|to news-sheet main page|
|to Pattaya Bridge home page|
|to bridge conventions||to No Trump bidding|
Mon 20th 1st Phil &
Wed 22nd 1st
Fri 24th 1st Bob & Dave 57% 2nd Lewis & Alan 55%
Bidding Quiz Standard American is assumed unless otherwise stated.
Hand A Hand B With Hand A partner bids 1NT, what do you bid?
♠ KQ7 ♠ J2 With Hand B you are in 2nd seat, love all, what do you open?
♥ A953 ♥ 4
♦ K3 ♦ AK10876532
♣ AQJ6 ♣ Q
Hand C Hand D With Hand C you are dealer at favourable vulnerability. What,
if anything, do you open?
♠ 9 ♠ 76
♦ A1054 ♦ AQ632 bids 1♥, what do you bid?
♣ 52 ♣ KQ9
♠ J10942 ♠ AKJ4
♥ - ♥ J763 With Hand F you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦. You bid 1♥
Bidding Sequences Quiz All of these sequences occurred this week
1816.8 Janne Roos 666.8 Janne Roos 350.4 Janne Roos
1815.9 Jan v Koss 654.4 Jan v Koss 340.2 Jan v Koss
1794.9 Dave Cutler 640.0 Dave Cutler 336.2 Bengt Malmgren
1736.1 Bob Pelletier 634.9
Walking the dog? Board 1 from Monday 20th
An American term for making a seemingly silly bid in the hope of being doubled there.
Dealer: ♠ AQ43 Table A
Love all ♦ - - pass 1♦ (1) 1♥
♣ 9654 pass 4♥ pass (2) pass
♠ 875 N ♠ J2
♥ 103 W E ♥ 4 Table B
♠ K1096 pass 2♦ (3) 5♦ (4) dbl (5)
♥ AQJ87 pass 5♥ (6) all pass
And what happened? 4♥ made +1 and 5♥ was bid twice and made exactly; these three thus shared the N-S top. One East was allowed to play in 5♦ and went just one down. One East went on to 6♦ doubled which should go just two down for a good score – but he actually got a top for making 6♦ when South covered the ♣Q when it was led!
The bottom lines: -
- Only cover an honour
with an honour if you are likely to promote a t
- If there seems to be no satisfactory opening – then pass?
- If anybody need the exercise, I have a Great Dane that need regular walking.
Dave’s input this week is a bidding question rather than the usual play problem. What was your answer to question A this week? With points to spare – play in 6NT rather than 6 of a suit (so simply bid 6NT) is the book’s answer. I disagree. Here’s what Dave’s book says: -
Dealer: ♠ KQ7 Book Auction
South ♥ A953 West North(A) East South
E-W vul ♦ K3 - - - 1NT
♣ AQJ6 pass 6NT (1) all pass
♠ J9542 N ♠ 83 “This is a typical deal where you have upwards of
♥ 10 W E ♥ QJ84 34 points. With two balanced hands facing each other
♠ A106 a 4-4 fit, where a bad trump split may cost you
♥ K762 the slam.
So how should North bid this hand opposite a strong 1NT from partner? North has a possible ruffing value in ♦’s but there are two reasons why he might shy away from a 4-4♥ fit.
1.- He holds 19 points, so a slam might be cold in no trumps on sheer power while a bad trump break may defeat the ♥ slam.
2.- His own ♥’s are not so brilliant. ♥A953 opposite a random 4-card holding might
easily produce two trump losers, even when twelve t
The above is all from Dave’s book which then goes on to repeat how much better 6NT is than 6♥.
Terry’s comments. This article is totally typical of writers and players who think that if 6♥/♠ or 7♥/♠ is a poor prospect, then bid 6NT. Does nobody know that 7♣/♦ scores more than 6NT? The book’s recommended auction (correctly) dismissed looking for a ♥ slam – but why not a ♣ slam?
♠ A106 Give South this hand (just two spot cards changed) and 7♣ - the golden 4-4 fit,
♥ K7 is cold! Why is it that virtually every bidding book ignores minor suit slams?
♦ AQ72 This author correctly points out that ♥A953 is not a suit to go looking for
♣ K532 slam – but ♣AQJ6 most certainly is!
An ‘expert’ pair who have read the No trump bidding book would start off with SARS and then easily find the cold 7♣ had South held this hand – see next page. Dave’s book’s pathetic 6NT is absolutely typical (of people who do not know how to find minor suit slams after a 1NT opening). I only changed the South hand by two spot cards – but south could easily have 5 ♣’s and then it would be really silly to miss the ♣ grand. SARS enables responder to establish the 1NT opener’s shape.
And just as an aside – for non experts. North has a decent 19 count opposite 15-17. If opener has 17 then 7NT should be there – so he could try 4♣ Gerber and, assuming there is no ace missing, then 5NT (quantitative inviting 7NT). Giving up straight away with 6NT seem feeble to me.
And what happened at the Pattaya bridge club? 6NT=, 7NT-1 (twice) and 6♥-1.
My recommended (basic) auction . 1NT - 4♣ - 4♠ - 5NT - 6NT .
Where 4♣ is Gerber, 4♠ shows two aces, 5NT invites the grand and opener bids just 6NT with a miserable 16 and the totally flat 4333 type shape. This was (pretty close) to the auction to 6NT by Lewis/myself.
The Expert Auction.
So how do an expert pair bid to 7♣ assuming South had this hand?
North South North South
♠ KQ7 ♠ A106 - 1NT
♥ A953 ♥ K7 2♣ (1) 2♦ (2)
♦ K3 ♦ AQ72 3♣ (3) 3NT (4)
♣ AQJ6 ♣ K532 4♣ (5) 4♦ (6)
(1) In principle Stayman, but it could be a raise to 2NT (with or without a 4-card major) as our experts play 4-way transfers or it could simply be the start of a SARS sequence to ascertain opener’s shape.
(2) No 4-card major
(3) SARS (Shape Asking Relays after Stayman) – asking about partner’s shape.
(4) 4-4 in the minors.
(5) RKCB and setting ♣’s as the trump suit. North has uncovered the 4-4 ♣ fit and also
knows that partner has 4 ♦’s – so only 5 cards in the major suits and thus no loser there
(assuming partner has the ♥K); the hand is surely making 13 t
(6) 3 keycards – there is no advantage in playing 1430 when you are using 4 of the trump suit as RKCB.
The bottom lines: -
- I’ve met this sort of thing before in bidding books and magazines – bidding 3NT or 6NT when there is no good 4-4 major suit fit but totally ignoring a possible minor suit fit for slam.
- Bidding a minor suit slam after a 1NT opening is not as easy as a major suit slam as it takes a step more to establish the fit. SARS does it fine but is perhaps a bit of a strain on the memory.
- SARS is far superior to minor suit Stayman as it allows you to locate both major suit fits and minor suit fits. It is fully described in the NoTrump bidding book. Note that for North to confidently bid the grand he needed to know about South’s shape, in particular the 4 card ♦ suit, and SARS does that.
- SARS is obviously excellent if you play over the internet and can quickly refer to the SARS sequences in the NoTrump bidding book index – but would that be considered cheating?
This deal again illustrates the
power of the good 4-4 fit; 7♣ is easy (even with a bad 4-1 trump break) but 12 t
Don’t always believe everything
you read in the books/articles (except mine).
Who needs Blackwood? – cue bidding to slam - 1 Board 25 from Monday 20th
Our dynamic cue bidding duo from last week are at it again, an excellent 6♠ – and not a mention of Blackwood!
Dealer: ♠ 9 Table A
E-W vul ♦ A1054 - pass (1) pass pass
♣ 52 2♣ pass 2♦ (2) pass
2♠ (3) pass 3♠ (4) pass
♠ AQJ7652 N ♠ K843 4♣ (5) pass 4♥ (6) pass
♥ Q3 W E ♥ A7 5♣ (7) pass 6♠ (8) pass
♠ 10 Table B
♥ K95 West North(C) East South
♦ KJ763 - 2♥ (1) dbl (10) 3♥
And what happened? The
6♠ slam was bid at just these two tables. The other three tables stopped
in 4♠. Everybody made the obvious 13 t
The bottom lines: -
- Good slam bidding is not just using Blackwood to locate missing aces/kings. Here, as last week, a cold slam was reached missing two kings, and this time with an ace missing also.
Who needs Blackwood? – cue bidding to slam - 2 Board 6 from Wednesday 22nd
Here we go again, with our dynamic pair cue bidding to a good 6♥ slam, this time as E-W.
Dealer: ♠ 86 West North East South
E-W vul ♦ J1096 4♥ pass 4NT (1) pass
♣ K87 5♦ (2) pass 6♥ all pass
♠ 4 N ♠ AK6 (1) A cue bid showing 1st round ♠ control - this
♥ K109763 W E ♥ A42 E-W pair play Kickback and so 4♠ would
♦ AK75 S ♦ Q43 have been
♠ QJ109753 find the ♦A and the ♥K (and deny the ♥Q).
♥ - (2) A cue bid showing the ♦A and denying the ♣A
The bottom lines: -
♠ - - I guess that 95% slams fail 5 % of the time!
♥ QJ8 - But is the slam really a failure? : -
♣ - North leads the ♦J which is won in the East hand
with the ♦Q and the ♥A cashed. In order to achieve
♠ - N ♠ K the correct 3-card end-game West has to shorten
♥ K109 W E ♥ 42 his trumps. So ♠A and ruff a ♠. Take the ♣Q finesse
♦ AK7 S ♦ 43 and try the ♣A and a ♣ ruff. .
♠ QJ109 this 6-card ending.
♥ - ♦AK and a ♦ ruff leaves North and West with
♦ 8 only 3 trump each. Lead any card off dummy and
I wish I had found this play at the table –
sorry partner. Note that it is necessary to play the ♥A rather than the ♥K at t
Who needs Blackwood? – cue bidding to slam - 3 Board 27 from Wednesday 22nd
Here we go again, a strange sequence with everybody bidding ♥’s :– 2♥ - 3♥ - 4♥ - 5♥!
Dealer: ♠ J96 West North East South
Love all ♦ KJ763 2♥ 3♥ (1) 4♥ (2) 5♥ (3)
♣ AJ2 pass 6♣ (4) pass 6♦ (5)
♠ 85 N ♠ AQ76
♥ K109742 W E ♥ AJ853 (1) Showing a good (game forcing) hand.
♠ K1032 (4) A cue bid, showing the ♣A and denying the ♠A.
♥ - (5) Pretty obvious as South knows that there is a ♠ loser
East enquired about the bidding and was told by our dynamic duo that 3♥ was forward going, 5♥ a cue bid and 6♣ forward going. At the end of play (6♦ made) East commented that N-S were lucky and did not know what they were doing. I leave it up to you if you think that N-S knew what they were doing (I am biased).
This particular East thinks he’s a great player and is continually criticizing others or else saying that they were lucky when they get a good score. N-S may not have been so ‘lucky’ of course had East obeyed the Law and bid 5♥ at (2) – the 4♥ bid is feeble when partner is known to have 6 ♥’s and North shown a good hand opposite an opener. I guess that East thought that N-S were such poor players that they would not bid on over 4♥?
The bottom lines: -
- I guess I’m somewhat different from this East. If the opponents bid or play well then I congratulate them and say ‘well bid’ or ‘well played’. It seems that this East does not use these words unless he is talking about himself.
- Obey the law. 6+5 =11 so compete to the 5 level immediately.
- 6♥ would be an excellent save, but then not if N-S ‘did not know what they were doing’.
- This is another good example of cue bidding rather than charging into Blackwood – reaching a decent slam when off two aces.
Doing a Chuck – part 1 Board 12 from Wednesday 24th
If you had not yet realised is, the egotistic East from the last board was Bengt. I don’t usually mention names but his continual incorrect criticism of everybody in sight really is getting too much. In last week’s news-sheet it was he who criticised his partner when he missed slam because he opened 4♠ with a three loser hand (and just a 6-card ♠ suit
- ♠KQJ632 ♥A ♦10 ♣AK1054) and he also later passed partner’s reverse leaving him in a silly 4-2 fit when he has three cards in partner’s first bid suit. I played against him this Friday and he incorrectly criticised his partner twice (two separate boards) when it was he who had made the blunders. In this deal he was East and demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge about the order in which suits should be bid and also about simple preference: -
Dealer: ♠ K3 West North East(E) South
N-S vul ♦ K7 pass 2♥ 3♦ (2) 4♥ (3)
♣ KQ6 pass (4) pass 5♦ (5) pass
5♠ (6) dbl all pass
♠ Q75 N ♠ J10942
♥ Q97542 W E ♥ - .
Doing a Chuck – part 2 Board 9 from Friday 24th
Here we have the same players as the last deal.
Dealer: ♠ Q9852 West(D) North East(F) South
E-W vul ♦ K105 1♦ pass 1♥ pass
♣ 10842 2♠ (1) pass 4♠ (2) pass
5♦ all pass
♠ 76 N ♠ AKJ4
♥ A108 W E ♥ J763 .
Bidding Sequences Answers