Rowan vs Bonnyton

Last night Anna and I played a Glasgow Division 1 league match against Bonnyton, a strong team who include many members of the David Shenkin team.

On our table we had 24 boards against cblackeyes and Bbigelow, who played a fast and accurate game. We were on good form, and didn't make many mistakes. But our opponents had the cards so we didn't have much to do. They stretched to bid games and compete in partscores, so Anna and I did a lot of defending.

The first board was typical:

It's not common to overcall a 2NT opening, but I felt like wading in. I could have maybe improvised a 3NT bid (undiscussed, but presumably minors?) but stuck with my best suit and 3♣. South had a think then pulled out 6♥. This is not without risk, as if I have ♣KQ and an outside Ace it's going down. However, this time he hit the jackpot with a very suitable dummy. ♥AKxx isn't bad support.

South could have bid an invitational 5♥ (which here North would have had an easy raise of), but I like the direct 6♥ too.

I thought about doubling 6♥ to try and get a Spade lead, but this has two problems. Firstly, we don't play Lightner doubles. Secondly, even if I do get a Spade ruff the score is just 6♥x= instead of 6♥+1.

Anna led a Club and declarer soon wrapped up 13 tricks. Our team-mates David and Heather also found 6♥ (after East overcalled a conventional 2♦ opening with 2NT). In the other match Bonnyton had an unopposed auction to 7♥ (well done Steve Male and Martin Diamond), and on the last table East came in with 4NT so North-South stopped in 5♥. So definitely a good hand for interfering in the auction.

If I do show both minors perhaps Anna would have sacrificed in 7♦. This has four top losers (-800), with maybe a fifth if the defence get their ♦Q (-1100). So not a great sacrifice.

Overall this was a good board for Bonnyton, and their extra 1000 points turned out to be roughly the final difference, and they ran out 11-5 winners. As we are minnows in Division 1 we accepted that as not a bad result.

Over the evening Anna and I only made two games, but we did collect +500 for this defence:

I made a 3♣ overcall, which I thought would probably be fairly ineffective, and South bid a prompt 3NT. The ♣Qxx stopper doesn't look like much, but even if Anna has ♣Axx and I have ♣Kxxxxxx it's going to be enough. But not this time.

Anna led a low Club, and I won the King and returned a Club. There's a high danger of us blocking the suit, but luckily I returned the ♣8, and when Anna had cleared the suit she played the ♣9 to my ♣T. On the run of Clubs declarer is in trouble, and after I cleared the Spades Anna took the last two, for a splendid 3NT-5.

Anna did very well not to double, as the opponents then have an easy escape to 5♦ (+1).

On the other table Bonnyton were East-West and played 5♣-4, for a total of 9 undertricks on the board. In the other match is was 3NT= and 3NT-1, so a good one for Team Rowan.

Adamson vs Peden

As predicted the team bounced back with a narrow win against Peden. In the first half things were fairly quiet on our table, and every contract made. Our team-mates Glen and Gints had been a bit more optimistic than our opponents and bid a few thin games, and when two out of three made we were slightly up.

In the second half we maintained our narrow advantage, and picked up a few more with some tight defence. There were a couple of times we had them beaten and I cashed out for one down, but with some thought I could have taken them two off, or at least given declarer a difficult guess. Cashing out in defence was partly me not being totally confident I'd remembered all the cards correctly, but I think also a personality thing. Rather than go for the kill I was happy to bank a small win. Certainly this has been my philosophy with investments, when for example I sold my Dogecoin far too early.

We were about 20 IMPs up going into the last board (though didn't know it of course).

I opened 1♥ and John responded 2♦, which for us is a game-forcing two-over-one bid. My 2NT rebid is a special convention showing a good six card major, which I certainly had. John could have supported with 3♥ (a strong bid since we are game forced), but wanted so show his good Diamonds with 3♦. I could have signed off in 5♦ but thought my support and Hearts were good enough to try 4♦.

We were soon in 6♦, for the second time in the match. The first time it depended on a trump finesse, which worked but when trumps were 4-0 still went down. This time it just depended on the Heart finesse.

South led a Club that North won, and found the best return of a Spade. There's no benefit in taking this finesse so John correctly went up with the Ace, and was able to draw trumps in two rounds (if trumps are 3-1 it gets trickier as you might need an early Heart finesse in case they are 4-0). When declarer led the ♥9 North took the ♥K and cashed a Spade, for two off.

If the Heart finesse works we make 12 tricks, if it fails we make only 10, so in a sense 6♦ is the right contract (no point playing 5♦). Although the other table managed to play 4♥= so we lost 11 IMPs, instead of gaining 10.

That meant we won the match by 34-28 IMPs.

Adamson vs Stevenson

For this iteration of the league our team has rebranded as Adamson. Two of our pairs (Pinder-Barton and Adamson-Saunders) did well in the recent trials and have been selected for the Scotland team in the Camrose (see here). With that talent in the squad, surely we'd be unstopptable?

Unfortunately, John and I were not picked for the Camrose Team, and didn't even get close to entering the trials. He actually played the first two hands with new baby Xander. I had no such excuse. We had an off night, starting with this very disappointing 6♠ I let through:

I've made a slightly wild 3♥ overcall and propelled them to 6♠. There's no point leading my singleton Diamond (partner can't have the Ace), so I tried a Club, and was pleased when declarer refused the finesse and won the first trick with the ♣A. He took the ♥A, ruffed a Heart, then the King of Spades to my Ace. Crunch time.

I returned a top Heart, forcing him to ruff high in dummy (as he thought from the auction I had seven Hearts so East might be over-ruffing. Then he lead a Spade from dummy and finessed, losing to my bare ♠T. One off.

At least, that's what should have happened. Actually, when in with the ♠A I was worried about giving a ruff and discard so returned a tame Spade, not realising the power of my ♠T. Declarer won this and was able to quickly claim, for 6♠= against 4♠+2 on the other table (where South had only overcalled 2♥). An 11 IMP loss, that could have been a 10 IMP gain.

The first half continued to not go terribly well and at the break we were down by 50 IMPs to 1. In the second half we steadied the ship (but still lost slightly) to finish 53 IMPs behind.

On the upside John and I didn't have any bidding misunderstanding (just lots of poor defence), and I expect we will bounce back with a win in tonight's game against Peden.

How to make extra tricks

Usually when you are declarer you have a stronger hand than dummy, and more trumps. You can therefore view your hand as providing the main source of tricks, with dummy giving a bit of help. Sometimes dummy helps with high cards, sometimes with a shortage that means you can ruff. Sometimes dummy helps with a long side-suit that you can establish, which is a bit harder to spot.

Very often when dummy has shortage (meaning you can ruff), it also has a long side-suit (which you can establish). But it's usually difficult to do both, and you have to decide which to do. For example, take this hand that my Junior teams played in the Inter Schools Trophy.

You are East. Playing 4♥ you have 9 top tricks: 1 Spade, 5 Hearts, 2 Diamonds, 1 Club. You only need one more trick. The easiest way to get it is to ruff a Diamond. Then take the Spade finesse for the overtrick.

But what about if you are playing 6♥? Not so far-fetched, as one Junior Pair bid it. You now need three extra tricks on top of the nine you already have.

• Option 1 is to go for two Diamond ruffs, plus the Spade finesse. If this all works you get 2 Spades, 5 Hearts, 4 Diamonds, 1 Club for 12 tricks.
• Option 2 is to try and set up the Clubs for one loser. If it works you get 1 Spade, 5 Hearts, 1 Diamond, 5 Clubs for 12 tricks.

Although going for the ruffs is the natural thing to do for most players, it's going to be tough. You need the 50/50 Spade finesse, plus a lot more, as getting back to hand each time to ruff, then draw trumps, is going to be tricky. In Option 2 if Clubs behave reasonably you are home, and that's it. So if you need 12 tricks then setting up the long suit is the better option.

On this layout the Spade finesse fails, so Option 1 will never get you 12 tricks. Option 2 will lead to 6♥= unless you get a Spade lead.

In total the hand was played four times. The two more experienced Junior declarers in 4♥ both took a Diamond ruff, and picked up a second Club trick, for 4♥+1 (the Spade finesse failed). One of the less experienced declarers got to 6♥, and got a Diamond lead. Unfortunately the play didn't match the bidding, and perhaps overwhelmed by options and the level of the contract declarer neither ruffed Diamonds or set up Clubs and finished with the 9 tricks he started off with, for 6♥-3.

Summary: if you need lots of tricks consider setting up a long suit in dummy.

How to make a doomed contract

Suppose you are playing 4♠, with four top losers. What are you supposed to do? Claim down one (maybe against top opposition). Better is to try and steal the contrract.

One option is to play off all your trumps, then hope something good happens at the end. Perhaps the opponents will have to throw away so many winners they keep the wrong thing. Or they end up clashing their King and Ace on the same trick. Or one defender wins but ends up having to return something to help you. A few ways to win.

The alternative approach is to try and steal the contract early on by sneaking a trick past the defence. Perhaps you can grab a singleton King, or set-up a suit without the defence get organised.

Which of these two approaches you go for I think is partly a question of personality. If you like to leave the washing up to soak, and put off the nasty work, you go for the first approach. Take your 9 winners, then hope something good happens. If you're the sort of person who likes to rip a plaster off quickly, and deal with the problem straight away, you go for the second approach, and try and steal your 10th trick immediately.

Here's an example hand:

You open the South hand 1♠. Your partner makes a slightly dubious 2♠ raise and with your strong hand you raise to game.

West leads a Heart which you win in hand. There are four top losers. One Spade, one Diamond, two Clubs. Claim down one? Not yet.

These are your two options:

• Draw trumps, and if the defence haven't taken their four tricks yet then play off all your trumps and your Hearts. Finally play a Club and hope the defence end up crashing their ♣AK.
• Immediately start on Clubs. If the defence don't get round to playing Diamonds you can discard a losing Diamond on the Clubs in dummy.

The first line is the safest, as it begins by drawing trumps, and is probably the one most declarers will take. At the table declarer chose this (and went one off).

The second line looks like it shouldn't work, but just might do. You know the defence can safely play Diamonds, but they don't. West in particular might be relcutant to lead away from his ♦K. And maybe when East wins his Club honour he'll want to play trumps to cut Heart ruffs (he doesn't know you've got a solid Heart suit), or he might even return Hearts (his partner's suit).

The point is, defence is the hardest part of the game and what's clear to declarer might not always be clear to the defence. So make life as hard as possible for the defence, and they'll get it wrong sometimes.

For this particular hand there is a third option, a bit harder to spot:

• Play four rounds of Hearts, discarding three Clubs from dummy. On the fourth round one opponent will be out of Hearts (even if they split 4-3), but he might have to ruff with the singleton Ace of trumps. You could try and improve your chances by sneaking a round of trumps through first (e.g. leading the ♠J), which increases the chance that later when an opponent ruffs your Heart it's with the Ace.

This gives you a small genuine chance of making it, but risks going down two if the defence ruff a Heart winner then take their other four tricks. So perhaps this is the best line against expert defenders, when you expect them to always take their tricks.

Here's another hand, this time from a Glasgow League Match:

I was East. 4♠ is not a bad contract, but when South found the killing Diamond lead it looks like I've got a certain four losers. I turned to Hearts immediately, before drawing trumps. The logic is that if you're going for the steal-a-trick route, you need to do it as early as possible. Leaving trumps out is fine as there's no risk of a ruff. It also the defence more to think about. Finally drawing trumps would give the defender who runs out first a chance to signal.

In the Heart suit there is the chance of getting a useful discard from dummy, but surely once I touch Hearts it'll be obvious to the defence what's going on. Certianly if I started by leading the King of Hearts then the defence would take their Ace, see the winning ♥QJ in dummy, realise they can only get one Diamond (before dummy ruffs) so turn to Clubs.

I therefore tried leading the ♥9 from hand. This feels awkward, as I've blocked the Heart suit, but that's not actually going to a problem. North took his Ace of Hearts, cashed a Diamond, and went into a think. I could see that there were two Clubs to lose, but he didn't know that. He also didn't know I had the King of Hearts hidden in my hand. The longer he thought, the more my hopes got up. Only a Club will beat me. Finally he played a Diamond, and the contract made.

So here's what I've learned. If you're going for a deceptive play:

• Do it as soon as possible before the defence know what's going on
• Hide the honours in the closed hand

And don't be surprised if some of the time the defenders help you out - it's much harder for them than it is for you.

A final example, from a Glasgow League match in 2020. You are declarer in 5♥. You've overbid, so you better make it:

You get the ♠Q lead. There are three top losers. What's your plan?

Following the rules above (do it quickly and use the closed hand), you cross to dummy to lead a Club towards your singleton Queen. Looking at all four hands it's obvious for North to take the Ace of Clubs (then take two Diamonds for one off), but what if you had a Club void in hand? Then North playing the Ace of Clubs would be a big mistake.

Leading a low Club from the North hand early on makes the defender guess, and at least some of the time they're going to guess wrong.

The benefits of overbidding

My Junior team have been competing in the SBU Bronze League, which has all been online. If I'm the home captain I set up the match on Bridge Base andcan watch the boards.

I've taught my Junior team to "pre-empt to the max" and "bid all games" which combined with their natural attacking instincts makes for some exciting boards. I would say on the whole their aggressive style gains more than it loses, although I do wish they would stop bidding bad slams.

Here's an example from a match against Razputin. You are vulnerable against not, and your right-hand opponent opens 1♦. Your bid?

I'm pleased to say our South went all-out with 4♠. Jumping to game-level is very effective, as the opponents can't tell if you are pre-empting with a weak hand or bidding with a good hand that expects to make. So there's a very good chance you won't get doubled.

If the opponets play a lot of takeout doubles it might be hard for either of them to double you. Here though, 4♠ did get doubled. and was heading for three off, vulnerable. Is this an argument against such bold overbidding? Maybe not. The defence isn't always perfect and declarer escaped for down two:

The defence took one Club then played three rounds of Hearts (setting up dummy's Jack). Then declarer drew trumps, corrrectly by leading the King of Spades. West won and guessed to play on Diamonds. That meant declarer could ruff the second round of Diamonds then cross to the winning ♠8 to take a winning Heart and discard the other Club. So he escaped for only two off, doubled.

At this vulnerability that was still -500, more than letting East-West make a game. But perhaps East-West can make a slam? If both the minors split there are 13 top tricks, and even with Diamonds 4-1 there are 12. It's hard to bid though. Our other pair made 5♦+1 (after South only overcalled 2♠), so overall a small loss on the board.

So perhaps pre-empting all the way to 4♠ on this board only makes sense if you are playing really good opponents who might get to the slam.

Here's another hand from the same match where we overbid:

East made a weak two opening and our South overcalled 2♠. West has an easy 4♥ bid and its over to North. On the one hand you have a weak hand with only two card trump-support. On the other hand it's favourable vulnerability, and when you bid 4♠ it's very hard for them to double. West has a likely three tricks in his hand, but possibly no more than three, so just passed. He may also have been put off by the fact he'd doubled North in a making contract on the previous hand.

As it happens 4♠ hits the jackpot here, as your partner has strong Spades. And, crucially, little enough defence so that 4♥ would have made.

Playing 4♠ isn't too bad, and only has three top losers. Here the defence played trumps and declarer ended up losing two Hearts, one Spade and one Diamond for one off. A good result.

In conclusion (based on these two boards and three seasons in the SBU Bronze League) overbidding is often effective. It works especially well when the defence are in the dark. That means you need to bid high quickly, especially with jumps to game level. Then it'll be much harder for them to double you.

Glasgow Division 1: Rowan vs Buchanan

For our second match in Division 1 it was a sort of derby between two teams based at the Buchanan Bridge Club.

Anna and I had an unusually solid game, and as Anna said afterwards "I still felt sharp at the end". I couldn't see any full mistakes that we made, just this board that we could have done better on:

I have the East hand. Although the hand isn't ideal for a weak three (or even good) the fact I was second-in-hand vulnerable convinced me it was worth opening. In this position and vulnerability you want to have a decent hand, which I felt I had.

The hand did indeed belong to us, and Anna has a nice hand. You can see that 4♥ would go very well. I have three very useful cards for Anna; the ♠K, ♥K and ♦J none of which she is expecting. With only a Club singleton she felt she had to pass, and I was stuck in 3♣.

South lead the ♠J covered by the Queen and Ace. To stop a Spade ruff North returned a trump, to my Ten and Ace. At that point south switched to a low Diamond. I have a choice of taking a simple finesse in Diamonds or a ruffing finesse. I guessed right to take the ruffing finesse. With Clubs 3-1 I then just made it.

However, I was well aware that 4♥ would have made (especially with the ♥QJ coming down).

On the other table in our match the auction was the same. Against 3♣ the defence never returned a trump so declarer could ruff a Spade and make it without guessing Diamonds.

In the other match both Easts also opened 3♣ but the Wests responded 3♥ and they got to game (4♥+1). Maybe those pairs had more precise agreements about opening a Weak Three (so East guaranteed some strength) or maybe just more optimistic Wests.

Overall then a flat board for Team Rowan.

The rest of the match was typically close. Anna and I stole a couple of games on our table (and caught them in 3♣x-4), but our team-mates were unlucky in bidding two slams on a finesse that both failed. At the end of 24 boards on 4 tables we lost by just 80 points. That meant a loss by 8.5-7.5, but (mainly by virtue of having played more matches) we are currently top of the league!