Let’s see: HK and a H to the Q. S crosses to dummy with a D and leads a S to the 9 and J. W returns a C and S plays the K, forcing E to win the A. E clears H. S cashes dummy’s D and leads a S to the K & his A and then leads a S, making 2S, 2H, 4D, and a C. Making 3NT. And no, this isn’t double dummy. E, because of his overcall and lack of the HK must have the CA and is probably short in S but with at least one honor. The only uncertainty is the CJ, but when W leads a C, it is reasonable to play E for it.

Hi David,

Yes, your line is well thought out and would deserve the success it would achieve.

Let’s delve deeper. The red suits (after the surprise lead of the heart king, not the suit itself, but rather where that monarch is located) are there for the taking, making the blacks the center of attention.

Normally, the holding of the 10 of clubs (in dummy) may suggest trying to score that ducat rather than the often more nebulous card combination in spades, but the play up to now (considering the bidding and West’s surprise opening lead possession) probably should change expectations for declarer as to who holds the club jack (the club ace is all but certain to also be with East).

From here, your explanations take us all the way to the winning conclusion, try for a second spade trick (playing East for at least one major honor, likely the king, but in this case not critical and probably shortness, or at least no more than 3). Yes, if East was dealt 3 to a double honor there may be trouble in River City, and especially if West shows up later with the club jack (a quicker way to test fate).

Where else but playing high-level bridge could such conundrums be a dime a dozen? I will definitely vote your way as choice of play for two reasons:

1. You took the trouble to explain your cogent reasoning, replete with West likely switching to the nine of clubs (unlikely if he also held the jack).

2. Your play worked in the cauldron of who had what at this table, making use of the always true suggestion of let the winner explain.

And to always appreciate your sincere approach to the often difficult task of assessing the blame, especially when a winning line is available.

Finally, the above is the best reason for reporting real life hands, played by players of the highest world caliber, exhibiting their choices under fire whether they were successful or sometimes, not so.

Hi Bobby,

Can I bring up a question from yesterday’s BWTA as we were all distracted by the bad news about Omar. 1D 1S 4D (uninterrupted) is a rare sequence but it strikes me as useful in terms of helping partner evaluate his high cards. Qx in D manes that 9 or 10 HCP will be worth 6 tricks in a side suit oppite AKJxxx or even AKxxxx and this seems useful in terms of assessing whether there is the material for 12 tricks in a slam not just 0 or 1 losers. In similar vein, the old delayed game raise (DGR) had its uses, but the modern style seems to favour splinters almost regardless.

Can you give any guidance in general terms on when to splinter (just a high card raise to game, or do you really want extras?) and when to try alternatives e.g. DGR? In similar vein, is the occasional tendency to cue bid on the way to game (just in case…) likely to fall foul of Bob Hamman’s advice not to hope partner has perfect cards – he is very unlikely (at best) to have them.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Again,

AS a follow-up to the question of what partner might have, imagine you hold None A108xx DK AKQJxxx at favourable. Unfortunstely partner (me, with a known enthusiasm for biddign as much as possible) gleefully slams down STOP 4S as his starting offering and RHO passes. Any thoughts here?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

In your first query about yesterday’s BWTA I side with you about bidding 4 diamonds when holding a 6-4 pattern and, of course, your partner responding 1 of your four card major to your opening 1 of a minor. And I would do it with the hand mentioned, not requiring holding the AK of diamonds along with the AK of spades.

That, of course, is a conventional rebid, not in many arsenals many years ago, but since a normal hand (if there are any) with perhaps 7+ of the opened minor and no particular fit, hardly will ever come up making that new conventional change a slam dunk to embrace.

To answer your further question, once you open 4 Spades and have it go pass to me, I would simply pass and hope to make it. Once partner announces long spades I think my chances for slam (6 clubs) goes down exponentially and although I might easily make 11 tricks in clubs I suspect my partnership would be playing a 5 of a minor bid by me is a cue bid with spades as trump.

That treatment should probably apply over most 4 level or higher preempts, except a 4 spade bid over partner’s 4 hearts which might be played as natural.

I, like you, think splinters have added a powerful dimension to slam bidding, but in order to make one, I prefer to have extra values. For example 1C P 1S P, while holding S. Axxx, KQxx, x, Kxxx, I would, of course only raise to two spades and holding the AJ10x of clubs would only raise to 3 spades, but holding the AKxx of clubs would then splinter to 4 diamonds. A jump to 4 spades would (should) deny a singleton).

Back to your 1st seat preempt, your story reminds me of probably 60+ years ago my best partner at that time (and he was really good) consented to play with his girl friend in a Calcutta (paramutual game where all pairs are auctioned off and the highest bidder then owns that pair for the money prizes) held before a major tournament. The proviso was that she was never to make a 1st or 2nd seat preempt simply because he liked to have chances to bid their hands to the right final contract.

On the very first board he held a hand similar to what your partner held and heard her open what you did. At that very second an explosion occurred, their relationship ended and he went home without making a bid nor a play in that event.

He was then my mentor, so no offense to you, but that is how some roosters want their hens to respond.

He also, as he left, tore up his hand in shreds, but explained to the director that he dropped his cards on the floor and they broke.

Please tell us what your partner bid and how you fared.

I’ve often described yours and my preference as a mere raise to 2 of the major in high cards, but for playing strength, at least 2 tricks more in value. And since a 6-4 hand will always have a splinter, if the bidding continues the opener may possibly be able to cue bid it at the 5 level. BTW, the classic 4 spade jump with 6-4 would normally, if given a choice, be stronger diamonds than partner’s suit (AK vs. AJ) but picture bidding is not always available, making us dance with what we were dealt.

Hi Iain,

Please forgive my rather disjointed reply and try to interpret it as I meant it. Just random thoughts about the various subjects. I do that much too often and can only hope that anyone who reads it will have much patience.

Hi Bobby,

Your pass of 4S was well judged as I’d pushed the boat out a bit with AQ1098xx x QJ9x x. Pard punted 6C and prepared apologies after a diamond to the Ace but then the HQ came back! Ecstasy, he thought, ruffed a heart to get at the discards and RHO ( the beast) overruffed. Agony beckoned but the oppo now had a brainstorm, editing with a diamond not a trump, and pard escaped for 1 off. Too pushy perhaps, but a similar fate would have struck if he’s had the HK too.

The end result was 36% across the whole field, so not the end of the world. The commentator on the hands felt passing 4S was sensible, staying fixed.

Many thanks for the bidding thoughts, though, very useful and worth bringing up with my regular partners.

regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Seems Bobby has an uncanny sense of knowing and doing what is right. He never ceases to amaze me. It is hard to believe what a natural bent he has when others (especially yours truly) must work so hard to achieve whatever success comes our way.

Hi Judy, Bobby,

This is certainly true, although the hand I quoted suggests the need for an odd form of self-discipline. The old rule of 500 would suggest that 7 solid spades and 6 random small cards would be an ideal nonvulnerable pre-empt, and clearly pass would be sensible opposite that. There is a tendency to cut the requirements for pre-empts, especially 3rd in hand NV, but messing about in the first two seats can rebound e.g. if there is significant outside strength. How many players might be tempted to bid 4S with (say) KJ10xxxx Kx Axx Cx in these cases?

Any thoughts on the need (or lack of it) for discipline with pre-empts in terms of having most of the good stuff in the long suit, as scattered values outside can easily fix partner? Alternatively, do the gains from rather random pre-empts outweigh the occasional hand where partner has considerable strength outside? I suspect many players will go for the latter approach, and write off the odd missed better game or slam especially at pairs.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Your probable long term search for why and why not success in the real game of bridge (not its poor but popular “High Card Wins” illegitimate son) has continued to advance toward its pinnacle.

As least only IMO (and FWIW) world class players are many fewer than almost everyone suspects, those who have honed their considerable numeracy talents to include all aspects of bridge “humanics”, namely super advanced bridge and poker psychology, combined with an unrelenting desire to win, but never violating well known bridge ethics, and, at the same time, understanding the very core of how one’s current partner thinks and how he (or she) is then likely to respond to what happens to every bridge conundrum which may and will arise.

Let the immediate above lead into the discussion of your current subject which has to do with opening the bidding 4 spades.

While holding: s. KJ10xxxx, h. Kx. d. Axx, c. x
if one is even tempted to open 4 spades he needs to bow his head and begin to understand how much he needs to learn.

To preempt with such a hand violates almost all vitally important bridge bidding principles, good defense, support for other suits, not effective opposite shortness from partner (compared to KQJ10xx(x) and at the same time fitting the mold for a one spade opening with the obvious hope of eventually declaring spades but at the proper level whether part score, game or slam, but not until the bidding has determined which.

At the same time methinks the art of preempting, because of its effect on the worthy opponents, may be under used, but when chosen should always have the distribution and sometimes solidity of suit in order to make that joust as effective as possible. Also to open 4 spades (instead of 1) with: s. AKQxxxx, h, x, d. xxx, c. xx is also (IMO) very wrong because of the real possibility of 3NT being the only game present for our side.

Further discussion may or may not be necessary for clarity, but your imagination and enthusiasm, together with your experience and obvious talent for our beloved game will enable you to break down walls while rising to the occasion in your up elevator.

Capping the discussion from my end I would also suggest that on the subject of preempting what might be a great time to preempt or instead an opposite horrible moment, may have to do with exactly who your opponents happen to be, together, of course. on what previous discussions, if any, one has had with his partner.

Hi again Iain,

I truly believe the style of preempting is strongly determined by partnerships. Of course, being involved with a regular partner helps you to envision his or her holding. I make NV preempts now on hands which previously would have caused the termination of my earlier longstanding twosomes. I have learned from observing Bobby in action how effective initial preempts can be. ‘They are what they are’ and serve an important role but one must always have partner’s cooperation. I went through the ranks from Barbara Brier (a rigid Roth-Stoner) to a less restricted version of KS (ala Norman) with my Philadelphia partners and now to a much looser style which has worked well for me. Of course, being partnered by a certain columnist has a great bearing on my overall results. One thing I have learned (above all) is consistency .. and not to get in your partner’s way.