Naples, FL

Report from Naples

Graphic and HTML design
L-Graphics

Report  From Naples

ON THE REGIONAL TRAIL

I'm a lucky guy. I'm happily married (had to say that one first, to keep it that way), and I get to play bridge for a living. How can you beat that?

Most top-level bridge in America today involves money. It wasn't always that way, but there are many wealthy Americans who want to play bridge on good teams (most of them also want to improve their games and/or win masterpoints). There used to be more of a stigma attached to this, but it is fading. Not a second thought is given to paying a tennis or golf pro--so why not a bridge pro?

Sure, there is financial jealousy--not everyone (really, hardly anyone) can afford such a luxury. The masses resent that the wealthy can afford to go first-class, whether it be in travel, front-row theatre seats, or bridge. There is no way to stop some of the resentment, but maybe this will help: Would you have a better chance against Meckstroth-Rodwell or against Meckstroth partnering Mr. Moneybags? Could you beat a team of all Meckstroth-Rodwells more easily if they had or did not have a weaker player (payer) on the team?

Anyway, there are thousands of people who hire bridge pros as their partner and/or teammates. I used to get paid to partner (and/or teach) such individuals. I love teaching (and writing) those players, but when it comes to playing, I am spoiled. I want to play only with my regular partner, David Berkowitz. Fortunately, I can do so. By playing in a dozen tournaments a year on professional teams, I get the best of everything. I am paid by my teammate/sponsor at the other table, while my at-the-table partner is one of the best players in the country.

Aside from the major tournaments (National and International), I get to play in about one smaller (Regional) tournament each month. Not only does this keep my partnership with David Berkowitz tuned up, but it gives me something to write about.

Here are four deals with instructional (and entertainment, I hope) value from the Naples regional we played in recently (September, 2007).  No, not "that" Naples (my life isn't that good). This was the city of Naples on the southwest coast of Florida.

1) Heartbreak

Try bidding this hand from Naples:

Your partner (David Berkowitz) deals and opens 1♠, doubled by RHO. Your opponents are vulnerable and you are not. What is your pleasure?

You might want to know what system bids are available. Would you splinter to 4♦ if allowed? Would you jump to 4♣ if it were fit-showing? The problem with those four-level jumps is that they don't leave much room for partner to react. Maybe a 4♦ splinter appeals (in that if he doesn't control-bid 4♥, you could give up, but why would partner bid 4♥ with some minimum such as: 
♠ Axxxx  ♥Axx  ♦ KJx ♣ xx ?). You could belong in 7♠ and partner might not even know to cooperate!

I bid 2NT (limit+ raise). Maybe I could learn something useful. Over my 2NT, partner jumped to 4♠. So, he doesn't have a dead minimum. (Neither does he have a super-maximum; with slam interest he'd have gone slower). Now what?

I had to be worth one more try--we'd be unlikely to fail on the five level. I bid 5♣. Bypassing BW usually implies a void somewhere. Partner control-bid 5♥.

Perfect! Just what the doctor ordered. No diamond control, but a heart control. Six was now a lock, but what about seven? Opposite as little as the two major-suit aces, we'd have play for all 13 tricks. ``Six clubs,'' I bid, trusting that partner wouldn't think this was an offer to play clubs.

Partner made one more try for seven. He bid six diamonds. This was a bit peculiar. Why hadn't he control-bid 5♦ earlier? Maybe he had the heart ace and the diamond king. Whatever he had, if he was still interested in seven (in spite of an opposing takeout double), so was I. Enough dilly-dallying. Playing him for the two key aces, I bid seven spades:

That 6♦ bid was imaginative. David would have bid 6♥ with the ♥K, so he couldn't do that. He didn't want to sign off in 6♠, because he had two aces and the trump queen--mighty big cards. So, he invented 6♦ as one last try for seven. Unfortunately he had all those little hearts. The grand would have been much better if he had what would actually look like a worse hand, something like:

♠ AQ865  ♥ A976  ♦ J4  ♣ 32

(With that hand, he wouldn't have bid as much, yet seven would be almost laydown!). With his actual singleton club and five hearts there was a little work to do. He needed to discard four hearts on my clubs.

The ♦A lead was ruffed and trumps drawn in 3 rounds (the takeout doubler was void). How should David play the club suit?

If they are 3-3 (or the doubleton queen falls), playing them from the top will create four discards for the hearts. If they are 4-2 with the queen onside, the finesse must be taken.

Given the vulnerable takeout double, and LHO's spade void, I think the latter line is with the odds.

The Sad Ending:

After drawing trump, David played a club from hand and finessed dummy's jack. It lost to the queen. Drat!!

THE FULL DEAL:

As you can see, playing clubs from the top would have worked. The queen ruffs out on the third round and there are enough club winners to throw away all of declarer's heart losers. Too bad. My grandma might have made this one. Sad to say, I agree with David's line. From the bidding and play, it was much more likely that West had ♣ Qxxx  than ♣ xxx. Anyway, David doesn't read my articles, so I don't know why I even bother consoling him here.

----------------------

2) Ping-Pong

On this Naples deal, South opened a 15-17 1NT and West overcalled a natural 2♠. North made a negative double (although this is a good hand for transfer lebensohl). East raised to 3♠, South bid 4♥, and North Blackwooded into 6♥.

What do you think so far?

South was light for his free 4♥, and North also did a lot of bidding. Thus, a poor slam was reached.

West led a high spade and shifted to a trump. South conceded down 1. Your opinions this time?

Power of the pen lets me hide the identities of West and South, but each has won National Championships.

After the trump switch, South could have made the contract. It looks as if there is no place for the diamond loser. But watch!

Win the trump return and draw a second round of trump (but not a third round--you'll see why in a moment). Play all the top clubs ending in dummy. (If East is able to ruff one of these clubs, so be it -- you were never making the hand anyway). Once the clubs live, trump the fourth round of clubs high in hand.

Now, lead South's last trump (this is why it wasn't played earlier) and in the process win that trump in dummy to finish the trumps. South's last 3 cards are the ♦Kx and the ♠Q.  Dummy's last three cards are ♦Axx.  And poor West? He is squeezed in spades diamonds. He has to unguard diamonds, letting dummy's low diamond win trick 13, or throw the high spade, letting declarer win a trick with the ♠Q.

If you're still with me, you probably see West's error. At trick two, he had to play another high spade, thus breaking up any squeeze. The contract should have been down one all along, but we didn't need the double error to reach the same result. (At the other table East-West were -500 as a sacrifice against 4♥).

----------------------

3) Shhh! Don't tell anyone.

I considered using my "pen power" again to squelch this story, but the journalist inside got the best of me. I wanted to talk a little about "opening 1NT on a singleton."

This is generally a no-no, especially for players who do it frequently. Some bridge clubs frown upon it so much that they ban it altogether. That's a bit extreme, because a hand such as the following:

looks "notrumpy" to me. The alternative (one of a minor) isn't so hot. I probably open 1NT on a singleton (and it is always a singleton honor) once every few years or so. Such an occasion came up in Naples:

I was in third seat, neither side vulnerable. It went Pass-Pass to me. Playing "Standard," I'd open 1♣. This hand isn't too hard to describe, as it will be convenient to bid spades on the next round. However, I was playing Precision. A 1♣ opening was out (it would show 17+). The alternative was to open 1♦ on a singleton. Ugh! I decided I have the right every few years to open 1NT with such a hand. I did so and am sheepishly reporting it.

The reason for the report, is that the play was interesting. Everyone passed and a low diamond was led:

East played the ♦Q and I won my singleton ♦K. Now what?

Clubs, of course. I led a low club from hand.

Most opponents are not capable of ducking smoothly with the king in such situations. You are entitled to "read" the table (as long as it is your opponents you are "reading," and not your partner!).

West played a smooth ♣8. I decided he didn't have the ♣K. Accordingly, I inserted dummy's ♣9, losing to East's jack.

Back came a diamond and West ran five winners there (he had started with ♦AJxxxx). I had lost five diamonds and a club. (East threw two spades and a heart on the run of the clubs).

West exited with a low spade. I needed the rest. This was the end position:

All along, my plan was to play East for the ♣K (once West ducked smoothly). Given the 6-3 diamonds, it was more likely that East had the club length. Accordingly, I crossed to dummy's ♥A and played the ♣Q. East covered, the ♣10 was smothered, and I had the rest.

THE FULL DEAL:

Note the powerful club spots. This play in the club suit is called an "intra-finesse." First, I finessed against West by playing low to dummy's ♣9. Then, the ♣Q crashed West's other "interior" card of significance. Notice that only one club trick was lost in spite of missing KJ1082 with the king over the queen.

----------------------

4) Crash of '07

How can you legitimately lose only one trump trick missing the ace, the king, and two low ones? Watch it happen on this deal from Naples: