| Table A |
(1) |
What would you open with this North hand? With this great ♦ suit I think that an upgrade to a strong 1NT is best. |
| |
|
| |
(2) |
Without the mechanism to splinter over 1NT (see expert table) South reasonably tried Stayman. |
| |
|
| |
(3) |
And with no major suit fit he really has no choice but to punt 3NT. |
| "Expert" |
(2) |
Our experts have read ‘The definitive guide to Strong No Trump openings, |
| .Table |
|
Stayman and Transfers ' – referred to as ‘the NoTrump bidding book' |
| |
|
on the web site, and know all about ambiguous splinters over 1NT. 3♣ here is an ambiguous splinter (either ♣, ♦, or ♠ shortage). |
| |
(4) |
Which shortage? |
| |
(5) |
♣ shortage |
| |
(6) |
♦ 's are trumps, slam interest. Although just 14 ‘points' this hand has become enormous opposite ♦ support and ♣ shortage |
| |
|
| |
(7) |
Roman Key card Blackwood for ♦'s. Our experts play Kickback. |
| |
(8) |
2 keycards plus the ♦Q. With extra ♦ length North says that he has the ♦Q. This is the magic of playing Kickback – even the highest response (2 keycards + key queen) does not go above 5 of the agreed suit. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
And what happened? One pair did reach 6♦ making but 4 pairs found themselves in 3NT. |
| |
|
|
| |
The bottom lines: - |
| - |
Check out ambiguous splinters over partner's 1NT opening. |
| - |
Play something other than 4NT as (RKC)Blackwood when a minor suit is agreed. My personal preference is Kickback (the suit above trumps); it is described on the web site and in the No Trump bidding book. Another option is to play 4-of-the-minor as Blackwood but obviously that would not work here as North does not know if South has slam interest or not. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
| This deal comes from News-sheet 146 and is an example of finding a good 4-4 ♠ fit using SARS, despite the fact that a 5-4 ♥ fit has already been located. |
| |
|
|
This hand caused considerable debate on Monday. 4♥ is
straightforward
and everybody easily found it with a 5-4 fit. But as I keep on saying – the 4-4 fit is golden. This deal is, in fact, typical. There is a 4-4 ♠ fit and a 5-4 ♥ fit. And the good 4-4 fit is superior, making one more trick! |
| |
But the real point is – how do you find the 4-4 ♠ fit when you have already found the 5-4 ♥ fit? Nobody managed this on Monday; and, indeed, I think it is virtually impossible unless you have a fairly sophisticated bidding system after 1NT. |
| |
Tables A or B are absolutely typical of 99% of the Bridge playing world: - |
| |
|
|
| Dealer: |
♠ |
A765 |
|
|
Table A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| North |
♥ |
AJ97 |
|
|
West |
|
North |
|
East |
|
South |
|
| Both vul |
♦ |
A2 |
|
|
- |
|
1NT |
|
pass |
|
2♣ |
(1) |
| |
|
♣ |
A76 |
|
|
pass |
|
2♥ |
(2) |
pass |
|
4♥ |
(3) |
| ♠ |
983 |
 |
♠ |
104 |
all pass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♥ |
854 |
♥ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♦ |
KQJ7 |
♦ |
108654 |
Table B |
|
|
|
|
|
| ♣ |
Q84 |
♣ |
KJ1032 |
West |
|
North |
|
East |
|
South |
|
| |
|
♠ |
KQJ2 |
|
|
- |
|
1NT |
|
pass |
|
2♦ |
(1) |
| |
|
♥ |
KQ1032 |
|
|
pass |
|
3♥ |
(4) |
pass |
|
4♥ |
(5) |
| |
|
♦ |
93 |
|
|
all pass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
♣ |
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
"Expert" Table |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East |
|
South |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
1NT |
|
pass |
|
2♣ |
(1) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
2♥ |
|
pass |
|
3♣ |
(6) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
3♠ |
(7) |
pass |
|
4♠ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
all pass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Table A |
(1) |
What would you bid with this South hand? The ‘Expert' opinion these days is to bid Stayman with all 5-4 (or 4-5) hands in the majors. |
| |
|
| |
(2) |
And North responds 2♥ with both majors of course. |
| |
(3) |
And I'm sure that most people would simply raise to game (having found a 5-4 major suit fit). |
| |
|
| Table B |
(1) |
Now some people (especially Europeans) prefer to transfer when 5-4 in the majors, so let's see how that works here. |
| |
|
| |
(4) |
I guess it depends upon how you play your super-accepts (I assume that everybody will super-accept with 4 trumps and a superb maximum?). Anyway, let's suppose that North super-accepts with 3♥. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
(5) |
Then South has nothing more to say other than 4♥. |
| "Expert" |
(1) |
As I said above, most experts bid 2♣ when 5-4. |
| .Table |
(6) |
But this is where we sort the men from the boys. South knows that there is a |
| |
|
5-4 ♥ fit. But he is also an expert and with these excellent ♠ 's he also knows that if there is also a 4-4 ♠ fit then 4♠ will be a better contract. So what does he do? Why, he asks North what his shape is, of course. 3♣ here is SARS (Shape Asking Relays after Stayman). It's all in the No Trump bidding book. |
| |
(7) |
And it could not be simpler, 3♠ here says that North also has 4 ♠'s. |
| |
|
|
And what happened? Anybody who had read (and digested) the NoTrump bidding book would have scored a complete top for making 4♠ +2. At our club everybody played in the inferior 4♥ which should only make 11 tricks. Don't ask me how to bid to 6♠ ; obviously simply locating the 4-4 ♠ fit is good enough for an excellent score. |
| |
|
|
| |
The bottom lines: - |
| - |
Locating the 4-4 fit is what all bidding systems are all about. |
| - |
The 4-4 fit is sacred; it is a cow to India , it is Bin Ladin to a terrorist, it is … |
| - |
It is better than a 5-3 fit, and a good 4-4 fit is usually better than a 5-4 fit! |
| - |
It may not be important at IMPs, but at pairs scoring being in 4♠ will earn a bundle of matchpoints on this deal. |
| |
| - |
The SARS convention is fully described in the NoTrump bidding book. |
| - |
If you do indeed look at the No Trump bidding book, you will discover that there is a |
| |
section totally devoted to how to find the superior 4-4 fit even though a 5-4 fit has already been uncovered; and this actual ‘expert' sequence is given, so it's not something I made up after the event! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Deal No3 comes from News-sheet 205 and is an example of finding good game with minimal values using Stayman super-accepts. |
| |
|
|
| Dealer: |
♠ |
K954 |
|
|
Table A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| East |
♥ |
Q1042 |
|
|
West |
|
North |
|
East |
|
South |
|
| N-S vul |
♦ |
5 |
|
|
- |
|
pass |
|
pass |
|
1NT |
|
| |
|
♣ |
J1083 |
|
|
pass |
|
2♣ |
(1) |
pass |
|
2♠ |
|
| ♠ |
A86 |
|
♠ |
107 |
pass |
pass |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
| ♥ |
J97 |
♥ |
A863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♦ |
KJ1073 |
♦ |
Q9642 |
Table B |
|
|
|
|
|
| ♣ |
94 |
♣ |
K7 |
West |
|
North |
|
East |
|
South |
|
| |
|
♠ |
QJ32 |
|
|
- |
|
pass |
|
pass |
|
1NT |
|
| |
|
♥ |
K5 |
|
|
pass |
|
2♣ |
(1) |
pass |
|
2♠ |
|
| |
|
♦ |
A8 |
|
|
pass |
3♠ |
(2) |
pass |
|
4♠ |
|
| |
|
♣ |
AQ652 |
|
|
all pass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
"Expert" Table |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East |
|
South |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
pass |
|
pass |
|
1NT |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
2♣ |
(1) |
pass |
|
3♣ |
(2) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
3♦ |
(3) |
pass |
|
3♠ |
(4) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
4♠ |
(5) |
all pass |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) is “Garbage Stayman” and North would pass a 2♦ response. |
But North has a difficult choice at (2) here at Tables A and B. Should he pass (correct if South has ♠QJ32 ♥K53 ♦A8 ♣KQ65) or try for game? The problem is that North has no idea that South is maximum with a superb ♦ fit. Is there a scientific way to bid this hand? |
| (2) |
3♣ shows a maximum with a good 5 card ♣ suit and a 4 card major. |
| (3) |
which major? |
| (4) |
♠'s |
| (5) |
fine. |
| |
|
And what happened? At the club ½ the field stopped in 2♠ and ½ bid game. Everybody made 11 tricks. |
| |
|
| |
The Bottom Lines. |
| - |
Assuming that your singleton is usefully opposite a 1NT opener is a sheer gamble. More advanced pairs should use more advanced methods – see Stayman Super-accepts in the NT bidding book. |
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Deal No4 comes from News-sheet 251 and is an example of finding good minor suit slam using SARS |
| |
|
|
| ♠ |
KQ7 |
You have this hand and partner opens 1NT, what do you do? |
| ♥ |
A953 |
The hand comes from the book '52 Great Bridge Tips' by David Bird. |
| ♦ |
K3 |
David says to bid 6NT and not to look for a 4-4 ♥ fit as you have |
| ♣ |
AQJ6 |
enough for 12 tricks and there may be a trump loser if you play in ♥'s. |
| |
|
That is very true - but what about possibly playing in 7♣?? |
|
| |
| In the book David gives an example for partner's hand where there is a 4-4 ♥ fit but 6♥ fails and 6NT makes because there is a trump loser only if you play in ♥'s. I give an equally likely 1NT opener below and demonstrate why you should look for the GOOD 4-4 fit - you get an extra trick! |
|
|
|
| |
| 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) |
| |
|
|
|
7♣ |
|
pass |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (1) |
In principle this is Stayman, but it could be a raise to 2NT (with or without a 4-card |
| |
major) or it could simply be the start of a SARS sequence to ascertain opener's shape. |
| (2) |
Denying a 4-card Major |
| (3) |
SARS – 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 rick s if there is no keycard missing. |
| (6) |
3 keycards |
| |
|
| A more pessimistic option at (5) would be 4♥ - showing a quantitative raise with a 4-4 ♣ fit. South would assume that North is looking for a small slam and should bid 6♣ with these top cards and a great hand for ♣'s (get an extra trick with a ♥ ruff) and North would then bid 7♣. (He would convert 5♣ to 6♣ or 6NT if pairs scoring). |
| |
|
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. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| An alternative for the SARS sequence 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ |
| |
| In the No Trump bidding book we define the responses as follows: - |
| |
| 3♦ |
|
|
a 5-card minor |
| |
3♥ |
|
which? |
| |
|
3♠ |
5 ♣'s |
| |
|
3NT |
5 ♦'s |
| 3♥ |
|
|
4 ♣'s, so 3334 |
| 3♠ |
|
|
4 ♦'s, so 3343 |
| 3NT |
|
|
both minors, so 2344 or 3244 |
| |
|
|
|
| Now I think that this is the best treatment, but Sean Burgess plays it differently. His recommended treatment is as follows, let's call it Irish SARS: - |
| |
|
|
|
| 3♦ |
|
|
4 or 5 ♦'s |
| 3♥ |
|
|
2344 |
| 3♠ |
|
|
3244 |
| 3NT |
|
|
4 or 5 ♣'s |
|
| |
| Which is best? With my recommended treatment you establish if partner's minor suit is 4 or 5 cards but you don't know the major suit distribution when opener is 4-4 in the minors. |
| With Sean's treatment you know the two and 3 card majors when partner is 4-4 in the minors but if he has just one minor then you don't know if it's a 4 or 5 card suit. |
| Which piece of information is more important? In my opinion knowing that partner has 5 cards in the majors (3-2 or 2-3) is usually good enough (especially as you don't know the high cards in either suit) and I really want to know if partner has a 5 card minor. |
| Note that either treatment would have reached the 7♣ slam in deal 4. |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
| |
|
