Walking the Dog by Foxymoron

The expression "walking the dog" in bridge refers to the tactic of bidding less than a hand is worth but then adding one level each time the bidding comes round again. The hope is that the opponents will eventually double. The meaning "to trick the opponent" possibly comes from Gershwin's 1937 song Walking the Dog in the film Shall We Dance. Alternatively the words of Walking the Dog, the 1963 song by Rufus Thomas, could have created the meaning of deception.

Urban slang uses "walking the dog" as committing adultery, another deception, and it has also become used to mean visiting the bathroom. The Americans are fond of euphemisms and "going to see a man about a dog" is another of their contorted phrases for going to the bathroom. The song Walking the Dog is very American:

I asked her mother for fifteen cents

See the elephant jump the fence

He jumped so high, he touched the skies

Never got back till the fourth of July

Steve Coulter attempted to walk the dog on Tuesday, and he ended with a good result, but his opponents might have done better:

North opened a weak 2S and South decided to "go slowly" and passed. West bid 3D as 4D would have shown 5-5 in the red suits and 5D ruled out playing other contracts. East bid 3H and South again walked the dog with 3S. West now showed his heart support with 4H which went round to South who finally bid 4S.  West smelled a rat and bid 5D. This expression seems to come from English poet John Skelton's 1540 poem "The Image of Ipocrysy": 

But then beware the catte; For yf they smell a ratt, 

They grisely chide and chatt

5D should have ended the auction. If West had wanted to offer a "choice of red-suit saves", he would have bid 4NT but East "corrected" (or should that be "wronged") to 5H anyway. So the full auction was:

                       North        East        South        West

                        2S            Pass        Pass           3D

                        Pass         3H           3S             4H

                        Pass         Pass         4S             5D

                        Pass         5H           All Pass

South led his singleton diamond and declarer won with the ace and played a top heart. South ducked this, and North won to give his partner a diamond ruff for one off. Remarkably, eschewing the diamond ruff and playing a spade instead would have beaten the contract by two, but this was very hard to find and could have been completely wrong.

5D would probably have made. North needs to lead the king of hearts, in a suit bid and supported by the opponents, to beat this. Frequently found online during Covid in the days of self-kibitzing, but not since ... As it was, 5H-1 was still worth 68% to North-South. The results this week were skewed with five pairs above 60% but no pair below 40%. It was good to see 13 tables as well.

Math by Foxymoron

The Americans correctly shorten mathematics to "math", whereas the Brits and Australians use "maths". We are wrong of course as it is a collective noun, like sugar. We ask "How many sugars?" as short for "how many teaspoons of sugar?" but we would never ask at a supermarket "Where are the sugars, please?"

I have been asked how important math(s) is in bridge. Quite a bit, and discussions of the right percentage line is a common feature of bridge magazines. There is a book on Card Combinations, which shows the percentage chance of making x tricks with a particular suit holding. Most of the time, however, the whole hand comes into play as in a hand at the Woodberry last week.

Most played Four Hearts by East and only one made 11 tricks. The bidding always began 1H-(Pass) and now West will probably bid 2NT, a game-forcing heart raise, or a splinter of 4C, also showing four-card heart support. North-South should sacrifice in 5C but none did. Two were even allowed to play the hand in 4C, which made on the nose. This expression might well have originated in the early days of radio broadcasting. The presenter putting his forefinger "on the nose" indicated that the broadcast was running on time. I certainly would not broadcast that I had given in to 4C here, and the decision comes for EW over 5C.

If East goes on to 5H, there is a chance for South to shine. It may be necessary to keep the lead, and the king of clubs does so. Then the defence might well find the diamond shift needed to break the contract.  However, a small club is a more likely lead, and North can do little other than play one back, which is ruffed in dummy. Two rounds draw all the trumps. How should East play?

I think the percentage line is to run the ten of spades. North wins and cannot do other than play a third club, ruffed in dummy while East pitches a diamond. Now declarer could return to hand and take a second spade finesse. This is about a 75% line, winning whenever South has one of the spade honours. However, declarer can do better. Laying down the ace of spades is the right line. If both opponents follow you ruff a spade and if someone still has the king, you then take the diamond finesse. 

The math of the right line is as follows (ignoring the fact that North has two hearts to South's one or that North may have longer clubs).

a) if South has the jack of spades: 50%.

b) if the spades are 3-3 or the king is doubleton. This is all the 3-3 breaks, 36%, plus 12% for a doubleton king, a total of 48%. This only applies when North has the jack of spades, so adds 24% to our success rate.

c) Finally if North has the jack of spades and the spades are 4-2 with the king in the long hand, then you take the diamond finesse. This allows you to make an additional (100-50%-24%) x 50% of the time. This adds 13% to the chance of success, elevating it to 87%.

Some of these figures will be affected by available spaces calculations, another example of math in bridge hands. The king of diamonds is more likely to be in South, as is the king of spades, but if North showed strength that will tilt it the other way. But it is clear that the declarers in 4H misplayed the hand, unless they were unlucky enough to get the king of clubs lead and a diamond switch (or an unlikely initial diamond lead). Also one or two Welsh internationals misplayed the hand when given to them as a play problem.

Undercooked by Foxymoron

Bridge shares with other sport the use of the word "undercooked" in a figurative rather than a culinary sense. From a cricket report many years ago: "An undercooked pitch made stroke play easy yet seldom did wickets tumble." Not properly developed is the metaphorical meaning and this was the case with our auction this week.

The North hand is far too good for 2NT, weighing in at 23.6 on the K-R evaluation tool. We bid 2C-2D-2NT which we play as 23-24 balanced. Now Graham Horscroft raised to 4NT. From his point of view we could be missing two aces, but the five-card suit might tilt him towards just bidding slam. However, his K-R is 8.7 so I think his judgement is correct. And now the focus was on North. I think I should upgrade again and bid 6NT but I had already added two points and decided to pass. Together we had undercooked the hand.

6NT is a great contract. If the diamonds are 3-2, you have 12 top tricks and thirteen if they don't lead a spade. And when they don't break you can lead towards the king of spades for your twelfth trick. You can, in theory, also pick up the diamonds if you finesse on the second round, but you should not. A cunning West might have dropped the jack from JTx when you get egg on your face. This phrase apparently arises from the 19th century theatre when sub-par actors were sometimes pelted with eggs. Our auction was certainly sub-par.

Double Fit by Foxymoron

The wildest hands usually occur when both sides have a double fit. It will usually be right to bid one more, but one has to be careful at matchpoints that one does not take this too far. On the following hand, from the most recent game, the top spot was achieved by those that went to the six level:

Six declarers played in doubled contracts, and the top score for EW was when the declarer was allowed to make 6Hx for +1660. This can be defeated by an initial lead of a spade from North or the ace of spades from South, but that is not easy to find. I was pleased to see the score of 1660, a "Restoration" after the return of Charles II in that year. John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, wrote of him:

Restless he rolls from whore to whore
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor

I don't think merriness was the cause of these big swings. More misjudgement. With a double fit, each side should be bidding one more and 7Dx-3 by NS is par.  EW have a double fit in the majors and NS in the minors. One or two NS pairs bought the contract at the six level in a minor, and EW have to find the diamond ruff or club ruff to get even 500 from this. 200 was the common result.

It is interesting to apply the "Law of Total Tricks" to this hand. That says that the total number of tricks for EW and NS in their longest suits should be 11+11 which is 22. Indeed EW can make 12 but only in spades and NS can make 10 by North in either minor. It is a good approximation but is often one out, particularly if the defence can take a ruff.

Some members had the following puzzle on a Xmas card (and also on Facebook):

I know many solved it. You need to find East with SK HT987 D9876 C9876. Precisely. Win the ace of spades, dropping the king, and cash the queen of spades. East is squeezed in three suits and gets squeezed again in the suit which he unguards.

Let us hope there are more double fits when the club reopens on 7th January.

Leading Question by Foxymoron

A leading question is more frequently met in court, and we have heard "Objection" and "Overruled" in many a televised court case. I remember when I was buying my house asking if there was any leading in the roof. I thought that was a leading question but the solicitor did not. "Leading", like "sewer" and "wound" and many others, is a heteronym.

How do you play a double of 3NT? Well the first requirement is that you don't think they are going to make it. If the cards lie badly for declarer, then others may be there and doubling for one off, particularly when they are vulnerable, can be lucrative. 

A common way to play a double of 3NT is to ask for the lead of the first suit bid by dummy. But this is not a command, and you need to consider the whole hand. The above was an interesting example. Anne Catchpole and Keith Bush (East) bid Pass-1C-1D-1S-2D-2NT-3NT. As both 2D and 2NT were non-forcing I now doubled this as North, quite happy with a diamond lead. South led the six of diamonds and now declarer can make by rising and playing a spade. But he ducked and I won as North and continued diamonds and declarer ducked again in dummy. I needed to switch to a heart at both trick two and three, but this could have been wrong if declarer had KTx. Continuing diamonds would work when partner had the ace of hearts, king of spades or a club trick. Declarer won the third diamond and played a fourth and there was no defence. I won and played a heart, but that just cost the ovetrick and was +950 for East-West, which all Welsh people know was the split of Wales into three parts after the death of Hywel Dda in 950. It was not a "dda" score for North-South,.

The question is whether South should have led a heart. I thought so, as you know declarer will make five or six clubs and he has a heart stop. If he has AQ of hearts he may well be making anyway. But I cannot really fault the diamond lead.

And the answer to "Threat perhaps perceived by Alice (6,3)" was MAD HATTER. The anagram indicator is in the solution and it is also "and lit"."

Threats by Foxymoron

All squeezes in bridge require threats. Either two threats as in the simple squeeze which is usually positional, or three threats as in the double squeeze where both opponents are squeezed in turn.  Which reminds me of one of my favourite crossword clues: Threat perhaps perceived by Alice? (3, 6). But I digress. A hand at the Woodberry this week was particularly interesting as the right line of play was not clear and one wanted to combine a simple finesse with a potential squeeze.

John Bernard was the only declarer to bid and make 6S. It is quite difficult to reach and not so clear that you want to be there. Making 12 tricks in spades would have been well above average. South should call a spade a spade as he is not quite good enough for 2C. North should bid 3S with eight losers, and now South will surely bid 6S.  The idiom "calling a spade a spade" originates in the classical Greek of Plutarch's Apophthegmata Laconica, and was introduced into the English language in 1542 in Nicolas Udall 's translation of the Apophthegmes, where Erasmus had seemingly replaced Plutarch's images of "trough" and "fig" with the more familiar "spade". "Not many people know that!" Michael Caine might have said. And I have gone off topic again.

In 6S if West leads a club it is easy as now declarer has three club tricks. Say that he leads a heart. South will win, cash the ace and king of diamonds, discarding a club and ruff a diamond to find they do not break, West being forced to part with a club. Now it is normal to take the spade finesse and West wins and returns a spade. It looks right now to take a discard on the king of hearts, but that would be fatal; it is needed as the squeeze card. The winning line is to ruff a heart, draw the trump, cross to the king of clubs and only now cash the king of hearts, squeezing East in the minors. West has already been forced to part with a club and now East has to do the same.

Of course this did not happen and the defence went wrong quite quickly with East pitching a diamond at some point.

Ruff Justice by Foxymoron

When the opponents reach game and you have AKxx in their trump suit you might be reluctant to double as it could help them in the play, but usually the bad break cannot be managed, and if they make they are probably getting a top anyway. Such was the situation with a hand in the Children in Need SIMs this week, where declarer needed to find an unusual line to make the contract.

After two passes, East opened 1H and South bid 2NT, unusual, showing the minors. West competed with 3H and East pressed on to game. As North I did not think 4H making would be a good score for NS, so I doubled and partner led a normal diamond to the jack, king and ace. Declarer set about his task well, ruffing a diamond and ruffing a club, and now tried to ruff another diamond in dummy. This would have worked well if the diamonds were 5-3, but on the actual layout North was able to overruff, and play ace and another heart, leaving declarer a trick short.

The winning line was a surprising one. After ruffing one diamond and one club, East needs to cash the ace, king and ten of spades. South cannot ruff, and now declarer can ruff a spade in dummy for his tenth trick. Declarer loses two trumps and a diamond. It is surprising that declarer needs to ruff the fourth spade, rather than the third diamond, but the evidence was all there. The lack of a trump lead and the double suggested that trumps are 4-0. Also East needs to drop the doubleton QJ of spades so needs South to be 2-0-6-5. 

It was a bit harsh that the alternative line of ruffing the diamond failed, but it did have an element of rough justice, an expression which goes back to Roman times.

And the play problem in the slam that your scribe had with Colin Elliott from last week was tough. You need to play for QJ doubleton in hearts and spades and the jack of clubs onside. But you need more. Win the spade lead in South, and play the queen of clubs. If East wins and returns a spade you win and now cash the hearts and the ace of diamonds. West who began with 987x QJ QTx Jxxx gets squeezed. East (R. Merchant) chastised West for not finding the diamond lead, but he relented when the board was taken away.