developer of GIB) of thousands of hands playing at notrump. See Extending the Law of Total Tricks for details. In the Zar point scale, each extra 2.7 points is about one trick.
But the main point about the Zar method of evaluation is that it takes distribution and fit into account in a logical and mathematically sound way. The downside of Zar points is that we are encouraged to open light distributional hands and that when partner trots out the old penalty double or goes searching for a slam without a good fit, we don't always have the goods.
Referring back to my previous article Confessions of a heart suit repressionist, you may recall that on the first board, we had ♠KQ63 ♥T9876 ♦– ♣AT97 opposite ♠94 ♥AKQJ5 ♦AJ3 ♣KQ6. On the Zar scale, the first hand evaluates to 13 (high cards) + 14 (distribution points) = 27 (and is therefore an opening hand) while the second hand evaluates to 26 + 11 = 38 as an opening hand, possibly with some adjustments but these tend to cancel out. The adjustments to take care of fit/misfit are quite complex, however. But even without adding for the big fit, these two hands add to 65 which is almost enough for a grand (but not quite).
Zar Petrov's rule for opening hands is a little more technical than the simplicity of the rule of 20 but almost as easy to apply at the table. Petrov developed his method of hand evaluation for bidding games and slams based on analysis of thousands (millions?) of actual results. His original posting on the web was lost for a while, but I see that the Bridge Guys have re-posted it here. I therefore don't plan to go into too much detail. The method is summarized on Wikipedia, though the discussion is not good IMO (also the wiki people don't think so).
You might call it the "rule of 26". Again you add the lengths of your two longest suits. To that you add your high card points (A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1). Sound familiar?. Now you add the difference between the longest and shortest suit. Finally, you add the count of your "controls" (A=2, K=1). If the total comes to 26, you're in business! While the rule suggests opening some distributional hands that you might think extreme, it also suggests passing with some balanced, quacky hands that you might otherwise open without much thought. For an example of the latter situation, let's say you pick up this beauty: ♠QJ4 ♥K85 ♦QJ3 ♣QJ62. You might think this is an automatic 1C opening (I wouldn't). But it is woefully inadequate using Zar points: distribution comes to 7 + 1 (the lowest possible) and hcp = 12. You have one control (the HK) so that's 21 only. It could have been worse if your twelve points were all quacks!
Here's an example of me applying Zar points to an opening at the recent Sturbridge tournament with Bruce Downing as my partner. Playing one of the best pairs in the district, I picked up this hand as dealer (all vulnerable): ♠AT7653 ♥– ♦2 ♣KT9542. Note that this hand doesn't qualify by the rule of 20 (or 22). But it qualifies on Zar points (rule of 26) with a couple of points to spare! 12 + 6 + 7 + 3. What happened, you ask? I opened 1♠, and partner (with 19 hcp and a solid six-card heart suit) forced to game with 2♥. At this point, things weren't looking so good. Once we got to 4♥, I surprised partner a little by passing. Result: down 1 (-100) which was good for a 75% board because most people overbid (or underplayed) and were down more.
Zar's main proposal is that the strength of a hand (for offensive purposes) is more or less equally based on distribution and high cards. Since Zar adds these together we get a number which is approximately double the "Goren" number: 26 points to open, 16 to respond, 52 for game, 62 for a small slam, 67 for a grand.
Personally, I use a formula which divides the Zar points by two because that comes much closer to the numbers we all know and love. However, I do hate halves (just as I think it's totally weird that in the USA we halve matchpoints so that we have to add a special symbol "-" to the 10 digits). Really, we should all start using Zars and get used to the numbers being approximately double. While I'm on this particular rant, there's nothing magic about the Goren counts (based on the Work 4321 method). All other things being equal and in the play of relatively balanced hands, each 2 Goren points is worth approximately one trick (a Queen you have is one that they don't have). This assertion, by the way, is based on the analysis (by Matthew Ginsberg, developer of GIB) of thousands of hands playing at notrump. See Extending the Law of Total Tricks for details. In the Zar point scale, each extra 2.7 points is about one trick.
But the main point about the Zar method of evaluation is that it takes distribution and fit into account in a logical and mathematically sound way. The downside of Zar points is that we are encouraged to open light distributional hands and that when partner trots out the old penalty double or goes searching for a slam without a good fit, we don't always have the goods.
Referring back to my previous article Confessions of a heart suit repressionist, you may recall that on the first board, we had ♠KQ63 ♥T9876 ♦– ♣AT97 opposite ♠94 ♥AKQJ5 ♦AJ3 ♣KQ6. On the Zar scale, the first hand evaluates to 13 (high cards) + 14 (distribution points) = 27 (and is therefore an opening hand) while the second hand evaluates to 26 + 11 = 38 as an opening hand, possibly with some adjustments but these tend to cancel out. The adjustments to take care of fit/misfit are quite complex, however. But even without adding for the big fit, these two hands add to 65 which is almost enough for a grand (but not quite).
Monday, April 11, 2011
Confessions of a heart suit repressionist
I've recently been reading the Naked Bridge Player and Other Stories by David Silver. It's a zany collection of stories, although they are entertaining and cleverly constructed. A recurrent theme in this and earlier "Professor Silver" books, which I have yet to read, is the concept of The supremacy of the heart suit. I fear that I don't quite get it, as this blog will demonstrate.
As evidence of my lack of understanding I submit the following three hands from an otherwise decent game at the sectional on Friday evening. All three hands occurred in the same round and my RHO repeatedly asked if I would be blogging about the result. Gloria, you got your wish!
Exhibit 1. ♠94 ♥AKQJ5 ♦AJ3 ♣KQ6. When I picked up this hand (in third seat, nobody vulnerable), I was pleased to note that we play a version of Stayman after a 2NT opening that would allow me to show my five hearts if partner was interested. I never got the chance, however, as said RHO opened with 1♦. Now what? I don't know how many people faced this exact problem – RHO's hand could have opened any number of diamonds from 1 to 3 (♠A ♥42 ♦KQ96542 ♣J82). Clearly my hand was a bit good for a simple overcall of 1♥, although perhaps that is the most disciplined bid. I could double and then bid NT showing 19-20 but that doesn't really do justice to the hand (not to mention the lack of a spade stopper). I could double and rebid the hearts, but the hand is both too good and not good enough for that bid. It's too good perhaps in terms of points, but not good enough in terms of the hearts (although such a spread might be the equivalent of a good six-card suit). Then I hit on the obvious, practical bid: 3NT. Yeah for Hamman's rule! My hearts would likely play for five tricks regardless and most likely I would get a diamond lead. Partner, as you recall, had already passed so it was very unlikely that slam would be there (partner would have to have spades controlled and sufficient hearts and shape to add to the probable 9 tricks in my hand). Furthermore, our non-exchange of information would not help LHO to decide what to lead.
Well, partner did have spades controlled, and five hearts, and a void in diamonds: ♠KQ63 ♥T9876 ♦– ♣AT97, so making twelve tricks in hearts was lay-down. Unfortunately, I wasn't in hearts. Couldn't partner have had a more ordinary 9-count like ♠KQ63 ♥T98 ♦K2 ♣JT97, giving me a likely top with 460? I note, BTW, that partner had an opening bid on the Zar points scale. I'm a Zar points fan myself but my partners generally aren't. Watch this space for a discussion of Zar point.
Eschewing the diamond suit, LHO led the SJ. I covered (first mistake, as RHO's A was a stiff). Not knowing much about the layout, I also lost a club unnecessarily. In the end I made 430 and a goose egg (0/23). Had I played the clubs correctly, I would have got 1 whole matchpoint! Had I ducked the opening lead, I would have found out about the distribution and consequently the clubs, making 490 for 16 matchpoints.
Exhibit 2: still somewhat in shock over the iniquity of the first hand, I picked up a modest opening hand: ♠53 ♥K963 ♦KJ52 ♣AK5. There are quite a few similarities between these two hands, but surely lightning couldn't strike twice! The bidding began as follows: – 1♦ – 1♠ – 1NT – 2♦ (game-forcing and artificial). The obvious bid is 2♥ but, given the main thrust of this article, I obviously didn't do the obvious. Hearts are for wimps. Or something like that. It had been a long day. Anyway, I temporized with 2NT and 3NT became the final contract. I got a helpful heart lead (see how good things can happen when you don't yield too much information) and partner produced: ♠KJ872 ♥AJT2 ♦A ♣QT2. Oh, dear, it looks like lightning might be striking twice. I gave up two spades, making 660, thus beating all the declarers who didn't guess the hearts, and 17/23 matchpoints. I lost out obviously to the six heart game declarers who also played trumps for no loss, regardless of whether they bid the lucky slam (none did). But at least I scored better than I probably would have in the proper 4♥ contract.
Exhibit 3: by the time the third hand came along, I was thoroughly heart-sick. Heart-suit-supremacists be damned! Maybe for this reason, I didn't actually notice that I had five hearts, temporarily seconding, Rabbit style, one of the hearts to the diamonds. We ended up in a reasonable 24-hcp 3NT contract by partner after an invitation, although possibly we might have stopped in 2NT if I hadn't by then discovered my nice heart suit. Unfortunately, 7 tricks is the limit of the hand in notrump. The most common score was -50 (presumably for 2NT) but we managed only 6.5 for -100. Partner's hand was ♠KQ2 ♥96 ♦987 ♣KQJ43. On another day, the hand might have been more favorably laid out and 3NT would have made. Not this time.
The moral of this story? While it's always comforting to hold spades, the "boss" suit, remember to stay heart-healthy. Maybe the suit isn't actually supreme but perhaps it shouldn't be actively repressed! After all, home is where the hearts are. Or something like that.
As evidence of my lack of understanding I submit the following three hands from an otherwise decent game at the sectional on Friday evening. All three hands occurred in the same round and my RHO repeatedly asked if I would be blogging about the result. Gloria, you got your wish!
Exhibit 1. ♠94 ♥AKQJ5 ♦AJ3 ♣KQ6. When I picked up this hand (in third seat, nobody vulnerable), I was pleased to note that we play a version of Stayman after a 2NT opening that would allow me to show my five hearts if partner was interested. I never got the chance, however, as said RHO opened with 1♦. Now what? I don't know how many people faced this exact problem – RHO's hand could have opened any number of diamonds from 1 to 3 (♠A ♥42 ♦KQ96542 ♣J82). Clearly my hand was a bit good for a simple overcall of 1♥, although perhaps that is the most disciplined bid. I could double and then bid NT showing 19-20 but that doesn't really do justice to the hand (not to mention the lack of a spade stopper). I could double and rebid the hearts, but the hand is both too good and not good enough for that bid. It's too good perhaps in terms of points, but not good enough in terms of the hearts (although such a spread might be the equivalent of a good six-card suit). Then I hit on the obvious, practical bid: 3NT. Yeah for Hamman's rule! My hearts would likely play for five tricks regardless and most likely I would get a diamond lead. Partner, as you recall, had already passed so it was very unlikely that slam would be there (partner would have to have spades controlled and sufficient hearts and shape to add to the probable 9 tricks in my hand). Furthermore, our non-exchange of information would not help LHO to decide what to lead.
Well, partner did have spades controlled, and five hearts, and a void in diamonds: ♠KQ63 ♥T9876 ♦– ♣AT97, so making twelve tricks in hearts was lay-down. Unfortunately, I wasn't in hearts. Couldn't partner have had a more ordinary 9-count like ♠KQ63 ♥T98 ♦K2 ♣JT97, giving me a likely top with 460? I note, BTW, that partner had an opening bid on the Zar points scale. I'm a Zar points fan myself but my partners generally aren't. Watch this space for a discussion of Zar point.
Eschewing the diamond suit, LHO led the SJ. I covered (first mistake, as RHO's A was a stiff). Not knowing much about the layout, I also lost a club unnecessarily. In the end I made 430 and a goose egg (0/23). Had I played the clubs correctly, I would have got 1 whole matchpoint! Had I ducked the opening lead, I would have found out about the distribution and consequently the clubs, making 490 for 16 matchpoints.
Exhibit 2: still somewhat in shock over the iniquity of the first hand, I picked up a modest opening hand: ♠53 ♥K963 ♦KJ52 ♣AK5. There are quite a few similarities between these two hands, but surely lightning couldn't strike twice! The bidding began as follows: – 1♦ – 1♠ – 1NT – 2♦ (game-forcing and artificial). The obvious bid is 2♥ but, given the main thrust of this article, I obviously didn't do the obvious. Hearts are for wimps. Or something like that. It had been a long day. Anyway, I temporized with 2NT and 3NT became the final contract. I got a helpful heart lead (see how good things can happen when you don't yield too much information) and partner produced: ♠KJ872 ♥AJT2 ♦A ♣QT2. Oh, dear, it looks like lightning might be striking twice. I gave up two spades, making 660, thus beating all the declarers who didn't guess the hearts, and 17/23 matchpoints. I lost out obviously to the six heart game declarers who also played trumps for no loss, regardless of whether they bid the lucky slam (none did). But at least I scored better than I probably would have in the proper 4♥ contract.
Exhibit 3: by the time the third hand came along, I was thoroughly heart-sick. Heart-suit-supremacists be damned! Maybe for this reason, I didn't actually notice that I had five hearts, temporarily seconding, Rabbit style, one of the hearts to the diamonds. We ended up in a reasonable 24-hcp 3NT contract by partner after an invitation, although possibly we might have stopped in 2NT if I hadn't by then discovered my nice heart suit. Unfortunately, 7 tricks is the limit of the hand in notrump. The most common score was -50 (presumably for 2NT) but we managed only 6.5 for -100. Partner's hand was ♠KQ2 ♥96 ♦987 ♣KQJ43. On another day, the hand might have been more favorably laid out and 3NT would have made. Not this time.
The moral of this story? While it's always comforting to hold spades, the "boss" suit, remember to stay heart-healthy. Maybe the suit isn't actually supreme but perhaps it shouldn't be actively repressed! After all, home is where the hearts are. Or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)