Two pairs brought home a slam on this hand. We only bid game, and I had a hard time deciding whether even to risk trying for overtricks.
Board #2
East dealer
North-South vulnerable
| | North
♠ K 3
♥ A K Q
♦ A J 9 5
♣ 7 6 5 2
| | West
♠ 8 7 4
♥ 8 5 4 3
♦ 10 8 7
♣ Q J 3
| | East
♠ Q 10 5
♥ 9 7 6
♦ 6 4 3 2
♣ K 10 9
| | | South
♠ A J 9 8 2
♥ J 10 2
♦ K Q
♣ A 8 4
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | | P |
| 1♠ | P | 2♦ | P |
| 3♣ | P | 3NT | P |
| P | P | | |
Our auction might look peculiar. As usual, I was North. South was dealt a rather routine strong notrump opener, but people who play 12-14 notrump openers must settle for 1♠.
I put in the game force with my 2♦ bid. Partner thought for a long time before settling on 3♣. I think that the preferred rebid would be 3NT, but we had never talked about this sequence since we decided a few months ago to try weak notrump openings. My hand had extras, but I could not see a good path to slam. So, I just bid 3NT. Partner had the choice of continuing, but he passed.
I think that for anyone playing 2/1 as a game force, the 2NT rebid should show either a minimum balanced opener or a very good balanced hand (17+). The former hand passes when 3NT is bid. The latter continues on.
The 3NT rebid after a 2/1 sequence can then be used to show a balanced hand with approximately one extra trick. IMHO rebidding a second suit, on the other hand, should show an unbalanced hand. Thus, the second suit should have at least four pieces. This bid does not show extras. It is a rejection of diamonds and a suggestion of an alternate place to play.
For our partnership this auction was complicated by one of the first principles of weak notrumps. When the opening hand has a balanced 15-17 points, it is generally incumbent upon the opener to show responder that his hand lies within that range. This is extremely difficult or even impossible when the opening bid is 1♠. In addition, as I said, we had not addressed this specific situation.
So, I got to play 3NT. I don't know why East chose to lead the ♣10, but when he did I faced the proverbial sticky wicket. My partner's hand was stronger than I expected, but there were problems. We had ten top tricks – two in spades, three in hearts, four in diamonds, and the ♣A. If this were a team game, I probably would have just taken them immediately or ducked the opening lead to see if the continuation was friendlier. However, I did notice that there was a not insignificant chance to take a lot of tricks if the spade finesse worked. Moreover, everyone else would probably be playing the hand from the South side. If clubs looked good for East, they probably did not look good for West.
So, I took the ♣A on the first trick and led out my diamonds and hearts. On the fourth diamond West discarded a discouraging spade. I crossed my fingers and took the spade finesse. When the ♠Q dropped on the next trick, I claimed.
Because two teams bid the slam, we received a below average score. How good a slam was it? The hand sure did not feel like slam material when I was leading out my red tricks.
Before any cards have been played, it is clear that the slam requires at least four tricks in spades. If the opponents lead a club, they must be the first four tricks. That means that the finesse must work, and the opponents must not be able to take the fourth spade trick, which would be the 9. So East must have the ♠Q, and the person with the ♠10 must have fewer than four pieces. There is one additional chance. If the ♠Q is a singleton held by West, the ♠10 can be finessed. Without doing the calculations, I would say that from this perspective it was a little less than a 50-50 proposition.
However, one should also consider the possibility that a club was not led. In that case any spade holding that yielded four tricks would suffice because the person winning the spade would not be able to cash any fast tricks. That probability is clearly greater than 50 percent.
In the abstract, calculating the probability of a club lead against a 6NT contract is difficult. I know that the team that we played in the second round was astonished that our opponent chose it. I also know that most good players recommend a safe lead against a slam in notrump. The two red suits in both hands look (and are) completely safe. So, I think that, despite the fact that I felt very tempted to settle for ten tricks, this was a pretty good slam, and we should make sure that we have agreements in place that help us find ones like it.