A Coup For You

Since you have two chances at spades, it is right to lead one even though declarer is prepared for the lead. Normally one would lead low from Ten third, but can this be right? Partner did not open a weak two, so the opponents are likely to hold five spades. The declarer is more likely to have the doubleton.

In fact, the winning lead is the spade ten. Dummy held Q 9 4 and declarer had K 8. The lead of a low spade, the choice at both tables, provides a double stopper. The more imaginative lead of the Ten beats the contract.

This is one to remember.

You could try bidding 4 and partner might find a 4 call, but you are still a long far from home.

This hand, with only five losers, has plenty of potential. Having said this, it needs specific cards: the club king, the top trumps, and a diamond control. It is difficult to find all of this in standard methods, especially when this is plenty of hand outside of partner’s first-bid suit. But partner might have the right cards, with little in hearts.

The solution is the “serious 3NT.” Or at least an encouraging or waiting 3NT. We play that a cue bid in a suit bid by the partnership is an A or K, interchangeably. It is never shortness. 3NT gives partner a chance to show the K, and you have an easy control bid of 4 .

Partner will then have a set shot, holding: A K 5 4 J 7 5 3 K Q 4 K 2.

You might contrive another auction to slam, but my guess is that few would bid it without the 3NT convention. When 3NT cannot logically be natural, it is waiting and encouraging.

Thanks to those commenting early. Like Joe, I did a Deal Master simulation and found slam to be about 2/3. So what should you bid?

Part of my reason for bringing up this problem is part of my philosophy. I do not try to place a burden — perhaps impossible — on partner when I have a good idea of the most likely contract. I like to believe that my partners play better with me than with others, partly for this reason. It is a partnership skill that is under-appreciated. It is pretty easy to torture partner and get plenty of wrong decisions.

When I gave this hand to a group of regular partners and teammates in Vegas, they were bidding 4 and one even tried “double!”

It is pretty easy to imagine minimum balanced hands where partner will have no idea that a move is in order. Furthermore, three small spades may be plenty. A hand with the diamond King and strong clubs and three little spades might work, and you have only used 8 HCP. We are careful to have 2 QT’s for opening bids, and that helps.

When I gave the hand to my expert guru’s, the popular call was 5 with the idea that they would bid slam regardless of the response, but a grand might be there. Quite a difference between “peers” and “pros”.

Here is what is wrong with 5 . You are not in a bidding contest and you are not behind screens. It is an early Spingold round. Do you really expect partner to make the right decision? In tempo? Get serious!

The rules, perhaps unwisely, do not permit you to “file a flight plan” with your 5 call. If partner bids a slow 5 you are trapped.

For these very practical reasons, you should bid 6 .

Here is what you bought:

Q J 4 K 5 2 A K 4 J 9 8 2.

The table comment was “What a great buy” but I do not agree. I would have traded nearly all of the non-club honors for stronger cards there.

So now you get to play 6 on a heart lead. Perhaps this is too easy, but give your plan.

I am deferring the “solution” to this one because District 8’s excellent publication, The Advocate, is using it in their bidding contest.

Let us first see what their expert panel says, and then revisit the question.

My preferred agreement is that a responsive double in this situation promises four hearts. In general, bids show more cards at higher levels, even in suits ostensibly promised by the original double.

The reason is that one is often forced to double without four of the other major. The corollary of this understanding is that the advancer may have an awkward hand with 2-3-4-4 in an example like this one. That’s why they pre-empt! At least my method gets the major suit fits right.

On the current problem, my partner was not playing my favorite agreement here, so I chose to bid 4.

Partner put down A 5 J 10 6 A 6 5 4 A K 7 5.

The defenders lost their way on this hand, allowing me to score 620, winning one IMP versus 3NT at the other table. In one sense, 3NT is an attractive vulnerable game, requiring only a diamond pickup with information from the bidding. The problem is that when you go down, it is probably -400.

What do you think?