|to news-sheet main page||to Pattaya Bridge home page|
Mon 17th 1st Emil & Gene 63% 2nd Bob P & Jo 57%
Wed 19th 1st Douwe & Jacques 65% 2nd Bill & Mike 62%
Fri 21st 1st Bob P & Eddie 57% 2nd Bill & Mike 55%
Bidding Quiz Standard American is assumed unless otherwise stated.
♠ 2 ♠ J
♥ J63 ♥ KJ3 With Hand B you open 1♦ and LHO doubles. Partner
♠ 72 ♠ J7
♦ A8 ♦ 109843 bids 3♠ and this is passed round to partner who doubles.
♣ KQ103 ♣ K32 What do you do?
♠ K ♠ A3 do you bid?
♥ AK86 ♥ AK75
Dealer: ♠ 107654 West North East South(B)
Both vul ♦ 843 dbl (1) 2♠ (2) pass 2NT (3)
♣ J62 pass pass dbl (4) pass
♠ AQ73 N ♠ K92
♥ A10986 W E ♥ 742
♠ J (2) This is a weak pre-emptive bid.
♥ KJ3 (3) What did you bid with this South hand B in
♦ KJ952 this week’s quiz? You should pass. South
♣ AQ74 thought that North’s bid was strong.
(4) East knew that North’s bid was weak.
And what happened? 1100.
The bottom lines: -
When partner opens and
- It appears that this is not common knowledge in the club, so I have decided to write a page called ‘When RHO Doubles’. It’s now on the web (in the Basic Bidding section) and in the conventions folder. I decided to reproduce it later in this news-sheet.
Rudeness and behaviour at our club.
How many times to I have to say it? To date I have expelled more than ½ a dozen players because of bad manners, rudeness and general bad behaviour. Do people think that I am joking when I warn them? Emil was apparently very rude to a lady on Monday. I also heard from a 3rd party that he was continually rude/aggressive towards his partner; this is totally unacceptable.
I had a word with him (I have also done so in the past – to little effect it appears) and he will be suspended from the club if I get another complaint. Clear enough?
I also had problems with Hans Kaechelle. Much the same applies to him but he is a very poor player as well as being uncouth. He does not play bridge, but slams the cards down as if playing some German farmer’s game. I have now told him that he will not be guaranteed a game at the club unless he comes with a partner, and if I get another complaint he too will be suspended.
So here it is, with names: Emil Stranz and Hans Kaechelle will both be suspended/banned from the club if I hear another whisper of a complaint. Also, I will no longer guarantee a partner for either of them and will not ask anybody to play with either of them. Very few people wish to partner them and if they turn up alone they will probably not get a game.
Having already written the above, there was also a loud exchange between Chuck Paparigian and Bob Short on Friday. I do not know the details but any repeat performance and the culprit(s) will most certainly be suspended.
All four of the above named may consider themselves ‘on notice’. Any further problem whatsoever and they will be suspended from the club. Since there are 4 of them they could set up their own little foursome – wouldn’t that be fun?
Don’t make gestures or talk during the auction/play Board 24 from Monday 17th
Dealer: ♠ 85 Hans’ Table
E-W vul ♦ 4 - - - 1♠
♣ AKJ4 pass 2♥ pass 2NT (1)
pass 3♣ pass 3♦
♠ 92 N ♠ A763 pass 4♥ pass 4NT (2)
♥ K865 W E ♥ J10 pass pass (3) pass
♠ KQJ104 (2) Normally Blackwood. But at the same time as
♥ 3 slapping the 4NT card on the table he loudly
♦ AKQ105 muttered ‘meche’ – which was understood
♣ 95 to mean that he did not like ♥’s
(3) And so North passed.
How to find a specific king. Board 10 from Wednesday 19th
Dealer: ♠ AJ Table A
Both vul ♦ KQ82 - - pass 1♦
♣ AQ10843 pass 2♣ pass 2♦
pass 4NT (1) pass 5♥
♠ KQ1093 N ♠ 8764 pass 6♦ (2) all pass
♥ Q964 W E ♥ 108732
♠ 52 - - pass 1♦
♥ AK5 pass 2♣ pass 2♦
♦ A10973 pass 4NT (1) pass 5♥
♣ K75 pass 5NT (2) pass 6♣ (3)
pass 7NT (4) all pass
Table A: (1) Roman Keycard Blackwood for ♦’s.
(2) With no way to discover if partner had the all-important ♣K, this North decided to settle for the safe ♦ slam.
‘Expert’ (1) This is our 2nd string expert pair. Most expert players do not play 4NT as
Table Blackwood when a minor suit is trumps. Two possible schemes are Kickback (so 4♥ when ♦’s are trumps) or 4-of-the- minor as RKCB.
(2) 5NT (or 5♥ if you play Kickback) asks for kings.
(3) And the most popular expert approach is not to show the number of kings, but to show the suit of the cheapest king.
(4) North can count. 6 ♣’s, 5 ♦’s and two aces = 13, if South has an additional king then that is irrelevant. Only locating the ♣K was important.
And what happened? Two pairs bid 6NT+1, one pair decided to go for the lower scoring 6♦+1 and the other two tables stopped in game.
The bottom lines: -
A lay-down 7NT Board 21 from Wednesday 19th
Dealer: ♠ KQJ Table A
N-S vul ♦ J1097652 - 1♦ pass 2♣
♣ 3 pass 2♦ pass 6♣ (1)
♠ 10732 N ♠ 98654
♥ J1098 W E ♥ 765432 Table B
♠ A pass 2♦ pass 4NT (1)
♥ K pass 5♦ pass 7NT
♦ AKQ all pass
(1) I have been asked to vary my vocabulary, ‘pathetic’ is the best word I can find for this bid. South later said that he did not know how to bid the hand. Table B’s auction seems pretty obvious to me.
Anyway, it’s not about the bidding, which is ‘trivial’ but about the play. How do you make 7NT? At one table South simply claimed and East asked him how he was going to play it. Whether he was always going to adopt the correct line or whether the question prompted him into thinking about a possible 4-0 ♣ break we will never know.
Anyway, after a few second thought he said play the ♥A, discard the ♠A on the ♥Q, discard the ♦AKQ on the ♥KQJ, run the ♦’s and score the 13th trick with the ♣A in hand. Well done.
And what happened at other tables? One other pair had the obvious auction but went one down when he did not spot the catch of the 4-0 ♣ break.
The bottom lines: -
Defence to weak two’s – part 1 Board 13 from Wednesday 19th
Dealer: ♠ AJ86543
both vul ♦ 5 - 2♠ (1) 2NT (2) dbl
♣ 863 pass pass 3♣ 3♠
♠ 1097 N ♠ 2
♥ K107 W E ♥ J63
(1) Being vulnerable, this North decided to open just 2♠.
(2) What did you bid with this East hand A in this week’s quiz? I guess that dbl is reasonable, but I prefer to have 4 ♥’s for that bid although I would not argue if that’s what you chose. 3♣ seems very sensible to me. This East thought that 2NT was ‘the Unusual NoTrump’. It is not. 2NT here is 15-18+ with a ♠ stop(s). And apart from that, this hand is just another example of the UNT being the ‘most abused convention out there’ – the hand is not 5-5 and it is far too strong. So, three mistakes in just one bid, not bad for Ian.
And what happened? 3♠ made +1 and 4♠ was bid and made at two other tables. 4♠ should not make of course. East led the ♦A and then found the excellent trump switch. Declarer won in dummy and led the ♣A and another; West correctly went up with the ♣Q and was all set to remove dummy’s last trump but East overtook it with the ♣K! Declarer went up with the ♥A on East’s ♥ lead, ruffed a ♦ and was then able to ruff a ♣ in dummy and make 10 tricks. East’s ‘reasoning’ was the he thought that West wanted a ♥ through – that is unsound thinking as if West has the ♥K (as he almost certainly has) it will not go away.
The bottom lines: -
Defence to weak two’s – part 2 Board 22 from Wednesday 19th
Dealer: ♠ A8
E-W vul ♦ A6 - - pass pass
♣ AQ974 2♠ 2NT (1) 3♠ pass
pass dbl (2) pass 4♦ (3)
♠ K65432 N ♠ Q109 all pass
♥ Q10 W E ♥ K976
(1) Unlike the previous East, this North knew that 2NT was natural.
(2) What was your answer to sequence P in this weeks quiz? This is penalties. North has advertised a strong hand with decent ♠’s, it seems to me that he is going for the vulnerable penalty rather than inviting partner to bid a new suit at the 4-level. If North wanted partner to bid he would have doubled at (1) rather than bid 2NT.
(3) What did you bid with this South hand D in this week’s quiz? Pass is correct, this South thought that the double was for take-out.
And what happened? 2♠ doubled would have been one down and that 200 would have been a clear top to N-S. 4♦ should go two down but the defenders messed it up and it made for a clear top to N-S anyway. Rather lucky.
The bottom lines: -
Consider these two sequences N & P: -
Defence to weak two’s – part 3 Board 19 from Friday 21st
The usual guidelines for defence against weak twos also apply to Muiderberg. But as I stated in my paper on the convention, opponents should often look for the penalty as it’s only a 5 card suit. That usually means that one should frequently double in the balancing seat: -
Dealer: ♠ 72
E-W vul ♦ A8 - - - 2♠ (1)
♣ KQ103 pass (2) pass (3) pass (4)
♠ AJ1083 N ♠ K
♥ Q W E ♥ AK86
(1) Muiderberg; weak with 5 ♠’s and a 4/5 card minor. I guess it’s OK at this vulnerability.
(2) West has to pass (dbl is take-out) and hope that partner bids a balancing double.
(3) What did you bid with this North hand C in this week’s quiz? South criticised North, saying that he should bid 2NT (looking for the minor) and when the expected 3♦ comes back he can retreat into his 5-card ♥ suit. This is absolute nonsense in my opinion. When N-S are known to have the minority of the points it seems ridiculous to me to show all 4 suits (and so a mis-fit) and end up at the 3-level doubled. North’s pass of 2♠ is obviously correct.
(4) What did you bid with this East hand E in this week’s quiz? Especially against the Muiderberg pre-empt (just a 5 card suit) double is clear as partner is very likely to have a ♠ stack and if he does bid 3♣ the you can retreat into 3♦. I would double here even with a lot less points than this.
And what happened? 2♠ went 5 down. At another table East did indeed double at (4) and they got a top for setting it just 3 tricks.
The bottom lines: -
I have written up an article on
defence to weak twos. It’s on the web under ‘Basic Bidding’.
Go for the vulnerable penalty Board 26 from Friday 21st
What was your answer to sequence G ? – It is penalties, and with a big balance hand the 2♣ opener should usually pass it.
Dealer: ♠ A3
both vul ♦ AJ8 - - pass (1) pass
♣ AQ85 pass 2♣ (2) 2♠ (3) dbl (4)
pass 3♥ (5) pass 4♥
♠ 9 N ♠ KQ10862 pass 5NT (6) pass 6♣ (7)
♥ J6 W E ♥ 1042 pass 6♥ all pass
(1) Quite why East passed is a mystery. I believe that they were playing Muiderberg in which case it’s a clear Multi 2♦ opener (a weak 2♠ is included in the Multi).
(2) What did you open with Hand F(a) in this week’s quiz? Four aces are very nice but I still think that 2NT is best, not quite worth 2♣.
(3) This really defies logic. East failed to open with a pre-empt but comes in now, vulnerable, opposite a passed partner with an enormous hand on his right in a situation where a double by the next player would be for penalties. It’s asking for minus 800 or more.
(5) What did you do with this North hand F(b) in this week’s quiz? With a flat hand and excellent defensive tricks pass is clear. This North is a beginner and does not yet understand that an 800 penalty is better than bidding a game or a no-hope slam.
(6) North is a beginner.
(7) Presumably the most discouraging bid possible.
And what happened? 2♠ doubled would indeed have gone for 800 or more. 6♥ is hopeless of course but East mis-defended to let it make. Unfortunately results like this will only encourage North to make ridiculous slam attempts like this in the future.
The bottom lines: -
Bidding Quiz Answers
Hand A: 3♣. Double is reasonable but I would prefer four and/or better ♥’s. 2NT is not the Unusual No Trump but shows a bigger hand with a ♠ stop.
Hand B: Pass. Partner’s jump is weak after a double, usually a six card suit.
Hand C: Pass. If you ask for minors (with 2NT or 3♣, whatever you use) then the odds are that partner will bid 3♦ and then whatever you do you will end up playing in a 3-level doubled contract with a total mis-fit.
Hand D: Pass. Partner’s double is penalties. If he wanted to hear a suit from you he would have doubled first time.
Hand E: Double. This is similar to the ‘automatic double’ when playing negative doubles. Partner probably has a ♠ stack (especially as opener is known to have only a 5 card ♠ suit). With ♠ shortage I would double even with far less points.
Hand F: (a) 2NT. I don’t think it’s quite good enough for 2♣.
(b) Pass. Partner’s double is penalties and with a bid balanced hand you should simply go for the vulnerable penalty.