This hand is not from Wednesday evening's game. I looked through almost all of those results, and nothing really inspired me. Instead, I picked a hand from yesterday morning's game at the Hartford Bridge Club. I had run into almost this same situation with the same partner in a very important game a few years ago. I was really upset at what he did then. He did something quite similar yesterday in an essentially meaningless situation. Nevertheless it stuck in my craw. I call this "The LAW v. Captaincy".
Board #21
North dealer
North-South vulnerable
| | North
♠ A 8 4
♥ 3 2
♦ J 8 6 4
♣ A 7 5 4
| | West
♠ K 6 5 3
♥ A J 6
♦ Q 5 3 2
♣ 8 3
| | East
♠ Q 10 9 7
♥ K Q 4
♦ A 10 9
♣ 9 6 2
| | | South
♠ J 2
♥ 10 9 8 7 5
♦ K 7
♣ K Q J 10
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | P | P |
| P | 1♠ | P | 2♦* |
| 2♥ | P | P | 2♠ |
| 3♥ | P | P | 3♠ |
| P | P | P | |
* 2♦ was two-way reverse Drury1. It indicated invitational values and four spades.
I sat West. I was quite surprised when I watched three pass cards hit the table in front of me. The first thing to do in this situation—called "the fourth seat"— is to count one's Pearson Points (also called Casino Points): high-card points plus the number of spades. The Rule of 15 suggests opening in the fourth seat if and only if that number is fifteen of greater. My hand had only 14 Pearson Points.
I generally endorse this approach, but I also respect Larry Cohen's CRIFS rule, which, along with other important fourth-seat ideas, he has described here. He recommends taking into account the nature of the opponents. I would add that the vulnerability and the state of the round/match is also important.
This hand came up in the middle of the session. My partner and I had done nothing exciting, and the cards seemed to be against us. I thought that we needed a top, and a pass would only get us a middle. We were playing against an inexperienced player and someone with a great deal of experience whose bidding style could only be described as that of a maverick. I sometimes suspected that he, like The Who's Tommy, "played by sense of smell."
The vulnerability was favorable. Everything seemed to call for an aggressive move. I decided to take a chance and open my four-card spade suit. This was only the second or third time that I had opened a four-card major since I rediscovered bridge in 2004.
My partner's 2♦ bid showed four-card support and invitational values. My right-hand opponent, the experienced maverick, bid 2♥. What could he have? Our side had at least half of the high-card points. If he had been dealt six hearts, surely he would have bid 2♥ in the third seat in the first round. Lo and behold, I probably had two trump tricks. This was just what I was hoping for.
If RHO had passed, I would have bid 2♠. I was afraid to double; partner might think that it was a support double or something more obscure. I could have bid 2♠, but I focused on the bid that really emphasized the weakness of my original bid: pass.
LHO also passed, which to me indicated that he must have at most three hearts. Partner, as expected, bid 2♠. RHO surprised me by bidding 3♥. I quickly passed again, as did LHO. My jubilation at this development was cut short when my partner took a long time examining his cards. He finally bid 3♠.
I knew what he had been thinking. He assumed that I had five spades. Because he had four himself, the LAW of total tricks would protect us up to the three-level. I posit that this was misguided for four very good reasons.
1) In the first place the LAW itself does not address this issue. It only suggests that in a competitive auction the total number tricks if both sides available to both sides is roughly equal to the total number of trumps in each side's best suit. On this hand that number is sixteen (eight spades E-W and eight clubs N-S). However, South has chosen to bid a different suit.
2) The feature that my partner had in mind was in fact, based on the LAW. It stated that one should bid immediately to the level of one's trumps. Thus, to invoke what I have called the "Corollary" to the LAW, he should have bid 3♠ rather than 2♦. The two of us had long ago decided to play Drury, not the corollary to the LAW, when our partner opened a major suit in the third or fourth seat.
3) The captain in the Drury convention is the opener. Responder described his hand well. It is up to the opener to set the contract.
4) West should clearly double 3♥. He knows that his side has the majority of the high-card points. He knows that North-South have at most nineteen points. They cannot have ten trumps, and—mirabile dictu!—he has trump tricks in hearts! I would have doubled in a heartbeat.
If we had been defending 3♥, I would certainly have led a club. When I got in again, I would have led another. My partner would presumably have later given me a ruff. 3♥ would be down two for 500 points!
What really aggravated me was the fact that I had already talked about this with this partner a few years ago. I emphasized how strongly I felt that the opener retains the captaincy throughout a Drury auction. My exact words were, "You have no right to a second bid."
His bid ruined my day. My plan had worked so perfectly, and then ... disaster. Please don't do something like this to your partner.
However, now that I have reviewed all of this, I realized that I should have doubled 3♥ myself. I knew that partner must have at least two hearts. There was no reason to make him squirm. He probably would not have tried to rescue me.
Please don't do something like I did to your partner either.