Dubious Logic

At Sixes and Sevens Again

Continuing to select cut-throat deals from this year's Schapiro Spring Fours, many of the swings featured big decisions in the slam zone, in both bidding and play. First up, and the very first deal placed on the table was this, only East-West are vulnerable:

• QJ74
• AKJ75
• AKQ
• 5

Your first call was obvious enough but are you going to progress? Though likely, it's not completely certain that the five level will be safe, so bidding again entails some risk. It's a general rule that you should pre-empt to the level at which you would be happy to see opponents play and the nicely judged 4♣ raise by West has made life difficult for you. There are many hands where partner will have to be content with 4♠ yet you'll have fine play for slam. I didn't think I could take control with 4NT and drive to six so I issued a strong invitation with five clubs. Partner had no hesitation in bidding six with ♠AK9862 ♥932 ♦93 ♣J4 and all the tricks were taken on a diamond lead.

Whether to back your judgement was to the fore here, this time North-South Vulnerable:

• AK84
• 86532
• 62
• Q9

North was part of the British Junior team, not renowned for faint heartedness, he continued with a brisk raise to the seven level. The trouble was diamonds, partner held:

• 3
• AKQ74
• AK87543
• ---

…and trumps were 3-1. In the other room it was South who had to take the plunge, both vulnerable:

"What was he bidding on if not the ace of spades?" was the question and this time the raise to the grand slam was a success. Not all our decisions at that level were successful:

Seven diamonds was reached after South had passed but supported a weak jump bid in spades. North had a singleton trump and at least three hearts, when the ace of clubs was cashed the ten came from South. That left an option; take a finesse through North's putative Q52 or play for the suit to have been 2-2 all along. Both declarers chose to finesse – it was just a missed overtrick in the other room but it was another savage swing when South had Q10. Were they right? It's very close – perhaps it was more likely North was 7=3=1=2 or 6=4=1=2 than 6=3=1=3, but I think you'd have to be at the table.

Published Saturday 21.May.2005