Playing N/S this week our opponents often arrived muttering about how poor their cards had been at previous tables.  But on three boards, either East or West opened 2C against us, announced as “our strongest bid”.  2C is supposed to be a game force (except if the opener’s rebid is 2NT).  But looking at the forty-two times that these three hands were played, game contracts were made only 16 times, i.e. 38% of the time.  Looking at the three hands that were opened 2C, I think one did not deserve to be opened with a game force, one was marginal and the third was justified.

A 2C opening bid was once supposed to show a hand with 23+ Hcp, but if you play Weak Twos you have to cast the net wider.  As a guide, it is correct to open hands with 16+ Hcp with 2C if you have a four-loser hand with a strong major suit or a three-loser hand with a strong minor suit.  Bear in mind that the reason for opening 2C is that you think you will be able to make a game contract even if partner would Pass a one-level opening bid.

The three hands in question were the East’s hands on Boards 9 and 20 and West’s hand on Board 11.

On Board 9 East held ♠ AK43 ♥ KQ ♦ AQJ862 ♣ J.  This hand has 20 Hcp, a strong minor suit and four losers.  I would open it with 1D.  At the club, the best E/W results were achieved by one pair who bid 5D and one other who bid 3NT.  5D was cold and very difficult to reach without a 2C opening bid.  3NT can only make if the defence fails to take their tricks.

On Board 11 West held ♠ K4 ♥ AK963 ♦ AQJ765 ♣ -.  This hand has 18 Hcp, strong Hearts and Diamonds and again four losers.  I think this is a marginal 2C opening bid.  The longest suits is Diamonds, but the Heart suit is decent, so …  At the club, four Wests played in 1D and scored poorly as a result, so this suggests that the hand should be opened with 2C.  Two E/W pairs scored well playing in a Spade part-score.

On Board 20 East held ♠ A5 ♥ A ♦ AKT95 ♣ AQJT6.  This hand has 22 Hcp, strong Diamonds and Clubs and three losers.  I would certainly open 2C with this hand:

It is worth noting that E/W might well reach a 5C contract even if East were to open at the one-level.  In either case, I would venture a Spade bid with the North cards.  If East has opened with 1D, then the Spade overcall could lead to a Spade contract and, whatever the opening bid, it will be useful as a lead-directing bid.  If East has opened 2C, then you might fear being Doubled in 2C, but the app suggests that E/W can make only seven tricks in Spades, which would give N/S a score of -500, the same as if E/W make 5C=.  Also, if an opponent has opened 2C, it will be very unlikely that they won’t bid again over your overcall.

In the first suggested bidding sequence, West’s 5C bid shows preference for Clubs rather than actual Club support.  The 2C opening bid is a game force and East’s 4C bid takes E/W beyond 3NT, so West has to choose between 5C and 5D and might have to bid 5C with a doubleton Club.  In the second bidding sequence however, West’s 4C bid shows actual support for Clubs.  This might encourage East to bid 6C.  At the club, four E/W pairs bid 6C, with two being successful, although the app says that the defence can always take two tricks.  The uneven breaks in both minor suits should be insuperable obstacles to making twelve tricks.

Of course, looking at all four hands, it is obvious that East can make 3NT in comfort, with one Spade trick, one Heart, two Diamonds and five Clubs.  The pairs who made 3NT= scored as well as those who made 5C=.  The best E/W results were achieved by the pairs who made 6C= or 6C+1, but these results must have owed something to generous defenders.  Likewise, the three pairs who made 3NT+2 scored well.  The best N/S result (ignoring the curious result at my table) was achieved by the pair who Doubled 6C and defended correctly to defeat the contract.  My Player of the Week is Keith Gold, the North who found this Double,

I failed to bid a slam on Board 23 this week.  I was getting a bit tired by the time the board arrived at my table, which is the excuse I offered at the time, but really it is not a good excuse!

The auction at my table started according to the bidding sequence in the diagram, but I bid a tired 4S instead of exploring the possibility of a slam.  I think a slam try was in order.  It was suggested that North should use a Splinter, i.e. bid 4D over South’s 1S response to show the Diamond singleton.  I’m not sure that this would work so well.  Without a Heart control, South would simply rebid Spades and North would have the same dilemma as over 1S.  I think in retrospect that North’s hand is strong enough to bid an immediate 4NT.  If South’s hand is very weak, they must still have a few honour cards and the chances are that 5S will make.  As it happens, South has two key cards, allowing North to dream of a grand slam by bidding 5NT.  South’s 6S bid shows no kings apart from the KS and 6S becomes the final contract.

The play was of interest.  When South was declarer, West generally led the 7H or the 8H.  (And thank you to all the Norths who recorded the leads this week!)  In this case, should declarer take the finesse?  The lead of a high Heart strongly suggests that West doesn’t have a Heart honour, so there doesn’t seem much point in finessing in Hearts unless there is no other way of making all thirteen tricks.  But there is!  If the Spades break 2-2 then it is possible for declarer to make twelve tricks through two Spades, five ruffs, the AH, the two top Diamonds and the two top Clubs.  If, in the process of doing so, North’s Club suit is ruffed good, then the thirteenth tricks will come from a long Club.  So as long as the Spades break 2-2 and the Clubs no worse than 4-2 then thirteen tricks can be made without recourse to the Heart finesse.

Does it matter whether twelve or thirteen tricks are made?  As only one pair bid 6S, then if the contract was 6S, twelve tricks would be good enough for a score of 100%.  But of course, you don’t know that 6S won’t be a popular contract.  If you are in 4S however, then the thirteenth trick would make a bid difference.  The pairs who made 4S + 1 scored 33% whereas those who made 4S + 3 scored 77%.  At pairs scoring, if you are playing in a contract that is likely to be popular around the room, the key thing is to make as many tricks as possible, which can be more important than making the contract.

On this hand, a Heart lead was best, as it makes declarer decide how to play the hand at trick one.

My Players of the Week are the one North who bid 6S, Victor Lesk, and the two Souths who made all thirteen tricks after receiving a Heart lead, Ann Bracken, Sue Pryke.

On Board 4 another slam was available.  Two pairs reached 6NT but only one declarer was successful.

It seems to me that the most likely contract is 3NT by East, which might be reached by the suggested bidding sequence.  East’s 2H call is Fourth Suit Forcing and in response, with a Club void, West might choose to show their fifth Diamond by bidding 3D, rather than the Heart stopper by bidding 2NT.  From East’s point of view, the possible game contracts are 3NT, 4S or 5D.  3NT might fail if E/W’s Hearts are too threadbare.  4S on a 5-2 trump fit might not fare well if the Spades break unevenly.  And with 3NT and 4S possible, a 5D contract might succeed but might not score well compared to the E/W scores at other tables.  It is a classic duplicate dilemma, which can be resolved by either using the mantra, “When in doubt, bid 3NT” or by the principle that if you have a minor suit fit and you don’t want to play in 3NT, try the minor suit slam.  I think 6D must be a better contract than 6NT, as it might be vital to be able to ruff a Spade in the East hand.  Be that as it may, the only E/W pairs to bid a slam chose to play in 6NT.

Suppose South leads a Club against 6NT.  There are seven tricks on top and at least three more can be established in Diamonds.  The only way to make two more tricks is to establish the Spade suit.  To make 6NT it is necessary for one of the two finesses, in Spades and Diamonds to work and for the Spades to break 3-3.  Declarer wins the first Club trick and takes a losing Diamond finesse.  North returns a Club, won by declarer.  Now dummy is entered with a Diamond and the Spade finesse is taken successfully.  The AS and the Diamonds in dummy are cashed and the KS is played.  This leaves two winning Spades in dummy and twelve tricks are secured.  It was a bit lucky to be able to make 6NT, but fortune sometimes favours the brave and my final Player of the Week is the one East who bid and made 6NT, Laura Corradi.

It isn’t often that you are dealt a nine-card suit.  If you are, it is good luck if you have a good number of aces and kings too!

The bad news, from North’s point of view, is that West dealt – and West has an opening bid.  West has only 10 Hcp, but the best opening bid is 1H, based on the Rule of 20, which states that if your Hcp added to the number of cards in your two longest suits adds up to 20, then your hand is strong enough to open the bidding.  Whenever you open the bidding, you should also consider your possible rebids.  Here, if partner responds 1S, you have a straightforward 2C rebid.  If West does not wish to bid 1H, then otherwise they can open 2H – assuming that they are playing Weak Twos.

One advantage of opening light is that it can make things difficult for the opposition.  Once West has opened, North has a problem, which is, how to discover whether South can control the first round of Diamonds and/or Clubs.  With a strong hand, after an opponent had opened the bidding, it is usually correct to start with a Double.  This should work fairly well on this hand.  South responds in Diamonds and then North can use RKCB, apparently agreeing Diamonds as trumps.  South shows one (or three) key cards.  There are three key cards that South might hold, the AD, the KD and the AC.  This means that there is a 67% chance that 6S will make, as either minor-suit ace will suffice.  This would be good enough odds for me to bid 6S.  (Notice that, if South happened to have three key cards, then they should correct the final contract to 7NT – but then with three key cards, they would have bid 3D on the first round of bidding.)

If West fails to open the bidding, then it is much easier for North to find the correct contract – as long as N/S use the 4NT opening bid.  This conventionally asks partner to show their specific aces.  With one ace, the response is 5D, 5H, 5S or 6C as appropriate.  A response of 5C shows zero aces and 5NT shows two aces.  The second bidding sequence shows how easy this convention is to use.

It is fair to assume that at all tables, North will declare a Spade contract.  The N/S pairs who did best were of course those who played in 6S.  The E/W pairs who did best were those who held North to twelve tricks.  There is only one sure way to do this, which is to lead a trump.  Otherwise, thirteen tricks are easy to make.  When declarer has shown a long trump suit in the bidding and their partner has failed to show much support for the suit, it is often best to lead a trump, in case declarer will want to ruff something in dummy.  On this hand, it is possible to envisage a layout where a trump lead would be disastrous, for example if dummy is void and West has K* in Spades.  But with East having a long Club suit, it is certainly possible that declarer will want to ruff Clubs in dummy.  At seven out of thirteen tables, North made only twelve tricks, so I might assume that at those tables a trump was led.  The lead was recorded at three of these seven tables.  At two tables the QH was led and at one table the 2C.  I suppose the Norths at those tables were so pleased to be able to be able to make their contract that they didn’t bother noticing that on the lead the thirteenth trick was easily available.  It would be useful for me when writing the commentary, if the leads were all recorded.

My Players of the Week, the three Norths who bid 6S, Glyn Jones, Robin Vicary and Linda Freedman.

There was a slam available on Board 19 this week, but only two pairs managed the trick of both bidding and making it.

I think it should be fairly straightforward to bid the slam.  East and West both have strong hands, and once they discover their Spade fit, they should be thinking of bidding the slam.  In the suggested bidding sequence, East’s 2NT is Jacoby, showing opening values with at least four-card Spade support.  3D shows a second suit, 4C and 4D are cue bids, showing first or second-round controls.  West’s 4S denies a Heart control.  4NT is RKCB and the 5D response shows zero or three key cards.  It is not really possible that West has no key cards, so East jumps to 6S, knowing that only one key card is missing.

The play should be fairly straightforward as well.  Whatever card North chooses to lead, there are eleven easy tricks available.  Trumps are drawn in three rounds, leaving two trumps in the West hand to ruff Hearts and one trump in the East hand to ruff a Diamond.  There are four top tricks in Hearts and Diamonds and one Club trick after losing to the AC.  So, all West has to do is to cash these eleven ticks and to hope that the Hearts break no worse than 4-2, as in this case the QH will drop and the JH will be the twelfth trick.  As it happens the QH drops on the second round of the suit.

My Players of the Week, the two Wests who both bid and made 6S, Hayden Kendler and Vic Washtell.

At first, I didn’t find any Players of the Week this week – certainly not your truly!  Board 9 illustrates my difficulty.

At twelve out of fourteen tables, E/W played in a NT contract.  All declarers made at least nine tricks.  Yet there are six tricks available for N/S.  So, why did no N/S pair get the defence right?

The two bidding sequences show how a 3NT contract might be reached, playing either Acol or Strong and Five.  It happens that 4S is a better contract, but with a 5-2 fit it is perhaps hard to reach.

If North leads anything other than a Club, then, playing in NT, declarer has eight tricks on top, five Spades, two Hearts and the QD.  In practice, West will take the first trick, cash the two top Spades, cross to the AD, play the QS, breathe a sigh of relief on seeing the Spades break, cash two further Spade tricks and lead a Diamond from dummy.  Perforce, South will win the KD and then has to lead a Heart or a Club.  Suppose South leads a low Club.  West ducks and North wins with the TC, cashes the AC and returns the 8C.  Now South can cash the rest of the Club suit and the defence takes six tricks in total.  West could have taken one more trick by cashing the second top Heart before leading a Diamond to the AD, but of course no declarer will do this, as it would leave the Heart suit undefended too early in the play.  It was popular and understandable for North to lead a Heart at trick one, and, presumably, all the Souths returned a Heart at the first (and only) opportunity.  This might have been the best play.  Suppose North held the AH instead of the AC.  With a holding of AQJT9 in declarer’s first bid suit, it would be correct to lead the QH.  In that case North would be able to cash four Heart tricks if South led a Heart after winning the KD.  So, it was a 50% chance whether South found the right lead.  But at the club, the twelve Souths got it right 0% of the time.

Could North have done anything to help their partner?  Maybe.  Having led the QH initially, it might be the tendency for North to sit back and hope for the best.  But North should count declarer’s tricks.  Once the top Spades have been cashed, North knows that declarer as at least seven tricks, five Spades, one Heart and one Diamond.  On dummy’s lead of a Diamond, it is pretty clear that declarer has the QD.  If declarer also has the second top Heart, that makes nine tricks.  If South has the outstanding top Heart, then obviously, they will play it after winning the KD.   It seems to me that therefore, North should realise that a further Heart lead will give declarer their contract.  It takes a bit of clairvoyance, but I think North should discard something on the last Spade to discourage partner from leading a Heart.  If you play reverse attitude signals, then a discard of the JH might suffice.  If South does hold the KD and the AH or KH, then this defence will still allow the defence to defeat 3NT by one trick, with three Hearts, one Diamond and one Club.

My Player of the Week would have been the South player who led a Club when in with the KD.  Or maybe the one North player who discarded the JH.  But unfortunately, it seems that none did. 

On Board 16 E/W could make 5S.  But what might happen if N/S are allowed to play in 5H?

Looking at the four hands, I can’t see how E/W would fail to play in either 4S or 5S.  West might open 2C, having just enough Hcp, a massive Spade suit and a four-loser hand.  This would make it difficult for South to show both their suits and I think 4S would be fairly easy to reach.  If West opens 1S, there is a danger that East might Pass, so I think a 2C opening bid is best.  West could open 4S, but there would be a risk of missing a slam.

If West does open 1S, then with only 5 Hcp and with a singleton Spade, East could Pass, but I like the principle that if you have an ace, you should always keep the bidding open.  So, with the West hand I would bid 1NT.  In this case, South can show both their suits with a Michaels overcall, showing the two highest unbid suits.  This would give North the ability to make a five-level sacrificial bid.  Most Wests would take the push and bid 5S – you don’t really want to defend with that Spade suit!

But suppose that N/S are allowed to play in 5H?  If West is on lead, the contract is immediately defeated on a Diamond lead.  E/W take the AD, a Diamond ruff and the AS.  On the lead of the AS, it is also possible for E/W to take the second and third tricks by playing on Diamonds.  But suppose West leads the KS at trick two, knowing that East and South are now both void in Spades?  In this case, East might think that South could have a second Spade, but they must play their highest available trump.  This will either win the rick, if South still has a Spade, or otherwise might achieve an uppercut.  If East trumps with the JH, then South will have to win with the AH and then East’s singleton KH will make the setting trick.  If East is on lead, the play is similar.  East will lead a Spade and if East plays a second round of Spades, then East must play the JH and can than wait to score the AD later in the play.  If East instead returns their singleton Diamond, then the KH will be available to ruff the second round of the suit.

On Board 26 illustrated the advantages and disadvantages of using the Losing Trick Count (LTC) and/or the Milton Work Count as methods of hand evaluation.  (As an aside, it is interesting to note that Milton Work, an American, was a keen cricketer.)

Playing Acol, South opens 1H.  With 10 Hcp and four Hearts, North raised to 3H.  With a Strong NT opening hand, South bids 4H.

OR South opens 1H.  With four Hearts and a nine-loser hand, North raises to 2H.  South makes her natural 2NT rebid, showing 15-19 Hcp.  With 10 Hcp North and with no ruffing values, North raises to 3NT.

Which is better?  On this hand the app says that N/S can make 3NT or 4H, so it would seem that the first bidding sequence is better.  This is confirmed by what happened at the club, where five N/S pairs bid and made 4H, each scoring 83%, whilst the one pair bidding and making 3NT scored only 58%.

If you look at all four of the hands, making 4H depends on dropping the QD.  I would expect most pairs playing in 4H to be one off.  Maybe the five Souths who made 4H all dropped the QD?  Well, not all, as at one table the lead was … the QD!  The lead was recorded at three of the other four tables and each case was a black card, so at those tables South had to make their own luck.  The correct technique in such cases is to draw trumps, eliminate Spades and then to play a Club.  The defence can take three Club tricks and you must hope that the third Club trick is won by East, who would then be end-played, having to give a ruff and discard or lead a Diamond.  Foreseeing the danger of this, it is important for East to win the first Club trick with the ace.

All this means that after all I have found two Players of the Week, the three declarers who made 4H on a black-suit lead, Lionel Redit and Catherine Corry.  (I have ignored the other successful Souths, as at those tables either a Diamond was led by East or the lead wasn’t recorded.)

In 3NT there are four Club losers.  So again, making 3NT depends on dropping the QD.  So as far as hand evaluation is concerned, this hand doesn’t give the answer!

On Board 22 at my table South had an opportunity to make a call that, in extremis, can work well.  But he would have had to be lucky when leading to achieve success.

The bidding sequence shown in the diagram occurred at my table, with me sitting North.  With 20 Hcp, I felt that I was justified in Doubling the opposition twice.  After my second Double, South reluctantly entered the fray, bidding his four-card suit.  3D was Doubled by West, we were two off and scored 0%.

The call that my partner missed was a third Pass.  Looking at the South hand, you might think that N/S can make no three-level contract.  But North clearly has a strong hand.  So why not Pass 2SX in the hope that North might be able to take five tricks?  Looking at all four hands, it is clear that on a Diamond lead, North can take six tricks.  On any other lead, 2S will make as one of East’s Diamond losers will vanish on the thirteenth Heart.  Therefore, there is approximately a 25% chance that 2SX will be defeated.

There is a good general principle here: if you think that responding with a suit bid to partner’s take-out Double will be a disaster, Pass and hope for the best!

On Board 19 N/S could make a small slam.  Sitting North I had the opportunity to do so, but I was, I think, too cautious.

The first bidding sequence occurred at my table, with me still sitting North.  I knew that East had bid hearts, but on the third round of bidding I remembered what I think of as the Shackman principle, “When in doubt, bid 3NT”, and I bid 3NT.  South made only nine tricks and we scored only 12%.  This wasn’t my partner’s fault.  West naturally led a Heart, partner won the third round with the AH, and then had eight further tricks available, three Spades and five Diamonds, before he had to lose the lead.  He cashed his tricks, but then when West won the AC, the defence could cash a Spade trick to hold us to nine tricks in total.  If South knows that West has the AC and that West started with only three Hearts, then after cashing five Diamonds he can lead a Club.  This would have given us one more trick.  The one pair who made 3NT+1 scored 67%.  At that table a Spade was led, so declarer had an easier task.

I should have considered the possibility that 6D would make.  The second suggested bidding sequence shows how, given the start of the auction at my table, how we could have reached 6D.  If I had bid 3D over partner’s 3C call, then South would have had to bid again – a new suit at the three-level is a game force.  He would have had a choice of bidding 3NT or supporting my Diamonds.  With four Diamonds, he would have bid 4D.  Then I would have been able to jump to 6D.  5D would be the wrong call, as it was likely that some N/S pairs would play in 3NT and score overtricks, in which case making 5D would certainly result in a poor score.  In such a case, where you have a strong hand, a minor-suit fit and the bidding has by-passed 3NT, it is worth taking the chance that a small slam will make.  On this hand it is easy to make twelve tricks in Diamonds, the only loser being the AC.

My Players of the Week are the two N/S pairs who bid and made 6D, Glyn Jones & Lionel Redit and Nari Dhana & Patu Dhana.

I thought Board 5 was interesting.  East had an obvious second-in-hand pre-empt and this clearly made it difficult for N/S to find their best contract.  Indeed, at all tables E/W declared.  At some tables E/W ventured to the five-level, and I presume that, at least at some of those tables, South made an effort.