Suffolk Bridge

• Home
• Events
• Results
• Committee
• SCBA & You

The Blame Game

This is the first in what I hope will be a continuing participatory feature in Table Talk.

Everyone in the Suffolk county squad was emailed the problems as well as a few ex-Suffolk, team-mates, partners and others. The questions were on the Suffolk website and responses invited from the monthly email newsletter.

The idea is to consider partnership situations in auction and defence that did not end well and decide why. I don't want you to jump to the conclusion I'm encouraging an acrimonious approach to the game – far from it. I hope you'll see that there are many sides to a given problem and understanding other perspectives will enhance your bridge and your tolerance. Moreover, rather than debate in heat of the moment (surely you wouldn't do that would you?), I would like to see your problems appear here – so send them in.

Respondents were asked to assign 100% culpability between partners but, if they felt it was 'just one of those things', they could leave part un-attributed (though very few did). Some took exception at the 100% rule:

"It's ridiculous that a 100% error should be reduced to 50% because partner's an idiot too…".

Perhaps. I wanted a simple measure to mark by – though there are no 'answers' (and no prizes). I've indulged those who felt so strongly about this and left their assignments as '80/40' etc.

I have tried to avoid difficulties with system by choice of problem. In an effort to make this as relevant to Suffolk readership as possible, unless stated otherwise, assume that you and opponents are playing a weak no-trump with four card majors in the modern English tradition, divergences and reminders appear in footnotes.

Enough already! Let's see some bridge

Problem 1.

EW Vul.	♠ A8		♠ J52
Pairs	♥ Q1098		♥ AK52
	♦ 5		♦ AJ942
	♣ J109864		♣ A

	Pass		1♦
	1♥		4♣1
	4♠2		4NT3
	5♦4		6♥

1. Splinter, no agreement about singleton honours
2. Control
3. Key card ask
4. One key card

A spade lead from ten-fifth scuppered this contract despite suits breaking favourably.

West has passed but East still makes a move orientated to slam on a borderline and complicated hand and they get too high. As pointed out a couple of times, slam isn't without play, let's hear from someone who is prepared to finesse the ♥10 (it was offside) and win in the play:

Jim Gobert: "…An around about way to say I have been in far worse slams. I have sympathy for both partners. I too would have bid 4♣ over 1♥. While 4♠ might have been a bit of an overbid, the spade control could well have been the key to the hand. (e.g. if East held the same hand but with the ♦K he certainly could not have moved past 4♥ for fear of three spade losers). East might have tried 5♣ over 4♠, but 5♦ from West would have got them to the same spot."

What a nice partner. Flin and Jeal broadly agree but most say East-West bid too much and East's 4♣ is first target for criticism, not because it's an unwise move opposite a passed partner, but because it's simply too much. The alternative?

Paul Barden: "4♣ is an overbid: 3♥ is correct. East has got a six-loser hand in which the singleton ace of clubs is not good value. Sometimes one stretches a little to make a descriptive bid, but splintering with a singleton ace is not very descriptive. Having overbid already, driving to slam once West control bids is grotesque. Having decided to drive to slam, what is the point of asking for key cards? Why should slam be worse if West has control bid the king of spades, presumably with compensating values elsewhere? Or was East just practising?"

Ouch; that's East in his place. 3♥ is the choice of Sherer, Beeton, Birdsall, Lockhart, Gudka and Robson, the last outlining what a minimum 4♣ splinter should look like:

Andrew Robson: "I would say that East does not have the values for 4♣

	♠Axx ♥AKxx ♦AJ9xx ♣x

would be (only just) enough. However West is worth no more than 4♦ (last train) over 4♣ - the lack of a ninth trump. So East 80%, West 60% (factor down if it must add to 100%!)"

There are others on board:

Peter Sutcliffe: "West's 4♠ however is too much for me, the five level might not be safe and partner will expect a better hand. If 4♦ was last train I could just about live with that."

So, what are they on about?

Jonathan Green: "4♦ should be 'last train' (the only bid below game, assigned an artificial meaning: I am interested in going beyond game but do not have enough to proceed opposite a minimum). Control-bids above game are therefore primarily concerned with the location of controls and mostly assume sufficient values for slam. I'm not convinced West even has enough for a last train 4♦ but 4♠ is certainly too much"

Thanks Jonathan. Just to recap, 'Last Train' applies when there is just one bid under game in the agreed suit and it says, "I like my hand, I have some stuff, but I'm not convinced we are safe any higher".

So East gets let off for the overbid of 4♣ (although Sutcliffe thinks 4♥ better along with Stanford and Mestel) but only because there was something West could do that wouldn't take the partnership overboard. The dog that hasn't barked is West's pass. Everyone is making the same overtures to slam they would opposite an unlimited partner. Others mention it:

Rick Waters: "East 100% for taking an inflated view of his own hand opposite a passed partner"

Edwards, Less, Lang, Orton all want more opposite that pass. So does:

Graham Beeton: "… the same distribution and HCP but values concentrated in diamonds,

	♠Jxx ♥AKxx ♦AKQxx ♣x"

Yes, that's a nice hand and one that gives West an excuse for the 4♠ control-bid but if we're all on the 'last train', err, wavelength, then 4♠ will deliver much more: any three of the two top spades, a fifth trump and a diamond honour.

No-one who commented (Barden as above and Hull) thought 4NT a sensible way to proceed but I guess most thought the damage done by then, even though they might have stopped at the five-level. Surprisingly no-one says you should have an agreement about splintering with a singleton ace – I guess it's one of those unattractive things we have to do from time to time.

I like the 'Last Train' but 4♣ is too much for me. In the pessimist's camp, Karapet and I worry that the splinter would help the opposition to beat game when we might otherwise get a fast discard via the ♣K - a nod therefore to going quietly opposite a passed partner. The 3♥ bidders don't mention how they might get to slam, do they trust partner to chip in with a helpful 4♦ on:

	♠Kx ♥Q109xx ♦KQx ♣xxx

Or perhaps they accept that every perfect fit slam cannot be bid.

West: range 0-100, average 53

East: range 0-100, average 46

Problem 2.

Love All, Dealer East		♠ KQ7
IMP Multiple Teams		♥ 96
		♦ 7
		♣ A987643
	♠ J653		♠ A942
	♥ QJ105		♥ AK432
	♦ 6432		♦ QJ
	♣ 2		♣ J10
		♠ 108
		♥ 87
		♦ AK10985
		♣ KQ5

	West	North	East	South
			1♥1	2♦
	3♥2	4♣	Pass	5♣
	End

1. Five card major
2. Pre-emptive

Trick	1	Heart ace, seven, queen, six
	2	Heart four, eight, ten, nine
	3	Diamond six, seven, jack, king
	4…	Top trump in South, ruff diamond with club ace, claim

I might have pointed out that this was a defensive problem; several, thinking they were judging the auction, criticised North's 4♣ bid despite its success at the table – you can't be fairer than that. Raining opprobrium equally fairly:

Barry Davies: "Surely East can see that he has all the defence at the moment of the first lead? So find out - lead king for count. Having decided instead to do something 'clever' - 'queen shows jack' West is put on the spot by East compounding it - '♥4 (highest) for ♠ switch'. Idiots!"

And the I-word is in use again – but this time, with just one target, West:

Mike Ash: "Partner has played his highest heart pip and a spade switch is marked anyway so I can only assume West is an idiot - or, most likely, doesn't watch the small cards played."

But others are just as hard on East:

Rick Hanley: "East's heart-four at trick two is ludicrous. Why give West the lead when they may go wrong? West's decision to lead a diamond is perfectly rational as East's lead of a low heart can only suggest a diamond void. 100% blame to East"

With feelings running this high, we must be as rational as we can. There seem to be two critical points:

1. Should East cater for partner having five hearts and the ♠K?
2. If not (1) then should East try for +100 as he did?

I think king-for-count is a red herring: the queen seems to be a good card from West, helping us with heart honour placement and, by reference to the auction, the rest of West's hand. Only a few consider (1) and then only in passing:

Edward Lockhart (with David Hull similarly): "There are deals where ♠A at trick-two is the best defence, but none of them are particularly plausible"

David considers

	♠Kxx ♥QJ10xx ♦xxx ♣xx

Leaving North with:

	♠QJxx ♥x ♦xx ♣Axxxxx

Which just isn't 4♣ over 3♥. Any more distribution with West, 4=5=3=1 for example, and he would be bidding four hearts, not three. However, there is a small rain cloud over dismissing this possibility lest we find ourselves back here again, arbitrating on whether we put too much store in partner's tactical actions. Green, Hanson, Whetton, Jeal and Gudka are all playing the ♠A at trick two – though apart from Green, they are more concerned with stopping the overtrick when West has five hearts.

Over then to (2); there's a strong repetition in those who cite East as villain that this is all about practical play. If those hearts had been headed by ace-king-nine or those spades by ace-queen, would we be having this discussion? But Mr Lockhart goes on:

Edward Lockhart: "…For that matter, West could have thought about shapes around the table. He was playing East to be 5=5=0=3 I think"

Paul Barden: "Even without any signal, a diamond can be right only if East is ruffing it; that would give him 4=5=0=4, North 3=2=3=5. A remote contingency. I'll give West 100%, East 10%, on the basis that West's defence was an aberration but not one which East couldn't possibly have expected of him."

Less, Fisher and Beeton aren't so detailed – they just note that North isn't likely to have queen-knave-low of diamonds and not support. So it's not just a case of the 'tiny heart-four' (Stanley's phrase but Gobert, Waters and others by implication) - should we ask partner to work this hard for the defence?

Hans Ehrlich: "If West invites East to underlead his ♥K, he must watch the pips to identify what suit East wants returned"

Well, yes; if West was helping East to get the lead to him, it's reasonable to expect him to know what to do if he gets it. But is the (joint) effort worth the candle?

When you've pushed the opponents, remember it doesn't always work and you want your due when it does. I wouldn't feel proud of my methods or my play scoring up with team-mates who were -50 in 4♣; "You make four hearts… you didn't double… and only beat it one?". Gobert, Barden, Mestel consider the maximum two IMP gain and ponder its worth. Not so:

Andrew Robson: "100% West. In my view that diamond return was absurd. The ♥4 made it clear that it was not a diamond that was required. East was paying West the compliment of getting the game down two when West had ♠QJ - a "free shot" he may not take next time. (Sorry to be harsh West!)"

There you have it; watch the spots but remember to forgive.

West: range 0-100, average 41

East: range 0-100, average 59

Problem 3.

Game All	♠ Q		♠ A942
Pairs	♥ K1062		♥ AQ53
	♦ Q1086		♦ A52
	♣ AQJ10		♣ K2

	1♦		1♥
	2♥		4NT1
	5♥2		5NT3
	7♥

1. Key card ask
2. Two key cards, no heart queen
3. Ask for number of kings

No miracles - down one.

Aha! We've arrived at that problem that provokes comments of "surely a unanimous panel?", well, in this case:

Jeff Orton: "Is this a typo?"

Many were concerned at the breakdown of natural order:

Claude Stokes: "West clearly did not understand the 5NT bid. If he had, then the reply would have been 6♣ denying any King – he had already included the King of hearts in his response to 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood

John & Maureen Heath: "Unless there is something missing - the reply to the number of kings should be at the 6 level!"

And others were worried for West's sanity - and the partnership's past (and future):

Graham Beeton: "My immediate thought was that West has gone mad. Revenge on partner for an earlier hand? 100% to West, who will probably be playing with the host next week"

Andrew Moore (with Lang, Flin, Marsh, Less and others [not all politely]): "Where does West get this 7♥ from?"

Where indeed? Over to someone who has an idea:

Edward Lockhart: "It's well known that 5NT is as much an invitation to check one's hand for extra tricks as a request for kings. Playing a weak no-trump, West is bound to have quite a bit more than ♥K, ♣A - either in shape or in useful-looking high cards. East's auction has given him no way to judge which cards are useful, so he should possibly be conservative and treat this collection as non-working. However, West can reasonably count five trump tricks, four clubs, the pointed aces, and a spade ruff, which makes twelve. Any of a second spade ruff, a sixth trump, or a diamond finesse would be the thirteenth. Bidding 7♥ is aggressive, but by no means absurd."

But…

Graham Hazel: "Do I have enough extra to punt the grand as West? No."

Graham knows and I know he knows because:

	♠ 542		♠ AKQJ3
	♥ KQJ104		♥ A6
	♦ AJ62		♦ Q9
	♣ 2		♣ A975

	1♥		1♠
	2♠		3♣
	3♦		4NT
	5♣ (1 key card)		5NT (how many kings?)
	7♠

'How life imitates The Blame Game' – Graham was West and this deal occurred after his answers were in.

So, back to our problem - West can bid 7♥ – get over it. He just needs the right hand. Let's have a proper look at the auction, starting low:

Phillip Edwards: "First that opening bid - opening 1♦ is wrong on this hand shape, as you have an even worse rebid over a 1♠ response than you would have if you started with 1♣. East 90% for launching into RKCB when clearly the hand would be much better evaluated via control-bidding, West 10% for the wrong first bid"

I can see you feel strongly about that opening Phillip but West may count a point for those three tens and rebid 1NT over 1♠. McPhee is a die-hard 1♥ opener (no surprise there – he'd be declarer).

We have to consider system here: playing a weak no-trump as we are, opening a minor and supporting a major shows either a distributional minimum or a nothing-special strong no-trump. This explains the optimism of East: either partner has a shortage or a long suit (diamonds), failing those, some extra high-cards (15-16 HCP). But what about:

	♠Jx ♥K10xx ♦Qxxxx ♣AQ

Or

	♠QJxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxxx ♣A?

We don't pass those - how do you fancy six hearts opposite? Barden, Mestel and Lockhart (above) all mention this. McPhee goes on to say that the 4-4-4-1 shapes confuse this assumption (he donates 5% discredit to the Great Shuffler for imposing one upon us).

Unlike the seven spade example above, our East hasn't given West a chance to show the rest of his hand. Moving up, even those that couldn't comprehend West's leap to seven didn't like the turn the bidding took after 2♥:

Mike Ash: "But East is most culpable by a long way; his six loser hand, with good controls and good trumps, is worth a mild slam try - 2♠ over 2♥ and then go on with 4NT if partner jumps to 4♥ or try again with 4♦ over 3♥."

Julian Lang: "100% to West were it not for East's efforts; firstly for not settling for 6♥ after noting the limit bid of 2♥ and second for not going more slowly, e.g. 2♠ after 2♥ then say 2NT - 3♣; 3♥ (nothing to say) - 4NT; 5♥ - 6♥"

I think Julian, West might rate the hand a little bit better than those two minimum actions.

But the real weight of criticism falls on the 5NT continuation:

Andrew Robson: "West 30% East 70%. East was not worth 5NT, needing a perfecto

	♠x ♥KJxx ♦KQxxx ♣Axx

and that would have jumped to 3♥. But West did not really have a 7♥ bid - I'd have tried 6♣"

Stuart McPhee: "You can understand the bidding up to 5♥ - even if you think that it is a bit frisky, not sure how 5NT is going to help. Give West kings in the pointed suits and poorer clubs and grand still looks like hard work"

Yes,

	♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxxx ♣Ax

is a poorer contract than the one reached. East simply hasn't got the stuff for a grand slam – at least West would be vindicated with a heart more in the hand opposite:

Gareth Birdsall: "7♥ is not nice, but more understandable. West can't tell what source of tricks East is hoping for, ♣AQJ10 might be just the ticket. Indeed, it would be opposite

	♠Axx ♥AQxxx ♦Axx ♣Kx"

Last word to someone with an eye for the play (leaving his remarks as a test):

Mike Chanter: "West 99% (partners are never blameless) unless North has five spades, the diamond king and two or three hearts – in which case West is brilliant and East a duff player"

West: range 0-100, average 72

East: range 0-100, average 28

Problems: (1) was from a club evening at Ipswich & Kesgrave, (2) from the 2007 Club Teams of Eight, (3) from the 2007 Suffolk Mixed Pairs

Mike Ash lives in Edinburgh and turns out for Scotland

Mike Chanter lives and plays in Leicestershire but contributes to Table Talk and the Suffolk website - http://www.suffolkbridge.co.uk/content/bitc/

Stuart McPhee now plays for Oxfordshire

Andrew Robson is the bridge correspondent for The Times, pre-eminent player, author, teacher and bridge-club proprietor

Gerry Stanford plays for Sussex

The other outsiders – Paul Barden, Gareth Birdsall, Graham Hazel, David Hull and Jonathan Mestel - are partners, team-mates, ex-colleagues or who have played in Suffolk, sometimes all four.

There were 37 respondents in total, you can see how they voted numerically on the website at http://www.suffolkbridge.co.uk/content/blamegame/. Thank you all for taking part – next time it's a bidding forum.