Bridge with Another Perfect Partner
The IBPA 2022 Book of the Year By John Carruthers - available on Master Point Pr...
This interesting deal came up in an ACBL Instant Tournament - Matchpoints played earlier this month. Several things about this deal merit attention.
Of the 15 South dealers, six opened 1♣, eight opened 1♦ and one passed. West GIB passed at all tables, with their ♠AQ108xx ♥J8xxx ♦x ♣x. Every human I showed this hand to overcalled one spade (my preference) or chose an artificial two-suit showing call.
Six pairs reached 5♦ contracts, two from the South side and four from North. Those four resulted from South’s opening one club, which I think sub-optimal given the unequal suit strengths. I’d be happy to have experts tell me why I’m wrong in that judgment.
The two South declarers (including me) received club leads from West, but East didn’t return the suit so E-W lost their ruff and the contract made. Whew.
When North declared 5♦, East was on lead. Three out of four East leaders led a trump. The one table that made another lead prompted me to write this text.
That East led the club Ace. He next played the spade King. And continued with his doubleton club to give West a ruff and the setting trick. What a beautiful defense. Opening lead Ace, to survey the playing field. Play the spade King at trick two is the best match point play to save overtricks. When that King held the lead, the club play for the ruff was the only conceivable play to win another trick.
But how many players would think to find that?
Not part of this deal's analysis, but interesting to note is a discussion I had with one of my partners about how to rebid the South hand after it opens 1♦ and North responds 2♦, inverted raise. Partner liked a splinter 3♠, while I liked showing the club suit, because if there is a slam, North’s club holding is the key. [In robot's system, 3♣ and 4♣ have conventional meanings unrelated to showing club length, so at the BBO table I bid 5♣, which partner corrected to 5♦, ending the auction.]
About West’s action or non-action, if sitting West, I'd overcall 1♠ and I expect North’s action to help me understand the heart distribution. If North has four, they’ll likely put in a negative double; if they have five or more, they’ll likely bid them. By the time the auction gets back to me, I’ll likely have a decent idea of the heart distribution. On this deal, North will give a diamond raise, East will raise spades, and South will bid clubs. West can figure North for no more than three hearts and South for no more than two, so East for three or more. Continuing to bid spades will seem safer. In fact, par is E-W sacrificing at 5♠ against N-S unbeatable 5♣, which no one bid.
A side revelation is that given a choice of two ten-card trump suits where you hold the Ace in one but not in the other, choose for the trump suit the one where you don’t have the Ace.
I also did an MBA at Chicago in 79-81 and wish I'd had you for financial accounting.
5diamonds
The sad part of this story is that bidding style is influenced but the (let's just be blunt and true about this) silly bids that robots make. Passing 6-5 in the majors is pathetic. Although I totally agree with the 1D opening instead of 1C, 5C is, for us humans, Exclusive Blackwood.
I am a BBO enthusiast. But, it seems that there is a dark side of it: playing with or against robots. I do not see anything good out of this, besides (and this is what makes it still appealing) quietly burning some spare time without having to explain why I was such an idiot on a specific play :))
I completely agree with your excellent point regarding choice of ten card trump suits, obviously in an attempt to avoid the killing ruff.
I neglected to add that the referral to Vorachek was given my by expert Jay Patel. Kissinger famously said that the reason academic arguments are so vicious is that the stakes are so small. All we have are our egos and we stroke those by giving credit for ideas to those who have them. We give credit to those who give us ideas, and I should have acknowledged Jay in my comment above. RLW
I assume this is the same Roman Weil that was a professor at the U of C for many years (how many Roman Weils are there?). If so, I had you for Accounting as an MBA student back in the 80s (before I decided to go to law school). You were a very fine teacher and quite entertaining (the answer is either "historical cost" or "page 42").
I'm that guy. Thanks for the compliment. Turns out that writing accounting textbooks is good practice for writing. I sent in a comment about this deal to BBO. A higher-up spotted my comment and invited me to turn it into this report. I've since learned that my final revelation was anticipated in a Feb. 1956 article in The Bridge World by Felix Vorachek, "The Weaker Suit for Trumps."