[Brian Davies]

“if there is a way to set the vulnerability in the BBO hand editor I have not found it.”

Have a look at: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/hvdoc.html

There is a parameter for setting the vulnerability.

[Brian Davies]

I would make a 2H weak jump overcall at my first turn. Yes, we are vulnerable, but I have three of the top five hearts and it is a bidders game. Most opponents won’t punish you, even if you are wrong, in the average pairs field. My partner will expect this as a minimum WJO. But, having chosen to pass, you can’t possibly bid at your next turn.

What do we know? East (dummy might not have much: 6 points and four diamonds, maybe. So, either West is very strong (a good 18+) and balanced, or West is bidding in the expectation of running diamonds. I like partner to be aggressive in the auction (1D)-P-(2D) – particularly at pairs. So, it is just about possible for West to have the very strong balanced hand-type. But I will defend on the basis that West is most likely to have running diamonds, so we want to take tricks fast.

Partner will have at least three hearts, often four. Declarer might be a chancer, but most declarers will have a heart stop and since declarer isn’t likely to have many hearts, it could easily be Kx. A heart lead could be giving declarer his ninth trick! On the other hand, we have no idea whether a club or a spade will be best, if we lead something else and will partner know to switch to hearts even if we do find the entry? (This is why we should have bid!).

If I feel the the opponents are chancers, I lead a heart (it probably doesn’t matter which one). But other I go for S9, and trust my partner to get it right.

[Brian Davies]

Hi Brian, interesting hands, thanks.

What do we know? Declarer has a balanced or semi-balanced 20-22. And dummy about 0-4. Partner can have some values – I’m picturing partner with an 8-count, say. This auction is always a nightmare for declarer, because there will be few, if any, entries to dummy. It is normal to lead as passively as possible against this auction – declarer will often be short of tricks and you don’t want to give away any gifts. Even at IMPs, I want to be passive, but there is no such candidate!

Spades is the obvious choice and every other suit looks risky, so I will go with a spade. Which card to choose? The Jack is standard and will be perfect if partner has Axx or similar with the Queen in dummy. I can’t see a reason to play the King and it might look foolish if dummy has the Queen and declarer has Ax, say. Dummy is very unlikely to hold the ace and even the Queen is against the odds. So maybe this is the time to lead the fourth highest spade, hoping that partner has the Ace or the Queen (or failing that, the nine). I will look foolish if declarer has AQx and dummy has 9xx, but I have looked foolish before.

S4.

[Brian Davies]

I don’t play Checkback in one partnership, but 3C would be forcing for us and so would 3S (initially showing a five-card suit and offering a choice of game).

[Brian Davies]

A final thought on this. This is the type of holding that I was considering:

If South wins the first trick there will be no chance of making against best defence. Diamonds are 3-3, but you can’t set up a diamond without conceding a trick (and entry to West). East has the hearts well protected and can keep the fourth Spade.

But ducking allows the contract to make. If West continues clubs, East cannot discard a second spade (sets up the fourth round for declarer) or a heart (declarer can now set up a heart winner – as per Bernard’s line), so East must discard a diamond. This gives declarer a challenge, but declarer can succeed by playing two top diamonds, two top hearts and four round of spades, throwing Ease in. East can cash a couple of hearts, but must concede the ninth trick to the nine of hearts.

 

[Brian Davies]

Many of the usual rules apply. Sequences make good leads – but you are leading the Q from QJ10 because it is safe, not because you expect the ten to become a winner. Singletons make good leads (but only if you have some trumps!). Leading partner’s suit is good (but expect the pre-emptor to be short).

Some leads become more attractive after a pre-empt. So, leading low from Kxxx isn’t usually attractive, but it is a little less ugly when declarer is unlikely to hold the ace in the suit. Even an unsupported ace lead might not be so bad if declarer is less likely to hold the king (aces are meant to kill kings!).

As Reg says, it is important to listen to the bidding and realise that there are different situations. Compare (say):

• (3C)-P-(P)-P
• (4S)-P-(P)-P
• (2S)-P-(4S)-Dbl-(P)-P-(P)
• 1H-(2S)-P-(P)-P
• (3H)-P-(4H)-P-(P)-P

You will expect different hand-types for each. Partner might be much stronger over a 4S pre-empt than over a 3C pre-empt. If the opponents raise the pre-empt they might be planning to ruff in dummy. A double will change your expectation of partner’s holding – it might also change your trick objective.

[Brian Davies]

Tim said:

“I thought you have to duck four times to “rectify the count” in order for the squeeze to work.” – Not necessarily, although this is usually the best arrangement for a simple squeeze. The important thing is that the timing is right, so that there are no idle cards.

“You need a squeeze card which I thought will eventually be the KH ( after the AH has been played ).” – You don’t always need a squeeze card. In a suicide squeeze (which is what is being suggested), the opponents will provide the squeeze card!

[Brian Davies]

I am not an expert in squeeze play – not that I think that this hand is all about squeeze play. But there is a useful general principle that if you need to lose tricks as declarer, you are often better losing them early. There are many reasons why this can help us, and a squeeze is only one of those reasons. You might get a better count of the hand by losing early tricks, you might take away exit cards for a throw-in etc.

But I really don’t think that you can be planning a squeeze at this stage when you are still in the dark about the opponents’ distribution. West could easily have four diamonds to go with the six clubs (it isn’t unusual to pre-empt with 6-4 in the minors). This would give East more cards in the majors and you might wrongly judge that east has unguarded a major. The problem with trying for the suicide squeeze is shown by the suggested play given in Tim’s link. North has discarded a diamond at trick three – this is one of your menaces, but you don’t know this because diamonds might easily be 4-2 (no menace) or 2-4 (menace) or 3-3 (can establish the suit if we can lose the lead to East).

On the other hand Bernard’s solution relies on a 4-3 heart break, which he states as the most common break. This might be right without the 3C pre-empt, but once we know that West has six hearts the most likely break is 2-5 and East is odds-on to have five or more hearts.

So I feel that ducking once will be a better tactic. If hearts are 2-5, East cannot afford to discard a heart because Bernard’s line will now succeed. A second spade discard would give us the suit if East started with five spades, a diamond discard would allow us to set up diamonds if East started with four diamonds. In a face-to-face game you would be looking to see how comfortable East was with the discard. Remember that we don’t know East’s exact distribution, but neither does East know our distribution and it will be easy for East to mis-judge the discard – particularly as he doesn’t know that his partner only started with six clubs.

[Brian Davies]

Thanks Julian, this makes sense.

If I pass, would partner’s double also be penalties in the auction: 2C-(P)-2D-(3C); P-(P)-Dbl?

Would you also play penalty doubles after a second seat overcall: 2C-(3C)-Dbl?

[Brian Davies]

I’m not sure that it is easy to duck four times, because you will also need to find discards from dummy – ahead of East. It might be difficult to read which suit has been bared.

But if you duck once (following suit in dummy), you will tighten the position, giving East an uncomfortable discard. Bernard’s line then becomes more likely to succeed.

Very interesting hand!

[Brian Davies]

Is your opponents’ agreement legal? It doesn’t seem to meet the Level 4 requirement for a two-level opening.

[Brian Davies]

Thank you Julian.

One deal proves nothing, but on the actual hand 2H and 3C both make. 2NT might go a couple off, but in practice it often made.

[Brian Davies]

How would you expect the bidding to continue after the double Julian? West presumably passes (doubleton heart). I guess that a pass by North caters for partner showing either the 16+ type or diamonds. But what should North do if holding Diamond shortage? How can North tell which hand-type South holds?

[Brian Davies]

1H-(1S)-3S would be my choice of response with your partner’s hand. The 3S bid is a splinter, promising heart support, showing spade shortage and some high-card points (9 should be enough in a shapely hand). As a general principle, I always try to support a major suit at the first opportunity – particularly if there is interference.

Well done on bidding the slam.

[Brian Davies]

Thanks David. Yes, I had a read. The main impact on us is that we will need to announce our four-suit transfers.

[Author]

Posts