|to news-sheet main page||to Pattaya Bridge home page|
Winners Hans/Bob 66% winners Paul/Terry 61%
2nd Joe/Jeff 65% 2nd Hans/Bob 60%
Raising Partner’s 1NT response.
♠ K7432 This is North hand 14 from Monday. What do you open? If you play a
♥ 87 strong NT this is certainly a hand where you should consider opening 1NT,
♦ AKQ it shows the strength and balance of the hand all in one go. I also prefer
♣ KJ8 1NT because you have tenaces in two suits that need protecting. If you
open 1♠ you will have a rebid problem over 2♣/♦/♥ (the ♠ suit is too ropey to rebid and 2NT shows 12-14 points). If you play a weak NT there
is no problem, open 1♠ and rebid 2NT (15-16) over partner’s 2♣/♦/♥. But what if partner responds 1NT (6-9) to your opening of 1♠? Regardless of whether you play a strong or weak NT, you cannot now bid 2NT as you need a good 17-18 points for this bid (partner may have only 6 points). This hand is a very poor 16 points (with a bad 5 card suit and 13 points concentrated in two 3 card suits). My preference would be to pass, Hans expressed some sympathy with a 2♦ rebid (I don’t like this). What actually happened? The hand rebid 2NT. This is an overbid and is likely played by the wrong hand (note what I said about tenaces). And then? 2NT was raised to 3NT (South had a decent 8 points) and this drifted two off (this happened at two tables). If North had opened 1NT then South would have raised to 2NT and this North hand should then pass (a poor 16). The moral? : -
♠ - ♠ - very nice, but both hands are too weak to respond at the two
♥ QJ107 ♥ QJ10985 level (especially if you play a strong NT). Hands like this are
♦ K10974 ♦ QJ4 one reason why I prefer to play 5 card majors (partner is less
♣ J962 ♣ J932 likely to open 1♠!). If playing a strong NT I prefer to
Incidentally, if you play 2/1 and a forcing NT play 2/1 (as I
do with Chuck) then these Hands are easy. Playing a forcing NT, the 1NT response to a major suit opening is 6-12 points, forcing, and any shape; two level suit responses are game forcing.
Both vul ♦ 95 - - 2♥ 2♠
You are West and lead the ♦A, partner follows with the ♦Q. What next?
Dummy is somewhat depressing, the ♣AQ sit well for declarer and he has found good 4 card trump support opposite. It looks like just three tricks (two ♦’s and hopefully the ♥A from partner (declarer can have just one ♥). Is there a chance of a 4th trick? Partner’s ♦Q can be a singleton or from ♦QJ, but does continuing ♦’s do any good?
♣ AQ8 pass 3NT pass 4♠
pass pass pass
♥ 42 W E ♥ A98653
♣ KJ953 ♣ 10642 of setting the contract is if East can over-
♠ AJ7632 ruff dummy in the 3rd round of ♦’s.
♦ J10832 If East plays a small ¨ at trick two or
♣ 7 switches then the contract makes.
1NT (1) pass 3NT (2) all pass
♥ AK84 W E ♥ QJ73 Table B:
♣ K84 ♣ AJ95 West North East South
The article goes on to say that it was a pair of old ladies who
stopped in 3NT at table A but got a good score because the rest of the field
got to 6NT (by bidding as table B) which ‘unluckily ?!’ stands little chance.
So who was correct? My only question is if the Bridge scene in
So, a pretty silly article by somebody who wants you to spend £169 ++ for a weekend of his lectures. But it does not stop there, the very next hand: -
4♠ by S ♥ 6 contract? Apparently if you book yourself into a Holt
Lead: ¨K ♦ A432 weekend then you will be told. This is a cross-ruff
aces, two ruffs in each red suit and hope that the final
♠ 9842 (cross to the ♥A before you ruff anything) and to try
♦ 7 ruff West with the ♠A if he has 3 ♥’s). This line
♣ 9432 works if ♥’s are 4-4 or if West has 3 ♥’s and ♦’s
are 4-4. It fails on the actual lay-out where the inferior
line of being in dummy and
ruffing a 3rd♦ works. I can only assume that west bid ♥’s at some juncture.
It is silly to set problems that depend upon bidding that is not given!
Incidentally, on this particular deal it is better not to cash the ♣AK at the
start as you then have a back-up entry to North if the ♥’s misbehave – you may
still be able to ruff a 3rd ♦ even if a ♥ is
over-ruffed. I would be fascinated to see Mr. Cusk’s analysis (please save the
next issue John), but I would certainly not pay £169 for it. Perhaps I should
look for a job as Editor of a