The following hand was submitted and analysed by Tomas Roche.......many thanks Tomas.

On board 8 of the second session of the Morgan Pairs, N/S can make a grand slam in spades.

A suggested sequence, with E/W silent throughout, is 1♦-1♠-3♠-5♣(EKCB)-5♠-7♠. Over an opening of 1♦ (or 1♣) South will respond 1♠ and opener's rebid of 3♠ is a welcome surprise. A bid of 4NT (KCB) will give South an unwelcome guess if North shows two or even one ace. Those pairs with Exclusion Key Card Blackwood (EKCB) in their armoury would have no problem regardless of North’s response. Over the reply of 5♠ showing two key cards outside clubs (in this case the two red aces) without the spade Queen, South has an easy bid of 7♠ as North is unlikely to hold Axx in hearts. Those Souths who bid 4NT (KCB) and received a reply showing 0 or 3 key cards should sign off in 5♠. A direct 7♠ could find South in a grand slam missing three aces – it has happened in European Team Championship.  Over 5♠ by South, North holding three key cards will proceed by bidding 6♦ showing the diamond King. If West opens 2NT showing weak minor two-suiter, East can bounce to 5♣ over a double by North. Even after 6♣ by South, N/S may not bid the grand slam fearing a possible loser in the spade suit.       

The play in 7♠ will be swift as declarer should simply claim on finding the trumps split 2/1. Those seven North-South pairs (out of twenty) who bid the grand slam received 84% of the matchpoints on the board – c’est la vie. 

Tomas Roche

The following hand was taken from the Open Team of Four on Friday 18th Jan. 2013 and was submitted and analysed by Hugh McDermott (Board 15) - many thanks Hugh!

Put yourself in the South seat and choose an opening lead against 2♥ after the bidding shown. Your 1NT showed 12-14 and the 2♥ overcall was natural.

On Christmas Party night  (12/12/12) the bidding when I was South went as above. West’s double on the second round showed 3-card support for spades and allowed East to decide on the final contract.

Board 2 of the second session of the Wigoder Pairs (21/11/12) showed E/W can make a small slam in spades. Five of the twenty-one East-West pairs bid a slam. West is showing opening values with 3-1-4-5 or 4-1-3-5 distribution (singleton heart). East holding the heart Ace and fitting cards in both minor suits should continue over 4S and bid the slam when West shows three key cards.

A diamond lead gives declarer twelve easy tricks. On a club or (unlikely) heart lead, declarer may cash the club King, the heart Ace and ruff a heart before discarding two losing hearts on the Ace and Queen of clubs. Unfortunately, for declarer, South ruffs and cashes the Ace of trumps for one down.

Declarer should play for 4-3 break in clubs (over 62%) but by starting on trumps. South will win the second round and exit on a trump. East crosses to diamond Queen, plays two top clubs and ruffs a club. Playing the last trump would produce a show-up squeeze if South held five cards in clubs and four cards in diamonds. With the diamonds breaking 3-3, East-West can claim twelve tricks. 

Tomas Roche

Board No. 14 from 7th Nov. 2012 (IBU Sim Pairs) has been analysed by Don Seligman.

The bidding went 2nt P 3C P 3D P 3NT P P P.

S leads a heart and E's J wins.   E now plays spades, K, Q, 5 to J and Adiscarding a diamond.  S discards 1Cand 1D.  He now plays C10 and N winsto exit on a heart which E wins with the K. On the play of the CQ N wins and plays a diamond won by the A, theCJ squeezes S in the red suits as the cards now are:

North D5, C952,   East H2, DKJ, CQ,    South HQ10,DQ10,     West HA8, D76.

11 Tricks made.  Ofcourse E was very lucky.  He got aheart lead into his Jack.  Secondly N should duck the second club so as not to squeeze S.  Nevertheless E showed excellent technique.

Board 9 from Wednesday 31st Oct. 2012 has been submitted and analysed by Alfie Sexton.

2D= multi, other bids misunderstandings.

A diamond is led, won by east, who returns a diamond won in dummy.  Heart finesse, ace of clubs, club ruff, heart finesse and another club ruff; third heart from dummy catches king followed by final club ruff; play king of diamonds and then spade to king and ace.  West is on lead with Queen of spades making your Jack a winner.

This hand confirms the adage that the game belongs to bidders, even bad ones in this instance.

The first session of the Mixed Teams (17th Oct. 2012) gave N/S a number of slam bidding decisions.  On board 19, with E/W silent, after a standard sequence of 2C(Strong) - 2D(Neg) -2H(Nat) -3D(Nat+Values) -?, it is  awkward for N/S to find a club fit and still have room to ask for key cards with one's favourite version of Blackwood.  If N/S clubs are stronger, then 7C may be only making grand slam even on 4-3 fit.

At our table, Peter Goodman bid 4NT over 3D, tentatively agreeing diamonds and when South showed both minor suit kings, he placed the 7NT card on the table.  The absence of a red suit jack in dummy meant only 11 top tricks.  After the lead of the spade Queen, Peter cashed the top winners in spades, diamonds and clubs in his own hand before crossing to the club King to test the diamonds.  Prospects were bleak when diamonds divided 4-2, but due to the fortunate lie in hearts, declarer claimed five tricks in that suit, to make the contract and gain 11 imps (6NT was contract at other table).  If East hearts were headed by the 8 or 9, then 7NT would be down resulting in a 15 imp loss, which would equate to a difference of 11 VP’s between the teams.

Tomas Roche

Board No. 7 from Wednesday 26th Sept. 2012 (first night of the Graham Cup) has been analysed by Martin Carroll.

This was a hand with interesting points in both the bidding and the play.

The bidding goes 1S P 2C, P 2H P ? N now has to decide how to proceed. There is extremely little likelihood of an 8 card Major suit fit, so Clubs and No Trump are the options, and now how to progress the bidding? Partner has at most 4 minor suit cards, and if they contain the Queen of Clubs, or 3 small – and they break 2-2, and we have only one loser in the Majors, the Club slam is cold, if however he has  KQJxx, KQJxx, xx, Q. or similar the  limit is  11 tricks in Clubs or No Trump, worse if his minor suit honour is the Queen of Diamonds we may lose not only the 2 Aces but a slow Club or Diamond. A 4^th suit bid of 3 Diamonds is not helpful in finding the major controls – which is what we are interested in. So on the basis that this is Pairs, and taking into account Hamman’s dictum, “do not play me for the ideal hand – I never have it” N bids 3NT.

(Incidentally a 4^th suit 3D continuation will elicit a 3 H  response from partner and probably a double for the lead from West)

East leads the Diamond Queen, and N wins, discovers the Club situation, concedes the Club Queen to West who continues the Heart King, ducked ,(necessary to rectify the count for a possible squeeze ) and continues with a Heart to the Ace. N leads a Diamond to hand and continues the Clubs. On the lead of the last Club the position is as follows:-

                                                               T6

                                                                  -

                                                                  4                       

                                                                   5

732                                                                                                                     QJ9

J                                                                                                                            -

-                                                                                                                             J

-                                                                                                                             -

                                                                       AK8

                                                                             -

                                                                           T

                                                                           -

On the lead of the last Club, East is squeezed, discarding a Spade to keep the Diamond, however South’s Spade 8 is just enough to beat East’s 7 to take the last trick for +660.

This is board 7 from Wednesday 19^th Sept. 2012, analysed by Jim McAndrew.

The score sheet for the board showed that it was played in contracts of 6H +1, 6NT, 7H and 7NT.

The board is a good example to illustrate the difference between  ‘Pairs’ and  ‘Team’  bridge  bidding.

For the purposes of this exercise, lets assume that S opened a strong no trump(15/17 pts).  Most players in N's position will have taken control of the bidding once S opened and used Gerber, Blackwood etc to ask for aces and kings.

N at this stage knows from the bidding information that they have all the respective Aces and Kings.

Therefore, he can see that there are 12 tricks, assuming no unusual distribution, in a heart or no trump contract  -  SAK  HAKQJx  DAK  CAKQ.

N now takes the analysis a step further. From the bidding information S has shown 13pts (Ace + 3 Kings). Therefore, S has at least two more points for the 1NT opening.  Where are the points located?

 They have to be one of the following:

 a)SQ   b) DQ  c) DJ +CJ

Any of these three gives the 13^th trick.  At this stage N can, with some certainty, bid 7H or 7NT.

A7H, Grand Slam Vulnerable    = 2210 pts

A7NT, Grand Slam Vulnerable   = 2220 pts

At ‘teams’ bridge it makes no difference whether the contract is 7H or 7NT.

But, at ‘pairs’ bridge, with match point scoring, it is so important to bid 7NT in order to attain the best score.  

Board 19 from Wednesday 12th Sept. 2012 was submitted and analysed by Billy Ronan.

A few lines on Hand 24 from Wednesday 5 Sep 2012.

Gambling 3NT openings should deny outside Ace or King in 1st and 2nd seat. If South responds 4NT asking for an eight trump (bid the minor) or outside high card control (bid the outside suit) then South will declare 6C leaving West with blind lead. After a heart lead, declarer must find a way of disposing of his loser in this suit on finding 4-1 trump break. The percentages are 35.5% for 3-3 break (spade suit), 50% for finesse (diamonds) and just over 16% for doubleton honour in a suit where opponents have six cards. Declarer's best chance maybe to cash Ace of diamonds and ruff a diamond, then if the king does not appear (singleton King is nearly 2.5%) to fall back on the spade suit. On this hand declarer had no losing options. A grand slam in clubs is better than 7NT as a trump coup is available on a non heart lead. Only four North/South pairs ventured small slam, so those East/West pairs defending game were unlucky to receive a below average score.
 
Tomas Roche

It is truly amazing what can be done with very little resources.  Board 10 at our President’s season- opening barbeque is an excellent example.  Dealer E opened 3H in spite of having a 4 card major. After two passes N doubled and S left it in.

S lead CA and then the 10.  Declarer won the second club in dummy and lead a trump to the 8  9 and Q.  S won and decided to switch to the SQ.  This was not ideal but how could she realise that declarer had KT64.  N won with the A and switched back to clubs. This was very awkward for declarer who had to ruff high to avoid an over-ruff. She then exited on a high trump which N won with the A to play his last club.  Now E cannot avoid losing a trump to S's 6 either now with a low card ruff or later if she ruffs high.

The defence won CA, SA, HA, HQ and H6 for +200.  The fact that E did not manage the trump suit well takes nothing from this tale. She could have played the HQ on the first round of trumps or realised the danger of a trump promotion and played small hoping for a doubleton ace in the N hand. She did neither.

There are three major points on this hand.  Firstly, some top players believing that you should pre-empt at every opportunity ignore the fourth spade and open 3H.  Secondly, there is quite a good chance that N has the HA and if so there is a huge danger that the trump promotion will occur so playing the K may avoid the danger of losing 3 trump  tricks.  Finally, as the play went, up to the point that E ruffed the first club, the evidence suggests that N is likely to hold HA so your only chance to escape is to play for a doubleton ace.

I will be emailing all club members shortly looking for volunteers to go on a rota of people to submit the hand of the week.  Writing them up is a task that needs to be shared.  Please offer your services to me at rayfitzgerald@live.ie.

Ray Fitzgerald

You may have realised that hand of the week had taken its summer holidays. However I decided to describe a fascinating hand from AGM night, Board 3.  E had a difficult rebid and decided to manufacture 3D so W bid 4S. S led KC ducked and followed with the queen taken by force. Wanting to protect his non trump cards declarer played the AS followed by a low one to the King and then took the marked spade finesse and drew N’s Jack. Meanwhile S needed 3 discards. She played 2 clubs and one heart. Still trying to keep entries fluid declarer played a diamond to the queen taken by the ace. N returned a diamond taken by the ace. The remaining cards were:

                                                            N

                                                            H Q 7 5

                        W                                 D J 9                            E

                        H K 8 4                                                             S 5

                        D 6                                                                   H A 9 2

                        C 6                                                                   D 7

                                                            S

                                                            H J 10 6

                                                            D 10

                                                            C Q

On the lead of the 5S S felt he could only spare a heart. With the 6C having done its work this disappeared. N, mindful of the 3D bid discarded a heart. When declarer now played hearts from the top he won 3 tricks and 10 in all. The moral of this story is never give up.  When all else fails a pseudo squeeze might work. In this case it was quite difficult for both defenders.

Have a nice summer. We will be back in September.

Ray

This hand, Board 2 from Wed. 6th June, 2012, was submitted and analysed by Billy Ronan.

The safest of all slams!
But only bid once in Wednesday's competition at the Regent.
South opens 1♥, North responds 1nt, once South hears the super accept in ♥ after the reverse bid of 3 ♦, he/she needs only the ace of ♥ in partner's hand to carry on to 7♥.  Alas, at our table the bidding jumped to 5 ♣[exclusion]; after North's 3♥ super accept bid and thereby put the mockers on
poor North, who signed off in 5♥ rather than giving the positive response of showing no key card!  Or was the bid showing none, so partner could sign off in 6♥?????
T'was a real case of shouldawouldacoulda!!!!

Last Wednesday (30/5/2012) the cards tended to be East West, none more so than board 28 where barring a 4-0 break in ♦, a Grand Slam was available in three denominations, even without either black suit king. Still only 20% of the East West pairs in both rooms bid a Grand. Playing strong NT a 1♦ opening by West could lead to a sequence: 1♦-2♥-2NT(12-14)-3♦-4♣(Cue)-4NT(RKCB)-5♣(0 or 3)-7NT. An immediate 4NT may receive a one key card response, when 3NT would be best contract. Playing a weak NT, a standard transfer sequence of 1NT-2♦-2♥-3♦-4♣(four card ♦ support, good  controls, Ax or Kx in responders major)-4NT(RKCB)-5♣(0 or 3)-7NT gets the job done. The key bid is 4♣ rebid by opener showing four card ♦ support and slam interest. Responder with only game values could still sign off in 4♥. A raise of 3♦ to 4♦ by opener would show strong four

card support for ♦, good controls, no fit for major. Those North-Souths conceding 6NT+1 would have been rather surprised to receive less than 38% of the match points on the board.     

Tomas Roche

The hands on Wednesday were a bit lack lustre.  Consequently I decided to report on board 2 from last Friday’s IBU fund raiser run by Patricia Kelly (18th May 2012).

South opened 1♦ and West pre-empted 3♠.  North doubled negatively and east bid 4♠which came back to North.  What should he do?   He decided that South must be void in ♠ and certainly held at least 3 ♣.  No RKCB was possible so North bashed 6♣.   Good card reading.  There was nothing to the play; declarer had the luxury of leading the J♥ to collect an overtrick.  East was sorry that she had not sacrificed in 6♠ but I am not so sure that that would have a happy ending as south, highly impressed with his controls, might well bid 7♣.

The hand was only once played in 6♣ and some East found it necessary to sacrifice in 7♠ (doubled minus 6) when South took the push.   I was disgusted to see that match point 3 No trumpers had 12 cold tricks.

Ray Fitzgerald.

On Wed 16^th May, the third night of the Presidents Prize, Board 7 provided a comparison of bidding styles. The sequence shown above describes how Kay Murphy (weak no trump, 4 card suits) became the first North/South pair to fail to score +620. The South hand falls into the marginal category – the minor suit holdings were a bit negative but the ♠ suit was a plus factor. I would think that playing 5 card majors it might go 1♥-2♥-3♥-4♥ or maybe 1♥-3♥-4♥. Ray Fitzgerald, who was not playing, was quite impressed by the positive nature of the bidding when he examined all the results – game was bid 13 times out of 17 and was made by 8 of those 13.

The play was also quite interesting – Kay went for ♦ ruffs in dummy, using ♠ entries to hand and leaving dummy’s A♠ temporarily blocking the suit. When later drawing trumps Kay discarded dummy’s  A♠ and was in full control – making four top trumps, four ♠ and two ♦ ruffs, conceding a ♣, ♦ and a ♥ when they failed to break. From what I’ve heard it went much the same at other tables until it came to drawing trumps. Any declarer who didn’t discard dummy’s  A♠ found themselves in dummy at the wrong time and forced to concede either a second trump trick to West or two ♣ tricks to East/West.

Hugh McDermott

Board 15 from Wednesday's game, 9th May, was submitted and analysed by John O'Keeffe.

It is rather disconcerting when on the first round of the night you wind up with thirteen tricks from a game contract.   Could we, or in this case I, not have done better.

I bid 4♠ in the end having considered bidding 4♥ in response to partner's cue bid and thanks to some degree of good fortune made far too many tricks for comfort.

Unfortunately there were no results with which to compare and the play was very easy after the ♣ lead was ruffed, etc.  It seemed that others might bid the slam.

Of course in that event perhaps South might have led a ♦!  Not so easy but 12 tricks still makeable. (five side suit winners and seven trumps).

On checking the results it turned out that nobody in either room ventured further than game and several pairs played in part score contracts.

Not so bad after all.

John O’Keeffe

Our President, Ray, asked Kevin Barry, winner - with Mary Trench - of the Fullerton Cup 2012 to do hand of the week.  Kevin chose Board No. 12 from Wed.'s game, 2/5/2012:

"I am N and am on lead,  regretting my 2♦ Ghestem (over)bid which has provoked partner to double.  If this contact goes down, it’s a top but, if it makes, it’s clearly a bottom. I lead K♠ followed by Q♠, each of which holds the trick. Partner has shown three to the ace and ,therefore, declarer has three small. Assuming declarer has a 6 card ♣ suit, this leaves only 4 cards in the remaining suits. If partner had the A♥, presumably, looking at the ♦ suit in dummy, he’d have overtaken the ♠ Q and cashed his ace. So, the setting trick has to come from trumps. Unfortunately, my Ghestem bid plus partner’s double has alerted declarer to the likelihood of a bad break in trumps.  If partner has four to the queen or jack, declarer can finesse on the second round to bring home all the trumps and make the contract. Therefore, the only defence to give any chance of the contact going down is to continue ♠ forcing declarer to ruff in dummy and preventing declarer from leading trumps twice from dummy. In the event, partner has four to the jack of ♣ and declarer goes down one doubled for an outright top."

Board 7 from Wed. 25/4/2012 was submitted and analysed by Alfie Sexton.

There is an element of risk in bidding 7♥ but it is unlikely that E would raise a bid of 6♥. (Partner's bid of 5♥ promised 2 aces.)  Barring freakish distribution you have eight tricks opposite a partner who jumped the bidding in response to your initial double.

A phenomenal second session in the Fullerton Cup (18/4/2012) saw Mary Trench & Kevin Barry come from 26^th place to overtake the field and win the trophy. They probably won’t thank me for finding a board on which they didn’t do so well.

There was a wide variety of scores on Board 1 - from South bidding and making 3♣ all the way to East/West scoring 590 for 4♠ doubled. At one table North was allowed to play in 1NT (presumably a strong 1NT opening around to West who decided not to overcall). Assuming a spade lead and continuation 1NT will make if East doesn’t hold up his ♣A for two rounds. Either way North/South are on a good score.

The bidding above occurred when I was at the table. East’s 4♠ was a bit aggressive at Pairs where there is likely to be a variety of results – as it happens 2♠+2 would have scored over average. North kicked off with the ♦K and switched to the ♣K. Declarer’s problem is avoiding two ♥ losers. He cashes the ♠A and starts to play it as a cross-ruff in the minor suits before playing a ♥ to the jack and North’s ♥Q. North cashes the ♠K and exits with a ♦ at Trick 10. Declarer has seen 17 points from North so he knows that South has the ♥K. He has no real alternative other than to hope it is on its own and this turns out to be the case.

Some points of interest about a ♠ contract – assuming North does not open 1NT with a singleton or void there is no point in finessing a ♠. Also failing to draw trumps early is unlikely to cost declarer – once the first ruffs are taken in each hand the only card the defence can overruff with is the ♠K.

The winners scored 100 as East/West for defeating 4♦ by one trick – that yielded only 8 match points out of 26. I’m told by one of the pair who conceded 590 that it was a classic example of the law of total tricks working well for East/West.

Hugh MacDermott

Board No. 3 11/4/2012 was analysed by Ray Fitzgerald.

East landed in a difficult 4♠ and South led a ♦.  North cashes a 2^nd ♦.

Are you in an impossible situation?   You are if you rule out a ruff and discard.  I didn’t.

It worked out very well.  Declarer chose to rough with 7♠ and ignoring the fact that Elva did not over ruff now finessed the J♠.  I won and gave another ruff and discard.  Declarer then played a trump to the K and then cashed A and K of ♣ which I ruffed and got out with a fifth ♦.  Declarer now played a ♥ to the A and lost 2 ♥s at the death.   Declarer certainly did not shine when in on the 7♠ he should play a trump to the K and a trump back to the A.  When all follow you can make 5 ♠, 3 ♣ by taking the finesse and the A of ♥ but my very persistent Ruff and Discard attack rattled him and we got a 100% score.

In bridge there is an occasional exception to every rule and this was a magic one when declarer unwisely took the ♠ finesse and later locked himself in dummy when he played a ♠ to the King.

Hand no. 4 in the 2^nd session of the Morgan Trophy on March 28 threw up a very interesting  bidding problem for N/S - how to reach the ice-cold 6♣.  This hand has been analysed by Michael McAuliffe.

Looking at the N/S hands in isolation, here are some thoughts :

(1) Playing weak no-trump then of course N opens 1NT, and from here on it’s a test of what bidding machinery the partnership employs in responding to a NT opening.

In the absence of anything more elaborate, 2♣Stayman could help S in many cases

-          if N were to bid 2♥, S would be very keen to explore slam in ♥ (but even in this instance, what might South’s next bid mean – e.g. is 3♠ a splinter or a cue-bid or something else, is 4NT ace-asking or Blackwood?)

-          If N were to bid 2♠, S could use what many would regard as the ‘standard’ bid 3♣ to show game-going values with 5 or more ♣ and 4 ♥ – the other major, hence the use of Stayman in the first place. But even if N and S are ‘on the same page’ about this bid, how would the auction progress from here?

-          If N bids 2♦, as in the actual hand, denying a major, then the odds on a club fit and slam increase, but how do you probe for it without giving up on 3NT?

Those who play 4-suit transfers have an advantage – S can transfer to ♣, usually by bidding 2♠(finding out in the process if partner likes the suit) then follow up with 3♥ to show game values with 4 ♥ as well as the ♣. Even so, at pairs it could easily be wrong for N to move on over S’s 3NT, however tempting – two aces could easily be missing.

(2) Playing 14-16 or strong NT, N opens 1♣.

Playing 5-card majors, S will respond 1♥ – even if inverted minor raises are part of the system, as these normally deny a 4-card major – and now after N’s 1NT rebid it’s again a test of bidding methods. Some form of checkback or New Minor Forcing is needed, which has to able to show the good ♣suit in S’s hand if the slam is to be reached.

Those playing 4-card majors in this situation are possibly best placed of all – S knows that N has at least 4 ♣ and shouldn’t have a good 4-card ♥ suit, so could make a strong-jump-shift response of 2♥ intending to follow up with support of ♣ on the next round.  But of course, these days many people play weak jump-shift responses ! – in that case, S has to be content with 1♥. And now it can be very hard to ‘catch up’ and show the power of the hand after N’s 1NT rebid.

And of course  all this assumes no action by the opponents -  but as you can see, on the actual deal if 1♣ is opened E is likely to bid 1♠ or 2♠ (weak), and even if 1NT is opened some Easts might try a frisky 2♠. Now there’s a whole other set of questions for N/S to answer!

Board 23 from the first round of the Morgan Trophy (21/3/12) was presented by Elva Gannon.

This hand created a bidding problem for many E/Ws and resulted in them playing in 4, 5 or even 6 ♥, none of which are makeable on a typical ♠ lead, ♠ ruff and ♣ switch, whereas 6NT is cold.  One of our expert players suggested the following bidding sequence to reach the par contract:

S 2♠  W 3♥  N Pass  E 3♠

S P    W 4♣  N P       E 4♦

S P    W 4♥  N P       E 4NT

S P    W 5♥  N P       E 6NT

Board 25 from Wed. 14th Mar. 2012 analysed by Mary Trench:

This is a bidding problem, the question being how to reach a contract of 6♣?  East opens 1♦, I suggest a bid of 1♠ rather than Double by South, Pass by W, N bids 2♣, Pass by E, 4♣ by S, Pass by W, N bids 4♥, Pass by E, S bids 5♦, Pass by W, N bids 5♠, Pass by E, S bids 6♣, Pass, Pass, Pass.

NOTE:  Slam is makeable in 3 suits but 6♣ is the best contract.

On the President’s Charity Night (7th March) Board 15 proved to be a test of East/West’s competitive bidding. After a 3♠ opening by South and a 4♠ raise from North what would you bid on East’s cards? Judging by the results from the 2 competitions at least three Easts doubled – 4♠ doubled and made twice and 5♦-1 by West once. It looks as if every East found a bid as 5♥ was bid and made frequently but North/South found the good sacrifice of 5♠x-1 on two occasions.

I was quite lucky when I held the East hand. North, instead of supporting the 3♠ opening, immediately bid 3NT. That bid made it a bit easier to introduce my longest suit at the 4 level, and over my 4♥ bid North competed with 4♠. I continued with 5♣ and partner showed preference to 5♥.

The play of the trump suit is interesting. I chose to start with a low one towards dummy’s queen. The ace immediately followed by a small one towards dummy is an alternative that reduces the chances of an opposing ruff. As the cards lie here both methods of play work – limiting trump losers to just one.

Hugh MacDermott

Board No. 15, Wed. 29th Feb. 2012, analysed by Alfie Sexton.

This is an interesting hand from two standpoints: bidding and defence

If South opens 2NT showing both minors N/S can get to 4/5♦ and keep E/W out of game.

If South does not open life for E/W is easier.  Spades was the only suit mentioned at one table and 11 tricks made:

S              W            N                            E

                       Pass          1♠          2♠(Michaels)             3♠                           

                       Pass          4♠           Pass                       Pass

But the contract can be defeated:  ♥ lead and ruff; ♦ return and another ♥ ruff; declarer will lose one further ♥.  In all probability E/W will always make a game-who can make a case for leading a ♥?              

I had the pleasure of playing with our President, Ray Fitzgerald in our Butler teams competition recently. Ray is not only proving to be a wonderful President this year despite some ill health but is also a lovely fellow to play bridge with and also a very fine bridge player.
 
The hand that got most discussion after the bridge was Board 27 of the 2nd Session (22nd Feb. 2012). At our Table, I opened 4♥ as South , West and North passed and East Doubled. West now bid 5♦ which was passed back to me. I thought for a while and reluctantly passed. Declarer made 12 tricks  for -420 and we wondered whether we would gain or lose imps on the board
 
At our teammates table, South also opened 4♥. West (Alex Montwill) courageously bid 5♦ raised to 6♦ by East (Fred Barry). South now found the winning bid (as the slam is making) of bidding 6♥. This was doubled and went 3 down for + 500 to our teammates and a gain of 2 imps for our team.
 
Bidding is very difficult on wild distributional hands. However I have found over the years playing bridge  (many years in my case!) that, when in doubt, it generally pays to bid one more on wildly distributional hands such as this and to do it quickly and confidently. You may be right and even if you are wrong, the opponents may make the wrong decision and also bid one more because of the confident manner in which you have bid!

Micheal O'Briain

Board 19, Friday 17th Feb. 2012 submitted and analysed by our President, Ray.

The Battle of the Sexes was a great success with the men winning. I was fortunate to have the Welsh wizard as my partner. I thought that board 19 was the most interesting of some superb boards. My rebid of 2♥ was a very pushy reverse that swiftly propelled us into 7NT. When the last bid hit the table I feared that the absence of the queen might be badly missed. Not at all. Recognising that he needed the spades to behave Peter won with the king ♥, played 5 rounds of spades, the king ♣ then a ♥ to the queen. That left everybody with the following 5 cards: W ♥ A2,♦ 3, ♣ AJ; N ♦ J98, ♣ 108; E.♦ AK1064; and S ♥109 ♦ Q5 ♣ Q.  To execute a double squeeze Peter now played the A♥ and North was forced to give up her second club to keep control of diamonds. When he now played the A♣, his second squeeze card, South could not protect both the clubs and the diamonds. It was a pity that the queen of clubs was only a doubleton as there was no bonus for his beautiful card play.  If South had started with 3 clubs then she would have had to discard a diamond and Peter’s diamond 10 would be the thirteenth trick. Note that had South been dealt a third club then South could have eliminated the potential squeeze by leading a diamond thereby removing the entry to the diamonds.

Ray Fitzgerald

In the Simultaneous Pairs on Wednesday Board 4 provided certain interest. Those Souths whose system didn’t allow them to open 1NT usually chose 1♥.  A number of  Wests found a take out double and North sometimes bid 2♥, sometimes 3♥.  When 3♥ by South was the final contract most Wests led the ♣K – declarer had a reasonably easy route to 9 tricks.  Alan Johnson had to work a lot harder when he was declarer – West led a trump. East won the first trick with the queen and switched the ♠9.  This was ducked to West who reverted to trumps, East winning and continuing with spades.  Declarer won that trick, drew the last trump, played ♦A,  ♦K and ruffed a ♦ in hand. Knowing that all the remaining high cards would (should!) be with West Alan led a small ♣ towards dummy’s holding.  West could win the trick but would have to choose which black suit to exit. Whichever he chose would give declarer an extra trick in that suit and bring the total to nine. Nicely played.

Hugh MacDermott

Board 4, Wed. 1st Feb. 2012, analysed by Jim McAndrew.  The questions to ask are:

• Should the Grand Slam have been bid?
• Is it West or East who should have made the final decision?

I am going to focus on the bidding where East bid 4NT (RKCB) and look at the subsequent bids that were made.  I will look at them from the East and West seats respectively.

East Seat: 

When E bid 4NT W showed 1 ace. Looking at his hand E knew W had ♥A.  Next E bid 5NT looking for kings, W showing 1 king.  (Some players may have been playing a system where W's reply showed specifically ♥K)  East now analysed the extra information.  He knew they held the 5 keycards, ♣A, ♦AK, ♥A and ♠A.  He also knew W held 1 King.       

If W had the ♠K a Grand Slam should be bid.

If W had the ♥K E knows that W had ♥AKxxx which were likely to give him discards for his losers, again the odds favour bidding 7♦.

If W had the ♣K, the worse scenario, E knew that he had a ♠ finesse (50% chance), an extra 4/5/6/7 pts in the W hand and a five card ♥ suit headed by the A that may give some discards.  He also knew that because of W's bid of 3♦ (showing 4) and his own length in ♦ (7) he would have no problems with communications between the two hands.  All of these combined changes increased the odds on making a Grand Slam in ♦.

West Seat:

W's initial thoughts:  I have shown my partner a minimum hand and already he/she is interested in a Slam.  I have a solid ♥ suit and a singleton that I have not shown.  I have a hand that is worth circa 15 pts with ♦ as trumps.  Next. E bid 5NT (Grand Slam interest) - looking for Kings.  How should W have analysed the extra information?

• E's bid of 5NT should have guaranteed the other keycards
• No loser in ♣, partner has the ♣A
• No loser in ♦, partner has shown the ♦AK
• No loser in ♥, partner has at most 2 ♥
• In ♠ partner has the ♠ A.  W has a ♥ suit on which to discard ♠ losers.

Either E/W had enough information to bid 7♦.  On balance, in my opinion, W had the superior knowledge, he/she should have taken control of the auction after E bid 5NT and bid 7♦.

Of course, those brave E/W souls who bid 6/7NT made the contract - S is squeezed.

Board 12, Wed. 25th Jan. 2012 was analysed by Dermot O'Brien.  

South opened 1♠ after three passes. With the opponents silent North bid 2♦ South jumped to 3♥ and partner appeared to do well in opting for the ♠ game over 3NT, which has no chance after the seemingly obvious lead of a ♣.

However, the lead of the ♦3, clearly a singleton, puts the ♠ game in jeopardy as well. Predictably, Declarer’s casual dropping of the ♦K under the ♦A did not deter the experienced East, who returned a low ♦ to give partner a ruff, ominously suggesting a ♣ return. This duly arrived in the form of the ♣J. After retiring briefly to his office, Declarer concluded that there was no reasonable prospect any better than hoping, against indications, that West had underled the ♣K so he played low and breathed a sigh of relief when the ♣Q won.  Ruffing another ♦ high after East was in with the trump ace brought home ten tricks and a glow of satisfaction.  But not a good score, because the three Norths who bid the NT game each scored eleven tricks.

On further analysis, it became clear that the defence had slipped up. A ♣ switch at trick two establishes the setting trick for them. Time enough for the ♦ ruff when East is in with the ace of trumps.

So the unfortunate pair who stopped in 3♠ (the optimum theoretical spot) were poorly rewarded for their caution as six pairs brought home a game, even though both 3NT and 4♠ should be -100 against best defence.

Dermot O’Brien.

Board 9, 18th Jan. 2012, submitted and analysed by Ranald Milne.

Playing against strong opposition and 3rd in hand, non-vulnerable against vulnerable, South opened 1♠ and the bidding continued as above.   Playing 2nd and 4th leads (i.e. 4th highest and MUD) partner leads 6♠, you play the 10 and declarer wins with the king, crosses to dummy's ace of ♦ (partner playing the 3) and leads another ♦.  What's your plan?

Clearly declarer doesn't hold the Ace and King of ♣, or the hand would by over by now so your defence should depend upon what partner's ♠ holding is.  If partner led from ♠A96 or ♠Q96 you need to lead back a ♠.  If partner led from ♠962 you need to be looking at the ♥ suit for a source of tricks.

Let's say you decide to defer the decision by leading out a top ♥.  As the cards lie, partner will play the six, irrespective of whether you're playing attitude or count.  Are you any wiser?  If you are not 100% sure of the correct defence then maybe you should consider playing Smith Peters.  They are designed for exactly this type of situation.  Playing Smith Peters, both defenders signal their liking for the lead on the first round of declarer's first played suit.  A low card shows no further interest in the suit led and a high card shows continuing interest.  On this hand, North, when holding a ♠ honour would play a high ♦ on the first round but when holding ♠962 would play their lowest ♦.  It's much easier now to cash 4 ♥ tricks.

Board 10 from Wed. 11th January, 2012.  Hand analysis was submitted by Peter Goodman.

Ranald Milne was East & Peter was West

(i)  2N = upgraded to 23-24 count.
(ii) 3♦ = Transfer to ♥ (iii) 4♥ = 4 card support and max with first or second round control in each suit  (else can usually bid 4♣/♦ as a source of tricks slam try)
(iv) Ranald would have raised 1♥ to 4♥ so surely he has enough to bid 6♥ now, hope we are not missing 2 aces!.
(v)  If Ranald had only bid 5♦ it is not clear I would have bid 6♥ as I've already done a lot of bidding with a sub-minimum point range.

After the ♦K lead Ranald trumped it,  drew trumps and played for the extra chance that someone held ♠J10x or ♦KQ doubleton , with no extra clues to the North South shape he simply played North for the ♣Q and chalked up +1430 when it was on-side.

Hand of the week 4 January 2012.

Happy new year to you all. Bridge started off with a bang on Wednesday. Probably the best hand was board 15. This was tailor-made for Bettina and Roisin’s system. Bettina started the auction with 2NT. Roisin bid 5 ♣ and Bettina bid six. At the end of the auction I enquired about the bidding. I was told that South held a good hand with at least 5, 5 in the minors. Roisin’s bid of 5 ♣ presumably assumed that Bettina was not quite as good as the actual dummy. Bettina recognised that she was a bit better than she had promised and was happy to bid six ♣. There was nothing to the play when the queen ♦ came down in two rounds. Indeed you can make an overtrick by using your trump entries to ruff two ♥ felling the king and allowing a ♠ discard in the South hand. For the very aggressive pairs you can also make 6NT but it is not a good contract and easy to go wrong in the play. 1370 was a well deserved 77% score for NS.

This convention is one well worth thinking about with your favourite partner even though a natural auction as follows should also get you there:

                                                                                S                              N

                                                                                1D                           1H

                                                                                3C                           4C

                                                                                4H                           4NT

                                                                5D                           6C

4C is very good allowing South to cue bid in ♥. 4NT is key card. 5♦ is 0 or 3 (it has to be 3 to account for the previous auction) so North is happy to bid the small slam. 6♣ is enough on this one even though 7 is on.

Enjoy 2012 at the Regent.

Ray Fitzgerald                   

This hand's analysis was submitted by Pauline Maguire.

I thought hand 16 (Wed231111) posed a very interesting problem for the strong no trumpers many of whom play two over one forcing to game. Your partner opens 1♠ RHO passes. What should East bid with this hand?  Your choices are 1NT, 2♥ or 3♥. Where East selected 1NT game was frequently missed because most Wests did not expect such a good hand when he rebid 2♦and partner rebids 2♥on the second round. What about a direct 3♥ on the first round? Many play this as weak with a long suit. Some would say the suit is too bad and outside cards too good. Game might still be missed. Even playing Strong NT and two over one I would bid 2♥ after 1♠ from pard as I would not deny a 7 card suit and over 3♦from P would bid 4♥. All this seems well worthy of discussion with your favourite partner. The proof of the pudding is that careful declarers will make 11 tricks when the 9 and 10 of hearts appear from the South hand. Last Wednesday if you bid the heart game it would have brought a ten imp swing against many of the opposing teams and if you played against a team that got to 4H then at least you will have avoided losing 10 imps. Different strokes for different folks.

Pauline Maguire