Vil Reviews 23THU
Wednesday Review 20
This week, while teams is still on, I want to review a couple of hands from the previous Thursday, where declarers in one, and defenders in the other, went wrong when they really should not have.
Board 2 Dealer E NS Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
K75
QJ98Would YOU risk a preempt of 3D with the South hand?
I certainly would not, the hand is too weak and the vulnerability conditions wrong. Most Wests opened this 1D after two passes, and North overcalled 1H. Would YOU, or have you been taught that you should have a good suit with honour cards in order to overcall vulnerable? I certainly would overcall 1H, the hand is too good not to, despite the poor quality of the hearts.
After North's 1H overcall, at one table anyway, East bid 1S and West raised to 3S. East had no difficulty in bidding game. Against East's 4S, South led the six of hearts. Declarer should NEVER have got this one wrong, had he been thinking at all. North had obviously overcalled with 109843 in hearts. Surely he had to have outside high cards to make up for such an overcall. South obviously had led his singleton heart.
Our declarer, thinking only one thing, that he knew what a finesse was, won the heart in hand with the ace and led a low spade, putting in the queen, which North won. The inevitable followed, though the defenders failed to make the most of their chances. Declarer deserved to find that North had made a singleton king of trumps, but of course North actually had three of them. That would also have helped declarer had declarer tried to do everything possible to avoid a heart ruff (or more), by playing the ace of trumps immediately and then a low one from dummy.
That is what happened at another table, and here North did not make the most of it as a defender, by following low and allowing declarer to win the jack, after which declarer proceeded to run the hearts from dummy, discarding the singleton diamond, and then cross ruffing the rest of the hand, making FIVE.
But back to our hapless declarer who finessed the queen of trumps: North won and cashed the ace of diamonds to tell South to lead a diamond after the coming heart ruff. That cost NS a trick, because declarer also had a singleton diamond. Should North have cashed the singleton diamond ace? The simple answer is NO. Why waste an entry? All North had to do was to give South an immediate heart
ruff but tell South, with SUIT PREFERENCE, to return a diamond.
I have described suit preference signals in the past, but for those who have missed that, let me do so again: when you lead a card for partner to ruff, and want to tell them which suit to lead back to get another entry to your hand, lead a HIGH card if you want the HIGHER suit returned, and lead a LOW card if you want the LOWER suit returned. North should have returned the TEN and South would have then returned a diamond after the heart ruff. Another heart ruff would then have defeated 4S by TWO not just one. There was NO hurry, or need, for North to take the ace of diamonds early, was there? Unlikely as it may have been, that killed the second entry for another heart ruff. All that could have been avoided had declarer done some thinking, which is what our other East did when he made five.
Note that he would have made four anyway, even if North had gone up with the king of trumps and returned his last trump. The difference between making four and five was in fact no match points at all since this declarer was the only to bid and make game in spades.
Board 19 Dealer S EW Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
This was the bidding at one table, EW playing Acol:
| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pass | Pass | Pass | 1 |
| Pass | 1 | Pass | 1NT |
| Pass | 3NT | Pass | Pass |
| Pass |
Easts's rebid showed 15-16 HCP, as per standard Acol. At a number of tables, South led a spade, which I personally do not agree with. However the suggestion to lead 'fourth highest of longest and strongest' has merit but this time strongest should prevail, it would take too long to set up spades AND find entries. South should therefore opt for a low club, which is what was led at some tables.
When declarer called for a low card from dummy, ALL Norths followed another badly taught and badly interpreted 'rule' for play: “third hand high”. There should have been a number of indicators to tell North that third hand HIGH was completely the wrong thing to do this time.
- Think about partner's opening lead. Partner has led from four at least. Most likely partner has either the ace or king, but not both
- What can declarer have? Count the points and you will be able to add dummy's 11 to declarer's 15 minimum and work out that partner can NOT have seven points, therefore can not have BOTH the ace and king of clubs. Therefore you can't possibly gain anything by playing your queen. What that will achieve is that declarer will win his ace or king and then dummy's jack will be a stopper and a trick if required. So, North's only play is the NINE in the hope that partner has the ten
- Without the evidence of the bidding and your intelligent maths, there will be times when you cannot be sure if partner does have both the ace and king, but even then the odds will be on your side if you don't play your queen: partner only needs to have the TEN plus either the ace or king if you play your nine, partner needs to have precisely both ace AND king for your queen to be the right play
Next time you play a hand, or defend one, I hope you will remember how to finesse and WHEN to finesse, and how to apply rules such as 'third hand high' , 'second hand low', and 'cover an honour with an honour', all of which are great rules but need thought and correct application.
