My partner and I enjoyed (not the right word) one of our worst sessions during this duplicate.  We were occasionally a bit unlucky, but just as often we were a bit lucky.  Mostly we played poorly.  Mostly I played poorly.  For the commentary I will look at two of our disasters.  I was in the North seat.

On Board 20 we underbid.  I think I and my partner could have bid a little more aggressively, but I am prepared to take most of the blame.

The first bidding sequence is the one that took place at my table, where as North I opened 1H.  East afterwards apologised for his overcall, which I agree was not sound (especially as E/W were vulnerable), but as it helped to keep N/S out of game, clearly it was an effective bid.  Should N/S have been able to cope with this intervention?  I think so.  Firstly South might have Doubled instead of bidding 2H.  We play a Weak NT and four-card majors, so it was possible that North has opened with a strong NT hand and with four cards in both majors.  In this case the only makeable game contract might have been 4S, in which case South had to show her Spade suit.  With four cards in both unbid suits and 9 Hcp I think Double is the best bid with the South cards.  When partner in fact bid 2H I thought that she would have a weaker hand than she actually held, so I Passed.  But in retrospect I think I should have bid 3H.  My hand had a fifth Heart, 16 Hcp and only six losers, so I was not minimum.  In the event 4H would have been a good contract although 3NT was better.

As shown in the second bidding sequence, it would have been easy to reach game without East’s overcall.  My Player of the Week is George Blair, who made that frisky vulnerable overcall.

On the next hand, Board 21 we overbid, reaching 6H, which after the opening lead looked like a good contract.  But in the event we lost the first two tricks and were one off whilst all the other N/S pairs were making a plus score in 4H or 5H.  At the time I thought we had bid well, but with the benefit of hindsight I can see the truth!

After my 1H opening bid and East’s 3C overcall, South’s 4C was an Unassuming Cue Bid, showing Heart support and 10+ Hcp.  I bid 4D, a cue bid showing a first- or second-round Diamond control.  South had a strong hand on the bidding so far but could not bid 4NT as she had two losing Clubs.  Her 4S bid showed a first-round control in Spades – it had to be a first-round control as 4S is above the level of game (4H).  Now with first- or second-round controls in all four suits I bid Blackwood.  Partner’s response showed 1 or 3 key cards.  I bid 5H in case partner held only one key card.  Partner then corrected to 6H as she held three key cards.  Our bidding was excellent – except that maybe I was not quite strong enough to bid 4D: with a seven-loser hand and only 14 Hcp I feel with the benefit of hindsight that I should have signed off in 4H.

East led the AC.  As long as West held two Clubs all was now well as a Diamond loser in dummy could be discarded on the KC.  But of course West held a singleton Club and the second trick was ruffed.  I felt at the time that we had been unlucky, but as is so often the case in bridge poor luck is really poor judgement.  On this hand, if East had not led the AC then the contract could not have been made in any case.  On any other lead it would have been impossible for declarer to establish two Club tricks and there would always have been a Diamond loser to add to the unavoidable Club loser.

The lesson from these two hands is that you should take each hand on its own merits – having underbid on Board 20 I shouldn’t have tried to compensate by overbidding on Board 21!

On Board 1 N/S could make a small slam but only one pair managed to bid it.  Was it biddable?

I think the key to understanding the auction is to realise that you have to re-evaluate your hand in the light of the other players’ calls.  In the suggested bidding sequence, when South considers her second call, she knows that although she has a weak hand without support for partner’s first suit, her hand has two very valuable features, the AS and five-card support for partner’s second suit.  Moreover with five Clubs and a singleton Diamond, in a Club contract it is likely that Diamond ruffs in the South hand will help to establish partner’s first bid suit.  With good Spades South might bid 3NT (which makes if played from the South seat), but if South raises Clubs then it is possible that the slam will be reached.  North knows from South’s 1S bid that partner has a Spade stop.  North should also consider that this might be one of those hands where, with a minor suit fit, if you play in game you will get a worse score than those pairs playing in 3NT.  She can check that South’s Spade stop is the AS by using Blackwood and then bid 6C.  If South turns out to have the AH rather than the AS then there should still only be one loser.

By the way, if you play RKCB then the 1430 version is marginally superior to the 3014 version.  The only negative feature of 1430 is that if your agreed suit is Clubs you can get too high if partner responds 5D, showing zero key cards.  A solution is to play 1430 but to use 3014 if the agreed suit is Clubs.  On this hand therefore, South’s 5D response shows one key card.  With no key cards South would bid 5C which would be the final contract.

My Players of the Week are the one E/W who played in 6C, Sean Moruzzi and Cynthia Allen.

On Board 2 no one bid 7H but the eight pairs who bid 6H all made all thirteen tricks.  Using cue bids and RKCB the grand slam might have been reached.

East has a 22 Hcp four-loser hand and a Heart suit.  She opens 2C.  If E/W play the 2D response as a relay, then on the second round East shows her longest suit.  West raises to 3H to show Heart support.  Notice that 3H is a stronger bid than a raise to 4H, which West would make on a weak hand with Heart support.  The 2C bid is a game force, so there is no need to jump to game.  The 3H bid gives space for E/W to use cue bids.  East bids 3S, the lowest bid that shows one of her controls outside of the trump suit.  Now West bids 4D.  This denies a Club control and shows a Diamond control.  Because the bidding is still below the game-level, the cue bid might show first- or second-round control.  As East has the AD, she knows that the 4D bid must show either the KD or a shortage in Diamonds.  Now East uses Roman Key Card Blackwood.  Using the 1430 version, the 5C response shows one or four key cards.  Looking at the East hand this must show one key card, the AH.  Now East bids the next suit up, 5D, which asks if West has the QH.  Without the QH West would bid 5H, but with the QH she bids 6D, which shows the QH and the KD.  If West held the QH but no king, she would bid 6H.  Now East knows that 7H will almost certainly make.  There is an outside possibility that there will be a Spade loser, but that would require West to have at least four Spades and for one of the opponents to have the guarded JS.  Certainly 7H should be the final contract.  At duplicate you usually score well by bidding and making a small slam, but when it is likely to be bid at nearly every table, you should consider whether the grand slam will make.  Alternatively you can sometimes score well by playing in 6NT whilst most other pairs play in a suit.  On this hand one E/W pair scored 100% by making 6NT+1, but there should be only twelve tricks playing in NT and the second pair who bid 6NT only scored 10% by making 6NT=.  The pairs who made 6H+1 scored 55%.

On Board 9 East had a hand suitable for a NT contract but West didn’t.  The bidding was likely to end in 3NT or a Heart or Club contract.  As it happened 3NT could always be defeated, but it made with an overtrick at two out of four tables where it was the final contract.  4H was likely to be a better contract, making more tricks and scoring more points.  5C was an easy make but would score fewer points than 3NT+1 or 4H+1.  In such a situation if the bidding steers you towards a Club contract, you should probably bid 6C in order to outscore the pairs playing in NT or Hearts.

I have shown a bidding sequence that passes through all the possible contracts, 3NT, 4H, 5C and 6C.  I think it would be possible for the partnership to end the auction in any of these contracts (except one), but in each case it seems reasonable for West or East to carry on bidding until 6C has been reached!  When East bids 3NT, West might think that her hand is more suited to a suit contract than to NT.  In that case she should bid 4H, showing her fifth Heart and by inference her sixth Club.  East would be happy to play in 4H in a 5-3 fit, so her 5C bid, showing preference, must be a slam try.  With two aces and a four-loser hand opposite a 15+ Hcp NT opening bid, West should be happy to accept the invitation and bid 6C.  The one contract that E/W should not play in is 5C, as it is likely to score fewer points than any of the alternatives.

If the bidding is as shown (up to 3NT) and South has to lead against 3NT, then it is fairly obvious to lead the unbid suit.  This will result in 3NT being defeated by one trick.  In previous commentaries I have argued that leading low from a long broken suit against 3NT is a mistake, but there are exceptions to prove any rule.  Here East has shown a fairly strong NT hand, so any lead might easily give away a trick.  It is quite possible that East has bid 3NT with only one stopper in Diamonds.  The Diamond lead must be a reasonable gamble.  If East has not bid Spades, which would be probable if E/W are playing five-card majors, then a Spade lead would be possible.

6H would of course make if the Hearts break 3-2, but as it happens they don’t.  East’s excellent Clubs suggest that 6C is the better contract.  Even if another pair bid and make 6H, 6C will score well.

The E/W pairs who played in 5C and made the obvious 12 tricks scored 55%, whereas the pair who played in 4H and made an overtrick scored 90%.  The pairs in 3NT scored on average 45%.  The one E/W who played in 6C scored 100%.  My Players of the Week are that pair, Chris Norden and David Markwick.

Board 19 provided another example of an exception that proves a rule.  The rule in this case was “second hand plays low”.

I think the final contract should be 2H, but at the club the final contact was 4H at seven out of eleven tables.  4H made twice.  There should be four losers, one Spade, one Diamond and two Clubs.  So how did two declarers make ten tricks?  Presumably at some point East led a low Diamond towards dummy and South played low, in the hope that dummy’s QD would be beaten by North’s AD.  But North didn’t have the AD!  Clearly this was not the occasion to play “second hand low”.  How can South tell?  Well, think about the two possibilities.  If North has the AD then it will still beat dummy’s QD on the second round of Diamonds.  But if East has the AD then clearly playing “second hand low” will cost a trick.

Board 13 on which the final contract probably depended on whether the opening bid was made by a player using a Strong or a Weak NT system.

At my table, where I was sitting North, East opened 1NT, announced as ‘15-17’.  When the bidding came round to me, I thought that 1NT might well make, as it looked as if E/W held the majority of the Hcp, so I bid 2S which became the final contract.  A low Heart was led and if I had played low from dummy all would have been well.  As long as South was not on lead, any lead was to my benefit.  Had I played a low heart I would have won in hand with the 8H and could then have played two rounds of trumps, finessing the QS, entered the North hand with a third round of trumps and led the TH.  But I mistakenly won the first trick with the QH in dummy, and found that dummy was end-played at trick 2!  I led a Diamond, giving up the Diamond trick that I would have been guaranteed had the defence opened the suit.  It would have been better to have led out the AS followed by the QS, but that would have still given away an unnecessary trump trick.  But I think I would still have made nine tricks, losing one Spade, two Diamonds and a Club.  By the end of the play I had managed to go one off and the app helpfully let me know that I could have made an overtrick.  It goes to show that you should always think carefully before playing from dummy to the first trick.

Of course if E/W had been playing a Weak NT then the bidding would have been different.  Maybe, as suggested by the second bidding sequence, the final contract would have been the same, but played from the other side of the table.  In that case again N/S should make nine tricks.

But maybe with 16 Hcp East might put up a bit more of a fight in the bidding?  When East realises that N/S are content to play at the two-level she might Double, which if South doesn’t bid an immediate 3S would allow E/W to find their Club fit.  The par contract is 3S by N/S as 4CX-1 would give N/S a score of +200 because of the vulnerability.  If E/W venture a bid of 4C over 3S they will often be allowed to play there undoubled.  Even so, at the club a score of -100 for E/W gave a result of only 35% (whereas -140 gave only 15%).

When I played Board 15, still sitting North, during the auction I felt that the best contract for N/S was 3NT.  But we stopped in 3C.  The app says that 3NT can be defeated but at two out of the five tables where N/S played in NT at least nine tricks were made.

The first bidding sequence shown occurred at my table, and led to a perfectly reasonable contract that made exactly, which is what the app says should have happened, and which gave N/S a slightly disappointing score of 50%.  I was tempted to bid 3NT, but with an unbalanced hand my rule is not to bid NT in the first two rounds of bidding, so I didn’t.

At both of the two tables where 3NT was made, South was declarer.  Maybe the bidding sequence was the same at those tables as at mine, except that South bid 3NT after North’s 3C?  But perhaps not, as at both those tables West led the 4S.  The point about the lead of the 4S is that it tells South that the QS lies with West makes it easy for declarer to make four Spade tricks.  South needs to make some Diamond tricks and, winning the first Spade in hand will then play a Diamond and finesse the JD.  If East takes the QD then the hand is over.  South has a Spade entry to her hand and will at least make four Spades, four Diamonds and the AH.  East has to duck the JD.  Now South can use her Spade entry to get back to hand to clear the Diamond suit, but she will not have another entry to enjoy the established Diamonds.  Seeing the doubleton Diamond in dummy, it should be possible for East to play low on the first two rounds of Diamonds, as the QD will always be a trick, regardless of the position of the KD.  A surer way for South to play the Diamonds is to play the AD then the JD, overtaking with the KD.  South follows with the TD and East can take the QD on the third or the fourth round of Diamonds, but South still has her Spade entry to enjoy the long Diamond(s).  This line works as long as the Diamonds break 3-3 or 4-2.

The conclusion to this analysis is that, as so often, it is a bad idea to lead the fourth highest of your longest suit against 3NT.  Having said that, on this hand, West has a difficult choice of opening leads.  A Heart would work well and, if West wants to lead her fourth highest then, perhaps strangely, the 5C would also work well.  Can West be expected to find the Heart lead?  I think so.  One of the things you should try to do when leading to 3NT is to try to find partner’s suit, rather than to try to establish your own suit.  Here you have a bit of help for partner in the event that she has a Heart suit, but you can offer little help if partner happens to hold some decent Diamonds.  Also, the opponents have bid to 3NT without mentioning the Heart suit, so it seems possible that neither North not South has four Hearts.  I presume that at the two tables where West led the 4S against 3NT, South did not bid Spades.  Presumably at those tables the third bidding sequence shown occurred.  In that case I would prefer the 2H to the 4S as an opening lead.  Maybe E/W hold an eight-card fit in both majors.  In that case East will hold four Spades and five Hearts and there will be the chance of establishing an extra trick by leading a Heart.

On Board 11 the likely contract was 4H played by West.  At eight out of eleven tables West played in Hearts and six times made at least ten tricks.  But it was possible for declarer to go wrong.

At ten out of the eleven tables where West played in Hearts the lead was the obvious KC.  At the eleventh table, where 4H was defeated, the lead was not recorded.  (Notice that when the KC wins the first trick, North should realise that South holds the AC and should play a low card to the next Club trick, either at trick two or later.  Otherwise there is a danger that declarer’s TC will be established.)

Looking at dummy, it seems natural for North to lead a trump to trick two.  How should declarer play to make ten tricks?  West can win the second trick in hand, play three rounds of Diamonds, ruffing the third round with the TH, 9H or 8H, and then lead a Spade.  What can the defence do?  If North wins the AS then the KH prevents N/S cashing Club tricks and also serves as an entry to dummy.  Let us suppose that North leads a low Club after winning the AS.  This is ruffed in dummy, two Club discards are taken on the Spades and then a Diamond or a Spade is led.  Again declarer ruffs with the TH, 9H or 8H.  At this point declarer has only trumps remaining.  The JH will fall and declarer will finish with eleven tricks.

It might be better if North ducks the Spade lead.  But Declarer can now play three rounds of Diamonds, ruffing the third round with the TH, 9H or 8H, and then lead a Club, ruffing in dummy.  Declarer is left with two Club losers, but will still make ten tricks.

From the defence’s point of view, the trump lead at trick two doesn’t work out too well as it effectively takes South’s JH out of the picture.  Suppose instead that North leads a low Club to trick two.  Declarer has to ruff in dummy and as before can come to hand by leading three rounds of Diamonds.  Now West leads a Spade, ducked by North.  Now a Spade ruff followed by a Club ruff in dummy allows declarer to allows declarer to finish with ten tricks, losing two Clubs and the JH.  If North takes the AS then again declarer will succeed, eventually losing one Club, one Spade and the JH.

What would happen on an initial trump lead?  Declarer could win in hand and lead a Spade.  North would win and lead a second trump.  Declarer could now take two Club discards on the Spade and play three rounds of Diamonds, ruffing with the TH, 9H or 8H.  Now trumps could be drawn and the hand would be over.  Declarer would have two losing Clubs but would make ten tricks for the loss of one Spade and two Clubs.

I have found this analysis difficult, and if anyone can see any flaws in it, then please let me know.

I have previously mentioned Andrew Robson’s aphorism that the best time to sacrifice is never.  Board 8 was perhaps the exception that disproves the rule.  Another thought that I frequently have, is that players don’t make enough penalty doubles.  Maybe this was the time for North to try one?

The first bidding sequence shown occurred at my table, where I was sitting North.  After West’s 1S opening bid, North might Double, risking playing in a 4-3 trump fit, but with a defensive-looking hand I chose to Pass.  East bid 2D and South then Doubled, despite only having 3 Hcp!  Was this sound?  South held the two unbid suits and a seven-loser hand.  Also N/S were non-vulnerable.  So I think it was a good call.  West supported Diamonds and as North I Doubled, showing some strength and asking South to choose between Hearts and Clubs.  East bid 3S, showing a three-card suit.  Knowing of an eight-card Spade fit and a nine-card Diamond fit, West was happy to raise to game.

Sitting North I had a choice of four calls, 5C, 5H, Double or Pass.  I was pretty certain that we would not make a five-level contract, but was this the time to sacrifice?  If I thought that partner had any high card strength then I should have Doubled, expecting to make a Club and a couple of Hearts in my own hand plus a trick in partner’s hand.  I had heard that the opponents had a double fit, which warned me against risking a Double.  I think (in retrospect, which in bridge does make the game easy!) that I should have bid to the five-level.  But I Passed, no doubt hoping that 4S would fail.

If I had bid 5C or 5H, then 5C would have been the better choice.  With a fairly even choice between two trump suits it is usually better to choose the weaker suit.  The three high cards in Hearts would probably make in a Club contract, so it wouldn’t be essential to make Hearts trumps.

In the event 4S was cold and 5C would have been one off, losing one Spade, one Diamond and one Club.  This would have given us a score of -100, which would have resulted in 100%.  Our score of -420 still earned us an acceptable 55%, largely because so many N/S pairs Doubled West’s Spade contract.  This Double would have been reasonable if E/W had not advertised their Diamond fit in the bidding, which no doubt was the case at some tables.  If E/W play five-card majors, for example, then the bidding sequence might be the second one shown in the diagram.

I wonder how many N/S pairs got into the auction?  Maybe some Norths Doubled the 1S opening bid?  But my Player of the Week is my partner, Annette McAvoy, for her take-out Double on 3 Hcp.  (Mind you, she might have done even better by bidding 5C later in the auction.)

On Board 20 E/W had a combined 26 Hcp but with best defence there was no game contract that could be made.

I find it hard to predict the bidding on this hand.  West is likely to open 1NT or 1D.  East will mention her Spade suit, either by bidding Stayman in response to partner’s 1NT or by responding 1S to partner’s 1D opening bid.  South is likely to bid her Hearts.  The final contract might be 3NT or some number of Diamonds by E/W.  The most popular contract was 3NT, played at five out of eleven tables, with West the declarer at four of these tables.

How does 3NT played by West fare?  The first thing to say is that it is a good contract, but it should fail because of the unlucky distribution of the Diamond suit.  If North leads a Club then the contract will fail, with North able to make three Clubs and two Diamonds.  If however South has bid her Hearts and North obediently leads partner’s suit, then it is likely that West will make 3NT.  To defeat 3NT on a Heart lead South must play low to the first trick.  What will South do if she takes the first Heart trick?  She can lead two more rounds of Hearts and clear the suit, but without an entry South will be unable to make any more tricks.  If South leads a low Heart to the second trick then, when North gains the lead in Diamonds, she will have no further Heart to lead.  But if South ducks the first Heart then North will be able to lead a second Heart when she gets in and then South will be able to run the suit.  If North leads a Heart to the first trick and then leads a Club when she wins her first Diamond trick, it will be too late the establish the Club suit.

At one table East made 4S.  N/S should defeat 4S by taking two Diamonds and two Hearts.  The lead was not recorded, but maybe South led the AH?  It is not a good idea to lead an unsupported ace against a game contract.

It is difficult to find the best bid when opening the bidding with 4441 distribution.  East’s hand on Board 26 was tricky.