I was up almost all night fretting about two nightmarish hands that led to our downfall in the last round of the Swiss in Johnston. There was actually a third hand that produced equally dire results, but I was the dummy on that one, and it seemed so routine at the time that I paid it little attention.

I was sitting West.

---

Hand #5 (North dealer, NS vulnerable):

Here was the bidding at our table:

North	East	South	West
Pass	Pass	2♣	2♦
Double	4♦	Double	Pass
4♥	Pass	Pass	Pass

 

The result was one overtrick.

At the other table the bidding was much simpler.

North	East	South	West
Pass	Pass	2♣	Pass
2♦	Pass	3NT	Pass
Pass	Pass

This was South’s hand:

♠ A K

♥ A K x x

♦ A J

♣ A J x x

With 24 hcp and a five-card suit, 3NT was not an unreasonable bid. Unfortunately West will invariably lead a diamond, East will play the queen, which forces the ace. West has two entries, and five certain diamond tricks. Even with the monster shown above and North’s five hearts South would be lucky to garner seven tricks in notrump.

So, my aggressive bidding had the unintentional effect of scaring them out of a disastrous notrump contract. On the other hand, if South had bid only 2NT, North would not raise to three. He/she would either pass (only a little better) or bid Stayman or a transfer, which would lead to 4♥.

Knowing that most experts do not like bidding 2♣ with a two-suiter, I would have strongly considered bidding only 1♣ with the South hand. That would surely have forced West’s hand and inevitably led to a heart contract, although maybe we would have stopped short of game. Ideally, it would have gone like this:

North	East	South	West
Pass	Pass	1♣	1♦
Pass	3♦	4♦	Pass
4♥	Pass	Pass	Pass

Of course, if North had bid 4♠, I would not have been happy. I would be forced to retreat to 5♣. Who knows if North would dare to correct to 5♥?

---

The other disastrous hand, board #7, at first appeared to be a fairly interesting play problem.

I held this hand:

♠ A x x x

♥ A 10 x

♦ K x x

♣ x x

I do not remember why I thought that this agglomeration was worthy of an opening bid, but I tabled the 1♠ card. My partner responded 2NT with the following:

♠ K J x x

♥ K 9 x

♦ J

♣ A K x x x

He did not splinter in diamonds because we play that a splinter shows minimal game-forcing values, and he had more than that. When I rebid 4♠, he reluctantly passed.

I was delighted when North led the ♥Q, since that almost certainly meant that he had the jack as well. I drew two rounds or trump, which flushed out the queen, took the marked finesse in hearts, conceded a diamond, and claimed twelve tricks.

I should not have been so hasty. I should have begun by leading low to the ♦J. That would have given North the opportunity to play his ace in fear that I might have the KQ. If that did not work, I should have taken two rounds of trump and then tried to set up a long club, which is an 84% play. Only if that failed should I have assumed that North led from the QJ. Of course, it was overwhelmingly likely that he had the jack, but there was no reason to take a chance. The other plays are what Jay Stiefel calls “can’t cost.”

We learned that the opponents with our cards at the other table bid the slam and made it on the lead of the ♦A. How could they know that they had such a magical fit?

They could not have used Losing Trick Count. My hand has eight losers, and partner’s has six. LTC says that we only have ten tricks.

They could not have used Bergen’s adjusted point count. My hand has only 12 declarer points. I probably should not even have opened. Partner’s has 18 dummy points. Even if I add a point for the doubleton in my hand, we are two points short of the 33 that Bergen recommends.

At the other table East used Blackwood and then bid the slam even though she learned that she was off one key card and the queen of trump. She probably did not realize that she was actually missing all four queens and two jacks as well. Aaaargh!