Hand of the Week

08/07/19

The hand with the most fireworks was #11. However, I picked hand #1 because something happened there that I have never encountered before. This was our first hand. It caused both of us to wonder who should have bid game.

Board #1
North dealer
Neither side vulnerable

	North ♠ A K 10 9 6 5 ♥ K 6 4 ♦ Q 10 ♣ 4 3
West ♠ 7 ♥ A Q J 7 2 ♦ K 9 7 2 ♣ A 10 6		East ♠ 4 ♥ 10 9 8 ♦ A J 6 5 4 3 ♣ J 9 5
	South ♠ Q J 8 3 2 ♥ 5 3 ♦ 8 ♣ K Q 8 7 2


South	West	North	East
		1♠	P
3♠	P	P	P

I was sitting North. Everyone in the world opens 1♠. East could conceivably try to get in the way, but not at our table. South has only eight points but must make some noise. The choices were 4♠, 4♦ (splinter), or 3♠. After a lot of thinking, he chose 3♠.

West probably could have doubled 3♠, but it might be embarrassing if East bid 4♣. Another possibility was 4♥. This hand has a lot of playing power, but it is not easy to enter an auction at the four level.

I only had twelve points and seven losers. I knew that we had ten trumps, which meant that a missing ♠Q would not be a major issue. Nevertheless, I could not justify bidding game.

As soon as East's ♥10 hit the table, it was clear to me that I had ten tricks – one loser in each side suit. I claimed quickly, and we moved on to hand #2.

If I had been holding South's hand, I would have bid 4♦ or 4♠ for two reasons: 1) It only has six losers – two in spades and hearts, one in each minor. 2) The hand meets the requirement for the “weak freak:” five trumps and a singleton.

If, on the other hand, West had doubled or bid 4♥, I would definitely have bid 4♠. I knew that we had ten spades. The corollary to the LAW says that we are safe in a competitive auction when we bid the number of trumps, and it is highly accurate in non-vulnerable conditions. My partner also had an extra trump. Who knows how high we might have gotten.

This hand was only played at three tables. Everyone played in spades, and everyone took ten tricks. We stopped at three, one pair bid four, and one went down in five.

Imagine my surprise when I looked on the hand record while everyone else was playing the last round. Deep Finesse reported that we could only make 3♠, and, mirabile dictu, East-West could make a slam in either red suit! How could this be? The only possibility seemed to be that East had led the ♥A, but I was quite sure that his first lead was the ♥10.

I strolled over to table 6 and confiscated board #1, which the players there had just finished. I discovered that the person who loaded the boards had mistakenly placed East's cards in the West section and vice-versa.

So, our results were skewed by a simple twist of fate. I could envision the following auction if the hands had been loaded correctly.

Board #1
North dealer
Neither side vulnerable

	North ♠ A K 10 9 6 5 ♥ K 6 4 ♦ Q 10 ♣ 4 3
West ♠ 4 ♥ 10 9 8 ♦ A J 6 5 4 3 ♣ J 9 5		East ♠ 7 ♥ A Q J 7 2 ♦ K 9 7 2 ♣ A 10 6
	South ♠ Q J 8 3 2 ♥ 5 3 ♦ 8 ♣ K Q 8 7 2


South	West	North	East
		1♠	Dbl
4♦	5♦	5♠	6♦
6♠	P	P	Dbl
P	P	P

Everyone sometimes speculates about what would have happened if the opponents' hands were reversed, but this is the first time since I started playing at the SBC fifteen years ago that I have concrete evidence to work with.

And talk about fireworks: the bidding would have quickly exploded on this layout. After East's inevitable double of 1♠ South would surely bid 4♦ or 4♠. It appears to me that the most likely result would be for North-South to play 6♠, which would surely be doubled. Because the ♥A is now in East's hand, the best that poor North could do would be nine tricks.

So, maybe our settling for 170 was not such a bad idea. The result depended upon which player had the ♥A. Furthermore, if we had played the hand the way the computer expected us to play it, the best that we could hope for would be -500.

One more interesting point: East-West has an eight-card heart fit, and their best contract is 6♥, but it is hard to imagine an auction in which hearts would even be mentioned.