Two Nightmarish Hands

Literally. They kept me up all night. Continue reading

I was up almost all night fretting about two nightmarish hands that led to our downfall in the last round of the Swiss in Johnston. There was actually a third hand that produced equally dire results, but I was the dummy on that one, and it seemed so routine at the time that I paid it little attention.

I was sitting West.


Hand #5 (North dealer, NS vulnerable):

Here was the bidding at our table:

North East South West
Pass Pass 2 2
Double 4 Double Pass
4 Pass Pass Pass

 

The result was one overtrick.

At the other table the bidding was much simpler.

North East South West
Pass Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 3NT Pass
Pass Pass

This was South’s hand:

A K A K x x A J A J x x

With 24 hcp and a five-card suit, 3NT was not an unreasonable bid. Unfortunately West will invariably lead a diamond, East will play the queen, which forces the ace. West has two entries, and five certain diamond tricks. Even with the monster shown above and North’s five hearts South would be lucky to garner seven tricks in notrump.

So, my aggressive bidding had the unintentional effect of scaring them out of a disastrous notrump contract. On the other hand, if South had bid only 2NT, North would not raise to three. He/she would either pass (only a little better) or bid Stayman or a transfer, which would lead to 4.

Knowing that most experts do not like bidding 2 with a two-suiter, I would have strongly considered bidding only 1 with the South hand. That would surely have forced West’s hand and inevitably led to a heart contract, although maybe we would have stopped short of game. Ideally, it would have gone like this:

North East South West
Pass Pass 1 1
Pass 3 4 Pass
4 Pass Pass Pass

Of course, if North had bid 4, I would not have been happy. I would be forced to retreat to 5. Who knows if North would dare to correct to 5?


The other disastrous hand, board #7, at first appeared to be a fairly interesting play problem.

I held this hand:

A x x x A 10 x K x x x x

I do not remember why I thought that this agglomeration was worthy of an opening bid, but I tabled the 1 card. My partner responded 2NT with the following:

K J x x K 9 x J A K x x x

He did not splinter in diamonds because we play that a splinter shows minimal game-forcing values, and he had more than that. When I rebid 4, he reluctantly passed.

I was delighted when North led the Q, since that almost certainly meant that he had the jack as well. I drew two rounds or trump, which flushed out the queen, took the marked finesse in hearts, conceded a diamond, and claimed twelve tricks.

I should not have been so hasty. I should have begun by leading low to the J. That would have given North the opportunity to play his ace in fear that I might have the KQ. If that did not work, I should have taken two rounds of trump and then tried to set up a long club, which is an 84% play. Only if that failed should I have assumed that North led from the QJ. Of course, it was overwhelmingly likely that he had the jack, but there was no reason to take a chance. The other plays are what Jay Stiefel calls “can’t cost.”

We learned that the opponents with our cards at the other table bid the slam and made it on the lead of the A. How could they know that they had such a magical fit?

They could not have used Losing Trick Count. My hand has eight losers, and partner’s has six. LTC says that we only have ten tricks.

They could not have used Bergen’s adjusted point count. My hand has only 12 declarer points. I probably should not even have opened. Partner’s has 18 dummy points. Even if I add a point for the doubleton in my hand, we are two points short of the 33 that Bergen recommends.

At the other table East used Blackwood and then bid the slam even though she learned that she was off one key card and the queen of trump. She probably did not realize that she was actually missing all four queens and two jacks as well. Aaaargh!

Athens or Sparta?

I’ll take Athens. Continue reading

Just about the most disturbing thing that I have ever heard was broadcast last week on the radio show This American Life, which you can listen to here. A soldier in his early thirties disclosed that, after three tours in Afghanistan, he really regretted not having killed any of the “bad guys” there. He insisted that everyone in the Army knows who has a kill and who doesn’t. He also reported that the training that he received was in large part designed to overcome the innate psychological barrier against taking human life and to turn killing into a goal. He rejected this intellectually, but he still felt a primal and almost irresistible urge of some kind to find out what it was like to kill someone. The urge remained even after he had completed his term of service and returned to civilian life.

What a contrast to my own military experience from October 1970 through April 1972. In those days half of the enlisted men in the Army had been drafted, and a good number of those were college graduates. Most of the rest of the guys had either joined up to escape from some problem in civilian life or had been bamboozled by a recruiting sergeant into thinking that they could get something out of the Army. At the time the country was still mired in Vietnam, but no one whom I knew thought of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese as “the bad guys.” The truly bad guys to us were the government officials who forced us to give up the best years of our lives to this inane institution and the lifers who made the whole thing possible. There certainly were a few fellows who enlisted out of a sense of duty, but in most cases it was a duty that had been inherited from parents and/or siblings who had also been in the military.

Another gigantic difference is the way in which the rest of the country treats the military today. I remember in 2003 as we began our ill-fated invasion of Iraq that nearly every football game on television included a tribute of some kind to the American military personnel. That was almost eleven years ago, and the attitude of the media has hardly changed one iota. On Friday I heard on the radio that veterans can now obtain a special driver’s license or ID card with a flag on it to indicate that they have served in the military. The Secretary of the State went on the air to encourage merchants to offer discounts to anyone who had one because “they have done such a great job.”

I just do not get it. By what conceivable standard has the military done a great job? It is a positive development that soldiers no longer roll grenades into the tents of the commanding officers, or at least the instances of “fragging” are now lumped in with other incidents of “friendly fire.” On the other hand, unless you are a Shiite partisan, Iraq seems no better than it was under Sadaam. Moreover, Al Qaeda is reportedly stronger than ever, and Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan. The expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of lives of non-Americans, and untold numbers of physical and emotional casualties has produced absolutely no good at all as far as I can tell. And don’t tell me that the problems remain because we did not have the political will to finish the job. If it takes longer than a decade to accomplish something, you cannot expect the public to keep writing blank checks. Both the Nazis and the Japanese were defeated in far less time. Simultaneously!

It defies credulity how much the American military itself and the citizenry’s attitude toward it has changed in the four decades since I was involved in it. An overriding concern of every male in my generation was the specter of the draft. Some people, including most of the major politicians of the last two decades, took extreme steps to avoid being drafted. Others, including myself, did not try to avoid the draft, but only because we thought that we would probably figure out a way to avoid facing combat.

The enlisted men in the Army were treated like dirt. The starting pay was $125 per month. For that the soldiers were continually subjected to humiliation and mindless labor. I hated every single minute that I was in the Army even though I had one of the cushiest assignments imaginable. The effect on the Army was pernicious. Both the people who did the fighting and the people who supposedly supported them were angry and resentful. Just about the only thing that Donald Rumsfeld and I agree on is his assessment that the American military of the era of the draft was not an effective fighting force.

We have a totally different military today. An astounding 168,000 members of the armed forces are married to other members of the military! In my illustrious military career I met very few people who were married at all. Men who were married with children were exempt from military service, and married people almost never enlisted.* I never encountered a single person who had a spouse in the military.

Everyone in the military is now paid good wages, easily enough to support a family. The troops are provided with a lot more support than we had. I wonder if the drill sergeants even tell recruits about the infamous Jody these days.

The National Guard and the Reserve were a joke in the old days. They helped in emergencies like hurricanes, but mostly they were known as a way for the rich, influential, and the merely lucky to pretend to be in the military. There was never even a suggestion that they might be sent to help out in the war. Now they are deployed in combat almost as often as the regular GI’s.

The Vietnamese War was much more deadly than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 50,000 American troops perished in Vietnam, more than ten times the number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the troops today who kill bad guys using drones and bombs are considered heroes, whereas the poor slobs who got caught in ambushes in the rice paddies were considered … hardly at all.

One thing that the current engagements have in common with the War in Vietname is that they were both based on The Big Lie. In the seventies the lie was known as the Domino Theory, which held that losing in Vietnam would somehow impel other countries to embrace Communism. For many years Americans seemed to buy into this theory, but by the time that I was in the Army hardly anyone of my generation was willing to put his life on the line to hold the line before Communism reached Thailand or Burma.

The lie behind the War on Terror claimed that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were somehow preventing terrorists from staging future attacks on the United States. The evidence against it is at least as strong as the evidence against the Domino Theory, but only now, more than a dozen years after it was promulgated, are the people who have served in the military beginning to question whether the invasions were worth the cost. For years it was considered unpatriotic even to mention the cost.

And what of blood lust? I knew a few guys in the Army who were “gung-ho.” They were the subject of widespread ridicule. The sergeants did not try to get us to hate the Viet Cong. One sergeant even told us never to call him Charlie. He said that he deserved the respectful appellation Mr. Charles. What the dedicated sergeants tried to impart on us was how worthless we were and how hopeless their job of trying to train us was. Half of the sergeants, however, were as lackadaisical as we were. They were just counting their own days.

I certainly had no desire to kill anyone. In fact, I mentioned once or twice in Basic Training that I would in no circumstances do it. At the end of our eight weeks of training period one guy came up to me and said that he did not believe me when I said it, but after eight weeks of being with me he changed his mind.

I never changed mine.


* In Basic Training I did meet one very poor guy from Mississippi who sent every paycheck back home to his wife.

I Fought the Rule of Nine

And lost. Continue reading

The Rule of Nine, which was devised by Mel Colchamiro, is designed to aid in the decision as to whether to convert a low-level takeout double by one’s partner to penalty. One adds the following together:

  • The number of cards in the opponent’s trump suit.
  • The number of honors (tens count) in the opponent’s trump suit.
  • The level of the bid.

If the total is nine or more, it is OK to pass. Note: overall strength is not a factor. The choice is between offense and defense.

* * *
Sitting West at unfavorable vulnerability I saw two passes. I had to decide whether to open the following hand:

8 7 5     K Q 10 6 4     Q 8 6 3     4
Yes, I know that this hand does not meet the most (or even least) disciplined standards for weak two bids, but I hate to let the opponents use every level of the bidding box, especially when I am positive that it is their hand. So, I drew the 2 card from my box and set it confidently on the table.

South, not suriprisingly, doubled. Partner passed. Oh, that was a bad sign. He would have raised to three if he had three hearts. So, we had at most seven hearts. North paused to evaluate her hand for a few hours while I mentally enumerated the popes of the eleventh century so as not to give away my bluff. Alas, in the end North passed. I had no choice but to pass and take my medicine. This was the layout:

Board16

So, we had twelve points, and they had twenty-eight. I needed to hold it to down one unless the opponents had a rather freakish slam. Even at that, I had to hold it to down three. The first goal was obviously not possible unless they revoked two or three times while they were cashing their aces and kings, but I did manage to garner five tricks for -800.

North’s hand did not come close to meeting the Rule of Nine. Even if you change it to the Rule of Eight (because I only had five hearts), her hand fell short. So, Mel would predict that she made a big mistake in passing. Sure enough, North-South can make six spades or six clubs, and the play is not even that difficult. The only challenge is finding the Q.

Unfortunately for me, no pair had the temerity to try the Moysian slam or the eight-card club slam. Nine played in 3NT, two played in 4, and one played in 3. Moreover, only one of the three who played in the black suits managed to bring home twelve tricks. So, it appeared that I made a big mistake by bidding.

However, that club bid intrigued me. The people who played there were pretty good players. I suspect that the person sitting in my chair at that table (the most aggressive bidder in the club) must have opened 2! [I found out later that he DID open 2.] If North followed the Rule of Nine, he would have probably bid clubs in response to his partner’s inevitable double. I would have. Playing lebensohl* he would probably bid 3. At that point South would either move to a club game or, if they were playing Western cue-bids, ask for a heart stopper. The latter approach would land them in 3NT.

If North-South was NOT playing lebensohl, what would North bid? Maybe he would venture 3, and South, armed with the knowledge that eleven tricks in a minor is always difficult, might just pass because she was afraid of the heart suit. Or maybe she would raise clubs. In either case they would not find the easy notrump game.

If so, then it was all or nothing. If North violated Mel’s rule and passed, East-West got a zero. If North bid, East-West won all the marbles.

So, was I chastened by this result? No, but in the future I might be a little more careful at unfavorable vulnerability.


* The lebensohl convention after a double of a weak two bid uses a relay from 2NT to 3 so that advancer can distinguish between weak hands and ones with at least seven points.

The Impossible Spade Advance

What was partner thinking? Continue reading

In a pairs game the deal is on your left. Only the opponents are vulnerable. Dealer opens 1, partner passes, and RHO bids 1. No thought is required for you to bid 2 with the following hand:

6 5    8 4    A Q 10 4 3 2   A 9 4
LHO raises to 2, partner comes alive with a bid of 2, and RHO passes. The first two rounds of the auction are therefore:

LHO Partner RHO> You
1 Pass 1 2
2 2 Pass ?

You are playing non-forcing constructive advances, so partner’s spade bid is not forcing. Should you rebid your diamonds or pass? Maybe a word should be inserted as to what “non-forcing constructive” means. My understanding is that it reflects a willingness for the auction to continue. In practical terms that means that partner either has tolerance for overcaller’s suit or that he/she has a self-sufficient suit.

Well, what do the opponents have? LHO probably has 12-15 points and four hearts. RHO probably has only four hearts, and he cannot find another bid after partner’s overcall.

And what about partner? Let us immediately discard the thought that partner might have six spades. This person has often inserted jump overcalls with no honors at all. Furthermore he loves to bid spades. If he had been dealt five spades that were in any sense self-sufficient and as many as eight points, he almost certainly would have reached for the top of the box on the first round. Furthermore, partner was “off the hook.” He could have passed 2. He must have a pretty good hand, and his spades cannot be that special, or he would have mentioned them the first time.

So, I can picture three possible explanations for his bid: (1) When he combined his two spade fragments together he realized that he had a spade suit that was worth bidding. (2) He realized that one or two of his clubs were really spades. (3) He could tolerate diamonds, but he thought that 2 or 2NT might be a better contract.

It was nearly 10:30 at night, and partner (who was, in fact me) had in the past exhibited both of the first two behaviors even at much earlier hours. This time, however, he held this assortment:

A K 10 3    9 5    J 8 7   K Q 8 5
W.C. Fields would have called the opponents’ bidding the “Ethiopan in the fuel supply.” The opener had a flat 12-pointer, and responder made due with a king and two jacks. The latter also refrained from rebidding 3 even though he did, in fact have five hearts. So, it was difficult for the overcaller to imagine that advancer had such a good hand. At first I thought that she, with whom I had not played in a year or so, was just not used to my style, but two of my long-time partners agreed with her. Maybe I do not understand what “non-forcing constructive” means or maybe the concept changes when partner has passed.