An Interesting Case


A 9
K 9 8 5
K Q 10 9 8 5
7
Q J 8 5 3 10 7 4 2
Q 6 3 10 2
J 2 7 4
Q 8 2 K J 9 4 3
K 6
A J 7 4
A 6 3 Opening lead: J of spades
A Q 9 3 2 Contract: 6 hearts, 6 no, 7 no

An rather interesting hand, both in light of the matchpoint scoring and a twist in the play by the grand slammer. Six hearts brought a matchpoint score of 71.7, six no 96.7 and 7 no made, 100%, the only pair there, of course. So the six no bidder (also alone), by adding a mere 10 points to his score, added 25 matchpoints, while the grand slammer, adding considerably more risk to his chances, adding 780 points over the 6 no bidder, gained only 3.3 matchpoints! Actually, that's not altogether true by that wording. He wound up 3.3 matchpoints over the pair in second place. But had he bid six no, making six, he would have tied that pair, for about 98%, meaning he picked up only 2 matchpoints for the far greater risk, and indeed, if he made the same 13 tricks in little slam, he would have gotten 100%, the same score he got for the far greater risk!
Further, you'll note that there's not only a greater risk, but the contract makes only by guessing right on an exceedingly clever play. The heart finesse against the queen is off or seem to be. To be sure, there is such a thing as a backward finesse, a play that works far more often in hindsight than in actual play. This case is sort of a hybrid backward finesse. Here's a pure play:
K 8 4 2
Q 6 5 10 7 3
A J 9

Here you hafta start with the J, unlike the above declarer's play, which I'll get to in a minute. You lead the J, push it through if not covered, and voila! And if it's covered, you now come back finessing the 9. Clever, yes, if it works, but requiring such a remarkable reading of the cards, that one might wonder if declarer's play depended more on eyesight than insight. I recall the time a post-morten discussion brought out that such a play would have worked, and a kibitzer said, "I would have taken the backward finesse." I could hardly believe anyone would make such a claim, but he apparently felt, now that it was obvious, that he actually would have played that way.
Anyway, here's what that declarer did: Took the opening lead with the K, ran six diamonds, on the last of which, East sluffed the 2 of hearts. Declarer now cashed the A of hearts, getting the 10 on his right, of course, and now led the 7 of hearts, finessing the 8. Did that discard of the 2 of hearts prompt declarer to that action? Who can say, but remember, he didn't see the fall of the 10 until after he'd wiped out the potential for a natural finesse toward the A J.
Anyway, I think there are two lessons here, the first being the significant advantage you gain in a matchpoint game by going to a no trump slam over a major (a very small gain in IMP's). The second lesson is much more tenuous and not so easily proven, but I'm going to mention it anyway, which is that you'd do well to stay out of grand slams until you can just about count your tricks. A grand slam that depends on who holds the 9 of hearts (not to mention making an exceptionally astute guess), and gains about 2 matchpoints for the trouble, is not my idea of a good percentage decision. But suit yourself.