More hands are played as part-scores that as game or slam contracts.  Also, as both sides have some strength, they are often more keenly fought.  Therefore this week I have chosen three part-score hands to analyse.

Board 6 really should have been Passed Out at every table, but at three tables one player, presumably North decided to risk a light opening bid.  My theory is that the side that (mistakenly) opens a hand that should be Passed Out usually gets a poor result.  So what happened this time?

The first bidding sequence shown is surely best.

But let us suppose that North opens 1H.  In that case the final contract is likely to be 2H.  East, in the Pass Out seat, might think that it is best not to allow the opponents to play at the two-level so might think of a Double, but at adverse vulnerability she should think again and Pass.  2H should be one off. so N/S would get a minus score, which of course is a worse result than if the hand were Passed Out.

If N/S are playing five-card majors and if North decides to open fourth in hand, then she would open 1C.  In that case E/W would probably be able to get into the bidding, as shown in the third bidding sequence.  If the final contract were 2D then E/W would make +90, as 2D is an easy make, so again North would have done better to Pass.  N/S could always bid over 2D of course, but resulting contract by N/S should be defeated.

So I think that my theory is vindicated by this hand.  As it happens, at one table N/S managed a positive score, because they were allowed to play in 1H.  But this was not the result of good play by N/S.  It was because of poor bidding by E/W, since at this table they remained silent.  (If you are curious, you can check who were the E/W pair that allowed N/S to make an underserved positive score on this hand.)

Board 13 was an interesting example of one of Andrew Robson's pieces of advice.  He says that you should be happy to let the opposition declare a part-score contract if they are vulnerable.  The point is that, on the one hand there is no bonus for making a vulnerable part-score, whereas on the other hand there is a penalty for going off in a vulnerable part-score, since each undertrick costs 100 points rather than 50 points.

North Passes as dealer and with a rule-of-19 hand East should also Pass.  Playing a Weak NT and four-card majors South will open 1S.  Playing a Strong NT South will open 1NT.  In either case West and North will Pass.  What should East do?  If South has opened with a Strong NT then it is easy for East to Pass, but if South has opened 1S maybe a 2H overcall is attractive?  But being vulnerable, East should Pass.  East should also consider that South's high cards lie under her, so the hand will surely not play well.  The scoring system should be the deciding factor.  Suppose 1S makes exactly.  In that case N/S will score +80 if they are allowed to play there.  If 2H is one off then E/W will score -100.  So let N/S play in 1S.  Moreover, North has fewer than 6 Hcp (or she would have responded), so West must have some points.  It might even be the case that 1S doesn't make.  If E/W were non-vulnerable then it might be worth bidding 2H as 2H-1 would score -50, better than the -80 that E/W would score if South makes 1S=.  On this particular hand the app tells us that East cannot make even 1H, so 2H should cost at least 200 points.  To make matters even worse the app says that N/S cannot make 1S, so by bidding 2H East might easily be swapping +100 for -200.  Sometimes Pass is the hardest bid to find.  Here East's Pass should have been quite easy to find.

The final contract was 1S by South at only one table.  This being so, I can make East at that table my Player of the Week, who was Clive Levy.

Many players don't like to Double their opponents into game, but Board 4 showed how at pairs this can be a mistaken philosophy. 

The bidding sequence shown was how it happened at my table.  The bids up to South's 2S overcall are unproblematic.  As West I decided to compete to the three-level because I had a six-loser hand and an undisclosed four-card Heart suit.  Partner naturally supported my Diamonds and South Doubled.  The app says that 3D makes, so the E/W bidding turns out to have been well-judged.  North, perhaps suspecting that 3D was making, decided to give delayed support for her partner's Spades.  This was also well-judged.  3S should be one off, giving E/W +100 at the vulnerability.  3D= would give E/W +110 and 3DX= would score a more impressive +670.  At the club 3S-1 by South gave N/S a score of 45%., whereas 3D= by West gave N/S 25%.  (Of course 3DX= would have given N/S 0%.)  So the 3S bid was a good one.  But East then Doubled, as it were doubling the opposition into game.  The contract went one down, so N/S scored -200, which gave them a score of only 5%.

The key bid was really East's final Double.  The question is, how risky was this Double?  Well, at two tables N/S were allowed to play in Spades and made nine tricks.  These N/S pairs scored +140, which gave them a score of 95%.  If N/S had made 3SX they would have scored 100%, but the Double would only have cost E/W 5%.  After the hand I mentioned to my partner that his Double was a high-risk strategy, and he correctly replied that it wasn't really, as if 3S were making, we were destined to a poor score whether we Doubled or not.  So at pairs you shouldn't be too worried about doubling the opposition into game.  (Of course at teams scoring the same argument doesn't apply.)

Board 2 was a good test of the ability of the declarer to succeed at pairs.  The normal contract was 4H, although at some tables N/S played in 3NT.  Declarer had to recognise that pretty much every pair would be playing in game and that to get a good score it was necessary to make as many overtricks as possible.

3NT and 4H are both easy contracts to make, but with ruffing values in both hands there are likely to be more tricks available in Hearts than NT, so 4H should be the final contract. 

Suppose that the defence starts with two rounds of Diamonds.  (No other opening lead is better for the defence.)  Declarer will win in hand and lead a Heart.  The KH pops up from the West hand, but when a second round of Hearts is played West shows out.  This means that there is no danger that East will be able to give her partner a ruff, so it must be safe to take the Spade finesse.  When this succeeds, declarer can ruff a Club in dummy, draw trumps and claim a total of twelve tricks.  But notice what happens if the Club ruff is made with dummy's 2H.  Then dummy's two remaining Heart honours can be played but East will still have one trump and South will have to find a way back to hand to draw that last trump.  If she tries to get back to hand with a Diamond, East will ruff and declarer will only make eleven tricks.  If she comes back to hand with a Spade ruff then East will still score a trump trick.  The only safe way to get back is with a trump, and this can only be achieved if the Club ruff is made with one of dummy's Heart honours.  Then the 2H can be used as a way back to the South hand.  As N/S have the top five Hearts between their two hands, it is completely safe to ruff the Club with a high trump.

My Players of the Week are the two declarers who made twelve tricks in Hearts, Cynthia Allen and Valerie Cooper.  By making 4H+2 they scored 95%.  Pairs making 4H+1 scored 59% and those making 4H= scored only 18%, a good illustration of the point that in pairs it is not making your contract that matters.

Board 28 was Passed Out four times, but North had a rule of 20 opening hand and N/S should have been able to make a positive score.

North has only 11Hcp but her had satisfies the Rule of 20 (by which you add the Hcp to the number of cards in the two longest suits and if the total is 20 or more the hand can be opened).  Also, there is convenient rebid available as the longest suit is higher-ranking than the second longest suit.  Plus the Diamond sequence is attractive.  If North Passes then the hand will be Passed Out.  Pass Out scored only 45% for N/S.

After North's 1D opening  bid, South might be tempted to bid 2NT on the first round, to show 10-12 Hcp and a balanced hand, but this would be a mistake as North might have a four-card major suit.  After South's 1H response any eight-card major fit will be discovered, after North raises Hearts or bids Spades.  Here North makes her natural 2C rebid.  Again South might now bid 2NT, but this is probably unwise.  North has shown minimum opening values and no fit has been discovered.  It must be better to play in a part-score, which South reaches by giving preference to North's Diamonds (it being generally better to play in a 5-2 fit than a 4-3 fit).  2D should make +1 whereas the app says that 2NT will be one off, although in practice two out of the five N/S pairs playing in NT managed to make eight or nine tricks.

Board 29 gave an example of how the Losing Trick Count (LTC) can be effective.

North opens 2S.  South has (just) fewer than 15Hcp, so knows not to bid 2NT, the strong response to a Weak 2 bid.  But South should use the LTC.  A Weak 2 opening bid can be assumed to be based on a seven-loser hand (as is the case here).  The LTC only works when there is a known fit.  Here South knows that there is a nine-card Spade fit.  South's hand contains six losers.  It follows that N/S should be able to make 5S as 18 - (7 + 6) = 5.  In fact only 4S can be made, largely because the KS is offside.  So the LTC is not completely accurate.  But here it strongly suggests that 4S will be an easy make.  At the club seven out of twelve N/S pairs played in 4S.  Four played in a Spade part-score and one unaccountably allowed E/W to declare 3H, which gave that E/W pair 100%.

It was interesting that no N/S pair managed to defeat 1NT on Board 2

.

After East's 1NT opening bid, South is not quite strong enough to Double and does not have a five-card suit so cannot overcall.  Three N/S pairs achieved a good result by declaring a contract, so maybe at those tables E/W were playing a strong NT or maybe South ignored my advice and bid!  Certainly South Doubled at one table because the final contract was 1NTX.  At seven tables East played in 1NT, making every time.

It is a hand where on any lead except a Diamond 1NT is cold, with two Spade tricks and five Clubs  tricks (the Club finesse working).  So should South find the Diamond lead?  The good news is that the decision shouldn't have to be made until trick 2.  With the top two heart honours, South should certainly lead the AH to trick 1.  As Andrew Robson says, if you hold an AK combination, you don't have an opening lead problem.  But with three small Hearts North will discourage, so what should South lead to trick 2?  Clearly a Club is out of the question, so the choice lies between a Spade or a Diamond.  This is probably a fifty-fifty choice.  If you look at East's actual hand, she holds a weak trebleton in Diamonds.  It is perfectly possible to imagine East's Diamonds and Spades swapped around, and East would still have opened 1NT.  It follows, I think, that you would expect 1NT to be defeated half the time, so the fact that is made seven times out of seven is a bit surprising.

Board 9 was an example of a hand that should be played in either 3NT or a minor suit slam, but never in a minor suit game.

I find it hard to see how N/S would reach 5D, as South would surely be reluctant to bid beyond 3NT without at least suggesting 3NT, and if South does bid 3NT I would expect North to Pass.  If however North were to overrule South and bid 5D, then South should advance to 6D.  Why?  Because South can see that most N/S pairs will be playing in 3NT and 3NT making even one overtrick will score better than 5D=.  At the club six N/S pairs played in 3NT and four played in 5D.  The average score of the pairs in 3NT was 69%, whereas those playing in 5D scored on average 23%.  If one pair had played and made 6D, they would have scored 100%.  With this sort of hand if partner suggests 3NT accept graciously.  But if you bid beyond 3NT, then bid the slam!

On Board 18 my partner and I achieved a score of 6%.  Were we unlucky?

The bidding sequence shown is how it went at my table.  East led a Club, so we quickly lost two Clubs and two Diamonds.  Then, as declarer, I started the trumps with the AS, so I lost a Spade as well for two down.  Not good.

But was it such a bad contract?  The Spade division was unlucky, but I could still have played the trumps for no losers.  And if the AC had been with East then the contract would have been makeable.  Having said that, at pairs you shouldn't really bid a game on a finesse.

So did we go wrong in the bidding?  Our problem was that we were using different methods of hand evaluation.  The first three bids were routine.  Then I decided to bid 3S because, although I only had 5 Hcp I knew that we had a ten-card Spade fit and I had an eight-loser hand.  If partner had a six-loser hand, then we might have been able to make game in Spades.  If partner had used the LTC and if she had understood my bid as showing eight losers, then with the seven-loser hand that she actually held, she would have Passed.  But, not unreasonably, partner thought that my 3S bid showed a hand stronger in high cards than it actually was, and with 16 Hcp in her own hand she was maximum for her first two bids and therefore advanced to 4S.

The lesson appears to be that it is a good idea if you agree with your partner whether, once you have established suit agreement, you rely on the LTC or expect your bids to be based on appropriate high card strength.

This hand was a bit more complicated however.  It occurred to me after the event that I might have Passed partner's 2S bid on the ground that I only had a singleton in her suit.  This made it more likely that we would have too many quick losers in the minor suits, as proved to be the case.  Also, my bid was a bit on the reckless side, as the likelihood was the partner had a seven-loser hand, i.e. a minimum opener.  Another thought is that if, after my 3S bid, partner had bid 3NT, she would very likely have made game, as it takes a Diamond lead and Club return to defeat 3NT - always assuming that declarer could find that pesky QS!  But why should South bid 3NT when there was a known eight-card Spade fit?  So all in all, our poor result was my fault and I can't really blame bad luck!

Board 6 provided an interesting lesson in hand evaluation.

Assuming that South opens with a 12-14 1NT, how should North respond?  There are two possibilities.  With 11 Hcp, North has sufficient strength to invite to game.  With a four-card major it seems natural to bid 2C.  South responds 2H and North, showing invitational values, bids 3H.  With a minimum opener, South will Pass.  Alternatively, North might decide to ignore her four-card major on the ground that with 4333 distribution opposite a NT opening bid there will be little opportunity for ruffing.  With hands like this, sometimes there is a 4-4 major-suit fit but only nine tricks are available, whether playing in NT or in the major suit.  If, thinking along these lines, North responds 2NT, then again South will decline the game invitation and Pass.

So in either case, N/S finish short of game.  But as it happens 3NT and 4H are both easy to make.  Does that mean that the bidding was too cautious?  Certainly North has good intermediate cards, with two tens and a nine, so maybe North should have been bolder?  I think not.  3NT and 4H only make because the KH is onside, and in general at pairs you should avoid marginal games.  (At pairs, bid 3NT or 4H.)

Board 7 offered the declarer a choice of lines of play.  Which was best?

At the club North played in Spades at five out of twelve tables, always in 3S or 4S.  If the bidding starts as shown then it is tempting for South to jump to 3S, but she should be cautious.  She has a six-loser hand, but partner has shown no support for her Hearts, which are in any case poor.  Also, West's Double strongly suggests some length in Spades, so it seems unlikely that the hand will play well from the N/S point of view.  (Notice that North is not strong enough to bid 2D instead of 1S.)

Declaring a Spade contract, North has a choice of strategies.  She can either try for a cross-ruff or seek to establish her Diamond suit.  Playing a cross-ruff is good fun - when it works.  Here it is unlikely to succeed.  West is likely to have a four-card Spade suit (for her Double) and a Heart trick has to be given up before the cross-ruff can be started, giving E/W the chance to play a Spade.  How about establishing the Diamond suit?  If the Diamonds break 3-3 then this might work very well.  Even if they break 4-2, declarer might be able to score some ruffs in dummy.  In general the best advice is to avoid a cross-ruff if there is another line of play available.  The exception is when you can play a high cross-ruff, i.e. when there is no danger of an overruff.  If, on this hand, South held the AH instead of the KH and the N/S Spades were say KT98 opposite AQJ3 then a cross-ruff would work very well and 4S would be cold.

Board 11 was interesting in that the result largely depended on South's choice of opening bid.

The bidding seems fairly straightforward.  With a 5-2 Spade fit, E/W are perhaps unlikely to reach 4S, which should make in some comfort.  It is more likely that they will reach 3NT.  Played from the West seat this is cold, but if East is declarer then it is defeated by a Heart lead.  At the club ten E/W pairs played in NT, always from the East seat, and nine of the declarers made at least nine tricks.  Only one South player found the Heart lead.  This might depend on whether North managed to bid Hearts.  The key to North's 2H bid in the suggested bidding sequence is the Suit Quality Test.  Add the number of cards to the number of the top five honours held.  This gives the level at which it is wise to compete.  Here North has five Hearts with three of the top five honours, so it is acceptable to bid 2H (as 5 + 3 = 8).

If North has bid Hearts, then South should find the right opening lead.  South might reason that East and West have both bid NT after partner's 2H bid, so they must be ready for a Heart lead.  But what are the alternatives?  East has bid Diamonds and West has bid Spades.  A Diamond lead away from the JD is clearly not a good idea.  A Spade might work.  Maybe West has bid a four-card suit and East, who failed to support Spades, may be relying on partner's Spades to stop the suit.  What about a Club?  South has strong Clubs.  The problem is, that it is likely that the AC and the KC are with E/W and that Clubs will have to be led twice to set up the suit.  At that stage, South will probably have no entry - although there is a small chance that the JD will provide one (for example, if North has the QD).  An advantage of a Heart lead is that to justify the 2H bid North is likely to have an entry outside of Hearts.  (Also, partner won't complain if you lead her suit.  She might complain if you don't!)

If North has been silent in the bidding, then South's reasoning should be similar.  The unbid suits are Hearts and Clubs.  It may be possible to establish the Clubs but it is unlikely that South will have an entry to enjoy them.  So lead a Heart or, maybe, a Spade.  At the club. South's lead was recorded  eight times.  At these eight tables, the QC was led six times, the 3C once and the 6H once.  My Player of the Week is therefore the South player who found the killing lead, Sarah McLachlan.

Finally let's look at the bidding on Board 14, where only three out of twelve N/S pairs reached the best contract.