Irwin Boris, one of the Twin Cities' experts players, has provided us with a play problem from last weekend's Minnesota State Sectional.
Our thanks to Irwin for his hand and analysis - along with further comments from Yours Truly following.
From your editor:
What I find particularly interesting about this hand is this. Did Irwin inquire what the best line of play was on the hand? Or - did Irwin ask what he thought was the winning action at the point at which declarer had to make his critical guess? These two issues are not one and the same.
One can argue that the line Irwin and his Twin City-expert declarer selected is indeed the best line of play - in a vacuum. Nevertheless, one can also ask - is it the winning choice, given the event itself (board-a-match) and against whoever the team might have been? It could indeed be true that the line of play was best - but not the wisest choice after the earlier declarer play choices and given whoever was declarer at the other table.
Over 25 years ago, playing in a regional pair event, I made the choice to bid 3NT holding Jxx in an opponent's suit. It was a winning decision; I had nine tricks after the opening lead. I knew, however, that at matchpoints I was supposed to "go for the maximum" as declarer. So, given that my LHO had bid and my RHO had not, I played LHO for a key honor that would allow me to take extras.
WRONG! It turned out that LHO had overcalled light, and RHO had remained silent with some cards. After failing in a cold contract, I asked international star Ralph Katz how I should have known to spurn going for more than nine tricks.
"You made a great guess when you bid 3NT," Ralph told me. "You should have appreciated that few would reach the contract you had. Thus - you had won most of the battle by getting to 3NT. Take your tricks and be pleased with earning well over average."
Ralph saw what I did not. Thus, we must always be mindful of the entire "big picture" at bridge. Sometimes what is "right" in one set of circumstances is not in others....
The problem, as posed, is a twist on the actual layout of board 14 from Saturday morning where South actually held
KQx AJ8x KTxx Qx and North Axx Kxx Jxx AKxx
only the weak NTers or 16-18ers are not opening 1N with the S hand rather than a more aggressive 14hcp 1N in the problem posed by Irwin. the travelers don't indicate the declarer or contract level (5NT or 6NT??) so we don't know if any North's were declaring & received a heart lead which may pick up the entire suit by ducking in South's dummy.
An extra trick can come from hearts or diamonds. Both suits are 4 opposite 3, the hearts missing the Q and T, diamonds the A and Q. I also made 4, based on the 2:1 relationship with 4 hearts on my right and 2 on my left after playing on diamonds first. I left the hope open that the defense might play a heart for me if i worked on diamonds first.
the matchpoint result across 3 sections on a 23 top:
490 x 3 = 22
460 x 7 = 17
430 x 7 = 10
-50 x 4 = 4x
-100x 2 = 1x
-150x 1 = 0
one of the best aspects of BAM, as alluded by Peg, is the consideration of contract, lead, and declarer skills at the other table.
Many declarers may have attacked hearts first. Running the 9 is probably the right play and produces 3 winners but doesn't solve the diamond suit, and threatens the contract on a black suit continuation if you later misguess the diamonds.
I'm quite surprised that nearly 1/3 of the field went minus. I suspect there were a number of aggressive quantitative raisers to 4N who subsequently went after hearts first.
As posed, and given Irwin's superior choice of trying diamonds first, I'd prefer the term schmo LOL
I'd guess i'm a schmo too for going full throttle and not making 6 when cold for 5.
Posted by: Mike Cassel | November 11, 2011 at 09:55 AM
This hand is a neat example of a board-a-match strategy consideration. thanks
Posted by: Youngblood | November 13, 2011 at 01:37 AM