[ArtK78]

It is common to have Assign the Blame (ATB) threads in these Fora. Here, I want you to critique the bidding on this hand to Assign the Success (ATS). Here is the story:

I am playing in a small 2 session regional open pairs (23 tables) this past Saturday with a reasonable partner. The last time I played with this partner we won a regional swiss team. However, that was about 20 years ago. So I would not call this a regular partnership.

Entering the last round of the 1st session we are having a poor game. In fact, as the one-round-to-go sheet showed, we were below average. Here is the first hand of the last round (Board 22):

---

We were not playing 1430, so 5♦ showed one key card.

As you can see, this was a claim, thanks to the 5-0 heart split (enabling me to score 4 heart tricks without having to guess a 4-1 break) combined with the 3-2 diamond split. The contract was very reasonable, making whenever one of the red suits is good for 6 tricks and something useful happens in the other red suit or there is a squeeze.

It seems to me that my partner caused the great result by his decision to show the ♦K (in addition to his ♥Q) over 5♠, bypassing his ♣K. Of course, had he bid the more orthodox 6♣, showing the ♥Q and ♣K, I could have bid 6♦ asking for the ♦K. But the operation was a success.

This was a cold top (OK, we only got 16.97 out of 17 due to the vagaries of the scoring system), and, combined with 2 other good results this round, we were above average going into the second session and managed to sneak into the overalls with a reasonable second session.

Your thoughts?

[billw55]

ATS, I like this idea.

Your partner perceived that after your original 3♦ call, the ♦K was the card you really wanted to hear about. A good choice.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-June-24, 08:30, said:

ATS, I like this idea.

Your partner perceived that after your original 3♦ call, the ♦K was the card you really wanted to hear about. A good choice.

The main reason why I like 6♦ is that it avoids the dangers.

Suppose East would have bid 6♣, what would 6♦ have meant? Art says it asks for the ♦K, but -given that this is an irregular partnership- this is an excellent way to create a costly misunderstanding. So East used his brain, and decided that the ♣K was not that important a card to risk a misunderstanding over.

It scores to be practical.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

When I read the bidding I thought 6♦ was showing 2 outside kings lol. If specific kings are in play then West can simply bid 6♦ over 6♣ to ask about the ♦K, so I do not think this was the key to success. More than this, West's 5♠ queen ask is also a grand slam try showing all of the key cards. After this, East can essentially count 13 tricks and should be willing to commit to grand slam, either by bidding it directly or by first bidding 6♣ and then following with 7♦ if West bids 6♥.

As for the ATS, clearly West. East did essentially the minimum at each turn and was just along for the ride.

[ArtK78]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-24, 07:54, said:

It is common to have Assign the Blame (ATB) threads in these Fora. Here, I want you to critique the bidding on this hand to Assign the Success (ATS).

Maybe "Assign the Credit (ATC)" would have been a better title.

[Lord Molyb]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-24, 09:18, said:

Maybe "Assign the Credit (ATC)" would have been a better title.

http://www.bridgebas...opic/60180-atc/

[gszes]

85% east for 6d nicely thought out bid since it was
always possible p was strongly considering playing
diamonds anyway.
15% w for making a good SOTM 7n bid (i probably
would have wimped out at 7h fearing a stiff dia K
too much (knowing p has a max of 2 with that 4h vs a
4d bid).

[ArtK78]

gszes, on 2013-June-24, 13:41, said:

85% east for 6d nicely thought out bid since it was
always possible p was strongly considering playing
diamonds anyway.
15% w for making a good SOTM 7n bid (i probably
would have wimped out at 7h fearing a stiff dia K
too much (knowing p has a max of 2 with that 4h vs a
4d bid).

You can make 7♥ on an interesting version of a trump coup.

Normally, for a trump coup to work, declarer's long trump holding must be equal in length to the defender's long trump holding. Here, though, declarer cannot afford to shorten dummy's heart holding prematurely, as there are not enough entries to the long diamond hand to shorten dummy's trump holding and then get back to hand to enjoy the diamonds.

After a spade lead, declarer plays the ♥A, getting the bad news, and then another heart, taking the marked finesse. Now declarer starts running diamonds. On the third round, North can't afford to ruff, so he throws a club - declarer throws a club from dummy. On the next round of diamonds, North throws another club, and declarer throws his losing spade from dummy. Now, it is necessary to shorten dummy's trump holding. But declarer must ruff a spade, not a diamond, otherwise North can throw away his last club. Now declarer crosses back to his hand with a club and plays his last diamond. If North refuses to ruff, declarer throws away the ♣K and both North and dummy will have nothing but trump left. Declarer plays one of his remaining cards and North has to ruff in front of dummy.

If North chooses to ruff one of the earlier diamond plays by declarer, declarer overruffs, pulls trump and crosses back to his hand for the rest of the diamonds and claims.

Declarer must take two black pitches from dummy before shortening dummy's trump holding, otherwise after using his last reentry to his hand, North can ruff and dummy is left with one or more losing black cards.

Of the 18 times this board was played, no one bid and made 7♥. Two pairs did score +1460 however. There was also a +1540 (6♦x making 12 tricks).

I note that while I was the only +2220, there was a +1470.