I played the last few hands of yesterday's creature feature. An uncontested auction began 1 - 1 - 1NT. I was the 1 bidder and held something like 8 highs, five hearts, four clubs and I think it was 2-2 in / .  As I choose my next call, what do I know about partner's hand? My actual choice was 2 , partner turned up with three hearts, that's great but it was not certain.  Rebidding 2 was a possibility I considered. Must partner have four clubs?  Well, he has to have four of something, he clearly does not have four hearts and he would not open 1 on a three card holding of he had four diamonds. But could he have four spades and three cards in each of the other suits?  That depends on who you are playing with. But probably the answer is yes, that could be. BWS recommends 1NT on a 4=3=3=3 holding.  But I have had partners who think otherwise.

There is also the question of what partner would make of a 2 rebid. Natural? Well, maybe. Some play 2-way new minor forcing. I was playing with Joe and in the discussion afterward he mentioned that he and I had agreed to play ordinary NMF. I was pretty sure that was so but not positive. Still there is the issue that he could be 4=3=3=3. I am pretty sure Joe would rebid 1NT with that holding, and then I want to pay in 2 .

My point here, applicable in many auctions, is that we often want to make inferences on an auction but even in simple auctions the correct inference will depend on agreements, often agreements about bids that were  not made. What can I make out of the fact partner did not bid 1 over my 1 ? If he would always rebid 1 whenever he held four, then I can infer from 1NT that partner has four, or maybe five, clubs and a 2 bid sounds right.

There are arguments for and against skipping over the four card spade suit to rebid 1NT when 4 triple 3.   I'm ok with either.

Also, what about 2 way NMF?  The value of this also depends on other agreements. Suppose partner opens 1 and my shape is 2=4=6=1 with modest values. Do I bid 1 or 1 ? BWS says 1 , they skip over with five but not with six, but strict Walshites bid 1 . Now suppose 1 - 1 - 1NT, and I hold six diamonds. Clearly the hand belongs in . How do I get there? In regular NMF, 2 is artificial. With 2-way, I bid 2 , a bid that forces partner to bid 2 . Then, depending on values, I pass or make an invitational raise to 3 .  (With game forcing values I would have responded 1 , later reversing into ). Incidentally, in Goren the auction 1 - 1 - 1NT -2 was passable, basically a weak bid, pass or correct. But Goren has been dead for quite a while.

Note that when playing 2 way, I can then get out in 2 but I cannot get out in 2 since 2 forces pard to bid 2 . In 2 way, the auction 1 - 1 - 1NT - 3 is weak (bidding 2 and then, over the forced 2 , bidding 3 is invit). But I hardly want to bid 3 on four cards unless I am very sure partner also has four, and I am not. You pay your money and you take your choice, as the old carnival expression goes.

And, of course, I am only giving my understanding of 2 way.

This is what I meant by the "If-Then" in the title. Inferences require assumptions, and assumptions can be wrong.

IAC is having an Indy later today that I will try to play in. For an Indy, simple is best. The fewer artificial bids the better, it's easier to make reasonable inferences.

I made a mess of things yesterday. Whether Dare or otherwise I like to think through later and find errors. I played boards 3 and 6. On 6 I was just lazy, I even saw what I should do, I just, for whatever the reason, didn't do it. But 3 was interesting and remains interesting

KQ
void
AJ943
AKQJT7


A843
AKT4
T65
52

Lho deals:
3 - 6 - Pass - 6NT
All Pass

The opening lead is the T.

OK. We assume, reasonably, that Lho has 7 hearts. Probably he does not have KQxx, and in fact he follows to one round of and later follows to a so he has at most three .

Is that enough? Is the hand now cold regardless of the lie, as long as Lho holds 7 hearts and at most three diamonds? I think we also need to assume that Lho has at least one diamond, but when he shows up with only one I think we can say he is unlikely to have a void. That would give him five spades.

If the honors are split we can make this and if the honors are both in one hand, either hand, we can make this, but I am thinking the play has to go differently in some of the cases. I have yet to find one line of play that works, requiring only the above assumptions (seven hearts with Lho and either 1 or 2 or 3 diamonds with Lho).

It's a very interesting hand. I think it is reasonable to play for the honors to be divided, either Hxx with Rho and Hx with Lho or vice-versa, or maybe Hxxx opposite H .  If we assume that, then the hand is cold.

I had a thought on what would work, but it was not a good thought.

AKT8763
9
J75
Q3

Everyone vul, Rho opened 1 , I overcalled 1 , Lho bid 5 , partner passed, Rho bid 6 , I pass, partner doubled, passed out

1    1    5    Pass
6    Pass   Pass    X
Pass   Pass   Pass

Your lead?

I did not ask the opponents what their bids meant! I presumed the auction was undiscussed. Indeed, as I led and dummy was being tabled declarer announced to her partner that she had no idea what he was doing. And I am far from sure what to make of the double, even if it asks for an unusual lead.

If you choose correctly, you will hold them to 6. If you choose wrong, they make 7. So the lead does not matter for the matchpoint score.


It's a lazy day, time for a bit of fun.

I sometimes amuse myself with "what ifs".  Board 4 from yesterday's crazy slams is an example. Jim and i were playing and I was wary of bidding slam here. It makes, but it's not a laydown. First I give the hand as it was, then in a re-arranged version. The format I used for doctoring gives a link that needs to be copied and pasted, rather than just clicked on.

The hand as it was:
https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|S,jcreech,N,kenberg|md|2SQ986HJ76DJ7CT432,SK2HA842DA9CKQJ65,SJT3HKT3DT8543C87,SA754HQ95DKQ62CA9|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|1C|mb|P|mb|1S|mb|P|mb|2H|mb|P|mb|3D|an|lack%20of%20anything%20better|mb|P|mb|3N|mb|P|mb|6N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D8|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|DA|pc|H2|pc|HT|pc|HQ|pc|H6|pc|CA|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|C3|pc|CK|pc|C7|pc|CQ|pc|D4|pc|S4|pc|C4|pc|CJ|pc|S3|pc|S5|pc|CT|pc|C6|pc|SJ|pc|H9|pc|D7|pc|D9|pc|D3|pc|DK|pc|H7|pc|DQ|pc|S6|pc|H4|pc|D5|pc|H5|pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|H3|



The hand as it might have been:
https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|S,jcreech,N,kenberg|md|2SQ986HKJ7DJ7CT432,SK2HA842DA9CKQJ65,SJT3HT63DT8543C87,SA754HQ95DKQ62CA9|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|1C|mb|P|mb|1S|mb|P|mb|2H|mb|P|mb|3D|an|lack%20of%20anything%20better|mb|P|mb|3N|mb|P|mb|6N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|

Notice that Gib says the slam can also be made in this re-arranged form. It's an interesting exercise, more than a bit double dummy I think, to see just how. Assume the opening lead is a small rather than the potentially helpful 8.   

This was a crazy slam session, so I bid the slam. But I was a bit worried as I raised to 6NT, the hands are not fitting all that well.

So as a lesson goes, I am not so sure the lesson should be that pair should bid the slam.

Also, while it is true that with the revised hand it is still possible to make 6, I can't imagine anyone would actually play the hand in the manner required to bring in 6 when the hearts have been rearranged. Maybe, as an act of desperation after the heart K takes the Q in the hypothetical , they bring it in if indeed the lead was the 8. After 8-2-J-A, leading the 9, letting it ride if not covered, or establishing the 6 if it goes 9-T-K-7,  brings in a miraculous make. These opening leads of second from the top with spots do not always work out.

Hands are seldom simple. 

Speaking of crazy, I close with a favorite from years back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbnrdCS57d0

Often the Dare hands present unexpected twists that provide an opportunity.  Hand 6 yesterday is an example. It's a squeeze hand and the idea, I think, was for it to go as follows:

The auction was 1NT-3NT. The opening lead is the A, dummy comes down, declarer sees:

      76
      A86
      7654   
      KQ32



      9843
      K72
      AKQ   
      A87

Declarer can see 0+2+3+3=8 top tricks once he gets the lead. The 9th trick could come from a 3-3 split in either minor, or perhaps from a squeeze. We first suppose that Lho cashes the   AKQ and switches to, perhaps, a small . Declarer wins in hand and, with the squeeze possibility in mind, leads his last spade. There is a lot of lingo in squeezes, this is called rectifying the count. The reason is this: Lho holds both minors and needs to hold on to four cards in both of those suits.  After four rounds of spades and two rounds of hearts, he can't do it. 4+2=6, 13-6=7, so he only has room in his hand for 7 minor suit cards. He is forced to come down either to 3 diamonds or 3 clubs, and then the hand comes in.

At my table things got tricky. I am not big on acronyms, but I Clyde Love in his book on squeezes speaks of BLUE.

B= Busy in two suits, in this case clubs and diamonds
L=Losers. This means getting down to where you have all but 1 of the remaining tricks. Playing that last spade did that for us.
U=upper. At least one of the threats (the long diamond and the long club are the threats) have to be in the hand that plays after the victim.
E=Entry. After the squeeze produces a winner, you have to be able to get to that winner to cash it. And the entry needs to be well placed, in the suit of one of the threats.

Now for defense. The defense cannot usually do much about B and U, but they might be able to attack L and E. For example, maybe the spade cashing is not a good idea since it sets declarer on the road to rectifying the count.  At my table they went after both L and E, attacking my entry as I set out to rectify the count.
Let's take a look at the hand from the viewpoint of my Lho:



              76
              A86
              7654   
              KQ32

AKQ
void
J9832
J9654

He can see the threats in dummy and see the discarding problem ahead. He decides that the spades can wait, he needs to attack E so he leads a small . His partner produces the T, declarer (me) takes the A and leads a . Lho wins and leads the J, declarer wins on the board, comes to hand with a and leads another . Lho wins and leads the 9. Declarer must now kiss the squeeze goodbye. Yes, there is still an entry to the board with hearts but it's not adequate. Declarer had to make some discards as well while rectifying the count, the timing is of when the entry is in a side suit. Congrats to Lho!

But But! How about Rho? We have played three rounds of , declarer's 9 is a threat  against Rho and so is a long . As mentioned, this hand has features!


But But But the count is still not rectified. and we don't want to be giving up our threat to rectify it. SO: We duck the third club.

And now it matters which card I played when I led the third from my hand. I erred, pitching a from the board. I survived, the hand was complex enough that I survived, but I needed to realize that the minor suit squeeze against Lho was dead, I should bury it, and concentrate on the major suit squeeze against my Rho. moreover, I am going to have to duck that continuation to rectify the count, and then with another I am going to have to find a pitch from my hand, which must be a . So the long in my hand is not a threat I can keep, I need the long on the board as a threat. So the correct play by declarer on the third spades is to pitch a from the board, duck a club to rectify the count, cash the high clubs and diamonds, squeezing Rho with the 9 in hand  and the 8 on th e board as the threats.

Whew and double whew. I wish I could say I got all of the details right but I didn't. A very interesting hand.

This is a very complex hand, but there is a fairly simple point worth looking back at, namely the shift at T2. Lho realized he was going to have problems with discarding, he went after the board's entries. This can come up pretty often.

Imps, partner and opponents are robots, nobody vul, three passes to you, you hold:

: J2
: 8
: A972
: AKQJ94

You start with 1 , 1 on your left, pass by partner, 2 on your right. Not a lot of highs, but  a pretty good hand so I bid 2 . The auction continues:



Pass    Pass    Pass    1
 1H     Pass   2      2
Pass    3    3      4
Pass    Pass   4    uh oh

My thinking: My hand has values playing in the minors, not much value on defense. Otoh, haven't I made that clear already, so maybe I can pass and leave this up to partner? So I passed and we defend 4 . Partner leads the 6.

Here is my hand again, now with dummy shown:


          6 is led

                                                            : AKT3
                                                            : A972
                                                            : T5
                                                            : 752



           : J2
           : 8
           : A972
           : AKQJ94

An interesting feature is that I still do not know if Pass was right or wrong. Partner would lead the 6 from T86 and he would lead the 6 from 63 and of course from a stiff 6. We would have been down at least one and perhaps exactly one, but perhaps more, in 5 . We will beat 4 , assuming we have two tricks coming,  if that 6 is either a stiff or 63, and we will be held to three tricks, so 4 makes,  if that 6 is from T86.

So: Would you have bid 5 before seeing the lead and the dummy, and after seeing the lead and the dummy would you wish you had bid 5 ? Do you think it is clear? Does it matter that this is imps? And does it matter that your partner and the opponents are bots? And anything else?

There is an upcoming lesson on minor suit slams. I offer a hand for discussion, I see no good way of bidding it.

I held:

: AT86432
: void
: AK985
: K

Matchpoints, everyone vul. partner is a bot in the free practice for the upcoming ACBL online game.

I opened 1 , so far so good. The opponents are silent. Partner bids 2 and, with seven spades, it seemed that 2 was right. Partner surprises me by now bidding 3 !

1 - 2
2 - 3
?

We are playing 2/1 so 3 and 4 would both be forcing but then what? I decided to simply raise 3 to 6 .  Partner passed, thankfully.  Now this was a bit of a cheat since in these bot things I know that I always have the best hand at the table so 7 seemed unlikely. Looking at the hand records someone else chose 3 over the 2 but that was greeted with 3NT so it seems that we would still be in a bind.

Here are the two hands, I'll put mine at the top since on the auction we had, my hand was dummy (the software then moves me to declarer's seat).


: AT86432
: void
: AK985
: K



: K
: AKJ73
: Q643
: JT4

Any ideas for a scientific approach? And, for that matter, we still have to make 6 if we get there. The opening lead was the A and then a shift to the 2.

I have been travelling and the connection is not always great so I have been avoiding playing except with the bots. I will not be at today's DARE. Back soon.

It will not surprise those who read my posts that I often find ambiguity in auctions. Here is one from Jim's session yesterday:

1 -   2 - X - Pass
2 -  Pass - 4NT

I was the 4NT bidder, I was hoping it would be taken as RKC for and it was. So what's the problem?

I had a big hand (obviously) and I had both majors. But suppose I had a big hand with three and four . Let's say that I have a big enough hand so that I want to play a slam in if we can find a 4-4 fit, and I want to invite but not insist on a NT slam if we do not find a fit. With such a hand I would, I think, also start with the negative double and then, after the 3 , I would want to invite a NT slam. 
Also, opener does not have to have either major. So suppose, in response to my negative double, she rebids 2 . What is 4NT in this situation? Here there are options. If jumping from 2 to 4 is minorwood, which possible it should be, then 4NT can be used as a NT invitation.  Obviously I would not try this without previous discussion.

Here was (my recollection of) the actual hand.  As mentioned it all went smoothly:

: AKxx
: AQJx
: Jx
: Axx.


I'm not sure I even need to bother with RKC. After partner shows up with four there surely is a good play for 12 tricks and going for 13 seems like a stretch. Partner has Qxxx but of course after the overcall it is somewhat more likely than usual that the will not be 3-2. I don't think she had the J. Anyway, I think 6 is reasonable and in fact it makes 7 even opposite pard's 12 count. She has, as I recall, the AKQxx and they break 4-2 so, after the split, all we need is for the finesse to work. It does, as is likely from the 2 call. Still, I'm fine with settling for a small slam.

Vary my hand a bit to:

: AKx
: AQJx
: Jxx
: Axx.


Now I want to be in 6 if partner has , and I want to invite 6 NT, or possibly 6 , depending on pard's shape, if pard does not fit .

So that's a lot of variations. It's great when i have spades and pard has spades, but life is not always so simple.