jump to navigation

Lost a Few Finesses September 2, 2010

Posted by justinlall in Blog, Tournament Report.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

I played in the first knockout of the Dallas regional last night and all day today. My team was Jeremy Fournier, Chris Hamman, and Bart Bramley. It was fun to play “for fun” with 3 of my really good friends, I rarely do that these days.

The first set of the finals was a wild one with a lot of interesting hands. This one was definitely my favorite though.

White/Red I picked up:

T3
A862
82
AQJT9

My partner opened a gambling 3N, showing a solid 7 or 8 card minor and no side ace or king. What would you bid?

I actually think passing is quite reasonable and possibly correct. You are cold unless they run five spades. Sometimes even when that is possible they make the wrong lead, and sometimes partner has 3 spades and they’re 4-4. More importantly, even if it’s reasonably likely they’ll run 5 spades it might still be right to pass since 5 might be down anyways.

On the other hand, I feel like they will very often be leading spades; they rate to have the most honors in that suit (and of course they’ll make an aggressive lead versus a gambling 3N), and since that is our short suit it will also often be their longest. I think not playing some game is too wimpy; both should have enough chances to be worth bidding.

Rightly or wrongly, I chose to bid 5, figuring it will be better to play it from my side since I might get a club lead.

My LHO led the 4 and this is what I saw

Q62
74
AKQJ9763

T3
A862
82
AQJT9

This lead has stopped me from being able to ruff a spade in my hand, so I only have 10 tricks; 8 diamonds and 2 aces. I would like to set up and enjoy my clubs, but I only have one sure entry to my hand.

If the diamond ten was stiff, my 8 would be a second entry. However, I saw a better chance. Maybe my LHO has the ten and I could run this to my 8! I also saw some element of restricted choice on the lead, with T4 of diamonds they would always lead low, but with 54 they might lead either. They also might have T54 (restricted choice on that also). This means when LHO does not have a singleton, he is almost 3 to 1 to have to ten of diamonds.

On top of that, there is one other gain to ducking this trick. If it is RHO with Tx, I might make it after losing a trump trick. RHO will have to guess which major to play, and if he guesses to play hearts I can take a ruffing finesse in clubs and get back to my hand. So I would gain multiple tricks back for the sacrifice of one.

It should be said, though, that if I pop ace and the ten doesn’t drop while having no legitimate chances I still might make. I would come to the heart ace and lead the 9 of clubs from my hand, hoping to catch LHO sleeping and not covering with the king if he has it. This would be my line would be very strong against weak opponents for sure (who would never think to cover), but I think my LHO was good enough to not fall for that. It still might be the wrong line even against weak opponents since if my diamond “finesse” wins, I am cold no matter who has the K, while the swindle requires a finesse if the T doesn’t drop even if they will never cover with the king on my left.

I went for it and ducked, and my RHO won with the ten. He returned a heart, so I won the ace and then took a ruffing club finesse which lost, so I was down 2, losing the not-so-obvious tricks of 1 diamond, 1 club, and 2 spades.

Sadly, RHO had stiff ten of diamonds, and 3N was also cold.

And to think my partner thought he had a solid suit!

Hearts April 4, 2009

Posted by justinlall in Blog.
Tags: , ,
6 comments

Today I had KQJ96 KQ643 AJ3 void. I opened 1 and partner bid 1N. Now what?

It is my opinion that it is right to jumpshift lighter when you have both majors than when you have a major and a minor. The reason is twofold. One, you are more likely to have a game when you have both majors. Two, partner is stuck more often over a 2 bid than over a minor.

Point one is obvious, but consider point two. If partner has a 1354 9 count they have to overbid massively with 2N, or pass 2. However with 1453 over 2 partner can bid 2. 2 endplays responder into making a big distortion much more often, so opener should be alleviating the pressure on him by jumpshifting more aggressively.

So should I bid 3 with the given hand? There’s one more catch. By bidding 3, I preempt my side. If partner bids 3N I don’t know what to do, since I haven’t shown 5-5 and we could still have a 5-3 fit. This can be solved by a special convention. I suggest using 3 as artificial, possibly containing hands with 4 hearts or hands with a normal club jump shift. Some people include spade one suiters as well. Over 3 partner relays with 3 to find out what you have. You lose some accuracy with normal club jump shifts, but it is very important to distinguish between 4 and 5 card heart suits as we have seen.

Playing this convention, I would definitely bid 3 even though if the clubs and hearts were reversed I would only bid 2. Unfortunately, I wasn’t playing it so I chose to bid 2 which made slam difficult to bid.

Lebensohl Over Weak Twos April 2, 2009

Posted by justinlall in Blog.
Tags: ,
3 comments

Eugene Hung has posted some excellent and thorough notes about Lebensohl over weak twos. In fact, they are the most complete set I have seen on the subject.

This convention applies when the opponents open a weak two and partner makes a takeout double. The key feature is an artificial 2N response, asking partner to bid 3C. The major benefit is distinguishing between hands the very weak and medium strength hands. However, there are huge gains on game forcing hands as well which most people are not utilizing. Hopefully now that problem will be fixed!

Terrible Bid March 31, 2009

Posted by justinlall in Blog.
Tags: ,
5 comments

I played at the club with Greg today. I made one really terrible bid in a slam auction.

My hand was 98xx AKQTx Q9xx void. Starting with me the auction went:

1 (P) 2 (3)?

1 was limited to fifteen points, and 2 was gameforcing with at least five diamonds. You might consider just bidding 3 here, but I think 4 is a much better bid. Logically it should announce four or more diamonds and club shortness. It bypasses 3N, but that’s unlikely to be your best spot anyways, and if you have a slam 4 is a much better start.

LHO now doubles 4 and partner passes it around to you. As you should now be well aware, XX shows a first round control (definitely a void in this auction), so you do that. Partner now cuebids 4 and you have a decision to make.

You could sign off in 5. You could make one final try with 5. Or you could try keycard.

I chose to sign off because I had a minimum hand and had already shown my void. I figured I had told my story. This is TERRIBLE reasoning!

To solve these problems we must construct hands for partner. If partner has AK of diamonds and the spade king, slam should be cold. His spades are protected and will get thrown away on the hearts. If he has AK A 6 is cold and 7 will likely be good, depending on his shape. If he has just the Ace of diamonds and ace of spades slam will be good on a non spade lead, and he only has eight points so he might well have the spade queen.

Basically it looks like we should shoot out slam if partner has 2 keycards, which makes 4N the right bid. At the very least, if you’re worried about the missing diamond jack, you should bid 5 to show signs of life. 5 is an atrocious bid, and this time got what it deserved. Partner had AK of diamonds and the spade ace, and 7 was excellent.

My problem was not just appreciating the value of my near solid hearts on this kind of hand, it was bidding too fast. I have a tendency to bid too fast in this type of auction so that I don’t bar my partner, but on an auction like this it’s very unlikely partner will move over 5 anyways. The decision is mine, and I should take a few minutes to maximize my chances of choosing the right one.

Ask Justin 1 March 30, 2009

Posted by justinlall in Ask Justin.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

Dear Justin,

How do I recognize a negative X, takeout X, and penalty X?

Mary T


This is an excellent question that players of all levels struggle to understand. I could write an entire book on this subject, so I’ll just stick to the basics.

Negative doubles are made after an opening bid and an overcall. Almost everyone plays them through at least a 2 overcall, and some play them even higher. A negative double just promises at least 4 cards in the unbid major. If there are 2 unbid majors then it promises 4-4 in both. There are some exceptions to these rules, but they are rare, so I wouldn’t worry too much about them. You want at least 6 points to make a 1 level negative double, and at least 8 points at the 2 level.

Takeout doubles cover much more ground. A double is takeout if:

  • It’s a double of an opening bid through 3
  • It’s a double of a bid and raised suit
  • It’s your first turn to bid in the auction, below 3NT
  • You’ve doubled the suit for takeout already

Most doubles in competitive situations are for takeout. Some players play them on at the 4 level as well, but that requires a lot of experience to know when to pass and when to pull.

Penalty doubles are the rest of the situations. They apply when,

  • The opponents are at the game level or higher
  • You have stopped bidding, then the opponents balance, and you double
  • You have passed several times in the auction and then double
  • You have bid and raised a suit

Again there are exceptions to these rules, but I wouldn’t worry about them. A lot of experts play doubles that were classically penalty as “card showing” now. This is a modern style that I wouldn’t recommend trying to learn until you feel like you are an advanced player.

Punishing X’s of Artificial Bids March 29, 2009

Posted by justinlall in Articles.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

One of the biggest problems of modern science is giving the opponents the chance to double (or not double) artificial bids. However, since the doubles give us extra bidding room we should be well versed in turning the tables on the opponents. These opportunities come in four categories: stoppers, competitive bidding, slam bidding, and Stayman. I’ll discuss each:

In stopper ask auctions often you cannot diagnose when both players have a half stopper and sometimes you cannot rightside the contract. These issues are easily solved when they make a lead directing double. Suppose the auction goes

1-(2)-3-(P)-3-(X)

Now a redouble by responder shows the ace so opener can bid 3N with Qx and rightside the hand. Responder can pass with an unremarkable hand which gives opener the chance to redouble with a partial stop. This requires discussion, but common sense dictates that both sides should not be redoubling with the ace. Here if opener had the ace he’d bid 3N himself to try and rightside opposite responder’s possible Qx. Finally if opener XXs responder bids 3N with a partial stop himself (think Qx and Jxx). This is a little tricky, but well worth the effort.

Next are competitive auctions. For Instance,

(1)-1-(P)-2-(X)

Most experts play 2 is weak and pass is a little stronger. In my opinion a superior distinction is between offensive and defensive minimums. This prepares for a 3 level decision. So with 5332 or (gasp!) a 4 card overall, pass, and with 5431 or 6322 bid. Of course use your judgment based on honor location as well. With extra values you have a lot more bids you can make (like XX for starters, which most people have not defined).

In Slam bidding sequences when they double your cuebid going back to your suit is definitely the weakest action. Redoubling shows a first round control. That may seem strange, but you don’t want to redouble with a second round control only to find out your partner has one as well! You should often pass to show interest and see if partner can redouble (first round control since he’s already cuebid the suit) or not, but you may want to cuebid yourself lest you never get the chance.

When they double Stayman the main issues become club stoppers and rightsiding. Remember if opener has no club stopper, responder is the right side.

Here is my favorite structure:

1N-(2)-X-

P- No stopper. Then responder XXs as restayman, and opener responds with the major he doesn’t have (remember who the rightside is!). If opener has no major he responds 2 as usual. If responder does not redouble he’s showing a garbage stayman hand type.

XX- Business, at least 4 very good clubs.

Other bids- Normal Stayman responses and promise a club stop.

As you can see, there are many ways to fight back against these doubles. Sometimes they direct the killing lead, but sometimes they help us find the best contract. If you know how to handle these situations, they’ll probably start doubling less!

1C-(2D)-X… April 22, 2007

Posted by justinlall in Articles.
Tags: , ,
9 comments

I have been thinking a lot lately about auctions that start 1-(2)-X-(p). This seemingly simple auction can quickly become one of the murkiest constructive bidding sequences in bridge.

The double can be made with both 4 card majors, one 4 card major, or a 1 suited hand with a major. It could even be made with 5-5 in the majors and a weakish hand. Opener can then bid a 3 card major himself or make a very nebulous cuebid. Fundamentally both the double and the cuebid are overloaded.

For instance, if the auction started 1-(2-X-(p)-? one might bid 3 with any of the following hands:

  1. KQ43 KQ2 A43 AJ2
  2. A2 A3 432 AKQJ32
  3. KQ32 KQ92 4 A652
  4. KQ3 AJ2 872 AKJ4

On hand 1 opener cannot just bid 4 as partner may have a 3 card suit, and 3N may be the right spot.

On hand 2 opener just needs a stopper and doesn’t want to bid 4 and bypass 3N.

On hand 3 opener has an invitational strength hand with 4-4 in the majors and wants partner to pick a major. Some people may even be planning to pass a 3M bid by partner!

On hand 4 opener is strong and balanced with no stopper. and is hoping partner can bid 3N.

So the cuebid covers a GF with 1 major, strong with clubs, invitational or game forcing with both majors, or strong balanced with no stopper. Great! The first thing that is clear is that the cuebid needs to create a force. With hand type 3 you just have to bid game or bid 2 of a major. What’s not clear is what responder’s duty is; bid 4 card majors up the line or bid NT with a stopper? If he bids NT with a stopper then a major suit fit may be lost opposite hand type 1 (the most common). If he bids majors up the line then hand types 2 and 3 are screwed. Not to mention that 5-3 fits are going to be very difficult to find.

We also have the issue of finding 3N when opener has one 4 card major and a stopper and responder has no stopper and the other 4 card major. For instance if you have hand 1 the auction might go 1-(2)-X-(p)-3-(p)-3-(p)-3-(p)-? Should responder always bid 3N here, with or without a stopper? This risks some silly 3N contracts as well as wrongsiding the contract if the stopper is Kx or the like.

These aren’t even the only problems with this auction. The other day I had an auction start 1-(2)-X-(p)-2-(p)-3-(p)-? My partner had 4 hearts and a diamond stopper and bid 3N, worried I had a hand like 4333 with no diamond stopper. I had 4 hearts and a game going hand and was worried my partner had bid 2 with only 3. If you don’t believe this is possible, ask yourself what you would do with a hand like Kxx AKx Qxx xxxx. 2N is horrible with this hand type and 2 is really your only choice. Anyways, I passed 3N and we missed our best spot of 4. I pointed out to partner that he should bid 3 and I would bid 3 with 3 hearts and no diamond stopper. While he agreed with this he wondered what would have happened if our fit was spades and not diamonds; I would be endplayed over a 3 rebid.

There are no great solutions to this problem, but perhaps with some artificiality we can improve on this auction.

Bob Hamman has played for a long time that jump shifts are forcing after a negative double. In this auction 3M can be forcing, and that eliminates hand 1 from the immediate cuebid. Over 3 partner can bid 3 without a fit or diamond stopper and opener can bid 3N with a stopper. There is still a guess over a jump to 3 though.

This would leave the direct cuebid to show a strong hand with clubs or a strong balanced hand without a diamond stopper. This would leave responder free to bid 3N whenever they have a stopper, and bid 3M with a 5+ card suit. Definitely a big improvement.

Even better would be to use 2N as an artificial bid. Really, bidding 2N with a weak NT is not a good option anyways, you may have only half the deck and would much rather play 2 of a major. 2N could puppet to 3, then 3 could show 4-4 majors invite, 3M could be that major plus a stopper in diamonds, game forcing. 3N would be 18-19 balanced with a diamond stopper. A direct 3 would simply be GF in clubs or strong balanced without a stopper, 3M would be natural and forcing, denying a stopper, and a direct 3N would be based on club tricks and a diamond stopper (so partner won’t pull with a 6 card major). This solves all hand types and eliminates guessing.

That would mean that 2M could frequently be based on a 3 card suit. Over the cue you only have a problem sorting out stoppers and 4-4 fits if opener has 4 spades and a stopper and responder has 4 hearts, less than 4 spades, and a stopper.

I think this is a great improvement for almost no cost on one of the worst auctions in bridge. You only lose a natural 2N (useless) and invitational 3 of a major bids (of very limited use), in order to gain a lot of clarity on the NT vs major decision. A nice advantage of forcing 3M bids is better slam bidding as well (as trumps are set earlier).

Forcing 2N bids March 27, 2007

Posted by justinlall in Blog.
Tags: ,
4 comments

In recent years there has been a movement towards defining a lot of 2N bids as forcing in uncontested auctions. Bidding lots of suits with a strong, balanced hand leads either to convoluted auctions where you never reveal the true nature of your hand or requires you to jump to 3N killing an enormous amount of bidding space. In general with balanced hands you always want to describe that feature as early and cheaply as possible.

In an auction like 1-(p)-1-(p)-2 if responder happens to have 4324 or 4333 with 16 points he has to bid either 2 or 3 and later guess whether to go past 3N in order to raise diamonds. This leads to silly things like bidding THREE suits with a balanced hand and possibly never bidding NT. If you are willing to give up on an invitational 2N you can use 2N here as forcing, solving these issue and leading to much smoother auctions. Of course this leaves you stuck with a balanced 10 or 11 points, but some of those hands can game force and several can bid 3. It’s unlikely that 2N will be a much better spot than 3 anyways.

Auctions like 1m-(p)-2N and even 1M-(p)-2N can be played as forcing for similar reasons. The biggest advantage, though, is that the integrity of your other sequences is preserved as you no longer need to create auctions to handle the balanced hand type. Of course, barring artificiality, with 11 or 12 and a balanced hand you will need to either game force or make a non forcing bid. That may seem like a significant loss but keep in mind how narrow that range is. Much more often you will hold a balanced game force, and on those hands you will now be well positioned to reach an intelligent contract.

It occurred to me yesterday that this principle could be extended to times when the opponents overcall over a minor suit opening. In fact, it is much easier to do so after an overcall.

After 1m-(1M) experts will not bid 1N freely with something like a 7 count. This is mainly because it is now more dangerous to bid and you don’t need to keep the auction open for partner. So the range of a 1N bid is something like 8-10 when bid freely, but I have certainly seen people bid 1N with a bad 11 (usually when they don’t have a double stopper in RHO’s suit). I have also seen people bid 3N with 11 if they had something like AQTx in RHO’s suit because their honors are well placed.

This would seem to beg the question, what use does an invitational 2N have? If you just increase the range of 1N by a point and game force with 12 you can once again use 2N as forcing.

2N forcing is especially useful after an overcall because sometimes you will only have 1 stopper. For instance with Q832 KQ3 K32 AT2 after 1-1 you would hate to bid 3N as it could easily be a terrible contract opposite short spades. You have no good options though; a cuebid shows diamond support and doubling shows 4 hearts. Bidding 2N forcing allows partner room to describe his hand below 3N, and you can show some doubt about NT and perhaps get to 5 of a minor. The forcing 2N also aids your slam bidding significantly by giving you an extra level, and gives you a way to bid a hand like 18 or 19 balanced without having to invent a ridiculous auction and then guess what to do.

A Classic Fit Jump September 2, 2006

Posted by justinlall in Articles.
Tags: ,
8 comments

Nobody is vulnerable and you pick up K9742 74 6 KJT87. LHO passes, partner opens 1 and RHO makes a takeout X. You’re not sure how to describe your hand, but luckily you have you have a 4 gadget at your disposal to show 5+ clubs, 4+ spades and a game going hand. In fact, this would be the textbook hand for that auction. This “fit jump” enables partner to accurately judge what to do if the opponents compete to the 5 level and can get you to a low HCP slam opposite a prime double fitter. It’s the perfect bid right?

WRONG!

A bid being the perfect description of your hand does not necessarily make it the right bid. Though in constructive auctions I advocate describing your hand as well as possible, competitive bidding is a completely different matter. Tactical approaches that will make life hard for the opponents should often be adopted, even at the cost of some accuracy.

The biggest problem with the 4 bid is that it gives LHO entry to the 4 level to introduce a save-suggesting bid. For example, with a hand like 63 KQ853 Q542 94 LHO can bid 4 to invite his partner to save in 5. This way they get to communicate and judge intelligently whether they should be bidding at the 5 level or not. Had you just bid an immediate 4 your left hand opponent would be forced to pass with that hand, and your RHO would also pass without significant extra values.

The other problem with 4 is that you aren’t just telling your partner what your hand looks like, you’re telling the opponents. That information gives them an even greater ability to judge whether to bid on, double you, or pass. If RHO has a balanced 18 count with most of his values in the red suits, he would have to double back in if you jump to 4. However, by jumping to 4 you alert him that his red suit tricks are not cashing so he will no longer feel compelled to double you. Likewise, LHO will not X 4 with a random 10 or 11 after a 4 bid unless he has values in the black suits. He will even know that his red suit values are likely to be working on offense and may save or suggest a save that he wouldn’t have done after the more straight forward jump.

What about the potential downsides of disguising your hand with an immediate jump to 4? If the opponents do go on to the 5 level then you will be poorly placed. You will guess right some of the time, but not as much as you would have had you started with 4. This risk is not as great as it seems though. With LHO being a passed hand he is unlikely to have a long enough suit or a good enough hand to bid at the 5 level. If he does bid, it will most likely be a card showing X which will generally be passed out at such a high level. You also might miss a slam, but that would be a rare occurrence after RHO has shown opening values. Partner would need to have a great fit, and in that case the opponents may have one as well and might have a cheap save at the 7 level.

It is worthwhile to note that the problems of making a fit jump in this auction are so severe because the suits involved are spades and clubs. If you made the hand 6 K9742 KJT87 74 after partner opens 1 and RHO Xs, a 4 bid would have a lot more appeal as you now give the opponents very little additional useful room. Since you need to prepare for the likely 4 bid it now becomes a good tactical maneuver to describe your hand. However, in the original example a fit jump is clearly a tactical blunder.

What Could Have Been…. April 27, 2006

Posted by justinlall in Tournament Report.
Tags:
4 comments

The spring nationals were held recently in my hometown, Dallas. I had high hopes for the tournament given my home field advantage. The event that I really wanted to do well in was the main event, the Vanderbilt.

The Vanderbilt is a knockout held at every spring NABC that attracts the best teams in the world. It is thought by many to be a tougher event than the Bermuda Bowl mainly because of the depth of the field. Just making it into the round of 8 is a huge achievement. You need a good team to do well, obviously, but I felt that my team was particularly dangerous and capable of multiple upsets. I was playing with my father as well as John Kranyak, Melanie Tucker, Agustin Madala, and Guido Ferarro. Half of our team was made up of juniors, and also included an Italian world champion and 2 national champions.

As the 27 seed, we got a bye into the round of 64. Our whole team played well and we were able to defeat a team that included Barry Rigal and Jeff Aker along with some tough Israelis. In the round of 32 we drew the 6 seed. Their team was Steve Robinson, Peter Boyd, Kit Woolsey, and Fred Stewart. This was a great team but I really felt like we had a shot.

After the first 32 boards, we trailed by 1 imp. The third quarter was a disaster, and we lost about 50 imps. Our opponents were flawless, and the amazingly aggressive preempting style that Woolsey and Stewart are known for was really paying off in the other room. They put our teammates into some impossible positions.

Now the question, what is your strategy going to be down 50 imps to such a great team with 16 boards to play? Our team talked about it, and the general consensus was just to play normal bridge and to pick our spots. Nothing crazy because that usually leads to digging yourself into a bigger hole.

The first board out we bid a non vulnerable 3N with 23 high cards and made it with no play. The second board was uneventful. Then the critical third board…

I picked up AQ AKT62 AJT963 – with everyone vulnerable. My first thought was that this was a great hand to hold when you need a swing. There was certain to be fireworks on this board. I opened 1 which just showed 16+ points. LHO, Kit Woolsey, bid 3. So far every single time we had opened a strong club, Woolsey or Stewart had bid. Partner Xed which showed a game force with no good suit to bid. I bid 3 and partner bid 3N. The implication here was that his clubs were not great; probably not a double stopper or he would have bid 3N directly. What should I bid now?

The correct technical bid is probably 5, showing this shape and telling partner to pick a slam. I decided to hedge with 4 to keep the auction low. Partner could now show real diamond support, suggest a major to play with 4, or perhaps retreat to 4N. He bid 4 and I decided to take a shot on 7. If it was on a hook, I wanted to be there. I felt that if we were to come back from this deficit we would need a little luck. A grand between 40-60 % would be just the luck we were hoping for. Besides, it may be cold.

LHO led a very quick A and I found myself in 7 with:

J942 QJ K87 Q932
AQ AKT62 AJT963

I have caught a minimum but very suitable red suit holdings. What are your thoughts, would you like to be in 7 if you were me?

I was very happy with this dummy and my contract. I thought Boyd and Robinson would play in 6, so we had a chance to pick up some much needed imps. There was still the matter of making this though.
I ruffed the club and played the jack of diamonds to the king (you never know) and led a diamond. RHO followed.

This was a very tough decision. Clearly RHO rated to have Qxx of diamonds given LHO’s length in clubs, but if he did I would need a spade finesse as well. If diamonds were 2-2 I could simply pitch the spades from dummy and ruff a spade. I decided LHO would bid 3 with any hand that contained AK sixth. He could have 7, but not 7-4, and he could have the spade king. RHO also would not raise frequently with 3 from what I had seen. If LHO was 2326, 3226, 2227, 4126, or an unlikely 1426, I would need to go up. If he had 3316, 4216, 2416, 3217 or 2317 without the spade king I would need to hook. Overall, it looked like going up was the percentage play. Unfortunately RHO had Qxx of diamonds and the spade king. The rest of the match had some exciting deals but we never had much of a chance after this board.

The funny thing is, at the other table they were in four hearts! No one criticized my play, but my bidding came very much under attack. I contended that I had no way of knowing that a top pair would play in game, and that if I had made this the momentum would have been with us. I thought it was right to take a chance on a hand like this, and that bidding 6 was not the way to win the match. Even though this was a gamble, it was by no means a crazy contract. We ended up gaining 10 imps or so for the set, but losing the match. Our opponents went on to win the next day.

Reflecting on it, I still would like to be in 7 diamonds on this hand unless I knew my counterparts would be in game.