There were several slam hands and wannabe slam hands on Wednesday night. This much more modest deal caught my attention for several reasons. For one thing, if you removed this hand, the results would have changed dramatically.
Board #21
North dealer
North-South vulnerable
| | North
♠ J 7 6 4
♥ K 6
♦ Q J 8 7 4 3
♣ 8
| | West
♠ A K 3 2
♥ Q 10 9 8 7 5
♦ ——
♣ 9 5 3
| | East
♠ Q 8 5
♥ J 4 2
♦ 9 5 2
♣ A J 7 6
| | | South
♠ 10 9
♥ A 3
♦ A K 10 6
♣ K Q 10 4 2
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | 2♦ | P |
| 2N | P | 3♣ | P |
| 3♦ | P | P | P |
I was sitting North again. Many people would not open my hand. I can see why. We are vulnerable, the suit is threadbare, and there is that four-card major. However, most tournament players these days play aggressive preempts, and so do we. So, I ventured 2♦.
East passed, and my partner bid 2NT, which asked for more information. West was probably ready to bid 2♥, but that was no longer possible. She elected to pass. I bid 3♣, which said that I did not have a quality suit (two of the three top honors), and my point count was in the lower half of our range (5-10). This way of answering the 2NT inquiry is called Ogust. It is generally used by players who favor aggressive preempts at the two level.
Partner signed off in 3♦, which became the final contract.
What would have happened if I had passed initially? My partner would certainly have bid 1♣. West would certainly have overcalled her hearts at some level. After that, East would probably raise. The rest is unclear. One North-South pair had a +50 score. I suspect that they let East-West play in 4♥.
North-South's twenty-three points can deliver nine tricks in 3NT. Largely this is because the combination of North's jack-fourth and South's 10-9 form an impenetrable stopper in spades. Would it have helped if we played Feature instead of Ogust? I don't think so. Because my hand held less than average points, I would have bid 3♦, and South would have passed. Even if I had revealed my ♥K, South was more worried about spades than hearts.
Should West have bid 3♥ over South's 2NT? It's a close call, but I would have. The vulnerability is favorable, and it is hard to just sit there with a six-loser hand. For me the temptation to disrupt the opponents' bidding would have been too much to ignore. On the other hand, West really does not want East to lead hearts, and a bid at the three-level is virtually a royal command to do so.
Even without the command East led a heart at our table. I let it run to my king. The contract was not in doubt, but this was matchpoints. Sometimes one must try for unlikely overtricks. I immediately played a club toward dummy's king-queen. As I had hoped, East hesitated and then played low. Dummy's king won. I never drew trump. I lost only the two spades. East's last three cards were trumps, but mine were higher.
That club lead is an example of a "swindle," which is when a declarer tries to get an extra trick by inducing an opponent to fail to take a certain winner, usually an ace. Swindles are most likely to work when they are implemented early in the play of the hand. If I had drawn trump or played on the major suits, East would have probably been able to smell what I was cooking and take her ace.