|
To me humour is an essential part of bridge. If there is not an occasional burst of laughter something is missing, I think.
The grand slam below is such a side-splitter. It originates from the English Mixed Teams Championship 1956. South blundered and as a result she made a grand slam in an unbelievable way. Without the blunder she almost certainly wouldn't have made it.
| S/All | ♠ | K 7 6 4
| | | | ♥ | 10 8 3
| | ♦ | A J 2
| | ♣ | A Q 3
| | | |  | | | | | | | | | | ♠ | A 8 3
| | | ♥ | A K Q 9 7
| | ♦ | K Q 7 6 4
| | ♣ | —
|
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| — | — | — | 2♥1 | | pass | 3♥2 | pass | 4NT3 | pass
| 5♥4 | pass
| 5NT5 | pass
| 6♦6 | pass
| 7♥
| pass
| pass
| pass
| |
1 Strong
2 Slam invitational (stronger than a direct raise to 4♥; Principle of Fast Arrival)
3 Blackwood
4 Two aces
5 Asking for kings
6 One king
A typical case of Blackwood abuse, since South would have been in a fix if North had shown one ace. South was lucky North turned out to have two.
Not only South's bidding was unsound, her bidding too was — let's just say — strange.
Because she erred she stayed nameless. I have written this before in my columns: unfortunately many bridge journalists are too cowardly to name blundering bridge players. They do so in order to stay on friendly terms with the player in question.
Anyway, West led the ♠2.
The contract was safe unless West had four or five hearts to the ♥J or if the diamond suit was 5-0.
If West had ♥Jxxx(x) nothing could be done.
If the diamond suit was 5-0, South could in most cases still make her contract by way of a squeeze (several were possible, read the footnote at * — but only devotees of long drawn-out analyses should do so!). She won in dummy with the ♠K (for connoisseurs: not good, see *) and East contributed the ♠9. Next she cashed the ♥AK and saw both defenders follow suit.
Then it happened: she didn't draw the last trump and played the ♦A. West showed out but didn't ruff! Declarer cashed the remaining three top diamonds and ruffed the fifth in dummy. East, who apart from the five diamonds clearly had the third trump as well, followed suit while gnashing his teeth.
Declarer now cashed dummy's ♣A, pitching her spade loser, and when she next played a spade to her ♠A, the sound of East's gnashing his teeth became louder, since he had to follow suit to this trick as well (with the ♠J). Only then declarer, with ♥Q97 left, drew East's last trump with the ♥Q.
Before I explain why South played in this ludicrous way, we'll take a look at all hands: | S/All | ♠ | K 7 6 4
| | | | ♥ | 10 8 3
| | ♦ | A J 2
| | ♣ | A Q 3
| | ♠ | Q 10 5 2
| | ♠ | J 9
| | ♥ | 5 4
| ♥ | J 6 2
| | ♦ | — | ♦ | 10 9 8 5 3
| | ♣ | K J 8 7 6 4 2
| ♣ | 10 9 5
| | | ♠ | A 8 3
| | | ♥ | A K Q 9 7
| | ♦ | K Q 7 6 4
| | ♣ | —
|
Senior, observant readers will probably have guessed by now what had happened: after cashing the ♥AK declarer had claimed! East of course hadn't agreed and according to the Rules of those days (remember: this is a deal from 1956) after having made a faulty claim declarer wasn't allowed to draw trumps as long as the defenders still had one or more. So she couldn't but follow this crazy but winning line of play.
I wonder whether she has remarked after the play: 'I told you they were all mine, didn't I?'
PS: A sound but not brilliant declarer who avoids risky claims would, after having cashed the ♥AK, simply have drawn the last trump, cashed the ♠A (this unblocking play would have been unnecessary if declarer had won the lead in hand) and next the ♦A. After all, you never know.
On seeing the 5-0 break — on any other break a claim now makes sense — he would have hoped for a 3-3 spade break: ♣A (South pitching a spade), spade ruff, after which the ♦J would have served as the entry for the hoped for good spade, on which South could pitch his fifth diamond. That line of play would have failed, however (as mentioned before: there are better lines of play, namely squeezes, see *).
* Only for diehards, these are the squeezes that are possible in case of a 5-0 diamond split:
A. A minor suit squeeze if one defender has the five diamonds and the ♣K.
B. A diamond-spade squeeze if one defender has the five diamonds and four (or five) spades.
C. A club-spade squeeze against West if he has four (or five) spades and the ♣K.
(This squeeze against East has been made impossible because of the spade lead: if declarer wins the lead in hand, dummy's ♠K is blocking at the crucial moment; if declarer wins in dummy, there will be no entry with dummy's 'menace', the ♣Q, later on).
D. A triple squeeze if one defender has the five diamonds, the ♣K and four (or five) spades.
(A double squeeze with spades as the pivotal suit — if that suit is 3-3, East has five diamonds and West the ♣H — is not possible, since declarer has to cash four diamonds early on then; after that either North or South is an entry short, depending on where declarer has won the lead).
Declarer begins with the ♠A (!), ♥AKQ (let's suppose the trumps are 3-2; if East has ♥Jxxx(x), things will be a bit more complicated but not basically different) and the ♦A, revealing the 5-0 split.
There are two lines of play that make sense:
Line of play 1. ♠K, ♣A (South pitching the ♠8), next South ruffs the ♠6. If the spade suit is 3-3, declarer is home. If not, he plays the last trump (discarding North's ♣3) and crosses to the ♦J. North is on lead, three cards left to play: South has left ♦KQ7; North ♠7 ♦2 ♣Q.
- If one defender had the five diamonds and the ♣K (A), he has been squeezed: he cannot have left three diamonds and the ♣K.
- If one defender had the five diamonds and four (or five) spades (B), he has been squeezed: he cannot have left three diamonds and the master spade.
South knows (he has watched the discards like a hawk) whether dummy's ♠7 or ♣Q is a master. If not, he must make the last three diamonds in his hand (assuming the squeeze has worked).
Incidentally: in order for line of play 1 to succeed, it is unimportant in which hand declarer has won the lead; after all, he cashes both top spades. If he wins the lead in dummy, he crosses, after drawing trumps, to the ♦A.
Line of play 2. ♣A (South pitching the ♠3), ♦J, ♦K and the remaining two trumps.
South is on lead, three cards left to play: South has left ♠8 ♦Q6; North ♠K7 ♣Q. South now cashes the ♦Q.
- If one defender had the five diamonds and four (or five) spades (B), he has been squeezed: he cannot have left two diamonds and two spades. On the ♦Q declarer discards dummy's ♣Q (unless of course West discards the ♣K at this trick, obviously he is the victim of the club-spade squeeze, C, explanation follows below). If the opponent with the five diamonds has discarded one, declarer now scores the ♦6 and dummy's ♠K. If not, he plays the ♠8 to dummy's ♠K and scores dummy's ♠7.
- If West had four (or five) spades and the ♣K (C), he is squeezed on the play of the ♦Q, since after this trick he cannot have left two spades and the ♣K. If he discards the ♣K, declarer discards dummy's ♠7; next South plays the ♠8 and dummy scores the ♠K and the ♣Q. If West does not discard the ♣K, dummy ♣Q disappears; next South plays the ♠8, dummy scoring the ♠K and the ♠7.
For line of play 2 it is essential that declarer wins the lead in hand.
Following line of play 2 declarer cannot enjoy an eventual 3-3 spade break, since he cannot test that suit first.
Both lines of play win in cases B and D (the triple squeeze).
Line of play 1 wins in case A, line of play 2 wins in case C.
Which distribution is more likely: A (one defender has the five diamonds and the ♣K) or C (West has four (or five) spades and the ♣K; East has the diamonds then, since the triple squeeze has already been taken into account)?
Stop, that is not the way to look at it. After all, declarer has already cashed the ♦A, so he knows which defender has five diamonds!
If West has five diamonds, line of play 2 doesn't make sense. After all, it is only needed if West has four (five) spades and the ♣K. If he has five diamonds as well, the triple squeeze works and line of play 1 accounts for that too. So if West has the diamonds, line of play 1 is superior: it works if he has the ♣K but not the spade length (A).
If East has five diamonds, the chance of West having spade length and the ♣K (C) will be relatively big, so presumably declarer will do best to go for line of play 2 (even if it abandons the possibility of enjoying an eventual 3-3 spade break). This is the actual distribution and line of play 2 indeed would have been winning (line of play 1 would have failed).
Finally: when in practice declarer won the lead in dummy, she gave up the possibility of following line of play 2, before she knew who had the five-card in diamonds. She should have kept both options open by winning in hand. Since line of play 2 turned out to be winning (and the spades turned out to be not 3-3, so the simple and sound line of play didn't succeed either), she was in principle down after trick one... But so it turned out that the three trumps were in the same hand as the five diamonds, making her compulsory, ridiculous line of play an unexpected success.
That was hardly surprising, since, in view of her claim, she hadn't given a moment's thought to the possibility of a 5-0 diamond break... |