The hand that everyone was discussing as we all hurriedly cleaned up the Youth room at 9:59 was #5. It was a good example of the kind of high-level decisions that the best players always seem to get right. At Eno Hall it yielded four quite distinct outcomes.
Board #5
North dealer
North-South vulnerable
| | North
♠ 7
♥ ——
♦ A Q J 10 9 7 4
♣ K J 7 5 3
| | West
♠ A 10
♥ A K 10 7 6 3 2
♦ 6
♣ Q 9 8
| | East
♠ 9 6 3
♥ J 9 5
♦ K 7 3 2
♣ A 6 2
| | | South
♠ K Q J 8 5 4 2
♥ Q 8 4
♦ 8
♣ 10 4
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | 1♦ | P |
| 1♠ | 2♥ | 3♦ | 3♥ |
| 3♠ | 4♥ | 5♦ | P |
| P | 5♥ | P | P |
| P | | | |
I sat South. The first eight bids were probably the same at every table. Three of us were looking at seven-card suits that contained three honors. No one was likely to give up easily.
The first important decision was North's third call. If the vulnerability were reversed, bidding 5♦ would be a no-brainer, but at unfavorable vulnerability, it was somewhat risky. On the other hand, his partner had made two constructive bids when he was not forced to make any. He must have something. One West was allowed to play in 4♥, which is difficult but makeable. In the other three cases North-South bid 4♠ or 5♦.
What does the LAW of Total Tricks say about this situation? West should figure that her side probably has ten trumps. Presumably East would not have supported hearts with fewer than three pieces, and would have jumped to four with four-card support. So, the corollary to the LAW supports bidding to the four level as rapidly as possible. With favorable vulnerability bidding 4♥ is a bankable decision.
North's decision to bid 5♦, however, has put her to the test. By the way, it also took me off of the hook. If he had passed, I would have been forced to decide whether to bid 4♠ or not. I was glad to be relieved of that burden.
The other three Wests decided to defend against either 4♠ or 5♦, both of which should go down two, even with excellent declarer play. We were allowed to defend against the hopeless 5♥ contract.
Chapter 8 of Larry Cohen's seminal book on the LAW, To Bid or Not to Bid, addresses the issue of bidding at the five-level. EVERYONE should read it carefully. West knows that her side has ten trumps. Both North and South vigorously rejected their partner's suit. It seems very reasonable to conclude that their total trumps are capped at eight or nine. Making eleven tricks will earn East-West 450 points, a good score.
The LAW says that it is not good enough. If East-West can actually take eleven tricks, how many does that leave North-South? If the hand only has nineteen or twenty tricks (and East-West has eleven), then North-South can only make eight or nine. Since North-South is vulnerable, it is time to break out the proverbial axe and expect to write down a score of 500 or 800.
One can also look at it the other way. If North can take eleven tricks, how many can West take in hearts? By the same reasoning as in the above paragraph the LAW dictates that she can only take eight or nine. Does that seem reasonable? West only has five losers, and the fact that her partner supported her suit means that she probably does not have a heart loser.
Unfortunately, West is not in the best position to make this judgment after the 5♦ bid. She held only three cards in North-South's suits. I think that in this case the double should have been made by East. Her first bid promised three hearts but no strength. If diamonds are trump, she appears to have two certain tricks. If West thinks that her heart suit merits a bid at the five-level (which, according to a tried and true bridge axiom, "belongs to the opponents"), she can override the double. Of course, if she goes down, she will not enjoy the postmortem.
On the other hand, if North had passed 4♥ and South had bid 4♠, I think that West would have been in the better position to double.
Getting in the habit of doing this kind of analysis on five-level decisions is not easy, but it is a critically important skill, especially in team games where a good decision could provide a double swing.
Another lesson of the hand is that doubling is an important part of bridge. The best players double A LOT. The LAW is very accurate, but it assumes that the defenders are not shy about doubling. I once analyzed the results of a club game and discovered that my partner and I would have done better if we had doubled every contract that the opponents played!