Canada’s Chances

August 2nd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I was reading in the latest edition of the Bridge Bulletin about the Canadian Team Trials.  Interestingly enough, Paul Thurston had submitted a hand played by Francine Cimon in the last set up the final where she made 6D on a very pretty piece of dummy play ending in a squeeze.  Francine Cimon, in my humble opinion, is the best currently active women bridge player in Canada.  She is one of the best card players in the country.  I won’t repeat the hand but it is on Page 20 of the August 2008 bridge bulletin.  I was thinking about who else I might put on the list of Canada’s best women players.  If you are brave enough to go there just put in a comment or email me at [email protected].  You can be relatively anonymous if you want.  It does take a brave person to express an opinion in this arena.  I would say that my CWTC teammates have a claim with a long history of success and I have always thought Joan Eaton is a very tough opponent and fine player.  I enjoyed playing with Katie Thorpe who is one of the best partners to play with and I have partnered Mary Paul who is a ferocious competitor and talented player.  I played against Sheila Forbes online not so long ago and she reminded me just how good she it although she keeps saying that she isn’t playing bridge any more.  Who do you think are the up and coming stars?

I have also been thinking about Canada’s chances in the Open Teams in the upcoming Olympiad.  I could be wrong of course but I think this team has a reasonable chance of doing fairly well and it is my pick for the Canadian team that will have the best result in Shanghai.  It combines experience with youth and talent.  I haven’t seen the draw but I like there chances of making it to the knockout round and after that who knows.  Could they win a medal?  I think it is possible.  Below is the picture from the CBF website. 

CNTC Winners

Robert Lebi, Kamel Fergani, Nicolas L’Ecuyer, Marc-Andre Fourcaudot, Dan Jacob, Vincent Demuy

What do you think?  Anyone want to take a crack at predicting how they will do?

Just to feel confident I went back and looked at the last set of the CNTC final.  The action was hot and heavy from the first board. Generally there were lots of ups and downs and lot of excitement.  Our guys will be brave bold and resolute.

Here is a hand that typifies the type of action from the final.  You have

S A1076 H AKQJ8643 D J C void  with everyone vulnerable what do you like in fourth chair.

Fergani opened 4H which I do like.  Doug Fraser in fourth chair overcalled 5C and it was passed based to Fergani.  Do you like his choice 5H?  Doug doubled and partner had just enough:

S Q943 H 72 D Q73 C Q843

At the other table Lorber opened 1H and eventually bought it for 4H.

Playing in a pickup game

August 1st, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I like to go onto BBO and play a few hands in a pickup game.  It doesn’t matter who the other three people at the table are.  I like to see what I can do with the deals and watch how other people play.  I think it helps me to learn about players habits and the kinds of mistakes people make. 

One of the things that I have noticed is that most players are better at bidding than at playing hands.  This was a bit of a surprise.  When I grew up in the 60’s the opposite was true.  I suppose bidding methods are more sophisticated now and even new players quickly develop all sorts of tools to get to the right contract. 

I notice that at the beginning of hands declarer often doesn’t seem to have a plan.  Here is a simple hand from a recent BBO session.  You are playing in 6D with no opposition bidding.

North arrived in 6D after a very economical auction 1D-3D(forcing)-6D

The opening lead was the HJ how would you play the hand and how did North go wrong at our table? 

If trump are 2 no worse than 3-1 this hand has twelve top tricks.  You draw trump and then play four rounds of clubs throwing two spades from our hand – the SQ and the S10.  Then you concede a heart and ruff a heart in dummy.  You probably might as well try the HQ at trick one and if it holds you have an overtrick.  That’s it – just count your twelve tricks and you are a winner!  Now how did declarer go wrong?  North thought that he had a 75% chance of making the hand if he took two spade finesses and a fifty percent chance of making seven.  He threw his hearts away on the high clubs and then took two spade finesses.  He had just turned a 100% chance of making the hand into a 75% chance and today the 1-3 odds paid off for the defence.

As it turns out on the actual hand the declarer could have made the hand after throwing hearts from his hand since diamonds are 2-2 but that hardly matters.  (Declarer ruffs dummy’s H5 crosses to dummy with a trump and finesses the S10 endplaying East.)

Being the friendly person I am when asked about the hand I just said "unlucky".  It does make you realize why sometimes poorer pairs win or good teams lose to poor teams.  Seventy-five percent of the time North will make 6D and get a good result!  That is upsetting.  Bridge really ought to have style points.

A changing opinion about professionalism in bridge

July 31st, 2008  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

When I came back to the bridge world after a lengthy absence in the early 1990’s the bridge world had changed a lot.  Perhaps the biggest change was the bridge professionals.  Years earlier players did get played to play with others but it was not talked about and was done secretly.

I wasn’t sure if I liked the idea at all.  It weakened great events liked the world championships, the Spingold and Vanderbilt and many others.  It is true that in a lot of cases the sponsors sit out the last few rounds and you can see the great players playing against each other as in the old days.  And that did help those of us watching but it didn’t completely bring back the spirit of the best in the world battling it out.  Because In the end it is almost never true that even the strongest sponsors are as good as the very best players.  Why should they be? 

I didn’t understand why sponsors wanted to be players.  Why would they want to weaken their country’s team in a world championship?  Why would they want to play in front of every and "look bad".  Why not simply act as NPC or even non-playing sponsor as one or two sponsors do? 

In particular I couldn’t understand why someone would hire a pro to win masterpoints for them.  Masterpoints are completely meaningless anyway as the currency has become debased and they are cumulative so that simply playing a lot means gets you a large total.  I didn’t really understand why talented players would want to be pros travelling from tournament to tournament and playing with weak partners.  Neither side of this equation appealed to me.

But over time I have developed some sympathy for both sides of the equation.  By having sponsors the top players can play and make a good living.  They don’t have to be "bridge bums" or "weekend bridge players".  It is most fun to play with other top players but I can see that some pros like the challenge of playing with clients and teaching them and helping them to develop as players and even fielding their mistakes and getting the best results possible if not always the best possible result.  There even seems to be some prestige in saying that you have played pro. 

For the clients I can understand that a quite good players might want to play on a very good team so that they can compete against the best in the world in the last rounds of a major team championship.  They want to play with a great partner (who wouldn’t) and they don’t mind paying for the privilege.  I suspect that they know that they are the weak link on the team (in most cases) but they don’t care.  I can even imagine myself sponsoring a team and playing in the Vanderbilt if I won the lottery.  And I would be happy to play pro on a team especially in partnership with an expert of similar ability,  not just for the money but to be able to get on a good team.

I still don’t completely approve of having sponsors on national teams as players.  How can you exclude sponsors from playing in the world championships unless they are truly experts?  If you have team selectors you can refuse to select them but if you do then you better be prepared to pay the players or at least elaborately cover their expenses.   It may be impossible to do anything about sponsors from countries that use team trials.  I can’t think of any way to do it and with a country like the US which has collected the very best players from around the world to play on their national teams the rest of the team is so strong that they can finish at the top anyway.  Still I wish the sponsors would stand back and give us the best competition and be real sponsors and not client players.

I appreciate it if you don’t agree with what I am saying and I am willing to change my opinion if I hear some argument to the contrary that make sense to me.  I already have changed my opinion somewhat as you can see from the above.

A guest blogger

July 30th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Bob Mackinnon, a mathematician and story teller and an MPP author has frequently sent me emails about my Blogs.  I am trying to encourage Bob to start his own Blog since he has lots of ideas and things to say.  Here is his most recent email.  It discusses one of the hands from my last blog about the Spingold final.  I have included a few comments of my own at the end.

………………….

Bob Mackinnon

Dubious Signals

What is madness? To have erroneous perceptions and to reason correctly from them

– Voltaire (1694-1778)

The charm of a mystery novel is that in the end all confusion is resolved and all motives explained. Reality is not so neat as there are usually issues that remain unresolved. It is that way with bridge fiction as well. In the ideal world of the analyst every card played is a clue that, if carefully considered, leads to a correct conclusion. That is fiction; in reality discards and signals often prove erratic and so one mustn’t assume unreservedly they are what they seem. Players who are keen to reveal all during the auction often turn coy during the play. Here is a recent example from the final of the 2008 Spingold where the eventual champions sitting EW disadvantaged themselves greatly by a thoughtless signal.

West        North         East          South

Pass         1NT (14-16) Dbl*          2D*

Pass          2H             Pass          Pass

2S?            Pass          3C            3D

Dbl            All Pass * 1-suited *transfer

With 5 boards to play the Russian-Polish team had an 18 IMP lead. The final session had been quiet and there was no apparent need to swing boards. On the other hand there was no need to alter their aggressive stance, so Gromov took a light action over a 14-16 1NT opening bid to show a 1-suited hand. It is hard to figure what this was expected to accomplish. In the pass-out position Dubinin balanced with modest values and a 5-card spade suit. Gromov was not sure what the 2H bid meant; he may have thought Dubinin’s bid was encouraging in a pass or correct mode. Nonetheless, in the fog of uncertainty Garner was not to give up easily when his side held the majority of the HCP so he allowed the EW pair to escape from their misfit contract.

Charitably one might classify the efforts as ‘rub of the green’ when both sides stretch to find advantage in uncovering a fit. Dubinin felt he could apply the axe with four trumps in hand and an obvious lead. It would not be going too far to say this exceedingly dangerous action was the type of madness referred to by Voltaire. Nevertheless the defenders had enough tricks in hand to set the contract and avoid disaster, CA, SA, a club ruff, and 2 hearts, but there was more madness to come.

The lead of the C5 was taken by the CA. Apparently Gromov felt it imperative that a ruff be given immediately. With all hands on view it is obvious to play the HQ at trick two, but Gromov must have thought that declarer held the HA. He returned a club for Dubinin to ruff, and this is where one must conclude that signalling was not at the forefront of his thought processes, for he returned the §2 which should clearly indicate suit preference for hearts. This would be a safe return if Garner held the HA and Dubinin the HK.

Dubinin scored his ruff and thought a long time over whether to believe his partner’s signal or his opponent’s bidding. If he believed Garner’s bidding he could play safely by cashing his SA and await developments in the heart suit. If he believed his partner’s signal, he could get another club ruff. In the end he gave away the contract, and with it 11 precious IMPs, by returning the H7 allowing the HK to score a trick. As a result of this poor communications, the match wasn’t decided until the last hand was played, a 1H contract by Garner that was brilliantly defeated by Gromov and Dubinin. who regained their form just in time. (Does it really make sense to double a vulnerable 3D on the one hand, and defend a modest 1H on the other? Didn’t someone once observe that truth is stranger than fiction?)

The main point to be made is that even experts have difficulties in providing clear signals to their partners. This was true in the obvious situation described, so how much how much more unreliable will they be when the situation is obscure. The second point has to do with the nature of the information conveyed by suit preference signals. The information they contain should relate to the signaller’s holding (hard information), not to what he thinks others may hold (soft information). Gromov would have done better to play an intermediate club to confess to a lack of entry for a second ruff.

……………..

Linda’s comments

I think that Gromov purposefully led the C2 as a signal for hearts.  I don’t think these fellows just make a careless return.  I expect this was his thinking.  I don’t have anything in spades.  I should let partner know I have some heart values.  After all Dubinin might have had the HK and not the HA and then a heart return would have been necessary ( before the SA is knocked out).  Perhaps Dubinin should have worked out the Gromov would have signalled hearts with the QJ or perhaps he thought the Gromov would have returned a heart with that holding.

Watching the Spingold final

July 28th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Last night I watched the Spingold final and it was both exciting and great bridge.  Since it was played on the West Coast the fourth quarter started late but it was definitely worth it.

Here is my real time account.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed watching them play.

Its 11:45 PM and I am watching the final of the Spingold. We are in the fourth quarter as I open BBO.  Boards 1-16 were played in the third quarter and they will be playing boards 17-32. 

They are now playing Board 20. The first four boards were all Gromov, 5 IMPS apiece. This has brought the score to 115 for Gromov and 109 for Welland. This is an interesting deal. You are third to play defending 5H on this auction (all vulnerable)

You hold S Q854  H 943  D 754  C AQ8

Partner leads the SA and you see this dummy.

S 93 H Q652 D AQJ98 C K2

What do you signal? Do you have a good agreement?  I play that the King asks for count and the ace asks for attitude at the 5-level or higher (below that it is always attitude). So this is easy you discourage or do you?  Weinstein threw the SQ which I am sure was intended to get Garner to switch if he didn’t have the SK. But this got a diamond switch. A costly signalling error which resulted in the loss of a possible game swing. In the other room they played in 4H and only an opening club lead beats four. Declarer held

Board 22 saw a small well earned swing.  On this deal Ron Smith found a great defence to defeat 3D which was made in the other room.  It is amazing how often opening leads are critical to the result on a deal.

You hold S AQ1052 H A5 D J105 C AK10 and open the bidding 1S, eventually you find yourself defending 3D on this auction:

Okay over to you. At the other table they lead a "normal" CA and 3D cannot be defeated.  Here Ron Smith started with the SA.  Was he influenced by the fact that the opponents did not try for a notrump game?

Dummy was S KJ  H K874  D 8732  C Q32

Ron continued with a spade to dummy’s SK.  Here is the whole hand.

Balicki has a lot of work to do.  He led a diamond to his hand and played another diamond seeing the 3-1 break.  The second diamond was a fatal error.  Balicki led a club up and Smith won the CA and played back a high spade ruffed in dummy arriving at this position:

Now Balicki is badly placed leading off dummy.  He led a club to the CJ and Smith’s CK and you can see that when Smith returns a diamond he can’t avoid a heart loser and a spade loser since dummy is now out of trump and he can’t get there fast enough to discard his spade on the CQ.  That gave the Welland team four much needed imps but on the next board they gave back 10 imps when Smith-Cohen missed a 5C game found in the other room.  Team Gromov had outscored Team Welland 28-4 after the first eight boards and were now leading 129 to 113.

The next three boards brought a couple of imps to Gromov and someone noted that Zmudzinski -Balicki were killing Garner-Warner at board of match picking up a lot of uptricks.  In a close match that could be the killer.

There are now only five boards to go and team Welland is down by 18 imps.  Can they come back?  I am going to say no but we will see.

Board 28 is very interesting.  Here is the whole hand.   (As you will notice I have been rotating the boards to keep declarer in the bottom position.)

Gromov’s double showed a one suiter and Garner’s 2D bid was a transfer to hearts.  Dubinin reopened doubled and Garner competed by bidding his four card diamond suit.  Dubinin "expressed doubt" with an aggressive double (or perhaps you think Gromov’s original action was aggressive).  Dubinin led a club and Gromov won and returned the club 2.  Dubinin is thinking about this right now, for a long time.  I think the club should be suit preference but we can see that a heart return here would be fatal.  Oh my, he returned a heart and now Garner is making 3D doubled.  11 imps for Welland who is back in the match trailing by 8.  Do you think that Gromov was wrong to signal for a heart holding the QJ10?

A few imps each way and we are on the second last board with Welland only down by 5 imps. Board 31 is going to be flat. I am going to switch to the other room to check out board 32. 2C by East-West (looks like it will make). At least that is a plus for Welland. To get 5 imps you need at least 170 so North South need +80 to tie the match. They are playing in 1H! If they make 1H it is enough to tie the match (which will lead to an eight board playoff).

Here is the hand:

It appears that North-South has seven tricks if only South could get to North’s hand to finesse the heart.  The opening lead is a top club and if they defend carefully now they should be able to defeat 1H.  It’s over.  1H is down one trick and Gromov is the Spingold champions by 4 imps.  An exciting and well played match.

Birthday Bridge

July 25th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Today was my birthday and all in all it was a nice day.  It was certainly a bridge filled day.  I spent some time working on bridge hands and stories for our new bridge website which will be up and running this fall.  It is for bridge students and bridge teachers and is called MasteringBridge.com.  (like the name?)

We talked about the books we are planning to publish this year.  Believe it or not we know all of the books for a whole year, although perhaps we might slot one more in between now and this time next year, you never know.  One of my favourite books for the fall is a collection of Frank Vine stories.  Frank Vine lived near here, in Hamilton and he was a fine player but he also was a great writer and his stories (some published in Bridge World) are very funny. 

I started my first bridge blog for learners.  This one was supposed to be for beginners.  It started out with the most simple finessing position there is, the AQ and talked about what a finesse was.  But somehow I got carried away and I went out of beginner land.  Becky, our new electronic publishing intern who does not play bridge (but is learning) told me I had gone much too far. 

Here is what happened.  I started to talk about this finesse from the point of view of the defenders.  Fourth hand shouldn’t lead into the AQ away from the King (okay so far) but then I talked about making a trick when the king was onside by a) locking declarer in dummy or b) second hand making a deceptive play of second hand leading from the King.  In the example, declarer had two chances and this play took away one of them.  Okay I agree … this is a bridge too far.

Now that I think about it there is a lot more one could do with this simple position.  Endplays to start.  Show-in squeeze anyone?

Colin and I have now decided that we are playing at the Boston Nationals which means that we do need to write up our system, pronto.  I am also playing in a senior event (I suppose I will have to admit to being 55) but not with Colin of course.

We did manage to get in a few hands tonight after my birthday dinner.

Here is one favourite.  Colin opened 1S (limited) and I held

S xx H 9 D AQ9xxxx C AJ9

I bid 2D game forcing and Colin bid 3D.  I bid 3H and Colin bid 3S and basically I just bid 6 using keycard along the way.  Colin had a yummy hand.

S AKJ84 H K103 D K1084 C 8

It was one of those great nights where your card is full of pluses and the bridge is fun. 

Eddie’s Home Game Revisited

July 22nd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

A couple of nights ago, I returned to the hotel very depressed. I had just finished a terrific Indian dinner but I left my glasses in the cab and was a moment too late to retrieve them.  Ray and I were meeting Eddie Kantar and Phillip Alder for a prearranged bridge game. To provide me with the most light (I was incognito in prescription sunglasses) we sat at the back of the tournament hall. All around us sections of players were playing in the Life Masters’ pairs but I think the bridge in our little corner was likely among the best in that room. Ray played very well but it was our opponents who shone.  At the end I found I was no longer depressed at all.

Let’s see if you can defend as well as Eddie Kantar on the hand. This is your hand S K742 H KJ962 D J8 C J2. South (me) opens a 12-14 notrump and all pass. Your goal on the hand is to try to defeat the hand (of course) but also to hold declarer to the fewest possible tricks. You lead a small heart and you see this dummy:

North

S Q65 H A54 D Q7653 C 43

You (West)

S K742 H KJ962 D J8 C J2.

Declarer plays low and partner plays the H10 as declarer wins the HQ. Declarer now plays the DK and it holds. What do you think is happening and what is your plan? Stop and think about it now. Declarer continues with the D10, you perforce cover with the DJ and Phillip (your partner) wins the DA.  He plays another heart, which you win and play a third heart.  What is your plan now?

That was a trick question. You cannot play a third heart. Here is the whole hand.

If you continue a heart then declarer will throw her D9 on the HA and eight tricks are hers. Eddie found a shift to the CJ. As it turns out there is no way to prevent declarer from making seven tricks at this point nor is there any way for declarer to make eight tricks. In practice, I won the second club and cashed the other club honor throwing a diamond from dummy. I cashed the D9 and exited a spade. Phillip won the spade, cashed a club and exited a spade to Eddie’s King and now whatever Eddie plays my hand or dummy is high.

You can try different variations but after Eddie’s great switch the fate of the hand is sealed.

By the way, I now sit the proud owner of two new pairs of eyeglasses with thanks to Judy Wolff. (I shall always have a backup with me.) Judy kindly lent us her car so that we could travel around Las Vegas as we bought replacement glasses. I think I look very cool in my new frames.

The system works!

July 15th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Vulnerable against not, Colin opened a club yesterday and the system actually worked to get us a good score.  Here is what happened.  Colin held

S KQ863 H AK98 D K C A65

He opened 1C and I bid 1D showing 0-8.  Colin bid 1S showing five or more spades.  This bid is forcing one round.  I bid 1NT showing 0-5 HCP and no spade fit.  Colin bid 2H which can be passed but I burst forth with four hearts.  I held

S 97 H J107432 D 963 C 108.

The hand broke normally and four hearts was easy.

Okay, so my bid was a touch aggressive but we would have got to game anyhow.  Since if I bid 3H Colin will bid four.  This hand was passed out in 1S at a lot of tables.  I know see the wisdom of the forcing one of a major. 

We both enjoyed this hand too.  It has nothing to do with system and a lot to do with Colin’s aggressive style and our good defence.  Colin held S AQ93 H 94 D 974 C K976.  The opponents were vulnerable and we were not.   After two passes West on his left opened 1D and East responded 1S.  West bid 2S and I balanced with a double.  Colin bid 3C and West took the push with 3S.  Do you pass or make a call?  Colin doubled.  I lead the S4 and this was dummy.

S K862 H KJ72 D K1063 CA

Colin won the SQ and cashed the SA and another spade.  At the table declarer played on hearts, allowing Colin to ruff the heart and return.  Here is the whole hand

Declarer could win the club return, and ruff a heart to hand to play a diamond up.  I won the DA and played the DQ.  Declarer could only take the diamond and his last trump for two down.  We took three spade tricks 2 diamond tricks, and a club trick.

An interesting play hand and an interesting bidding hand

July 15th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Here are a couple of hands that we got a bit wrong in our session last night.  I like this play problem because it contains an interesting position which is easy to miss.

Partner passed and you (South) open 1S in third chair. Partner bid 2H and you rebid 2S which was passed out.

The opening lead was the C9 and you won the club ace in dummy and played the club king throwing a heart.  You now played a spade to the queen, cashed the spade ace and played another spade finding that West had started with four spades KJ10x.  West cashes his last spade and plays a club which you ruff.  East threw two clubs under the spades and on the club discards the D5

At this point you are certainly happy you didn’t get too high.  How do you continue?

From the play so far you know that East started with S KJ10x and C QJ10x.  He also is very likely to have one of the diamond ace or king (since West did not lead a diamond.)  West is know to have S XX C XXXX, a diamond honour and almost certainly the heart king.  West will not have pitched down to a stiff diamond honour so he started with at least three diamonds, but more likely four.

East therefore doesn’t have more than three diamonds.  If the diamonds were three-three you have no legitimate way to make the hand at this point unless West does have both diamond honours.   But if the diamonds were four-two or five-one you can still succeed, even with split honours.

The best play now is to lead the diamond queen from hand (and one we missed).  If  East wins and returns a heart or a club, you win and play another diamonds.  Now West has to win the DA and your DJ is the game going trick.  If West wins and returns a heart you win and play a diamond up.  Your plan is to duck the diamond to East’s now doubleton honour.

You will pay off to East holding the diamond AKXX and not leading one.

Here is my bidding problem.  I held S void H A532 D AQ54 C QJ1085.  All white, partner in second chair opened a 10-12 notrump.  We are playing forcing and nonforcing Stayman.  If you bid 3C immediately it is invitational (generally looking for notrump).  I decided I wasn’t good enough to force to game opposite a possible ten count and no certain fit.  Do you agree?  So I started with 2C.  Colin bid 2D no major.  Now I was even more confused.  I suppose notrump could be right if Colin had a lot of spade points.  Four hearts could be right too if Colin has three good hearts and 5 of a minor is definitely a possibility.  What to do?  At the table I bid 3C (for play).  One other choice is 4C.  I think it has to be invitational in clubs since I didn’t start with 4D.  I didn’t want to spring this on his at the table.  This has the advantage that Colin can bid 4H with three good hearts, on the way to five clubs.  If I want to just play five of a minor I think 4NT should ask Colin to bid game in a minor.  As it turns out 4H and 6D makes and 6C makes if you guess hearts.  Colin held S 964 H KJ10 D K1-83 C A92.  I wonder what Colin would have thought if I bid 4NT at the table!

Playing a grand slam, not against Jeff Smith

July 11th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

This hand was going to be one I loved or hated.  Let me set it up for you.  I held S KQJ53 H 7652 D K62 C 8

We are vulnerable against not and Colin opened 1C strong.  I bid 1H showing a positive response with five spades or a balanced hand with 11-13 HCP.  Colin bid 2H which shows at least four card spade support and is unlimited. 

Now RHO bid 3C. What does this mean?  Is it lead directing?  Why would you bid 3C now and not over 1C?  This was an established partnership so they had agreements here. 

We have had some discussions that in this type of auction we play serious 3NT so probably 4C doesn’t show extra and it seems unlikely to deny all red suits.  I tried that.  West on my left bid 5C and partner bid 5NT grand slam force.  What should I bid now?  I missed the best bid at the table.  I should bid 7C.  It must be asking partner to play the hand from his side and  that has to be right.  I bid 7S and set myself up for what was to follow.

The opening lead was the C3, East playing the C2.  My job (and yours) is to find the diamond queen.  You play a spade to the King and a spade to the S10.  East shows out throwing the C5.  You play three rounds of hearts and all follow the hearts are 3-3.  You cross to your hand with the SQ and play the last heart.  The opponents throw clubs.  You know play off another spade and East throws the CQ and West the CJ.  When you play the last spade something funny happens.  East throws the D3 and West throws the C4.  West has been playing pretty random spot cards through this whole process.  It seems very likely that East held S 9 H 1043 D ?X3 C KQ10752.  Who has the DQ?

First I tried to decide if East was more likely to bid 3C (the second time round) with or without the DQ.  It didn’t really seem to matter.  Could East really have only five clubs and hold four diamonds?  So he held Q10752 Q943 in the minors.  No I couldn’t believe that he would do this on such a rotten suit.  Why was he throwing a diamond?  Did he have the queen and want to confuse me?

My experience here is that most people don’t throw a diamond from QXX.   Jeff Smith might do it.  He loves getting me on plays like this.  But he wasn’t at the table.  So if you played West for the DQ you were right.  I however blew it.

Why should we play it Colin’s way (apart from the fact that he guesses better)?  With Colin as the closed hand he has the opportunity to lead the DJ and see if East will cover.  With dummy exposed that really isn’t much of a chance.