Hand of the Week

12/22/21

I had the privilege of holding the best hand that our rather ancient decks had to offer on this evening.

Board #17
North dealer
Neither side vulnerable

	North ♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q 8 4 ♦ 6 5 3 2 ♣ J 10 3
West ♠ A 10 7 5 ♥ J 10 3 2 ♦ 10 9 ♣ K 8 6		East ♠ 3 ♥ A K 9 ♦ A K Q ♣ A Q 10 9 5 2
	South ♠ K J 8 6 4 ♥ 7 6 5 ♦ J 8 7 4 ♣ 4


South	West	North	East
		P	2♣
	2♦	P	3♣
P	4♣	P	5♣
P	6♣	P	P
P

I sat East on this hand. The first decision was to open 1♣ or 2♣. The hand was certainly strong enough for 2♣ by just about any measure. It boasted 22 high-card points and 9½ tricks. The measure that I like to use for distributional hands was proposed by Marty Bergen. It is called 4x4. He opens 2♣ with any hand that has at least four quick tricks and at most four losers. This one has six QT's and only three losers.

Nevertheless I was hesitant to open 2♣, a tool that is not that useful for hands with long minor suits. You often find yourself at the three or four level before you even know if you have a fit. On the other hand, I was pretty sure that everyone else would open 2♣ with these cards. There were only 18 points to be shared by the other three players. What if my partner passed with, say, the king and one other club and the queen of hearts? I would certainly feel foolish playing that hand for five or six overtricks.

So, I reluctantly bid 2♣. Ken made the popular "waiting" bid of 2♦. That could be a very weak hand or a better-than-average hand. The only hands that are eliminated are ones with very good suits.

Actually, I prefer to play a different system in which 2♦ shows a hand with an ace, a king, or two queens. A responder with less than that bids 2♥. If we had been using that method, Ken's 2♦ bid would have been very useful. He can't have two queens—I have three. So, he would need to have the king of clubs or one of the two high spade honors. That's a two-thirds chance that my losers are down to two, and I haven't even made a real bid yet.

Ken quickly raised my 3♣ bid to four, which showed agreement to clubs and promised some values. If he had thought that we might not have game, he would have bid 3♦, the "cheapest" minor. Of course, if he had good diamonds, he may have also used that bid.

My choice after the raise was between 5♣ and 4NT, which, in our methods would have been 1430 Roman Key Card. The "key cards" are the four aces and the king of trumps. I had three of the four aces, and so I would certainly welcome any news about the king of clubs and ace of spades. However, there was no guarantee that Ken held either of those cards. If not, he would respond 5♦, which was past the last safe contract, 5♣. So, I just bid 5♣, which Ken raised to six.

A convention named Kickback would have made it easier for me to feel safe about probing for slam. Instead of bidding 4NT, I would have bid 4♦, one suit above the trump suit upon which we agreed. Then if he showed no key cards by bidding 4♥, I could have signed off in 5♣. I don't recommend this convention for everyone, but it would have come in handy here.

The lead was, I think, a diamond.

There are two schools of thought about leads against slams in suit contracts. The first favors an aggressive lead. King from king-queen is a favorite, followed by a bare ace. The other approach is to lead something that reveals nothing about the hand that might help declarer. It also is a good idea not to finesse one's partner. Both of these passive notions are based on the supposition that declarer might be one trick short. From South's perspective the lead that best fits those two criteria is a trump.

I was not happy when South showed out on the second round of trump. Yes, it guaranteed that I could make my bid, but that was not the goal in matchpoints. I had my eye on that thirteenth trick. If North had the ♥Q, I could finesse it. However, that was no longer a 50 percent play. North had shown more clubs than South. Therefore, South was more likely than North to hold the queen or any other card that I was missing.

Here is what I decided to do. I started with the ♥A. Then I led out winners until I was left with three cards: ♥K,♥9, and the spade. On the board I left the two high spades and a heart.

Meanwhile I watched all of North's discards. I also was on the lookout for the missing spade honors. North had discarded one heart, which made me more certain that South had the queen. On the tenth trick I led the spade from my hand. South played an honor, but North did not. By my count two spades and two hearts remained. I led the heart from the board, and, to my surprise North played the queen, and I claimed all the tricks.

So, the finesse would have worked anyway, but I liked the way that I played it.

Yes, yes, I know. 6NT is better, and 7NT is better still. If I had used Blackwood and found two key cards, I would have bid 6NT.