We did not play this hand, but I found it interesting for several reasons. One was that all four players had a chance to determine the final contract.
Board #4
West dealer
Both sides vulnerable
| | North
♠ J 4
♥ A K 10
♦ K Q 8 5 4 3
♣ 10 2
| | West
♠ 10 8 7 6
♥ 7 5 4 2
♦ 7
♣ A Q 8 5
| | East
♠ A
♥ J 3
♦ J 10 9 6
♣ K 9 7 6 4 3
| | | South
♠ K Q 9 6 3 2
♥ Q 9 8 6
♦ A 2
♣ J
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| P | 1♦ | 2♣ |
| Dbl | 3♣ | 3♦ | 4♣ |
| 4♠ | P | P | ? |
The first two calls are obvious. No one would open the West hand. Everyone bids 1♦ with the North hand.
East's vulnerable overcall is a little pushy. In this case I like it because bidding 2♣ over 1♦ ordinarily makes it more difficult for the opponents to find their major-suit fit, which East should deduce from his own ten cards in the minors. In this case, however, North has both majors, and so he doubles to avoid losing the heart suit.
West must raise to show his club support. I would bid 3♣ even if the ace and queen were the deuce and trey.
With no four-card major North shows the sixth diamond. Since North has tolerance for both majors, this is a rather safe bid. East bids his sixth club, and North bravely bids 4♠, counting on his partner to have at least two spades. West leaves it up to East, and South, who has already bid twice with a minimum opener, also passes.
At this point East should count trumps on both sides and try to determine which side has the bulk of the playing strength. West has shown nothing but length in clubs. North has an opening bid but no four-card major. South must have good playing strength with at least six spades and four hearts. If South only has three hearts, they must be awfully good ones. So, East knows enough to conclude that the opponents have about nine spades, and his side has approximately the same number of clubs. The LAW says that there are approximately eighteen tricks in the hand. If the opponents can take ten tricks, then his side can only take eight. If he decides to sacrifice in 5♣, he risks seeing a -800 on the board if the opponents double. Pass seems the best bid.
The above analysis sounds good, but it is a little off. North-South has only eight trumps in spades, and East-West has ten in clubs. However, North has an easy path to ten tricks, and if he guesses to lead the ♠4 from the board, eleven should be available. In fact, if East-West fails to take the ♣A in the early play, twelve are possible.
How would East-West have fared in clubs? It seems clear that they will lose three red tricks and no black ones. The defenders can probably win a fourth red trick if they lead trump twice. Nevertheless, this hand with only eighteen trumps has twenty or twenty-one tricks. Repeal the LAW!
Not so fast. Larry Cohen's outstanding book on the subject of competitive bidding, To Bid or Not to Bid, lists some circumstances in which an extra trick or three might appear. The most important one is the "purity" of the two holdings. North-South's holdings in all three suits except clubs are so solid that only shortness can stop them. Ditto for East-West's club holding.
In addition, North-South have a double-fit in diamonds and spades. A very peculiar aspect of this hand is that North-South also have a very strong heartt holding. East-West cannot prevent declarer from scoring four heart tricks. So, in a very real sense North-South has a triple fit! If the ♠A captures no honors, North-South can claim five spade trickes, four heart tricks, and six diamond tricks!
Finally, if East gave West a diamond in exchange for a heart, North-South could still take eleven tricks in spades, but East-West would only be able to score eight or nine in clubs. This situation is not, to my knowledge covered by the exceptions to the LAW.
The biggest problem in using the LAW for these decisions is that it is very difficult even for an expert to determine the purity of the hands based only on the bidding. West probably knows that his side has a pure holding in clubs, and South can make an intelligent guess about diamonds. I do not see how anyone could analyze the other suits.
Another way for East to look at the decision is to ask whether East-West could take four tricks if spades were trump. East has at most two tricks. Based on the anemic bidding, it seems futile to hope that West can match that total. If the vulnerability were favorable, bidding on would clearly be indicated. East should be thinking about this as soon as North bids 4♠. If West goes into the tank before bidding 5♣, a double is almost inevitable.
Should West have bid again? I don't think so. The West hand looks like two likely defensive tricks to me.
At the table one pair bid and made four spades. One pair bid only 2♠ (!) and made five. One East-West pair took the plunge, went down only one, and earned all of the masterpoints.