I did not have a good night. Not counting my three unforced bidding errors, two other hands caused me nightmares, one in bidding and one in the play. However, two people asked me to analyze the startling board #4, so here goes.
Board #4
West dealer
Both sides vulnerable
| | North
♠ A J 8 4 3
♥ 6
♦ A K J 7 5
♣ J 10
| | West
♠ ——
♥ J 10 8 7 5 4
♦ 3
♣ A K 6 5 4 3
| | East
♠ 10 2
♥ K Q 2
♦ Q 6 4
♣ Q 9 8 7 2
| | | South
♠ K Q 9 7 6 5
♥ A 9 3
♦ 10 9 8 2
♣ ——
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| P | 1♠ | P |
| 4♣ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 5♥ |
| 5♠ | 6♥ | Dbl | P |
| P | P | | |
If I had been able to divine that South had a void in clubs, we could have set 6♥ by three tricks for 800. That would beat pairs that were allowed to play short of slam, but it would still not have been as good as 6♠, which is easy to make despite the unfortunate placement of the ♦Q. So, the big question is how N-S can find this 23-point slam in the face of rather furious interference from the opponents.
At our table West decided to pass with his six-six hand. So, I, sitting North, opened 1♠. East passed, and South, after checking the back of his cards to make sure that we were all using the same deck, had to come up with a bid.
The choices were 4♣, a splinter to show shortness in clubs, or 2NT, which asks partner if he has shortness. Both bids require at least four-card support for spades and game-going values. Most people play that 2NT is a stronger bid because responder has assumed the captaincy even though declarer has not limited his/her hand. The splinter usually shows a minimum game-forcing hand.
South's hand is certainly a minimum from the standpoint of point count, but it has only six losers. The problem with bidding 2NT is that South's losers are concentrated in two suits. If he takes over the hand, he might have difficulty findiing out that North can cover at least four of them. Furthermore, on this hand the opponents would not likely cooperate with the "go slow" approach.
So, the splinter seems like a sound approach. I had a little extra, but South's announced shortness in clubs was not particularly alluring. So, 4♠, a weak bid, seemed reasonable to me.
After East contributed 5♥, South had no problem raising to 5♠. I should have given more thought to what that implied. He must have a good deal more than the usual splinter. I should have at least deduced that he had a fifth spade, but instead I quickly decided to double West's 6♥ bid.
I cannot fault my partner's bidding. I never told him about my diamonds. From his perspective 6♠ looks risky, and 6♥ is going down if my opening hand can produce even one trick. The only way that I can see for us to bid the slam in this auction is for me to reassess my hand in light of my partner's second bid. We could make 6♠ if he had as little as the ♠K, ♦Q, and an ace in hearts or clubs – nine measly points. We can also make it, of course, with the nine points he was dealt, and the ♠Q could just as well have been the deuce!
If partner had responded 2NT instead of 4♣, West would surely have bid something. If that something was 4♣ or lower, I could have bid 4♦ to show a strong five-card side suit. This would probably inspire South to push for a slam. However, if West had instead bid 4♥ or 5♣, we would probably be at sea.
If West had started with an undisciplined 2♥, I would have had the perfect hand for a "Leaping Michaels" bid of 4♦, which shows five or more spades and diamonds and sufficient values to play at the four level opposite a mediocre hand.
Unfortunately, we do not play that convention. So, I would have just doubled with the intention of bidding spades later. East would have bid some number of hearts. South would then bid some number of spades, and in all likelihood neither side would ever learn about the double-double fit.
There may be a more scientific way to get to slam, but it is not obvious to me.