Dubious Logic

Investing in Teams

I have aired comparisons between duplicate pairs and teams before and, to be honest, I am not as convinced that pairs is as inferior to teams as I once was. But some questions continue to puzzle; for example why do many clubs exist solely upon a diet of pairs? Why do we teach beginners the value of game contracts, instilling in them the magic 25 HCP requirement yet score their first competitions mysteriously by overtricks?

If we partner a learner we're aware they guard aces and kings and are desperate to score them (usually too early). They think trick by trick, seldom do they plot the overthrow of a contract. If you forego a trick at teams trying to defeat the contract (and I know you hear the excuse too often) then that is an investment – at pairs it is a bottom. Only thinking trick-by-trick does beginners a lesser harm at pairs than at teams.

These thoughts were prompted by a recent match between two teams with a gulf of experience. The deals featured many make-or-break and bid-or-not game contracts and the less experienced side was overwhelmed. Would that make them less keen to play teams? Or that they needed more practice?

A deal from the Swiss Teams at the Felixstowe Congress earlier this month on this theme. Put yourself in North's shoes.

1. 5 card major
2. "I am bidding four hearts to make – if they bid again, leave them to me"

I'm not sure that vulnerable two club overcall should appear in a family paper but honour compels me to describe what happened. North led the spade queen to the ace, declarer advanced the heart queen and North won: what do you play at trick three?

Prospects are not good. At pairs, with a switch to either minor likely to cause damage, passively continuing a heart or spade would be best. But at teams you must ask how your side will get four tricks. There appear to be no more in spades or hearts unless declarer tries to ruff a spade (and you can score a trump). But South must have something for his two spade call; the ace of clubs? The queen of clubs and ace of diamonds?

Both those holdings point to playing a club away from your delicate holding, setting up two clubs. True, you might be leading into declarer's ace-queen and you even might beat the contract by passive defence when partner's only asset is king-ten of diamonds. But you must take the best shot at defeating their game – just holding them to ten tricks will never be a good score.

Coda:

Note that partner will have to be on his game: if West allows the club queen to hold, South must switch back to spade to get you an over-ruff as declarer cannot satisfactorily play diamonds from hand.

This would have been an echo of the actual play at the table. When North continued with a spade won on table, declarer had to play a diamond. South hopped up with the ace and tried to promote North a heart. That part worked but North didn't have the club ace to cash. Perhaps – I was South – there were better chances ducking the diamond and hoping the closed hand included the ten and declarer decided to finesse against South's knave though that would give up upon a genuine set by trusting North's defence.

All this only reinforces the emphasis on bidding games at teams. According to the hand records, East-West should only make eight tricks in hearts but it is exceedingly difficult to hold them to even nine.

Published Saturday 31.Oct.2009