Release 2.19q
VBA Bulletin

Latest VBA monthly bulletin:
March edition

Hand of the Week
Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 10/8/23)

I found this deal to be interesting at several levels.  There are a couple of useful principles to be gleaned.

First, what should North open as dealer, playing Standard American?  Either 1♣ or 1 is possible, but surely 1 is the superior choice, AK53 being a far better suit than 9754.  Those who did open 1♣ were none too pleased when their partner led a club to East's eventual spade contract!  This provided both an immediate entry to dummy, and several discards.  In fact one East Susan Hammond extracted full value from the mistaken opening bid, playing 4♠.  She won the club lead in dummy and played three rounds discarding both her diamonds and a heart.  Now a spade to the queen, then ♠A felling the king. All the trumps were drawn. Finally after she led a heart, a perhaps demoralized South ducked it and she guessed to play K.  When that won, two further top club provided discards for her remaining hearts. 13 tricks!! 

Suppose instead that North opens 1 and the defence therefore starts more promisingly with three rounds of diamonds. Declarer ruffs and can do no better than lead a heart. What should South do?  Over the decades I have learned not to think too hard in this situation and just play second hand low.  It's one of the most underused 'rules' of the game.  It's something that has to be done without hesitation, to avoid giving away the show. If South does smoothly duck, then there must be a fair chance that declarer will finesse South for the queen and put in the jack. That's the only way a 4♠ contract will be defeated.  So, except when playing against Susan Hammond, I recommend "second hand low".

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 3/8/23)

What would you do (if anything) with the North hand here. Your LHO has opened a weak 2 and RHO has bumped it up to 4.  You're very vulnerable.

The problem here is that you don't know what your RHO is doing. Is she bidding 4 because she has a strong hand and thinks she can make it?  Or is she bidding 4 with a weakish hand and, say, 4 hearts, in order to extend the original preempt? 

Sitting North, I would be paranoid that it was the latter, and we were being stolen from. But what can one do about that? If you do decide to act, then the only sensible move would be to make a takeout double (if you've agreed with your partner that such a double would be for takeout).  You could hardly try 5♣ with such a moth-eaten suit.

John Robertson was the only North player to be presented with this problem, and he coolly passed, which was very wise, once you see all the hands. (A double would land you in 4♠ doubled, which will go down 800 on good defence.)  He did better than I would have!  Susan Hammond (East) and Maria Christensen (West) were the only E/W pair to present North with the problem. They didn't land their fish, but they did earn a fine score anyway, as only half the field got to the cold 4 contract.  All I can say is that 2 was a good bid, and so was 4.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 20/7/23)

Today's deal involves an unpleasant situation that crops up from time to time. Partner opens 1♣ and you announce it as "3+" or maybe "2+".  Whatever, you don't like it! 

RHO passes, and you have to decide whether to bid 1, or just let partner tough it out in 1♣.  What approach do you like?

If you pass 1♣, a very bad thing could happen. Partner could end up declaring 1♣ holding just 3 clubs himself. In your 3-2 fit, you're surely going to go several down, vulnerable to boot.

On the other hand, it might not be a disaster. Partner might actually have real clubs, and 1♣ becomes your best possible contract. Or maybe your LHO will rescue you with a bid of his own.

Marg Ferguson passed 1♣ and that became the final contract. Partner had 4 clubs, so it was still a non-fit, nevertheless she managed to scramble 6 tricks, for a score of -100 and a 70% board for Marg. Not so bad!

Dawn Braham did even better with her pass. North bid something, and her opponents then proceeded to have a misunderstanding and go down in a contract. That was a top for Dawn. Praise be!

Now let's look at the 1 response. How could that work out well? Heaven would be for partner to rebid 1♠, which you could pass with relief.  But that's not very likely. If partner supports your hearts (which is what would happen here), then you still go down in 2.

And those are the good outcomes from responding!  What if partner rebids the clubs? Now you regret not playing 1♣.  Or jumps to 2NT? Or jump-raises hearts? Or reverses with 2? Bottom. Bottom. Bottom.

I'm happy to try a response to 1♣ with 4 or 5 HCP and short clubs, in the hope that the situation won't get out of hand. But responding with two jacks pretty much guarantees that the situation will  get out of hand. I don't think much of the commonly given advice: "never leave your partner in 1♣".

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 13/7/23)

What should you do with these North tickets?  Partner has opened 1 and your RHO has overcalled 3♣.

And if the overcall had been 2♣?

7 of the 9 Norths bid spades (3♠ over 3♣ or 2♠ over 2♣).  They ended up in 4♠ and mainly went down when the breaks were foul.

2 Norths (Shirley Stewart and Geoffrey Schroder) made a negative double of the club bid. When partner said hearts, they landed in 4 making quite easily, despite those bad breaks.

Which choice is superior in theory? It won't surprise you that I think Shirley and Geoffrey did the right thing.  The negative double kept the auction lower (for example, suppose South had merely bid 3 over it: you now have the option of trying 3♠ or maybe 3NT). And it brought hearts into the picture.  Look at it this way: the negative double depicted 8 of your cards (4 spades and 4 hearts); 3♠ showed only 5 of them (5 spades).  The negative double was the more descriptive bid.

This is a theme that is quite common. When deciding between two bids, it's often a good idea to make the one that shows more of your hand. For example, suppose you have 6 hearts and 4 clubs, and open 1 .  Partner responds 1NT.  Now, should you bid 2 or 2♣? Whilst the quality of the two suits might affect your answer, in principle I prefer 2♣ (showing 9 of your cards) to 2 (showing 6 of your cards). The 2♣ bid both keeps the auction lower and widens the field of inquiry.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 6/7/23)

Today's deal saw a wide variety of results, stemming from a couple of initial decisions.  After North and East pass ...

1) What should South do?  If South opens 1, what should happen then?

2) Suppose South instead passes. What should West do? And what should happen then?

Decide your answers to all these questions, and then click [Show Answer]

1) In third seat, South might take the option of opening light, 1. With 10 HCP after two passes, South suspects that West has a strong hand, and she can get in the way, as well as suggest a potential opening lead to partner. South plans to pass ASAP after this and hope for the best. An interesting alternative is a 2 weak-two opening, which has a lot more going for it than you might think. Cath Whiddon was one South who opened 1 and this paid off in spectacular fashion. 

West, with 20 HCP had little choice but to double 1 and Cath's partner, Patrick Starck, cleverly boosted the auction to 4 (obeying the Law of Total Trumps, competing to a 10-trick contract with a 10-card fit).  It's hard to blame East for bidding 4♠ over this, either as a make or a sacrifice. This made West regret getting out of bed this morning, as she didn't have spades for this particular double ... she showed the strength of her hand by bidding 5♣. Patrick pounced on this with a double (looking much more at his AK than the singleton club), and soon after was writing down 500 in the plus column.  Poor East-West had done little wrong to deserve their bottom.

2) If South does pass, I strongly approve of the decision of Rosemary Polya and Jim Stewart, who opened 2NT on the West cards. Technically the hand was a bit too unbalanced for this (two doubletons), but the doubletons were strong and the length was in the minors (suggesting notrumps as a possible superior destination).  They ended up with middle-of-the-road scores, going down in 4♠ (partner transferred them to spades, then gave 4♠ a punt), but at least their blood pressure remained under control.  This is the good thing about 1NT and 2NT openings: they usually put you into a well-understood auction, and that has a lot going for it.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 29/6/23)

Today's Board 1 could have come straight from the "Advanced Methods" section of a text-book on Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB). 

The correct final contract is 7NT (reached by a completely different route by Fiona Ferwerda and Penny Robertson).  Here's how you could get there on the wings of RKCB.

1♠ : the easy part.

2♣ : South is excited. but before heading into the stratosphere, one needs to find out a bit more about North's hand.

3♠ : because it's a jump, this shows extra values - about 16+ HCP. And a good 6-card spade suit.  Note that after a 2-over-1 response (promising 10+ HCP), a jump rebid by opener commits the parties to at least a game contract.

4NT: South has found out what he needs: North's strength and his suit. 4NT, if the partnership has agreed to it, is RKCB for the last shown suit, in this case, spades.

5 : playing the currently popular '1430', this is the "3" ... three key-cards (the two aces and the ♠K).  Note that possession of the ♠Q is for the moment uncertain.

5 : the next step bid (other than signing off in spades) says "tell me more".  Specifically where the trump queen has been neither shown nor denied, it asks for it. The responder to RKCB signs off at the minimum level in trumps if he lacks the queen. But if the queen is held, he bids something else, for example:

6 : this bid shows the ♠Q and specifically the K.  If North had the ♠Q but no side-suit king, he can just content himself with a jump to 6♠.

South knows that North has: ♠KQxxxx AK ♣A plus 4 other cards. It doesn't matter what they are, it's easy to see that there are least 13 tricks on top, so ...

7NT : Tada! Ain't science wonderful?

Congratulations also to Dawn and Viv Braham who reached 7♠ based on a similar RKCB auction: a second top for them.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 22/6/23)

Here's a problem faced by multiple Easts today.

They opened 2♣ with their 10-trick hand, and the auction proceeded as shown.

What should be East's next bid?

Partner has shown approximately 8+ HCP and a 6-card heart suit. 

There may well be a slam here, but if you're not going to go for one (and no-one did) it's essential to bid 3NT at this juncture. No question a spade will be led to 3NT, you'll win and play clubs. You'll then regain the lead and have AT LEAT 9 tricks: 7 clubs and 2 spades.  And that's without depending on anything from partner, who has 8+ points.  Almost invariably partner will provide some tricks and you will take at least one overtrick in 3NT ... and that will be a better score than anything you can get in 5♣.

The bottom line is this: 5-of-a-minor is matchpoint death when 3NT is a viable alternative. 

John Adams was the one East to bid 3NT in this auction. 12 tricks were his when North, perhaps unwisely, didn't take the AK when given the opportunity.  But even 10 tricks (630) would have outscored all the Easts in 5♣ (making an overtrick for 620).

One other East, Sue Hammon, got to 3NT. She opened a slightly risky 1♣, and when partner responded in hearts and North overcalled in spades, she made no mistake, blasting to 3NT, again making 12 tricks. Same principle: no matchpoint death in 5 of a minor.

Postscript: South (remember South?) had a chance to score a near top on this deal. She has to notice the favourable vulnerability and make a brave supporting bid in spades. If N/S buy a spade contract, even up to the level of 6♠, they will do better than allowing their opponents to bid and make a game.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 15/6/23)

Some bidding problems are worthy of Torquemada.  Here is one.

1) Do you agree with the initial double?

2) What do you do after partner responds 3NT?

1) Double looks correct to me. The alternative is a value bid of 5♣, but you are honour-bound to look for the higher scoring major suit fit (spades in this case).

2) This is an ugly decision. I stared at it for a while (looking at all four hands) and still didn't know what to do. If you can survive the hearts, then 3NT might make overtricks (on the basis of your long strong clubs) and score well. On the other hand, there could easily be a slam: partner could have as many as 13 or 14 HCP after all. 

If you do move on from 3NT, you should bid 4♣.  Just like after a lower suit opening, doubling then naming a suit shows a strong hand. Partner would then raise to 5♣ and now ...?  Who knows. More and more I respect the decision of the Easts who gambled by passing partner's 3NT bid: Sheena KayPenny RobertsonShirley Stewart and Derek Stringfellow. Personally, if I can bat at 51% after an opponent's preempt, I'm happy.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 8/6/23)

This board struck me as having interest in the bidding and the play. Let's start with the bidding.

How many hearts should South bid at their first turn?  And how should West react to whatever South chooses?

One South, Lesley Johnstone, responded 4.  I would characterize this as a "winner's misbid". It's a misbid, because it understates the power of the hand ... typically a direct response of a game contract to partner's opening bid shows a weak hand with a very long suit. Partner won't expect a solid 7-card suit, and a slam could easily be missed. But, it's the sort of bid that's typically made by winning players: not quite correct, but an attempt to put off the opponents. South fears successful spade interference by the opponents, and wants to minimize the chance of that: West may well be intimidated and not introduce the spades at such a high level.

Lesley's LHO, Jim Stewartwas not intimidated. He bravely came in with 4♠: he was not vulnerable, and had the makings of 8 tricks (5 spades and 3 clubs). A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Now the spotlight was on North, Sandra Mansell.  She made the correct bid of doubling 4♠ - the last thing she wanted was to hear partner bid 5.  (At another table, where 4♠ was bid by West in a slower auction, North passed, and was mortified when South went on to 5, down 1.)  4♠ duly went down two, 300 to N/S, a good sacrifice against the making 4.

Finally, the play in 4. At one table, the defence took a couple of club tricks then switched to hearts. With a third club loser inevitable, Fiona Ferwerda made the correct play of taking the spade finesse for the contract, even though she had a singleton spade opposite the ace. Given that West had bid spades, that was a moral certainty to work. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 1/6/23)

Today's problem features a strong hand, but is it strong enough? You open 1, then after 1♠ on your left, you see 2 from partner.

What to do, what to do?

What does North's 2 show?  Well, it's a new suit at the two-level, so at least 10 HCP.  And it also promises a 5-card heart suit (at least), because with only 4 hearts, partner would make a negative double of 1♠.  Armed with this information, you can start counting points, including distribution points.  You have 19 HCP plus 3 distribution points, total: 22.  Partner has at least 10 HCP, and at least 1 distribution point (there must be a shortage somewhere, as partner partner has 5+ hearts), total 11.  22+11=33, which is the magic number for slam.

You don't see this sort of slam arithmetic much in textbooks, because it's crude. Very crude. But nonetheless, I think it means the 5 of 6 Souths who simply bid 4 were seriously underbidding their hand. The sixth South was Margaret Hughes who bullied her way to the 6 contract via Blackwood.  The other slam bidder was Jenny Sin, who had a somewhat different scenario, her West deciding to not bid 1♠.  Margaret and Jenny shared the well deserved top.

"Hold your horses!" I hear you cry.  "They'll lead a spade, and possibly take the first two tricks ... bidding slam is ridiculously dangerous"  A fair point. There's certainly room for 10 HCP in partner's hand, but missing the ♠A and ♠K.  Well, you can solve that problem using a slightly sophisticated technique. Over 2 bid 5. When the opponents have intervened with a suit bid, 5-of-your-major sends a specific message to partner: "bid slam unless you have two immediate losers in their suit".  This resolves the issue where Blackwood can't. Slam here will make if partner has a singleton spade, or perhaps ♠Kx - you're still missing the ace, but there aren't two losers. I'll admit this is an advanced technique, but you have to agree it's cute.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 25/5/23)

On today's deal, the only pair to reach the laydown slam here conducted the auction you see.  That was Karen Jorin (South) and Derek Stringfellow (North).  A well-deserved top, but what do you think of their auction? 

Discuss.

At this vulnerability, South's 4 opening should show around 8 tricks. On that basis, North could count three more for his three aces, and then the K was a maybe, as were the spades (maybe declarer will be able to set that suit up by ruffing). There should be somewhere between 11 and 12 tricks available, and so it's a borderline decision whether to progress to slam. Well done to Derek for doing so. The other four Norths that faced this opening bid all passed.

Still, given that there were 13 stone cold tricks on the hand, perhaps we should look at South's 4 bid.  The hand's not really worth 8 tricks: it's closer to 10.  South can estimate 7 heart winners (assuming the ace is missing), and two tricks for the AQ.  That's 9, and the fourth diamond has a fair chance of being established as a winner.  By my lights, that South hand is too strong for a 4 opening.

So I'm with the three Souths who opened 1 (Stan Angelidis, Jan Downing and Fiona Ferwerda).  Their plan was to open 1 and rebid 4, which should logically show a hand with long hearts that was too strong for an opening preemptive bid.  Alas, none of their partners were on the same wavelength, so they all languished in game. C'est la vie.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 18/5/23)

Several Souths faced this bidding problem today, but only one solved it.  

See if you can.  What do you do?

You'd like to compete, but how?  There's no real diamond support, and bidding either the long moth-eaten clubs or the short chunky hearts is unpalatable. 

The solution is to double. This is called a responsive double, and applies after the opponents open, your partner intervenes (with either a takeout double or a suit overcall) and the next hand raises their partner's opening bid.  It is basically takeout for the remaining unbid suits. Only one South, Rosemary Polya, made the responsive double, and it ended rather happily.  Partner bid hearts, and they arrived in 4. E/W were not up to the necessary trump plays to defeat this contract, and declarer took the AK and all eight of the hearts via a cross-ruff. Impressive!  Good bidding was rewarded with an almost top score.

One more thing. Look at East's hand ... is the 2♠ bid wise?  No it is not! Technically the hand meets the requirements for a single raise: 6-9 HCP and 3-card support. But there are three strikes against it:

  1. Minimum points, dead flat
  2. A likely useless QJx in overcaller's suit
  3. Vulnerable, heading for down in 100s if partner competes in spades

East was asking for trouble by bidding that hand, and in a few cases, trouble duly arrived.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 4/5/23)

North, South and East all had a critical decision to make on today's deal.  I will present the decision that no-one got right ... East's.

As East, you are defending North's 3NT, on the auction as shown. You lead ♣K, and it goes ♣2, ♣5, ♣3, leaving you with the lead.  What's going on in the club suit, and what do you play next?

There are only two clubs remaining, the ace and jack.  If you think about it, partner can't have either of them.  If partner started with either ♣Ax or ♣Jx, she would (should) have played her honour at trick 1 to clarify the position for you. And partner can't have started with ♣AJx, as that would mean that declarer has a club singleton, inconsistent with the 2NT opening bid.

No, declarer started with ♣AJx, and has executed a Bath Coup on you. The name comes from the English city of Bath and the olden days of Whist.  Playing small on the first round of the suit, when the king has been led, means that a second round will run up to the ace-jack, giving you two tricks in the suit. The four Easts who faced this situation all continued with another club, gifting declarer a trick.  On best play, declarer will then take the rest, as poor old West is mercilessly squeezed on the play of the black suits. The skilled declarers who gave their opponents a bath were: Yuko Yoshida, Sandra Mansell, John Robertson and Viv Braham.

East needs to switch to another suit, any suit.  My choice would be diamonds, as I would be a little nervous about giving away a trick with either the spade or heart combinations.

Finally, I mentioned that South had a key part to play on this deal. That was in the auction.  Some Souths insisted on a spade contract, to their regret.  The concept of transferring to your major (showing 5 cards there) and then bidding notrumps to give partner the choice between notrumps and your suit is a vital part of the game!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 27/4/23)

Try this 'slightly trickier than it looks' play problem.

North leads ♣Q to your 5 contract.  Your play.

Let's see now. Ace and king of spades, and your hearts are winners after losing to the ace.  The diamonds are likely good for six tricks, and you can trump your second club in dummy. That will make 2 spades + 2 hearts + 6 diamonds + ♣A + club ruff to make 12 tricks.

Before you start trick 2, could anything go wrong? Only one possibility stands out ... South with all four diamonds, which is not impossible given North's big pre-empt.  You can deal with that scenario, as long as you find out about it in time.

The correct play is K at trick 2. If all follow, a second trump to hand, ruff your club, then cross  to your ♠A to deal with any remaining trumps.  But if North should discard on the first diamond, your second trump to hand will include a foolproof finesse against South's J.

Of the six diamond declarers, three got it right: Margaret Hughes, Jo Quinlivan and Valerie Remedios.  The other three diamond declarers all played a low diamond to the ace at trick 2, and discovered that they could no longer ruff a club and finesse South's J.  A small error, but a crucial one. Bridge can be tricky!

A word about North's opening bid as dealer, not-vulnerable versus vulnerable. A variety of choices were made: pass, 1♣ (!), 3♣ and 4♣.  The passer and 1♣er seriously misdescribed their hand.  Two players who bid 3♣ subsequently volunteered 4♣ later: one of the worst crimes of preempters (bidding again, uninvited).  Of course they were ashamed of the pusillaminity (or whatever the word is) of their 3♣ opening and tried to compensate later.  But this has the downside of giving the opponents room they don't deserve. 

Those who opened 4♣ did some justice to the hand and one was allowed to play there for a fine score.  Personally, I'd open 5♣, assessing the hand as worth 8 tricks, but that's just me.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 20/4/23)

Board 1 this week featured several interesting bidding decisions, but let's start with this one.

You are South. Partner opens 3♠ and RHO bids a natural 4♣.  It's Christmas!

What do you do?

You can surely destroy their 4♣ contract, but before you gleefully double, consider the risk. It may clue the opponents in to the fact that 4♣ is not their best spot.  Perhaps West (or even East) will run to 4, a spot where E/W are likely to have a fit. Your defensive prospects against hearts are far less certain.

So I'm with Shyamala Abey and Lesley Johnstone who calmly passed 4♣, which duly became the final unpleasant (for E/W) contract.  Down a variety of tricks for good N/S scores.

One South did greedily double 4♣. She survived the opponents, but not her partner who got cold feet and retreated to 4♠.  This was duly doubled and defeated several tricks for a N/S bottom. Still, N/S were a class act in that when I checked the chat record, there was not a word spoken.

Now let's look at all four hands and as they say, 'discuss'.

I was pleased to see that all Norths ignored the moth-eaten four card suit in the other major and preempted in spades.  Seven opened 3♠ and one wimped it with 2♠.  The 2♠ choice got a 3♣ overcall, so at least E/W were able to play the horrible hand a level lower.

Over 3♠, we've noted that three Easts overcalled 4♣ ... a fairly normal bid.  Two instead doubled, which I don't particularly like, because when partner inevitably bids 4 of a red suit, you won't know what to do.  And two Easts passed 3♠!  I'm not going to name them, because I don't agree with their choice, but it worked superbly for them, allowing N/S to go down in a contract, rather than E/W.  

One "thinking-outside-the-box" option for East would have been to try 3NT. Sometimes, a stopper can be as strong as it sounds.  For example, if you boldly bid 3NT, maybe South will lead a low club!  I know it may seem ridiculous, but if you put this problem to an expert panel, I expect 3NT would gather the most votes. Experienced players love to bid 3NT.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 13/4/23)

Sit yourself in the East seat. You're the dealer, everyone is vulnerable. What do you do?

8 of the 10 Easts opened 1♣, and you'll get no complaint about that choice from me. The hand has the points and the shape to justify this, and also an easy rebidding plan: more clubs, and yet more clubs.

On the downside, there's very little defence, and the low opening gives the opponents all the room in the world to intervene, if they have the hand for it.  As it turns out, many North-Souths did successfully get into the auction.

So I prefer the choice made by Shyamala Abey and Viv Braham, which was to open 3♣, preempting.  A vulnerable 3-level opening should have the makings of about 7 tricks, which is precisely what East has.  And it's much harder for N/S to successfully compete against.

The 3♣ openings met with mixed success. At one table, N/S got to 3 down 1; at the other, N/S brilliantly wriggled to 3, which could not be beaten.

Now let's consider a dramatic alternative opening bid for East: the Gambling 3NT.  Some (many) partnerships play a 3NT opening bid to show a solid (AKQ) 7-card minor, and nothing much outside.  It's a very descriptive preempt, and being at a higher level, more preemptive than a 3-minor opening.  The Gambling 3NT has significant downsides, one being that the correct contract might be 3NT played from the other side, but remains a popular gadget.  And after all, one doesn't particularly need 3NT as having an alternative meaning ... if you are really strong, you can always open 2♣.

Look what would have happened on this deal. East opens 3NT: that's too rich for South, who passes.  West also passes: there's 7 tricks in partner's minor and 2 aces to make 9 ... so E/W just need to survive the other minor to make 3NT. North passes, and South leads the obvious ♠K.  Voila: 3NT making +600 for a top.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 6/4/23)

Here's a situation that comes up more frequently than one would like. 

Partner opens 1♠ and RHO overcalls 2♣ ... what is your plan?  What about if RHO passes your partner's 1♠ opening?

If you make a heart bid here, you will often land in the soup. Partner will expect more high-card strength and likely take you too high.  That's what usually happens when you show more values than you have.

If (and it's a big if) partner recognizes a jump in hearts as showing this sort of hand, then perhaps it might work out. My experience is that this tends to put the partnership into unknown territory with mostly bad outcomes.  Today, two Wests tried the jump: one East read it correctly and passed, the other bid too much. 

The best approach in my experience is to try a two-step process.  Pass initially, then if the auction should continue, maybe later you can show the hearts. Partner will know you are weak, because of your initial pass. This worked a treat for Pam Richardson and Ray Carbuhn.  They coolly passed 2♣, then after either North or East had bid, they ventured 3. Their partners twigged to what was going on and passed, leaving their side in a safe and profitable heart contract.

Of course, this strategy is not infallible. Gordon Travers also passed, after South had stayed silent, as would I. Sadly 1♠ was the final contract (you can look at North's hand to see why), and even though Deena Pathy played the contract well to make it, their +80 was not a great score. Sometimes even the best laid plans of mice and men ...

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 30/3/23)

Let's start this interesting deal with a bidding problem for South. She has a very nice hand, 16 HCP (and a couple of 10s) with both majors.  After partner's 1NT response to the 1 opening, what should she do?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Ever seen a hand fall apart before your eyes? This is one such hand.

What started as a delightful 16-count has gotten a whole lot worse. Partner's 1NT shows 6-9 HCP, without heart support, nor a spade suit.  Your hopes of a major suit fit have gone.  And there doesn't seem to be a minor suit fit either. So we are stuck with notrumps.

It's time to check the points: we have 16, partner has 6-9, so 22-25.  Only if partner has a tip-top maximum might we have enough points for game, and even then, without a clear suit to establish and cash, 3NT may be no bargain.

In short, game chances have shrunk to near zero, and we should be happy to let partner play 1NT.  Only two Souths had the discipline to pass 1NT: Pam Richardson and Margaret Skeen ... very well done to them.

Now take a look at all four hands, and in particular examine West's hand.  Four of the seven Wests doubled 1 for takeout: how would you rate that call?

I would rate it as seriously unwise: indeed I can think of four different reasons why it's a bad idea:
1. With 11 HCP, it can hardly be described as opening strength.  11 HCP might be sufficient for a takeout double, but consider first reasons 2, 3 and 4.
2. It's lacking 4 spades, the one suit that can beat the hearts.  Whilst 3 cards is all you're technically required in a side-suit, the absence of a fourth spade here is a serious minus.
3. Partner passed as dealer: she lacks opening points. In fact you'll be darned lucky to have a majority of the points on your side, and if you do, partner might bid too much anyway. This is particularly serious, because:
4. Your side is vulnerable. -100, -200 or -300 may well be heading your way.

Indeed if you do double, and North correctly passes, East will be in a nasty hotseat, where the only winning option may well be to make a hair-raising penalty pass of 1 doubled.  So a shoutout to Janice Meldrum, Rosemary Polya and Sandra McCaughey, all of whom coolly passed 1♠.

Maybe it says something about my character, but I like this deal, because it points out situations where your hand is bad, despite its points, and the correct choice is to shut up.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 23/3/23)

This deal caught my eye today. Look at the N/S hands - you will see that 4♠ is a solid contract. You need only to limit your red suit losers to two (to go with the one club loser) to make. That will happen at least three-quarters of the time.

Still, how does one get there?  It's 10 HCP opposite 11 HCP, hardly the world's fair.

Any ideas?

I have an idea.  North should open the bidding with 1♠.  Why? Let me count the ways:

Rule of 20.  This is a pretty reliable guide for deciding whether to open a marginal hand with 1 of a suit.  You add the length of your two longest suits to your HCP and if it comes to at least 20, open.  Here you have 5 spades and 5 diamonds and 10 HCP, equals 20. 

Length points. You're not allowed to include shortage points until your side has found a fit, but length points can be counted up front. They allow you to increase the estimate of the hand's value based on having long suits.  You count 1 length point for each card you have in excess of 4 in a suit. Here you have 2 length points, one in spades, one in diamonds, so add that to 10 to get 12 adjusted points and an opening bid.  You can see that the Rule of 20 and length points are very similar beasts.

Losing trick count.  This is a favourite of Ron Klinger's, and who am I to disagree with him, particularly when it reaches the same conclusion as mine. To open a hand, you're meant to have at most 7 losers. Here there is 1 loser in spades (the king), 1 loser in hearts (the ace), 3 losers in diamonds (with this estimation, you assume that after three rounds of a suit, the remaining cards are good, so you never have more than 3 losers in a suit) and 1 loser in clubs.  That's 6 losers only - why, not only is it an opening bid, but it has extra values! Who'd have thought?

Whichever way you slice it, this is an opening bid.  Yuko Yoshida, Margaret Sheen and Jolanta Terlecka were the three Norths (out of 10) to agree with me. And surprise surprise, they all got to the making 4♠ without much difficulty.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 16/3/23)

Let's for the sake of argument assume that your partner is not insane.  On that basis, what is going on on this deal, and what should you do about it?

Confucius say that if both sides bid notrumps, one of them is wrong. But here, your partner's 2NT should be treated as "unusual", 5-5 in the minors.  On that basis, I think you should bid 5♣, competing in your 10+ card club fit. 

This might seem very scary when you're vulnerable and they are not. But consider this: partner also saw the vulnerability, and still chose to force your side in at the 3-level. He must have a pretty strong distributional hand.

Take a look at all four hands. 5♣ will go down 1 if the opponents take their two spade tricks immediately - otherwise it will make.  Meanwhile 4 is easy for them. Sometimes all it takes is a bit of courage.

No one wheeled out the unusual 2NT, but a few Souths overcalled 1NT with a natural 2♣ bid. Then if West bids 4, I think North should take the same inference that partner will be sound, and compete to 5♣ - but no-one did. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 9/3/23)

On today's deal, partner has opened 2NT (20-22 HCP, balanced) and you've made a transfer to spades. Partner now jumps to 4♠.

What is the 4♠ all about, and what do you do now?

Normally you would expect partner to accept the transfer with 3♠: after all, that might be the final contract you want to play. Her unnecessary jump to 4♠ is called a super-accept. It says: "I love your spades, partner". Essentially, partner is not going to let you play the hand in 3♠.

Failing to accept a transfer bid always shows strong support for the transferrer's suit.  After a 1NT opening, such a move should be reserved for the very best of supporting hands.   After all, who wants to be in 3♠ two down, when 2♠ would have been only one down?  After a 15-17 HCP 1NT, there is plenty of scope for such a scenario!

But after a 2NT opening, a super-accept is a far more likely and useful proposition. If you have a maximum in the 20-22 HCP, and a fit, you hardly need anything at all from partner to make game in the major a good proposition, and it may well be worth telling partner about your enthusiasm in case she has thoughts of slam.

Jolanta Terlecka super-accepted with 4♠ as North. Her partner, Rosemary Polya unleashed Roman Key-Card Blackwood, and was delighted with the 1 or 4 key-card response. She bid 6♠, which made in a breeze, despite the trumps misbehaving.

Maria Christensen also made the super-accepting bid. Her partner Jenny Sin damned the torpedoes and bid 6♠ then and there - that's what I call class. (They had met at the BBO Partnership Desk, so maybe had not discussed what sort of ace-asking they were playing.)

Two excellent auctions.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 2/3/23)

This meaty deal has so many points of interest that it could form the basis of the first three chapters of a bridge textbook.

Let's start with a bidding problem. As East you hear partner open 1NT in fourth seat. It's essential to find you whether you have a spade fit so you bid 2♣ , Stayman. Partner, alas, denies a 4-card major with 2 .

What now?

I would figure partner, who lacks a major and might not have too many diamonds given my long suit, to be packed full of clubs. So I'd bid 3NT here.

Look at all four hands to discover how much I know about bridge. 3NT is off the first 6 club tricks, whilst the computer says you can make a grand slam in diamonds. On reflection, perhaps 5  is the wiser choice.

Consider North's lead to 5. I detest leading from broken suits (such as clubs) ... so often they run up to declarer's honours. So I would choose a nice safe and constructive J. Dummy comes down and declarer sees that this heart lead is nasty, threatening to take two heart tricks. West's hearts can be discarded on East's spades, but first something has to be done about trumps.

West doesn't want to lose the lead, for example taking a losing diamond finesse. Then you would go down in 5. Better is to bang down the  A. The king will now most likely be outstanding, but then four rounds of spades will be played, and that  K would be the only loser. In real life, the king drops under the ace, and voila, there's your 13 tricks. My  J lead forces declarer into the winning play ... did I mention how little I know about bridge?

On a club lead, however, declarer has all the time in the world to take the losing diamond finesse.

Finally, what about 3NT? North should lead ♣J (top of an internal sequence) and South wins ♣ A. It is essential for South to return the ♣9, not the ♣5. Get into the habit of playing the higher of two cards, when you are left with a doubleton and returning partner's suit. Here the 9 traps declarer's club holding, and the first 6 tricks are safely negotiated for the defence. But if you return the 5, declarer covers with the 6, North wins the trick but now declarer has a stopper in the clubs.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 23/2/23)

You know an opening lead problem must be a good one when all four suits are chosen from 8 different tables. I have an opinion (who doesn't when it comes to opening leads?).  Let's see what you think.

West's 3 shows a weakish hand with a large bunch of diamonds.

Your choice?

This is the sort of problem when one should look a bit deeper than "fourth highest of your longest and strongest". Declarer, East, will have a strong balanced hand. In fact around 18-19 HCP seems likely, as they didn't open 1NT.

I don't know whether the hearts or clubs are the "strongest", but it strikes me that they are risky leads. Partner will have practically nothing ... for example, give 18 to East, 6 to West, and that leaves only 2 for partner. Either a heart or a club stands a good chance of donating a trick to declarer. 

A diamond lead, on the other hand, is pretty safe.  It gives nothing away at all. Of course, nor does it do anything for you, but sometimes there are hands where a "do nothing" approach is best, forcing declarer to make all the decisions about finesses. Dianna Middleton led a diamond, and I like her thinking.

That leaves the ♠K as an option. It's not a completely safe choice, but it's fairly safe, and of course it does do something towards beating the contract. Two players led it, but they were helped by their partner, who had bid spades. Well done indeed to Yuko Yoshida who risked a 3♠ bid over 3: this was certainly the time for it. That got Ray Carbuhn off to the winning spade lead, and they became the only N/S to defeat 3NT.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 16/2/23)

One of the joys of the game is that you can be confronted at any time with a bizarre problem. It makes life interesting!  

Here is one of them. West's 1NT (15-17) is passed around to you, and you have a monster. What's your plan?

This hand is a fine example of the power of distribution.  Yes, your LHO has 15-17 HCP, which is a lot, but your diamond void may well negate much of that.  Picture West with, oh I don't know, maybe AKQ94, and her 15-17 HCP becomes much less scary.

So I think the best choice here is to make a penalty double of 1NT. Pam Richardson was the only one to agree with me, so perhaps there's a partnership in our future.

If 1NT doubled is the final contract, then even if partner leads a diamond, I like our chances. Sure, declarer may be able to run some diamond tricks, but the sight of dummy will likely give me a clue on what to discard, and which suit (hearts or clubs) I'm likely to be able to establish. 

If someone (partner or RHO) runs from 1NT doubled - a likely scenario, as both of those hands will be weak - then I can bid my hearts.  I will have painted a picture of a strong hand with hearts, which is what I've got. 

On the actual deal, this is what will likely play out. Partner may run to 2, but even if she decides to tough it out in 1NT doubled (I think she should), then East will surely escape to 2♣.  Now when I bid 2, partner with support and distribution should give me a lift to 3, which I will raise to 4.  Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think this is the sensitive auction.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 2/2/23)

This interesting bidding problem has a learning point attached to it. You are West and must decide what to do after your partner's 2♣ bid.  Your double of 1 showed exactly 4 spades (with a 5+ card spade suit, you would have bid 1♠ directly).

Decide your bid, then click [Show Answer].

With 12 HCP, it would seem you're worth about a game invitation. In fact partner also had 12 HCP, a minimum opener, and there was insufficient combined strength for a game in, say, 3NT.

But one moment, please. Is this hand really 12 HCP? Consider your hearts, KQ8. Assuming South has the A for his vulnerable overcall, then your heart holding represents two stoppers. Two tricks. Just like AK8.  If you had in fact been dealt AK8 with the rest of your hand the same, that would have been 14 HCP, which is easily enough for game. Here, KQ8 has about the same trick-taking potential as AK8. As the auction progresses, and you see bids from the other players, the strength of your hand ebbs and flows as you consider the location of your honours. The ability to notice and act upon this (it's called 'plastic valuation') is one of the great skills of the game.

Well done to Marg Ferguson, Ismail Gulec and Ray Carbuhn who correctly upgraded their hand and jumped to 3NT.

Technically, 3NT can be defeated, but when the play went low heart by North to South's ace and a heart returned, 9 tricks had easily appeared. The KQ8 of hearts had done its job.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 26/1/23)

Sit yourself East today and consider both the bidding and play.

1) Do you agree with the opening 2♠ bid?  Or would you choose something else?

2) You end up in 3♠ on the auction shown, and South leads ♣5, North playing ♣Q, which you win. One of the first questions you should ask yourself when playing in trump contracts is: "should I draw trumps?"  Have a go at that one.

1) When we first learn bidding, we are told to open a weak two with 6-10 HCP and a good 6-card suit. This hand would appear to qualify. However, I would respectfully suggest that the hand is too strong for a weak two. I point you to two factors that indicate this:

- a great rule-of-thumb for deciding whether to open with one of a suit is to add your HCP to the length of your two longest suits, and if it comes to at least 20, then open at the 1-level. On this deal, you have 10 HCP, a 6-card suit and a 4-card suit, so 10+6+4 = 20, suggesting a one level opening.

- the location of the points is powerful. The queen and jack combine. The ace and king combine.  Honour cards working together are more potent than those on their own. Take the ♣AK: that's two tricks, right? But now make it ♣A and K: that's not 2 solid tricks. It's one for the ♣A, and maybe one for the K, but maybe not.  In the very old days, those separated honours would have been evaluated as 1.5 quick tricks.

4 of the 5 Easts agreed with my evaluation and opened 1♠: great minds think alike.

2) Now to the play in 3♠. When we first learn bidding, we are told to "get the kids off the street" - the kids being the enemy trumps. And often that is right: we want to remove their trumps so they are unable to ruff our side-suit winners.

But there are plenty of exceptions, and this is one of them. The most common scenario is that you need to retain some or all of dummy's trumps to ruff a side suit. When you draw trumps, you are drawing your own trumps as well. In this instance, you may want to keep one or two of dummy's trumps to ruff club losers. 

The correct play, not found by anyone (in this case great minds did not think alike) is to play a diamond at trick 2. If South has A, he might duck, and lose his ace altogether. Or if he takes it, that gives you two winners in dummy. Either way, that's good news for you.  And if North has A, at least you've set up one diamond trick, and there's no damage North can do to you.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 19/1/23)

This board raised interesting questions in the bidding, opening lead and defence. I'll present 3 questions:

1. Should North, playing 15-17 HCP 1NT openings, accept South's invitation to 3NT?

2. Against say 3NT, what should East lead?

3. Suppose East leads a heart. When West gets in with the A, what should she play?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

1) North is bang-smack in the middle of the 15-17 HCP range. In such situations, one needs to look more deeply into the hand. The negative is that there's only one 4-card suit. The more long suits you have, the better the chances of establishing them.

But there are two significant positives: the two 10s. They're worth like half-a-point each: that definitely improves the quality of the hand, particularly as they are in conjunction with higher honours. Indeed if you look at all four hands, the ♠10 and 10 are each worth a trick, as it turns out.  I think the positives outweigh the negatives and so agree with Julie More, Maggie Kelly, Yuko Yoshida and John Robertson who continued to 3NT.  The other four Norths passed 2NT, and no discredit to them: it was a close decision.

2) Normally you would lead a heart to this contract, but did you notice that South (maybe) implied hearts with her Stayman bid?  (Actually, depending on the opponents' system agreements, that may not be the case ... you have every right to ask the opponents about this before making your opening lead). 

If I found out that South was showing four hearts, I would stay off the suit.  I don't want to lead a spade (that's North's suit), which leaves the minors.  A club is possible, and some Easts chose a club, but it's a suit that is not particularly attractive to break. (In fact it gives away the contract, allowing declarer to win a trick with ♣K).

That leaves the totally passive diamond lead, which would have been my choice. Well, it's food for thought.

3) On a heart (or spade or diamond) lead, West can defeat 3NT by switching to the queen of clubs when in with A. The low club play, found by Shirley Stewart, was a good attempt, but not good enough, because declarer just ducked it. East had to win, and now the the ♣ K was protected. Only the queen lets you run the suit. More food for thought!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 12/1/23)

One of the best feelings for a partnership is when the eventual dummy pins their faith in partner's declarer play, and then partner repays that faith.  This board is a good example.

The key bid was West's, who should voluntarily support partner's spades even if South does not bid 3. West's 7-pointer has improved during the auction. The ace is a full trick, and ♠Kx is a wonderful asset when partner shows (at least) 6 spades. Deena Pathy and Dawn Braham were two who made this bid, trusting their partners Gordon Travers and Viv Braham to make the most of the declarer play.

As East you are declarer 4♠: South leads a low diamond which North wins with the ace. A diamond is returned which you trump.

Plan the play.

This hand is a classic example of assessing the situation before you make a move. This usually involves counting your tricks: winners, or losers, or both.

Winners: you have 7 spades in all likelihood, and a pair of side aces = 9.

Losers:  none in spades, 2 in hearts, 1 in diamonds,  1 in clubs = 4.

No question about it: unless you do something clever or meet a particularly kind lie of the cards, you're taking only 9 tricks for down 1. The way to reduce your losers is via the heart suit. As long as North has at least one of the king or queen, you can take two finesses in hearts, and reduce your losers in that suit to one. But to finesse twice you need to properly use dummy's two entries.

The correct play is to cross to the ♠K and take a heart finesse, even though there are still trumps outstanding. Then when you get back in, you can pull remaining trumps and use the ♣A to take a second heart finesse. Several declarers made the mistake of drawing all the trumps first and taking only 9 tricks. Gordon and Viv were not amongst them, and completed the deal by bidding and making the 4♠ that their partner had encouraged them to bid.

(Actually, some winning declarers missed an even better play. After the first heart finesse loses to South's K, a trump was returned. After drawing trumps, declarer can ignore the second heart finesse and simply play the ace and another heart, setting up the hearts in dummy, allowing declarer's second club to be discarded.)

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 5/1/23)

Today we look at an opening bid problem. You are North, dealer, vulnerable against not. 

For the record, of the 8 tables, five opened 1 and three opened 3.

To what camp do you belong, or is there another camp?  

And if you do open 1, what's your rebid if partner responds 1?

Open at the one-level or preempt? If the deal belongs to you, then opening at the one-level is the way to go. A pre-empt will probably just make partner miserable.

But if the deal belongs to your opponents, then pre-empting will make them miserable. A one-level opening will cause them little stress.

You can't know, so either choice is acceptable. (Position is important: if you had been in second seat, with RHO passing, the odds would tip towards opening one, as one of your opponents is weak; in third seat, the odds would favour preempting, as LHO may have a strong hand).

If you do choose to preempt, 3 is not enough. Whilst it is impossible to know what the singleton ♣K is worth, the AKJxxxxx represents 8 probable tricks, far too strong for a pre-empt at the 3-level, even vulnerable. You should open 4. Google "Rule of 2 and 3" for more information!

Finally, if you open 1, hoping for a construction auction with your partner, your rebid needs to communicate the significant playing strength that you have. If partner responds 1, you should do as Elaine Watson did, jump to 3. This is where the raw HCP total of your hand misrepresents its strength.  In fact you have 4 length points for the 8-card suit, and this hand should be re-evaulated to 15, justifying the aggressive rebid. Well done to Elaine. Take a look at the South hand. Only 8 points (but 8 excellent points with the two aces) and 3NT is a moral certainty, with a combined 19 HCP. As someone once wrote, Points - Schmoints!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 29/12/22)

This bidding decision has a useful tip associated with it. Give it a try.

You are North, and your LHO deals and opens 2NT, which is passed around to you. Presumably 2NT shows a balanced 20-22 HCP hand, and RHO has little to nothing.

What do you do?

First, did you notice that you're vulnerable? That's bad news, because it's likely that LHO has you down in his hand. For example, she could have AK, A, ♣AK, 18 of her 20-22 HCP, and that's 5 tricks. Not to mention any problem you might have in spades.

But even if you were not vulnerable, I would be cautious. 7222 shapes are not frequent, but they do pop up, and when you get one, beware. They usually play very badly for you. They're like the distributional equivalent of the 4333 shape ... too flat!  7321 shapes, for example, are far stronger.

So well done to Susan Shand who calmly passed out 2NT. As you can see, no one can make anything much. 3♠ certainly will not make, and nor will 2NT. 

And well done also to Jenny Matheson, who sitting East, doubled an impertinent North for penalties in 3♠. +500 for 2 down was the E/W top.

The takeaway: with 7222 shape, proceed with caution.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 22/12/22)

This is certainly a worthy HotW. Every player had important decisions to make, and there are takeaways available.

West. Should West open 1♠?  There are 10 HCP and a weak 6-card suit. The Rule of 20 provides the answer: 10 HCP and 10 cards in the two longest suits gives you 20, and this is a clear 1♠ opening. The hand is far too strong to open 2♠ (and it misdescribes the nature of the hand anyway). Hilary Brear and Ray Carbuhn were two of the several Wests that did open 1♠ and they were off to the races.

North. Very weak (and vulnerable!) but it is an 8-card heart suit. With 6 certain tricks, I think North should stick her neck out and weak-jump-overcall 3. It's either that or Pass, and personally I couldn't bring myself to click the Pass button. Susan Shand was with me, and duly bid 3. What is life without a little risk? 

East. The Easts that heard partner open 1♠ should surely be looking for slam. Margaret Liew (Hilary's partner) did more than look: she simply bid 6♠. Purists may turn up their nose at this agricultural bid, but it's a good one, and earned her an outright top. She knew that with pathetic spades, her partner must have plenty of cards in the unbid suits.

Nevertheless there is no reason not to ask for aces here. After all, partner could have an opening bid with your side still missing two aces. Yuko Yoshida (Ray's partner) did find the 4NT bid ... and a slam was clearly in view,

South. Finally we come to South, and a really excellent tactical bid made by Shyamala Abey (Susan's partner). She threw a gigantic spanner into the E/W works by bidding 5. She didn't know for sure what was going on, but that 5 bid deprived the opponents of their Blackwood auction. E/W were no longer on firm ground, and ended up missing the slam that they were surely about to bid.

There is a solution to the dilemma of what to bid when the opponents interfere with Blackwood. It is the DOPI convention (Double = 0, Pass = 1).  If the opponents bid over 4NT, double = 0 aces (or keycards), pass = 1 ace, the next bid shows 2, and so on. Here, West would have bid 5♠ showing 2 aces, and East now bids the slam. 

DOPI is the rarest of conventions, but it did once come up for me in 1987.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 15/12/22)

All 9 tables played 3NT on this deal from today's game. With two flattish hands and 26 combined HCP, it seemed obvious to reach it. Unfortunately, a club lead defeats the contract: the defence can get 3 clubs and 2 aces before declarer gets to 9. 4 declarers duly went down, 5 were allowed to make 3NT.

But it's the bidding I'm interested in. How do you think the auction should go, after West opens 1 and North doubles for takeout (as occurred at 8 of the 9 tables)?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

You don't have to get to the doomed 3NT. All the Easts bid 1 over North's double, essentially ignoring it. But you shouldn't ignore it, because your opponents have wandered into the auction, a place that they don't belong. They are in fact in deep doo-doo.

East should redouble North's double, the so-called "Omnibus Redouble", which simply shows 10+ HCP.  It says: "partner, we have the balance of strength - let's see what happens next".

What happens next, I would imagine, is that South bids 1 with a sense of foreboding. West, with nothing particular to say, passes - in this auction, East is not allowed to pass out 1 - North passes, and East says DOUBLE.  

In Omnibus Redouble auctions, either party can double the opponents' bid for penalties: that is the whole point of the gadget. East's double is for penalties, and West with a relatively balanced hand and a couple of nice hearts, should be delighted to cooperate with this. On the Q lead, the defence can easily take 3 hearts, 5 diamonds and the ♣A for a score of +500, more than the value of the 3NT contract that they can't make anyway.

Of course N/S could maybe wriggle to 2♣, although I wouldn't bet on it. That contract is only two down. The point is that in such auctions, it's worthwhile at least giving yourself a chance of extracting a penalty. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 8/12/22)

One of the joys of a matchpoint duplicate is that every board counts equally, including the ones in which the level stays low. Board 2 was one such example.

You can see all four hands and I am going to quiz you about it. Since my answers are personal and not necessarily good ones, you can either do well at the quiz or respectfully disagree with my answers. It's win-win.

1. After West opens 1NT, should North double for penalties?

2. If North doubles for penalties, and East passes, what should South do?

3. What should North lead?

4. If North leads a low club against 1NT passed out, declarer winning, how should the hearts be played? (Ignore that you've peeked!)

5. Having won the club lead in the East hand (at one table, North led ♣4 and dummy's ♣5 won - so beautiful!), what should be played at trick 2?

1. After West opens 1NT, should North double for penalties?

I don't know for sure, but would be inclined to pass. There are a few factors at play here. First, I'm a little nervous about partner removing it to 2 ... that would put me proverbially up the creek. And I'm not sure what to lead (see question 3). Finally, doubling 'squeals' on the hand, telling the one-notrumper where all the cards are. He may be able to use this information to his advantage.

2. If North doubles for penalties, and East passes, what should South do?

South should pass. The rule for what to do when partner doubles 1NT for penalties is to pass with any balanced hand, no matter how weak. Sure it might make, but if it does, running is not too likely to work either. Meanwhile, partner might have the contract down in his own hand. So only run away with a weak unbalanced hand: one with at least a 5-card suit to escape to. Well done to Maggie Kelly who passed her partner's double. The contract went one down for a good score.

3. What should North lead?

I feel strongly that you should lead the ace or king of diamonds. As the saying goes, "a peek is worth two finesses".  The normal looking low club lead may give away an unnecessary trick, and meanwhile it will still be available once you have led a top diamond, gotten a look at dummy, and received a signal from partner. The ploy of "having a look at dummy" is underutilized.  In this case, dummy will tell you not to go after clubs, and that you are better off, after partner's encouraging diamond signal, to continue that suit.

4. If North leads a low club against 1NT passed out, declarer winning, how should the hearts be played? (Ignore that you've peeked!)

Now we turn to West, the declarer. When a club is led, and South plays a low card, it is obvious that North has long clubs and South short clubs. In the heart suit, we are missing 5 cards. If they divide 3-2, there are 4 easy tricks, but if they are 4-1, then we will want to be in a position to finesse against the jack. Given the club information, it is far more likely that South, if anyone, will have the long hearts.  So the heart suit should be played as follows: A, then a low heart to Q. Then if South does have the long hearts, their jack can be finessed.  Cashing the AK first is a big mistake.  Fiona Ferwerda was one declarer who handled the heart suit correctly.

5. Having won the club lead in the East hand, what should be played at trick 2?

OK, we've won the cub opening lead in dummy, as South could only contribute the 3. Leave the heart suit alone for the moment: now is the time to take the spade finesse. If that works, and we can gather 4 heart tricks, then our 1NT is made. Terry Passlow was one declarer who did so. Alas the spade finesse lost, and he ended up in the soup anyway, but it was a well thought-out play. This was one table where 1NT had not been doubled, so he had every reason to hope the spade finesse might work. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 1/12/22)

Sit yourself South and test your defence on this deal.

But first a word about the bidding. South's negative double is the safe way into the auction. It shows some points and at least 4 spades (the other major). The fact that you don't have 4 diamonds (the last unbid suit) is irrelevant ... and indeed over partner's 2 you can return to 2, a known 5-2 fit. Well done to Deena Pathy, Maggie Kelly and George Campbell, who found the nice negative double.

Now to the test. You end up on defence to 3♣. You lead the A, and continue with a second heart. Partner wins the J, and continues with a low heart, which declarer ruffs with ♣Q. How do you defend it?

Did you gleefully overruff the ♣Q with ♣K? Wrong!

In situations where declarer ruffs high, and you have the option of overruffing with an honour that you are going to be taking anyway,  it is almost invariably correct to not overruff.

Look at all four hands now, and follow the play if you coolly discard on the third heart. Declarer, who has only trumps to lose, crosses to ♠A and leads a club. Partner wins ♣A, perforce, and persists with a fourth heart, which declarer ruffs with the ♣J. Again you decline to take your king, and discard. And now look: you are left with ♣K9 sitting over declarer's ♣10, his last remaining honour. Your ♣9 has been promoted to a trick, and it is the setting trick.

This position is particularly pretty, as it was necessary to refuse to overruff twice, in order to bring power to that ♣9. If at any point you do overruff declarer's honour, you will find that declarer makes the contract.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 24/11/22)

Here's a bidding problem that no-one was able to solve at the table, so sadly there are no elephant stamps to be handed out. See how you go.

You simply have to make a call as West.

The first thing is to work out what partner is showing with 3NT. A balanced hand, one would think, and with what points? Not in the range for a 1NT opening (let's assume 15-17) because partner didn't open 1NT. Therefore because it's a jump, it must be stronger. Opener is showing about 18-19 HCP, balanced.

West has 12 HCP, bringing the HCP total to 30-31. But it's stronger than that, because of the 6-card club suit. That long suit translates directly into extra tricks. You can quantify this by adding length points, a valuable tool for estimating how high to go in notrumps. Add a point for each card over and above 4 cards in a suit. The 6-card clubs contains 2 length points, bringing the adjusted point total to 32-33. You are in range of 6NT.

Personally I would just bid 6NT at this point, but you can consider yourself to have passed the bidding test if you make any move towards slam after partner's 3NT. A quantitative 4NT, for example, would be a possibility.  Looking at partner's perfectly normal 19-point hand, you can count 2 spades, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds (after the ace has been knocked out) and 6 clubs, for a total of 12 tricks. It's the power of the long suit.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 17/11/22)

Consider this problem. You open 2♣ with that South hand, which only two of eight Souths did.  The rest of the field opened 1♣, which gives me the heebie-jeebies: it feels far to strong for a non-forcing opening.

Partner gives you a positive response with 2♠, you bid your clubs and partner repeats the spades, showing a 6-card suit at least.

Now what? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

It's an irritating problem, because you'd like to bid a slam,  but there's no guarantee it will make. 

This is where being armed with Roman KeyCard Blackwood can help. What you really want to know about is four cards: ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q and A. That's what RKCB is for!

Bid 4NT, which is a form of Blackwood in which there's a trump suit set ... in this case it's spades. (If you haven't formally agreed trumps, the implied trumps is the last bid suit, spades here.)  You can google the formula for the responses, but partner will make a bid that shows exactly one of the 5 key-cards (the four aces and the ♠K).  One is not enough: you are either missing the ace and king of spades, or the ace of hearts and one of the ♠AK.  You sign off in 5♠ ... just in time.

Two pairs bid and went down in slam, and I am going to give them the elephant stamp this week, despite their shared bottom, because they were the only two pairs that started, eminently correctly IMHO, with 2♣: Deena Pathy (S) - Gordon Travers (N) and Patricia Stewart-Uden (S) - Don Stewart-Uden (N). They didn't unravel the hand but at least they tried!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 10/11/22)

Today's deal features both bidding and play. As you can see, 4 is an excellent contract, but only 2 of 8 pairs reached it.

The auction you see is by Ray Carbuhn (West) and  Yuko Yoshida (East).  Each of them made a very good bid. First Yuko recognized that her heart hand was very much better than minimum, with the 7-card suit and 14 pristine HCP, consisting of all aces and kings. Hence the jump to 3.  And then Ray recognized the value of the QJ ... and whilst the rest of his hand was no great shakes, he did hold a maximum in the 6-9 range. Hence the raise to 4.

The only other pair to reach game, on a different auction, was Margaret Skeen and Tony Seed.

Now let's look at the play in 4. The lead from South is ♣3.  How do you play it?

The first thing you should always do as declarer is make an assessment. That means counting your tricks. In this case, there are 7 heart tricks and 2 clubs. The ♠K and ♠Q will combine for another trick. So that makes 10. If you are in 4, you're happy. If in a lower heart contract, you're sad.

But no matter whether you are happy or sad, the next  thing to do is think about whether you can wangle another trick or two. Indeed, if you are in a heart partscore, you can still earn an above-average score by making 11 tricks here.  Good play can make up for bad bidding!

So where can you get another trick?  Hearts and diamonds  ... impossible. Clubs ... unlikely (unless there's a miracle: clubs 3-3 and hearts 2-2 - do you see how?).  But in spades, there's a straightforward route to an 11th trick: by ruffing a spade loser in dummy. Win the club lead and attack spades by leading the ♠Q. The defenders can belatedly win and play a trump, but it will be too late.  You play ♠K and spade ruff, and eventually get back to your hand to draw the rest of the trumps. You end up with 11 tricks, losing just a spade and a diamond.

There are a few things that might go wrong with this plan, but none of them are likely.  

The takeaway: as declarer, start with an assessment: counting your tricks. Then look for ways to take more of them!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 3/11/22)

On today's deal, South has an enormous hand. The first decision is what to do after RHO's 3rd seat 1♠ opening.

Penny Robertson was the only player to make a Michaels Cue Bid of 2♠, showing (at least) 5-5 in hearts and an unnamed minor. It's the perfect solution to this problem, describing your hand accurately (there is no upper limit of strength as 2♠ will never be passed out) and allowing you to find something out about partner's hand.

Several Souths made a simple red-suit overcall, 2 or 2, bids that give me the heebie-jeebies ... what if there is no further bidding? I really do not want to play that hand in a partscore, as one N/S pair did.

Other Souths doubled, which is less risky (although they would not be enamoured if North passed this takeout double with a bunch of spades). Still, the takeout double is clearly inferior to the Michaels cue-bid.

All right, let's say you make that 2♠ bid, and the auction proceeds as shown.  What do you do now? All you know about partner's hand is that she will have (at least) 3 hearts.

Maybe I'm looking at the hand through rose-coloured glasses, or maybe I'm influenced by knowing what North actually held, but it seems to me that there might well be a slam here.

I would need partner to have one of the A or ♣K.  That side suit of diamonds is very powerful, and is a fair chance of being  played for no losers whatever partner holds in it. If she has the queen, great. Alternatively, if she has 3 or 4 of them, the queen might drop. And if she has shortage, the suit can probably be ruffed good.

So I think 4 is not enough. I suggest a 5 bid, offering for partner to go to slam. 5 of a major, inviting 6 of the major, is an often overlooked bidding tool. 

As it turns out, partner had the and ♣K, with 4 diamonds to boot. There were 13 top tricks to be had in either red-suit. Like I say, maybe the full layout has biased me. But surely at least a small slam could be bid. So well done to Jenny Matheson and Mariette Read, the only N/S to reach a slam (after a takeout double of 1♠). A well deserved top.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 27/10/22)

What would you do with South's hand today?  

Partner's opened 2♣ , you've given a negative response with your 7 HCP hand, and now partner has jumped to 3NT.

Do you bid again, or let partner play 3NT? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer]

What's partner got? Who knows!  Here's what I do know ... partner could have bid 2NT, showing 23-24 balanced, and you are allowed to pass that, if you have zilch.

So partner must have decided he didn't want to stay short of game under any circumstances. So in my opinion, he must have a stronger hand that 23-24 balanced. 25-26 balanced perhaps?

That would total you up to 32-33 and put you in the 'maybe slam' zone. And whilst you're flat, you do have three 10s as bolster. Let's just just say that I've seen worse 7-counts. 

Or to put  it another way, you are maximum for your 2 bid. It all adds up to making a slam try.  I would suggest a quantitative 4NT bid (how could that bid possibly be Blackwood?)  Offering partner the possibility of slam, without committing to it.

Well, North had 27 HCP, a real monster ... any offer would have been accepted.

Just two pairs reached the excellent 6NT contract: Alan Casanalia -  Terry Passlow and John Robertson - Lanny Chan.  They both achieved this via South showing some strength with their initial response to 2♣, a bid showing 6-9 HCP in one case, and a bid showing 7+ HCP in the other. Either of those was enough for North to take over.

This deal confirms one of my long-held beliefs: that the responder to a 2♣ opener should attempt to describe his hand at all costs, and not to decide the final contract (as the pass of 3NT does here). 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 20/10/22)

I was giving a lesson on Stayman a few weeks ago, and at some point stated that "if you have a 5-3 fit in one major and a 4-4 fit in the other, go for the 4-4".

One of the students, not unreasonably, asked why, and I probably blathered on for a bit too long in response.

The curious board 4 today explains it better. North-South have a fit in both majors, and should bid a slam in one of them. The hand record is surprising: it tells you that N/S can make 13 tricks in the 4-4 heart fit, but only 12 tricks in the longer 5-4 spade fit! How strange. Let's see why.

In spades, you have 5 spades (when the suit divides so nicely), 4 hearts, 2 clubs and a diamond = 12. For the 13th trick, you take the diamond finesse, but it loses.

But in hearts, where you have the same 12 top tricks, the 13th becomes available elsewhere. After drawing trumps in 3 rounds, you run the spades, South discarding a diamond on the fifth round of the suit. There goes your diamond loser. It's magic!

So this is why the 4-4 fit is (often) better than the 5-3.  It is that you can maybe discard losers on the long 5-card suit. But in the 5-3 (or 5-4!) fit, there are no discards available from the 4-4 side suit. On board 4, the one discard available from spades was sufficient.

Of course in real life, no one got to hearts. North opened 1♠ so spades it was.  Well done to those who reached the fine slam.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 6/10/22)

Today, there was a remarkable set of 4 consecutive deals (9 - 12) all of which involved high level sacrificial decisions. I could have picked any of the four boards to write up, with a number of excellent decisions made at several tables, but I've settled on this one.

The full auction is shown from one table.  6♣ doubled, down 3, is very nearly the par result ... the outcome that would occur if all four players could see all four hands. In fact, the par is 5♠ doubled, down 2, but that was not a realistic contract at all. So credit, in general to the table.

Judge for yourself. Were any of the bids made here particularly outstanding?  Any bids you disagree with?

This was an excellent auction overall. The one bid that I would have a tiny quibble with is North's 4♣.  At the time it seemed (and was) reasonable enough, but as the auction panned out, you can see a flaw. North might have recognized that when her RHO bid 2, she would probably need to be dealing with an opposing 4 bid in the near future, given her singleton heart and West's bid. When that did occur she made the correct decision to sacrifice against it, by bidding 5♣.

The problem is: if you're planning to bid 4♣ and if necessary 5♣ later, you are a whole lot better off bidding 5♣ in the first place. This maximizes the pressure placed on the opponents. Can you see how awkward an immediate bid of 5♣ is for East? Will she bravely bid 5 with an 11-count and 3 little hearts? Maybe, or maybe not.  And what about West? If East does pass an immediate 5♣, then it's not clear for West to keep going in hearts.  The hearts are excellent, but the three low doubletons are awful, and West doesn't know what level of heart support partner has.

North's actual 4♣ bid could pay off big time if it ended the auction ... but how likely is that?  My advice is: with weak supporting hands in a competitive auction, give it your one best shot immediately, and then leave the rest to partner.

I think there were two outstanding bids made in this auction. Dell Macneil's pass as East over 5♣ by North was perfect. She didn't want to bid 5 herself, having supported with minimal hearts. But she wasn't ready to double the sacrificing opponents, given her singleton club. This was the time to pass the final decision back to partner, who understandably chose to go on with his one-track hand.

The other bid I loved was Fiona Ferwerda's bid of 6♣.  Normally, having pushed the opponents up to the 5-level you would leave them there, hoping to take them down. But Fiona didn't think this was likely. Her Q10 doubleton was useless, and given her partner's bidding and the opponents' progression to 5, she knew there would be at most 1 trick in clubs. It seemed 5 was likely to make, and the favourable vulnerability made a further sacrifice attractive. Well bid!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 29/9/22)

12 North players wrestled over this bidding problem today (or a small variation of it), and no-one was able to come up with the solution. Let's see if we can help.

The auction so far is natural enough, but now we must find a rebid. What should it be?

Let's see. You have 13 HCP and partner has opened the bidding. You would like to think there is a game here, but where? 3NT is a possibility, as long as partner can stop the diamonds.  Or maybe 5♣ as we might have a decent club fit. The third option is 4, should partner have a bit of support there.

It's hard to know. You need more information. You need to get partner to help you. And the only way to do that is to bid 2, the opponent's suit. You know partner won't pass that, and whatever she does bid, it will surely help.

In fact, if West had not bid 1, then 2 would still be the correct bid, but now you would see it as 4th-suit-forcing. I think in this auction, people just didn't see it as a possibility, but it's the only call that will keep the ball rolling and not commit your side to anything.

Choices actually found were 2, a distinct underbid, 3♣, which in the main was passed, and 2NT which led to a notrump contract off the first 5 tricks.

Look at the South hand. Over the 2 bid all this hand can bid is a grudging 2.  There's no diamond stopper for a notrump bid, nor extra length in either of the black suits. Heart support of Jx will simply have to do. And indeed it's just what the doctor ordered: as long as North plays carefully: ruffing the third round of diamonds, and going over to dummy to finesse in hearts, 4 will roll home.

The bottom line: if you have a good hand and don't know what to do, try bidding the opponents' suit. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 22/9/22)

Today's deal is not particularly complex, but it does illustrate a useful point about the  Standard American and 2-over-1 systems.

I'll sit you in the East seat. What does 2NT show, and what should you do now?

Playing Standard American, the jumping 2NT rebid shows 18-19 HCP in a balanced hand.

A quick piece of arithmetic will tell East that the combined partnership total is 33-34 HCP.  33 is a magic number, the number of high-card-points you should have in order to bid 6NT. So the correct bid here is 6NT. There is no value in investigating 6♠ instead, because it is highly unlikely that spades will be worth one more trick in the play than notrumps. In a matchpoint duplicate, you are far better off getting 1440 in 6NT than a measly 1430 in 6♠.

Toni Bucknell (West) and Maggie Kelly (East) were the only pair to bid and make 6NT.  After Toni's 2NT rebid, Maggie stopped off to check on aces via a Gerber 4♣.  This wasn't strictly necessary, as having 33 points means you cannot be missing two aces. Still, better safe than sorry.

Why did so many pairs miss the excellent slam? Well, many Wests opened 1NT, which I assume showed 16-18 HCP (or maybe 15-18).  Now it was much more difficult (although it shouldn't have been impossible) to reach slam. 

Be that as it may, I want to make a strong pitch for using a 15-17 HCP range for your 1NT opening. Why?  Because it spreads the point ranges for notrump bidding more evenly.  Using 15-17 HCP, you have the following ranges of balanced opening hands:

  12-14: Open 1 of a suit, then make a minimum notrump rebid
  15-17: Open 1NT
  18-19: Open 1 of a suit, then make a jump notrump rebid
  20-22: Open 2NT
  23+:    Open 2♣ 

Notice how even it is: the entire range of points is broken in to 2 to 3 point blocks.  If you use 16-18 instead, you have a wide range (12-15) at the bottom, which is very very hard to work with. 15-18 1NT gives you an unworkable range in that opening. 15-17 is the sweet spot.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 15/9/22)

Bridge can be a cruel game. Consider this South hand. Partner opens 1 (!) and RHO passes.  How do you bid it?

This is not a hand for science, nor having a dialogue with your partner.  Not in a million years can you communicate your hand to partner.  This is a hand for a blunt instrument: namely Blackwood.

That's what Jane Keyte did. She bid 4NT, partner answered 5 showing two aces, and she bid 6. That's the way I would bid it too.

Take a look at North's hand. It was perfect. 6 seems cold and indeed if the opponents don't take the ♠A at trick 1, they won't get it at all.

Alas, it only seemed cold. Sitting East, Trish Stewart-Uden led a club, without I imagine a lot of hope. When West ruffed it and cashed the ♠A, the Keyte's had their totally undeserved bottom. What can I say?

You might think this is just a flukey hand, not worthy of writing up. But it has hidden depths. Put yourself in the West chair. They bid to 6 via Blackwood, with your partner on lead. How good is your telepathy? You are willing your partner to lead a club, because you will ruff it and cash ♠A.  Several West's psychic powers were not up to it ... their partners led a heart or a spade, and 6 duly made.

But it's not all about telepathy: suppose West doubles 6. That's what's called a Lightner Double (named after Theodore Lightner who first came up with the idea). It tells partner to make an 'unusual' lead, typically from their longest suit, because that's the suit where doubler will be void. A Lightner double might just get you a top board, as partner will certainly lead a club, and now you have them down 1, doubled.

But wait just a moment! Now put yourself North. You open your 18-count with 1, partner goes crazy asking for aces, and puts you in 6.  West doubles it.  You can rescue the situation by running off to 6NT.  There's no ruff to be had against 6NT.

A pretty hand indeed.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 8/9/22)

You are South, declaring a heart contract. 6 is a fine spot, but let's assume you are in 4 as were most of the field. It doesn't matter: you want to maximize your tricks whatever the contract.

A spade is led, and you win with the ♠A in dummy. Next comes the drawing of trumps, but how?  This combination, where you have 9 trumps, missing only the king and the queen, but holding the jack, ten and nine, is not infrequent. There is a correct way of playing it, so we might as well put it into a writeup.

You lead a heart from dummy, and RHO plays the eight. 

The most reliable way to work out suit combinations is to list all possible layouts, and then take the play that works the most times. You might want pencil and paper, and since you are playing on BBO, then go ahead. (Technically, this is illegal, as one is not allowed to use external aids like a pencil, but hey, it wouldn't be the crime of the century.)

Of course in some layouts, it won't matter what you do. Here is an exhaustive list of the ones that do matter.

West   East
KQ     85
Q      K85
K      Q85
8      KQ5
5      KQ8
-      KQ85

Can you work out which play succeeds in all but one of the relevant combinations? 

Lead a low one from North, and if East plays a low card, play the jack.  If that loses, get back to dummy, lead another low card, and if East plays low again, finesse with the 10. That will bring home the bacon on any of the layouts listed, except the first one, where West has KQ doubleton.  All other strategies lose to at least two combinations.

On the actual layout, as long as you finessed on the first round, you were fine.  Joan Courtemanche, Penny Robertson, Jane Keyte, Ray Carbuhn and Lesley Johnstone were the declarers who got this right. I'm going to assume that if they'd lost the first round to an honour, they would have finessed again.

Examination of suit combinations like this runs into a lot of difficulties because players make illogical deductions based on cards that were played. Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of Restricted Choice. But the bottom line is: With 9 cards missing the king and the queen, finesse twice.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 1/9/22)

Take a look at the N/S cards here. North has opened 1♠, East overcalls 2.

As you can see, a slam in spades looks easy. In fact, a grand slam was making, as East had the ♠K, singleton. And yet, only one pair reached the slam. How do you think the hand should be bid?

Let's begin with South, who passed originally, with 10 HCP. Now that a spade fit has been discovered, South can count distribution points ... 3 of them in this case, for the singleton heart. That boosts South's total points to 13, and this should be enough for game, even opposite a light 3rd seat opener.  Penny Robertson was the only South to bid a simple 4♠ here, and I think she was on the right track.  (An alternative, if you play splinter bids, would be 4, a jump in the opponents suit to depict spade support, a singleton or void heart, and enough strength to go for game.)  

Some Souths bid 3, a cue-bid raise: not an unreasonable choice, but perhaps not quite doing justice to the hand.

Penny's partner was Fiona Ferwerda. After hearing 4♠, she bid 6♠. That's how to do it!  South says: "I think we can make 4♠."  North says: "In that case, I think we can make 6♠."  This is good bidding.  North didn't wheel out Blackwood, because with a diamond void, knowing how many aces partner has is of little help.

We play bridge in a world of lots of conventions and lots of bidding theory. I love bidding conventions. But there are times, more frequent than one might think, when it's best to just blast away.  This was one such time.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 25/8/22)

Today's deal features an interesting duel between the N/S and E/W players.

Let me present it this way. South deals and opens 2♠, a weak two.

What should West do over that? And what should North do over whatever West does?

West's problem is an ugly one indeed. Mostly, double was chosen, but this has a very significant drawback, one I need hardly point out. Let's just say that at several tables, East's takeout to 4 was not a welcome development. And since you can see North's hand, it will become clear that 4  was unsuccessful. Down 2, 3 or 4 where it was bid.

No, you can't double, you simply can't. When you double, you basically promise hearts, the other major, and you ain't got them. Some lies are white, some are grey, but this takeout double is a big black one. 

One West couldn't see a satisfactory bid, so passed. I don't like that either ... it's like you accept being stolen from. But I will concede this: it's better than a double!

The solution is to overcall 2NT. The points are right (16-18). The spades are right (a stopper or two). The hearts are almost  right: you're meant to have two of them, but singleton ace will have to do. 2NT is a white lie.

As for North, whether West doubles, passes or bids 2NT, North should apply the  Law of Total Trumps and bid 3♠.  North knows of a 9-card spade fit, and in this competitive (or soon to be competitive) auction, should bid ASAP to the 9-trick contract, i.e. 3♠.  Well done to Dianna Middleton, Peter Ferguson and Gordon Travers, all of whom found the blocking 3♠ bid. 

One final point: suppose West had bid the recommended 2NT, and North had bid the recommended 3♠ ... what would you do as East?  No one could blame East for giving  4 a whirl, and there you are, back in the worst of all possible contracts. That's how powerful the Law of Total Trumps is.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 18/8/22)

Try this bidding problem for size.

LHO opens 1♣, RHO responds 1♠.  The question is: should you make a bid here, and if so, what? 

No one could complain about your passing ... after all it's not much of a hand.

But if you choose to do something, it should be double. When the opponents bid two suits, as here, then your low-level double is for takeout, showing a minimum of four cards in the other two suits.  One point to note about this particular takeout double is that you don't have to be short in the suit you are doubling ... all that is required is 4+ cards in both of the unbid suits.

There are two other factors that make the takeout double quite a good idea here. Did you note either of them when given the problem?

First, your side is non-vulnerable. If you win the contract and go down, it will be in 50s. That could be a good score if your opponents can make 110 or 140.  Vulnerability is crucial.

Second, you were dealer and passed. Partner knows you don't have opening strength, and shouldn't 'hang you high' for taking a bid.

Another way to look at this problem is to predict your unhappiness should you pass, and, for example, LHO raises to 2♠, passed back to you. It would be brave to come in now, committing to the 3-level, and yet, you don't much relish the idea of defending 2♠.  This is a common theme in competitive auctions: it is often a good idea to get in early, whilst the auction is low, and then bow out - as distinct from listening, and then having to make a decision at a higher level.

Looking at all four hands, the raise to 2♠ was not what was going to happen. However, the hand record says your side can make 3, with the opponents making 2.  If you come in with a double, then your side is quite likely to steal the contract at 2.  Well done to Rosemary Polya and Marg Ferguson, the two Souths that made the takeout double.  

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 11/8/22)

Today's deal features a technique that is under-utilized in today's game: visualization.

Suppose partner opens 2, a weak two showing about 6-10 HCP and a 6-card diamond suit.

Visualize away ...

Here's what one should 'see'. Partner has 6 diamonds to the ace.  For a vulnerable weak two, that makes sense, right?

So, in a spade contract, perhaps the opponents can take 3 tricks in hearts and clubs. But then you get in, and with a bit of racing luck, have 6 spade tricks. And 4 diamond tricks, because your 4-card diamond suit means you have a 10 card fit. If partner does have the A, then assuming the outstanding diamonds divide 2-1, you have all the diamonds.  6 spades plus 4 diamonds = 10 tricks.

A visualizer, such as Michael McTiernan who faced this problem, will bid 4♠ over 2.  He won't worry about points, or rules, or system, or any of that stuff. He will see that there is a decent chance of making 4♠, which will be a higher scoring game than 5 (and of course, 5 risks losing the first three tricks in clubs and hearts).

Of course, it could become unstuck. There might be a spade to lose. Partner might lack the A (although in that case, perhaps there's compensation elsewhere).  But on balance, it seems 4♠ will likely make.

Today, it comes home with an overtrick. 

Other Souths faced a slightly different problem. Their partners passed, RHO opened 1♣, they overcalled 1♠ and partner bid 2.  Whilst not as clear as opposite the weak two opening, you can make the same visualization. Your Kxxx makes it likely that diamonds are running, and again 4♠ is a worthwhile proposition.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 4/8/22)

Today's deal features a tricky rebid problem for South.  To the untrained eye, the decision might look straightforward, but the field found four different bids, all of which were interesting.

So choose your bid, after partner responds 1♠ to your 1, and then we can discuss it.

Two Souths rebid 2, a definite error. A simple minimum rebid shows about 12-14 HCP, and this hand was considerably stronger. If, on your second bid, you are about to bid a suit that has already been bid by your partnership, you need to come out of the woods with your strength. A minimum rebid (2 or 2♠ here) shows a minimum strength hand. With extra strength, one has to jump.

Accordingly 9 Souths jumped to 3, showing about 15-17 HCP and a good 6-card diamond suit, which is precisely what they had. Hard for me to complain about that.  But I intend to.

One creative South was concerned about not showing the nice 3-card spade support. She jumped to 4♠!  Whilst I admire the general attitude, 4♠ was a mistake on two counts. First, partner has promised only 4 spades, so this was potentially bidding to a 4-3 spade fit. And second, South's hand is just not strong enough to commit to game at this point.  A jump to 3♠ would have avoided the second mistake, and would not be the world's worst choice.

The 3-card spade support is an issue ... it would nice to be able to locate a 5-3 spade fit, and a simple 3 rebid might lose that possibility. There is a solution, and it was found by Simon Tissera. He rebid 2, a phony reverse. The phony bit was that he only had 3 hearts ... he bid a non-suit. But it was actually quite a safe choice, because if partner supports hearts (with four cards), then it implies that she has 5 spades (allowing a safe return to spades). Why?  Because with 4-4 in the majors, partner would have responded 1 not 1♠, bidding 4-card suits up the  line.

The phony reverse here was really very neat, and it worked a treat. Partner rebid 2NT, clearly showing a stopper in the fourth suit, clubs, and Simon gave 3NT a whirl.  There were 9 easy tricks in 3NT.

The only other pair to reach the top spot were guided by North, Alison Simon. She tried 3NT over partner's 3 rebid ... an aggressive but plausible option which got the big payout.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 28/7/22)
There is seemingly no end to the interesting deductions that can be made in bridge.  Here is one of them.
You are West, on lead to South's 4. The auction is somewhat revealing. Have a think about that (in particular the spade situation), select your lead, then click [Show Answer].

It looks instinctive to lead the ♠K, top of a sequence. But what is the spade layout?  You can expect North, who opened 1♠ to have 5.  That leaves 3 cards for South and East. OK, so far?

If South had 3 spades, you might expect she would have supported the spades at some stage. So South probably has 0, 1 or 2 spades. If South has 0 spades, then your spade lead won't help and could do damage, if South could take a useful discard on the North's ace.

The interesting stuff is what happens when South has 1 or 2 spades.  If 1, then your lead is safe enough, but won't do much good. If South has 2 spades, partner has the singleton. Your ♠K drives out the ace and you now have a cashing spade winner, but how will you get in to take it? It's very unlikely that you have an entry. And if partner gets the lead, she won't have a spade to play back to you!

In short, a spade lead can't actually achieve anything, in all likelihood, and you know it. That leaves the simple lead of the unbid suit, diamonds. And as it turns out, the Q lead will get your side a trick ... and if you don't lead diamonds, declarer will take all 13.

Well done to Jane Keyte, Jo Quinlivan, Ray Carbuhn and Joan Craig, all of whom found the Q to obtain a trick for their side.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 21/7/22)

Today's writeup is a little bit naughty, containing some very dubious advice, and I would suggest you do not read it.

But you're still reading, aren't you?

There were two consecutive boards where a player has a tricky decision after RHO's opening bid.  The first was board 3 ... and this one is board 4.

After two passes, your RHO opens 1. What's your poison?

Frankly, nothing fits. You have the points and shape for a 1NT overcall, but alas, no diamond stopper.

What about double?  What will you do when partner responds 1? Self-destruct, I would say.  Bidding 1♠ over 1 shows more strength and more spades. Any other bid is out of the question. And passing could leave you in a ridiculous 4-2 fit.

Speaking of passing, passing 1 is like conceding the match before the kickoff. In reality, you'll find yourself trying to defeat 1, which turns out to be impossible.

So now the naughty bit. Your best option, in my humble opinion, is to overcall 1♠ on a four-card suit. Sacrilege, I know, but the suit is very strong, and most importantly, it makes your subsequent bidding easier.  You might not get to the right contract, but at least your stress levels will be low.

Overcalling 4-card suits at the one-level is a slightly controversial subject in the world of bridge, but when all the other options are unpalatable, it should be considered.  Just make sure your suit is a strong one: the AKJ9 fits the bill nicely.  Here, it works a treat, getting you to a making spade partscore.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 14/7/22)

Today's deal is illustrative of what the best players do at the bridge table. It's well worth examining.

You're sitting West, defending South's 4.  You lead ♠K, and dummy wins ♠A (partner ♠5, declarer ♠2).  Declarer now leads dummy's three top diamonds, on which he discards the ♠3, ♠9 and ♠10.  Next comes A, K, Q.  Partner follows twice, then discards a diamond on the third round.

So far, you've just been following suit, but your time will come. My question is: how do you defend the hand?  Declarer's next card is going to be a little club, and you need to be ready for that.

To get the play right, you have to count, keep counting, and then count some more. You have to count as you go. If you can build up the distribution of the unseen hands, you will almost surely know what to do.

Let's try it here. At trick 2, we discover that declarer has no diamonds. He discards three spades which means, unless declarer is playing a very strange game, he started with four spades in total (having played one at trick 1).

Then he plays three top hearts, and you discover that partner had two. A bit of subtraction will tell you that declarer started with 6 hearts.

You've isolated declarer's shape, using the simplest of arithmetic. He is 4-6-0-3 distribution.  Now, in clubs, declarer has either Jxx or xxx. If he has the jack, then there's nothing more to this hand: declarer will lose just one club trick.

But if declarer has three little clubs (as he did), you're in with a chance. When declarer leads a low club from hand, play low. The ♣K will win. Declarer returns to hand by trumping a spade and plays another club. Here's your moment: you duck again, without a care in the world. (And you truly don't have a care: you have worked out that your ♣A is always going to take a trick.)

Declarer is faced with a complete guess: whether to play you for the ♣A, or the ♣J.  In the latter case, your partner would have made a straightforward play of not taking his ♣A on the first round of the suit. Declarer is in fact quite likely to try the ♣10 on the second round of the suit, and miraculously a second trick has come to the defence.

What's the moral of this (rather boring) little story? It is that if you keep counting as you go, you will find yourself not quite in the usual defensive fog of "not knowing what's going on". Give it a try!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 7/7/22)

Last week's VHotW featured a bizarre deal involving a 12-trick hand. This week, let's return to Planet Earth with a more important bread-and-butter problem.

The question is: how should this be bid, against silent opponents?  I'll start you off with 1♠ as North.

Decide on the (one and only one) correct auction, then click [Show Answer].

South's response:  The correct response to 1♠ is an anti-intuitive 1NT. This is one of bridge's problem bids. Normally 1NT is bid on a balanced sort of hand, but the 1NT response to partner's suit opening is different. It's a coded response, showing 6 to 9 HCP and nothing that can be bid at the 1-level. 

Bidding a new suit at the 2-level promises 10 or more HCP, thereby making the 1NT range 6-9. Indeed South's hand is by no means the most unbalanced one could have for this bid.

North's rebid: The correct rebid is 3♠, showing around 16-18 HCP and a strong 6-card suit. When you rebid a suit that has already been bid by the partnership, it is essential that you show your strength at the same time. That's because bidding suits that have already been bid (by one partner or the other) tend to be non-forcing.

Several Norths bid just 2♠.  South had no reason to bid over that: she would have thought North had as few as 11 or 12 HCP to go along with her spades.  2♠ is too little.

One North rebid 4♠.  That was too much. Put her 17 HCP opposite partner's possible 6, and there's insufficient overall strength for game.

South's rebid: South has no help (literally) in spades, but does have 8 HCP. That's in the top-half of her 6-9 range. So she should try 3NT. She has no idea whether 3NT will make, or how it might make, but better that than simply passing partner in 3♠.  The saying is: 'tis nobler to go down in game.

As it turned out, 3NT was a perfectly reasonable contract that made without much trouble.

Well done to these 5 pairs who had the officially approved auction:
  Carolyn & Bob Hart
  Shirley Stewart - Joan Courtemanche
  Deena Pathy - Gordon Travers
  Gordon Shinewell - Geoffrey Schroder
  Pam Richardson - Mary Day

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 30/6/22)

I couldn't not have this deal as HotW.   What a hand!  You're the dealer, everyone vulnerable. Two questions for you:

1) If the rules of bridge were changed and you were only allowed one bid per deal, what would your bid be?

2) In the real bridge world, what's your strategy for bidding this?

1) If I just had one bid, it would be 6♠. Most of the time, both spades and diamonds run, and there's your 12 tricks. Or if one of the suits doesn't, then perhaps partner has the ♣A. Or even lacking the ♣A, perhaps they lead a heart and your partner has the ace there.

Nevertheless, 7 of the 11 Norths chose to end up in 4♠. If they weren't customers and therefore always right, I might accuse them of being just a little bit wimpish.

2) How might one bid the hand? One option is to open 2♣, planning to bid the spades and then the diamonds. If partner prefers diamonds, then go for the safer 6 ... for example, partner might have a singleton spade and 3 diamonds, in which case 6 is better: you might be able to ruff the spades good. That was the approach taken by Pamela Mathie, Joan Courtemanche, Fiona Ferwerda and Dianna Middleton. No wimps they! When partner was happy to play in spades, they bid 6♠ and there was not the slightest problem in the play.

FYI, a very old-fashioned but useful once-in-a-decade convention is an opening bid of 4NT. This should be played as a specific ace ask.  Partner responds:
  5♣ = no aces
  5 / 5 / 5♠ / 6♣ = ace of that suit
  5NT = two aces

Opener then names the contract.

That way you could give 7♠ a try if partner shows the club ace.  This came up for my partnership in a national event in 2004, and it worked a treat. I reckon it's due to happen again soon.

Finally, one further player needs congratulation. Mary Day sat East. Her RHO opened 2♣, then bid spades and diamonds before jumping  straight to 6♠.  She led a club, cashing her partner's ace, and salvaging a 30% score against one of the slam bidders. Obviously she didn't want to lead one of declarer's suits, and in choosing between hearts and clubs, she had a bit to go on. When players jump to slam without ace-asking, they often have a void (which renders the ace-ask less than useful). With 6 hearts and only 2 clubs, she suspected declarer was void in hearts, and therefore led the shorter suit. An excellent inference that paid off. All the other declarers made 13 tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 16/6/22)

This deal had points of interest in the bidding and play.

First, the auction: what do you think of the bidding shown here? Let's assume North's 1NT has a range of 15-17.

Second, the play. North is declarer in 3NT. East leads the 7, 3 from dummy, 10 from West.  How do you go about the play to maximize your tricks?

South's invitational-to-game 2NT looks spot on to me. With 9 HCP opposite 15-17, there's a combined range of 24 to 26 HCP.  With South's flat shape, 24 HCP might not be enough, but one can hope that 26 HCP is enough for 3NT.

What should North do with 16, the middle of the range? This is a not uncommon situation, and one has to look a little deeper into the hand to decide whether to accept or reject the invitation.

The two four-card suits provide a little bit of extra hope for developing an extra trick, but the real swinger is the 109.  That doesn't contribute a point, but in many situations will contribute a trick. For example, put it opposite South's actual QJx. You will get 3 or 4 tricks, depending on the location of the K.  But make North's diamonds A432, again opposite QJx.  Now 4 diamond tricks is out of the question, and you need a little bit of racing luck to even make 3 tricks. Similar calculations will apply opposite different South holdings.

So 3NT, accepting, looks good to me. Naomi Peters and Karen Jorin were one pair who conducted this simple but finely-judged auction.

Now to the play in 3NT. You win the J at trick 1: have you decided what to do at trick 2?

There are four top tricks in the black suits, and 3 or 4 in diamonds, depending on the location of the king. It looks  for all the world as if East has A: she has led this suit to a blind auction, so it's likely her best one. So there's another heart trick to be won by leading towards the K.

The only possible extra trick is in clubs, should the suit divide 3-3, but even if it does, you still have much work to do to generate your extra red suit tricks. The club suit is a furphy.

The correct, and almost completely safe play is to play back a heart at trick 2. This will generate your extra heart trick, and provide you with a safe entry to dummy to take the diamond finesse.  If East wins the heart, and continues the suit, you take the K and the diamond finesse. If it works, there's your overtrick. If not, you still have a 100% safe 9 tricks (as East can do no better than to win the diamond  and take two more heart winners).

The continuation of hearts at trick 2 looks strange, but it is the correct play. Did you find it?

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 9/6/22)

This explosive deal struck me as having several instructive bidding decisions.

Let's start by giving you North's. When RHO opens 1♣, would you do anything? And if so, what? (Everyone is vulnerable.)

Don't tell me you got fooled by that bit about being vulnerable!  This hand has pluses (the nice shape) and minuses (the singleton king), but the bottom line is that you have 8 HCP and a decent 5-card heart suit. You should bid it. Who knows what might happen next, but disrupting the opponents is usually a good idea.

I fully admit that I might not have the world with me on this, but this is my column, so sue me.

Agreeing with me were Sandra Mansell, Margot McCluskey, Jenny Matheson, Cathy Wilson and Anna Kearon, all of whom bid 1.

Other non-pass alternatives were 1 (selected by a couple of players) and 2NT (the Unusual Notrump, showing the two lowest unbid suits).  1 emphasises the wrong suit (you want partner to lead a heart, not a diamond, to a possible spade contract declared by East). 2NT takes you to the 3-level, which even for me, is a bit too high. Still, better a madman than a wimp.

All right then, take a look at all four hands, in particular East's monster.

Whatever North does, I think East should bid 6♠.  Partner has an opening hand ... surely 6♠ should be there. At the very worst, you may need a finesse. And I doubt even the world's most elite players would have methods that could find a grand slam here.  

No one bid 6♠ directly, but Dianna Middleton, Yuko Yoshida, Dorothy Stewart, Geoffrey Schroder and Moya Crowle all bid to the slam eventually, some with the 'help' of Blackwood, which is actually of no use at all, given your heart void.

One might think that would be the end of it, but perhaps not. Cast your eyes over the South cards, with partner overcalling  1.  Do you think 6♠ will make? I certainly would, even with my ace and a bidding partner. If East has used Blackwood, then they know they're not missing two aces. And if they haven't used Blackwood, then that's because East has a heart void, which is hardly a surprise given our 6-card support.

I think there's a strong argument for sacrificing in 7. It certainly would have worked, salvaging an averagish sort of score rather than a near bottom. 7 loses only three tricks, -800, compared to the -1430 you were headed for. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one found it, but it was a real possibility.  North could have proudly said in the post-mortem, "I bid 1 so that we could go down 800 in 7 doubled".

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 2/6/22)

Looking at the hand-record, I didn't think this deal was writeup-worthy, as it was too straightforward.  But I was wrong.

E/W only are vulnerable, South is the dealer and passes, and if West starts with a spade bid, North will double for takeout.

How should the E/W hands be bid? In my opinion there is only one right answer.

One West passed in 2nd seat: that was too little.

Another West opened 4♠: that was too much. It's a recipe for going two down, vulnerable, against opponents who can only make a partscore. But as it happened, it worked: 4♠ being allowed to play for 10 easy tricks.

Seven Wests opened 1♠: better, but not just right. Mostly they were able to get to game, but of course it did leave the field wide open for their opponents to find a 5♣ or 5 sacrifice.  1♠ is not the world's worst bid, but it does lack a pre-emptive effect. Note that it does not satisfy the  Rule of 20.

Only one West, Anne Heyes, made the correct opening bid of 3♠.  She applied the Rule of 2 and 3, bidding two tricks more than she had in hand, vulnerable. Her hand had 6 spade winners (assuming you have to lose to ♠A) plus the ♣A, making 7 tricks. Add two to that, and you come up with a 3♠ opening.  This bid is designed to pre-empt the opponents whilst accurately describing your playing strength to your partner.

After 3♠ is doubled for takeout, East knows partner has about 7 tricks. Her two aces take it to 9, and the ♣K is  very likely a trick, particularly given that if the ♣A is with the opponents it's likely to be North. East should raise 3♠ to 4♠. Notice how this shuts out N/S. South could hardly bid over 4♠ and North has said her all as well. The minor suit sacrifice is lost.

The Rule of 2 and 3: don't leave home without it.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 19/5/22)

A double-banger problem for you today, each solved by just one player.

1) RHO deals and opens 1♣. Your bid?

2) RHO deals and opens 1. Your bid?

1) RHO opens 1♣.

This situation is not uncommon: RHO opens in your suit. Very often it is clubs, where the opening doesn't really promise many clubs, but it can happen in any suit.

My general advice is to pass (for the moment) in these circumstances. Perhaps you can bid the suit yourself later, and partner should understand what's going on. Meanwhile, if the opponents end up declaring in this suit, who are you to complain?

But there's an alternative, one that was found only by John Robertson, and that is to overcall 1NT, showing a balanced hand of about 16-18 HCP, with a stopper. That is a pretty good approximation of the hand: the strength is right, the stopper is certainly right (!), and it's almost balanced. The 1NT overcall gets the hand off your chest, and puts you into a comfortable bidding situation, where you can respond honestly whatever partner bids.

And that's what happened: partner Lanny Chan showed spades with a transfer, and they eased into the successful 4♠, no sweat.

Other Easts doubled 1♣, pitching themselves into a most uncomfortable position, without any happy ending.  (And  it could have been worse: partner might have bid hearts, your doubleton, and then you would really be in a mess.)

2) RHO opens 1.

Here the decision is closer.  Some doubled, others overcalled 2♣. With 17 HCP, it's a line-ball decision whether the hand is too strong for a simple overcall. The successful East was Gabrielle Costello. who doubled 1.  Her partner, Mary Buchanan, judged very well with her response to the takeout double. She jumped to 2♠, counting something for her 5-card suit and nice distribution. This emboldened Gabrielle to go to 4♠. Well bid!

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 19/5/22)

This deal caught my eye today. The auction you see here is what transpired at most tables.  The 2 response to 2♣ was a negative, although in some cases it was described as 'waiting' (whatever that means!).

2 was raised to game, and there they rested. A few Wests, upon hearing 2, simply jumped to 4.

No one as much as sniffed at slam, which is a shame, as it's virtually laydown. West can ruff her two low diamonds, and take the club finesse for an overtrick.

Your job is to critique the auction. Did anyone do anything wrong, and if so what ... or was this just a case "C'est La Vie": perfection at bridge is not possible.

On the surface, no one did anything wrong. West had a minimum 2♣ opener, and couldn't do much more than she did.  East's 2 shows 0-7 HCP, which is what she had, and her 4 showed a maximum in her range, with heart support.

But in most text books, there is some fine print on the strength range of the 2 response. It says that with a 7 HCP consisting specifically of an ace (4) and king  (3), the hand should be upgraded to a positive response. The reason is that aces and kings are generally undervalued by the 4-3-2-1 scheme, so such a 7 HCP hand is usually worth more than 7.

Just one East, Anne Heyes, recognized this, and she gave a positive response  of 3♣, showing a 5-card suit.  She gets this week's elephant stamp for accurately judging her hand. It didn't lead to a slam, but it probably should have, when she supported her partner's hearts.

The takeaway: A 7-point hand consisting of an ace and a king should give a positive response to 2♣.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 12/5/22)

You are East playing 5♣ after an auction that I find ... unconvincing. But more of that later.  The play's the thing.

South leads the ♠3 to North's ♠A, who returns the ♣J.

What do you play to that trick, and why?

You are missing two clubs: the king and the jack. The a-priori odds are that they split 1-1, but only by a narrow margin of 51% to 49%.   In fact the margin is greater than that, almost 60%, because of the bidding. It appears North has 6 or 7 spades, South 3 or 4. That leaves much more room in the South hand to have the last remaining club.

BUT, the bidding reveals another aspect. North has opened the bidding ... E/W have 25 HCP to N/S's 15. Most of these points will be with the opener, so that strongly suggests than North has the ♣K.  So the distributional odds are outweighed by the HCP odds, and the correct (and winning play) is to finesse the club.  Gordon Travers did so, successfully, as did Anna Kearon and Gordon Shinewell on slightly different plays.

I thought it was a nice try from John Robertson, sitting North, to lead that sneaky ♣J from ♣KJ doubleton.

Now, to my quibbles with the bidding. West's 3♣ doesn't seem enough to me. The ♠Q is certainly not worth 2  HCP, but the singleton should be worth 3. That gives West 12 total-points: was 3♣ enough?  I think West should have bid 4♣, but no-one did. 

And finally, what about South?  2♠ was almost a universal choice, but I much prefer the 4♠ bid made by Julie More, preempting.  Great bid!  That weak and distributional South hand needs to apply pressure to the opponents. And it worked by silencing West.  East came back bravely with 5♣, but now Janice Meldrum, sitting North, was convinced to go on to 5♠.  When that was passed out and defeated only two tricks, Julie and Janice had a most deserved near top.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 5/5/22)

When looking for a hand to write up today, it was hard to go past board 1 ...

Partner deals and opens 1♠. Your bidding plan, please.

Few would have the super-sophisticated methods to bid this hand accurately. And those that do might find it a pyrrhic victory. Suppose you scientifically find out that there are two top clubs to lose, so you stop accurately in 4♠ or 5♠.  The problem is that your opponents might listen in on your auction, as is their right, and know to lead a club.

It's often best to blast hands like these, so that no-one, including yourself, knows who can make what.  I would wheel out Old Trusty, Blackwood, and bid a small slam if partner shows one or two aces. Yes, we might be off two cashing aces, but the opponents haven't taken them yet. 

And wouldn't it be a buzz if partner showed 3 aces! Now you can bid 7NT, counting 5 spades, 6 hearts and the two minor suit aces.

Agreeing with me strategically were Marie Shenker and Terry Passlow.  They asked for aces, got two, and bid 6♠.

There was a funny old accident at another table where Penny Robertson held the South hand. She went the scientific route, responding 2. Partner rebid 2NT. Despairing of finding out what she needed to know, Penny now bid 4NT, ace-asking.  But partner Fiona Ferwerda interpreted 4NT as a quantitative try for slam (as would I).  With her tip-top hand, she accepted by bidding 6NT. Penny was aghast, but what could she do?  With North as declarer, protected from a minor suit lead, 6NT made easily, for a stone-cold top. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 28/4/22)

Two questions for you today.

1. Do you agree with the 1 opening?

2. What do you bid next in the auction shown?

1. Assuming you play a 1NT opening as showing 15-17 HCP, this hand technically qualifies, as it has the right points and balanced shape.

However, I strongly agree with the 1 bid chosen. Not only are you top of the range for 15-17, you have a strong 5-card diampond suit (think of it as a length point). Moreover, all your points are in aces and kings, which tend to be undervalued by the 4-3-2-1 point count. The hand deserves an upgrade.

In fact, even on a 16-18 HCP 1NT range, this hand is probably too strong. Indeed, on the famous Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator (see http://rpbridge.net/cgi-bin/xhe1.pl), it comes to 19 points.

2. Did you realise that partner has shown at least 5 spades?  With 4 spades, she would have made a negative double of 1, showing exactly that number of spades.

In that case, you should give a vigorous support bid in spades.  Either 4♠ , recognizing that you have an effective 19-count, or 3♠ , recognizing that your heart king is a little devalued, due to the 1  overcall on your left.

(If you do bid just 3♠ , then partner should proceed to 4♠, based on the distributional points.)

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 21/4/22)

How would you handle the bidding here, after partner opens 1NT?

What level do you want to reach, and in what denomination?  How do you bid the hand to achieve these aims? (If you bid 2♣ partner will respond 2 - what then?)

With 10 HCP opposite partner's  (for example) 15-17, you want to reach the game level. In fact, your hand is better than 10 HCP, because you should count a length point for the 5-card diamond suit.

Which game?  Forget the diamonds: you can't sensibly get to diamonds in preference to notrumps. However, if partner has 4 spades, you'd like to reach 4♠ in the 4-4 fit.

So apply Stayman, and when partner bids 2, go to 3NT. If partner has 4 spades as well as 4 hearts, she should deduce that you must have spades yourself, otherwise why did you bid Stayman in the first place?

The auction 1NT - 2♣ - 2 - 3NT - 4♠ looks a little weird, but it is the correct way to bid this combination.  Well done to Shyamala Abey (N) - Susan Shand (S), and Valerie Remedios (N) - Lilian Young (S), who were the two N/S pairs to conduct the officially approved auction.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Wednesday 20/4/22)

Today's problem is from an area of bidding theory that is not widely understood. Let's try to clear it up.

Partner's jump to 3♣ shows a good 6-card suit and about 15-17 HCP.  You have enough overall strength for game, but where? 3NT is likely the most profitable spot, but of course you have a weakness in diamonds. Partner, with all those points is likely to cover that problem.

Other possibilties are 4 or 5♣, or maybe even 6♣.

So what do you bid?

One thing I'm sure of: you should not go past 3NT yet. It's far too likely to be the right contract.

But simply bidding 3NT is dangerous. Sure, partner is likely to cover diamonds, but by being declarer, you are exposing his stopper to the opening lead.

There are two alternatives, both of which include their own point of theory.

3 here promises only a 5-card suit. Whilst normally you want to have 6 cards to rebid a suit, in this auction (1minor - 1major - 3minor) only 5 is promised. This is because the strong auction has somewhat preempted the bidding. 3 , looking for a 5-3 heart fit, is a sensible choice here.

3♠ is the other option. This shows a stopper, not length. Spades as a final contract is, for the moment, off the agenda. Partner doesn't have them (otherwise she would have rebid 1♠), and you usually have no more than 4 of them.

New suits in this auction are primarily stopper-showing, angling for 3NT. 3♠  would be my choice on this deal.

Looking at all four hands, it is clear that today you must steer clear of 3NT. The safest spot is 5♣, making easily. 4 will get you extra points, but the 5-2 fit is a little hair-raising. It works though.  

Who did best in real life? No one really. But Louise Leatham, in the problem position,  bid 3. Whilst not doing what 3♠ would do, it at least kept the auction ticking along below 3NT, and left room for partner to give some heart support if she had it. Partner innocently bid 3NT with spades stopped, and on this auction, one could hardly blame North for leading a spade. 13 tricks later, Louise had her shared top. 

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 7/4/22)

I don't condone South's 6 bid here, but wanted to make the play exciting. Actually, 6 is an excellent contract, although getting to it confidently looks difficult.

If you prefer, you can play 5, and try to make an overtrick.

West leads ♣K, you win the ace and lead the 10, on which East plays the 6.

What do you do, and why?

East could have the following holding in diamonds:

1) KJ6
2) K6
3) J6

4) 6

and each is about as likely as any other.

If East has KJ6, you should let the 10 ride.

If East has K6, you should play the Q.

If East has J6, you should play the  A and drop the singleton king.

And if East has singleton 6?  Then you have an inescapable diamond loser, but here it's essential to play the ace.  Why?  Because then you will play on hearts, and assuming that suit divides 3-2, you can chuck your club loser on the third round.  The defence will be welcome to their diamond trick.

That aspect points the way to the correct play of the ace.  It works, and is necessary, in two of the four cases.  Furthermore, in case 2), if East has Kx, then you still will make the slam, as long as East can follow to two rounds of hearts.

And in real life, it's bingo! The singleton king comes down offside.

Counting through the effects of multiple plays one by one, whilst laborious, can be an effective way to work out what to do.

Very very well done to Trish Stewart-Uden who not only bid the slam (via a different, competitive auction), but played it exactly right to chalk up a top board.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 31/3/22)

Here's a question for you: would you prefer to play in a 4-4 fit or a 5-3, in principle?

Answer: the 4-4 fit, in principle. You hope you can draw trumps in 3 rounds, then develop discards in the 5-3 suit. Whereas if the 5-3 fit is trumps, there are no discards to be had from the 4-4 fit.

What about a 4-4 compared to a 5-4 fit? That's trickier. The longer trump fit would seem better, but the same concept applies. In the 4-4 fit, you can draw trumps and then perhaps get a vital discard from the 5-4 side-suit.

Board 13 is a case in point. In 4, you have 3 inescapable losers: two diamonds and a club.

But in 4♠, if spades divide 3-2, there are only two losers! You will draw trumps, then discard a diamond loser on the 5th heart: making 11.

It's a weird game, bridge.

In real life, 4 was ironclad, and yet 4♠ by East can theoretically be defeated ... in practice, it will make an overtrick.

Of course, this issue can not always be diagnosed in the bidding, but bear in mind the beauties of the 4-4 fit.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 24/3/22)

Even the 'smallest' deals can interest the true devotee of the game. Here is one which centres around a possible final contract of 1♣.

I have a number of questions for you.

  1. What should West do after partner opens 1♣?  (For the sake of maximum pain, let's assume 1♣ = 2+.)
  2. If West does pass 1♣, what should North do?
  3. Suppose the final contract is in fact 1♣: what should South lead?

West. If 1♣ is passed out, you could be ending up in a 2-2 fit ... how ridiculous is that? On that basis, it's tempting to jump from the possible frying pan into the possible fire by responding.

I don't think there's a definitive answer, but experience tells me to let sleeping dogs lie. Yes, the contract could be ridiculous, but it could also be your last making spot: partner doesn't have to have short clubs.  On this deal, if you do respond, you will next hear 2NT from partner: how are you feeling now?

If you do choose to respond, I strongly suggest you bid 1, making every effort to keep the level low. Then if partner should happen to rebid 1, you can pass with a sigh of relief, knowing that at least now you are in a 4-3 fit.

North.  It goes 1♣ - pass - pass to you. The guideline in the balancing seat (where 1-suit has been passed around to you) is to mentally add 3 HCP to your hand and bid accordingly. Well, here you have 11 HCP, add 3 to get to 14 "virtual" points.  Now if I heard 1♣ on my right, and I had a 14-point 2-4-4-3 hand, I would pass. I'm not strong enough for 1NT, don't have a 5-card suit to bid, and a double tells a ghastly lie about your spades: promising at least 3 of them when you only have 2.  So I'm with Jenny Matheson who calmly passed out 1♣.  

Now it was up to Jenny's partner Mariette Readsitting South, to lead to 1♣.

South. South is on lead to 1♣ and knows quite a lot. She has 7 HCP, West has fewer than 6 HCP, and partner who has passed it out, even after mentally adding 3 HCP, can't have that much either. Clearly declarer has a very strong hand. When leading around to a strong hand, you want to avoid leading away from unprotected honours, because they often have the effect of giving declarer a trick for free. That rules out a spade and a heart ... I would decide between the minors.  Mariette settled on a diamond lead (leading away from a jack is not particularly dangerous at all), and duly defeated 1♣ by a trick for an excellent score.  A strong partnership result, that.

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 17/3/22)

Test yourself  on this fine little declarer play problem.

You, South, wind up in 2 after East opens 1♣, and your side conducts a transfer sequence.

West leads ♣10, which rides around to your king.

Figuring that East is more likely to have the Q than West, due to the opening bid, you play to the K, then back to the J, winning.  A third round of trumps clears the suit, East having started with Qxx. So far so good.

Next you play on diamonds, leading the king from hand, East winning the ace. East now plays a low spade, and the moment of truth is at hand.

What do you play from hand with ♠KJ9, and why?

You might use the same reasoning as you did for the hearts, figuring that East was more likely to have the spade ace, due to the opening bid.

But you'd be wrong, and a piece of visualization will prove it.

What do you know about East's hand? She has Qxx in hearts, that's 2 HCP, and the A, that's 6. And from West's ♣10 lead, East also has ♣AJ ... brings it to 11 HCP.  All the evidence so far points to East having a balanced hand.

Only two honour cards are unplaced, the ace and queen of spades.  And if East has the ♠A, that takes her count to 15, and would she not have opened 1NT with 15 HCP, balanced?  (Before you make your decision, you might want to ask the opponents about the range for their 1NT opening ... that is your legal right.)

So East probably doesn't have the ♠A, and probably does have the ♠Q (otherwise she might not have opened a balanced 11-count).  You should play the ♠J to this trick, which will ensure you 9 tricks.

The calculation given above is not hard to do, however you have to think of it. The issue of visualization is one of the most challenging of the game ... peering into an opponent's hand and making deductions from it, some of which are negative inferences (if she had this, she wouldn't have done that).

Virtual Hand of the Week (Thursday 10/3/22)

AARRGGHH!  You pick up an absolutely luscious hand, but then RHO ruins all your fun by opening 3.  What do you do?

For the record, the 8 pairs facing this decision bid as follows:
- five overcalled 3♠ 
- three made a takeout double

Which of these choices is the right one, do you think?

I have to admit I was completely befuddled when I gathered this data.

3♠? What if you're left to play there?

Double? This could perhaps work out, but there must be some chance of partner, with a fair number of diamonds, leaving your double in.

I'm not saying I know what to bid. I don't. But making a choice that could result on my side not even getting to game seems wrong. Still, maybe a few Easts know more than me ... Lorraine Pitman and Sandra Mansell were two who managed to reach slam after their first dangerous bid. But 7 of the 11 E/Ws languished in game. When you look at West's hand, you will know this was not optimal.

Actually, I would have got to slam myself, bidding 6♣ directly over 3. And if South had sacrificed 6, I'll try 6♠ next. It won't always work, but at least it will do justice to a hand that has 11 tricks in it, with plenty of chances for a 12th. 

This deal isn't particularly educational ... bidding freak hands is something of a guessing game.  But I write it up because it illustrates a malaise that I am increasingly seeing in bridge: the desire to bid scientifically when you should not.  There is a philosophy rooted in the Acol system: bid what you think you can make.  It has a lot going for it. Here I think I can make 6♣ so I bid it. But many players seem to feel they are not bidding 'properly' when they just make a simple bid suggesting a contract. Sometimes, that's exactly what you should do.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 3/3/22)

It's not often that a 1-point hand presents an interesting bidding challenge, but here is one.  Your partner surprises you by overcalling 1♠.  Next hand bids 2, and you ...?

I was fairly sure no-one would choose what I believe to be the correct bid, myself included. And I was not disappointed.

The Law of Total Trumps tells you to, in a competitive auction, immediately bid to the level equal to your combined trump length.  Well, partner has shown 5 spades, you have 6 of them, for a total of 11. The Law suggests a bid of 5♠ (!), and this idea is supported by your favourable vulnerability (they are, you aren't). 

5♠ just happens to be the correct "par" contract: down one against their making 5.  As it turns out, the law is not an ass.  And of course the huge advantage of bidding 5♠ now is that your LHO, East, may be sucked in and bid 6, missing two aces. 

Several players in this position crept up on things, bidding just 2♠ ("walking the dog") and in a couple of cases this worked spectacularly, when they got to play 4♠.  Nevertheless, in the long run, this is a losing tactic.  I much prefer the immediate 4♠ bid made by Sandra Mansell and Geoffrey Schroder, which stimulated their partner to progress to 5♠ over the opponents' 5.  And Geoffrey landed the big fish, when his opponents overreached to 6

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 17/2/22)

Board 1 today presented a sticky bidding problem that is worth a discussion. LHO deals and opens a weak 2♠, passed around to you.  The field found four different calls here:

Pass
Double
2NT
3 

What would you do?

Here's my analysis:

Pass ... no guts.  Sometimes it's true that if you can't think of a good bid, don't bid at all. That's presumably was the passers' reasoning here. But this hand is simply too strong to let the opponents play 2♠. Even though 2♠ went down, +50 was no compensation for what your side could make, as it turned out.

Double ... no hearts.  A takeout double is not the answer. The odds are strong that partner will bid 3 ... what will you do over that?  Pass, and maybe land in a 4-2 fit. Or bid one of your suits in a 'hail Mary' attempt to get to a winning contract. If I was setting this hand up for teaching purposes, I would have partner bid hearts, and then you would regret it. Learning point made! Alas, today the double did no harm with partner responding in clubs. Lucky.

2NT ... no agreement.  A number of players bid an "unusual" 2NT, thinking to show both minors. But the unusual notrump really only works as a jump bid.  Here I would ask you: suppose you had 16 HCP balanced, with a spade stopper.  If 2NT is for the minors, what are you meant to bid with a normal notrump overcall?

2NT should be natural. It's hard to work out whether the various players who bid 2NT were on a wavelength here with their partners. I know that the pair who got the top E/W score achieved it by accident. West self-alerted 2NT as showing the minors and East bid 3NT, clearly thinking (as I would have) that partner's 2NT was natural.  10 tricks later, they had their top. Lucky, lucky!

That leaves 3 which I'm fairly sure is the best choice. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have any of the obvious flaws of the other calls. 3 is a perfectly valid bid, and if you get the chance, you can follow it up with a club bid later.  So I'm with Dell MacNeil and Ray Carbuhn who were the only Wests to make the simplistic overcall.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 11/2/22)

In today's deal, every single declarer found the same initial line of play, but I think the correct play was different. It's 17 to 1 against me, but I'm standing my ground: perhaps this is an example of the lyric: They were all out of step but Jim.

See what you think. You're in 4 as East, and the lead is ♣10. Take it from there.

Every single declarer took the heart finesse at trick 2.  This lost, and those Souths that were canny enough to continue with a black suit, found themselves taking 3 tricks: a spade, a heart and a diamond. The problem for declarer was that they were now stuck on the table. It was not a nice position to be in.

If the heart finesse had won, declarer would be in a far better position. They could take the A and lead a diamond up. If South has A, there's a discard for their losing spade.

My contention is this: the heart finesse was unlikely to gain ... it helps only when North started with K-doubleton. Now try playing a heart to the ace at trick 2, then playing your diamond up. If South has A, then there's your overtrick. If North has A, well you haven't really lost anything.

Maybe I'm tilting at windmills ... it would have been nice to have just one declarer agreeing with me.  But it was not to be.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 10/2/22)

Looking at the hand record, I was interested in what the field would do with this South hand as dealer, no one vulnerable.

What's your poison, and why?

I'm pretty sure you should bid something

Here's a thought: the lower the suit, the more aggressively you should bid it at your first opportunity. Because, later in the auction, it will become more difficult, as you will be needing to raise the level to bid your suit. When you have spades, for example, bidding them up front is not quite as critical: if the hand doesn't fit any particular spade bid, well maybe you'll have the chance to cheaply introduce spades later. But with clubs, it may well be now or never.

One hand proves nothing, but those that passed were unable to catch up later. They did get to introduce their clubs, but partner tended not to co-operate, having heard the original pass.

When I first saw the hand, my instinct was to open 3♣: the suit, although lacking a 7th card, is pretty good, and the two-suited nature of the hand gives it plenty of playing strength. Only Narelle Szuveges was with me, and it worked just fine. Partner Jenny Sinn extended the pre-empt by raising to 4♣ and East took the cautious view and passed. Narelle and Jenny had stolen the contract, with the opposition on for game. 

A number of South's opened 1♣ with varying degrees of success. 1♣ is OK I guess (it conforms to the Rule of 20), but there's little defensive strength, and it doesn't impede the opponents at all.  Some Norths then allowed 4 to play, thinking the opponents would be going down.  I like 1♣ better than pass, which is perhaps not saying much.

Geoffrey Schroder opened 2NT, showing  5-5 in the minors, part of the Multi 2 structure.  (A normal 20-22 2NT opening is built into the 2 bid).  That worked well ... after club bidding by both players, the partnership judged well to bid 5♣ over 4.  Their opponents did well to double 5♣ for down one.

Finally, there was Margaret Skeen who opened 4NT!  This was the Unusual Notrump on steroids.  Partner responded 5♣ and East, suspicious that she was being stolen from, came in with 5.  She was left high and dry there - down one.  Great bidding!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 9/2/22)

Test yourself in this 3NT contract.

But before we get to that, how do you think the bidding should go after South opens 2♣ and North gives a positive of 2 (a 5-card suit and 8+ HCP)?

Most Souths settled for game, either 3NT or 4, but I think that's a little pessimistic.  South's  KQ10 fleshes out North's suit nicely, and the rest of South's hand is not too bad either. Just two Souths had the courage to go for slam, ending up in excellent 6 contracts.

For game purposes, we've been here before. There are more matchpoints to be earned in notrumps than hearts ... as there are no ruffing options for South, it seems that notrumps is likely to make the same number of tricks as hearts, resulting in an extra 10 points. The auction shown above seems sensible.

Now to the play in 3NT. West leads ♣4 and East follows ♣2.  What do you do?

There are 11 tricks easily available: 1 spade, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 2 clubs, after you knock out the ♣A.

The twelfth trick can come from one of two sources: a successful finesse in spades (East holding ♠K), or an extra  diamond trick, if that suit splits favourably.  The trick is to take both chances.

Only two declarers did so, Rosemary Polya and Colin Walker.  The remainder didn't, which certainly justified their decision to stay out of slam!  It's really no more complex than taking your chances in the correct order.  First thing is to knock out the ♣A, which surely resides with West. Let's say West wins ♣A and plays a third round. Throw a spade from dummy, and play all your hearts, then three rounds of diamonds, ending in dummy. 

If dummy's last diamond is good, that's your extra trick. If not, you can try the spade finesse at trick 12.  (There is a tiny chance you will make only 10 tricks, if West happens to win a singleton ♠K, but you shouldn't worry about that.)

As it turns out, diamonds divided 3-3, and Rosemary and Colin took their 12 tricks to share the top.

Why a top? Because the two pairs that bid to 6 were truly unlucky. North was the declarer, and both their Easts hit on a spade lead, the only lead that stopped the combination play described above. Declarer had to finesse, and when it lost, West took the setting trick with the ♣A.  This was a deal in which the strong hand needed to become declarer.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 4/2/22)

I don't know what to make of today's deal ... all I know is that it is a worthy candidate for "Hand of the Day".  I won't pose it as a problem, because if I did, I would advise you to do the wrong thing at every turn.

The auction you see was spectacular. The star was Sue Read, sitting North. Undeterred by the adverse vulnerability, she bid her clubs then her spades at the 4-level. If she were non-vulnerable I would call that a clear-cut auction, but vulnerable it took a lot of courage.

And boy did it work!  West did very well to push on to 5, but South Penny Blankfield went on to 5♠ with her wonderful black-suit fit. The play was  impressive also. East led A, ruffed, and now Sue could in practice have made all 13 tricks. But that entailed some risk ... if she went to the ♣A to take the spade finesse, and it lost, the defence might well then get a club ruff, defeating the contract by two tricks for -500, a disaster  against a non-vulnerable E/W game.

Instead she cashed the ♠A (maybe the king would fall singleton), assuring her of a score no worse than -200, and a near top.

Two other tables had spectacular results also. At one, East played 4, North not having bid, and Ramona Enconniere quite sensibly led the ♣A, trying for a cashout. When partner followed with the ♣2, might that have been a suit preference signal for a low suit?  Ramona must have thought so, because she now switched to a diamond, and became the only player to hold East to 10 tricks.

For the flip side, what about this for a result?  Deena Pathy opened 2♣ as East, and Gordon Travers, playing a superior scheme of responses, bid 2 showing 0-4 HCP. Now Deena made a calculated gamble by bidding 6!  That made West the declarer, and North quite reasonably led the ♠A. The rest is history.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 3/2/22)

Today's deal involves a double decision for East. What do you think is the correct bid after RHO's 1 opening?

Suppose you bid 4, which may be wise or unwise ... what do you do if the auction then comes back to you with RHO's 5?

It's hard to over-emphasize the importance of this situation. There is one, and only one, correct way to bid this hand. Every other way is 100% wrong. There's a big statement for you.

When you hold a pure pre-emptive hand like this: not a lot of high-card strength, but a great big long suit, you should do the following: pre-empt as high as you dare (taking the vulnerability into account), and then be never heard from again.  (The only exception to this second part is if partner makes some sort of forcing bid, such as Blackwood: that won't happen here as partner is a passed hand.)

The principle is this: you pre-empt them, and then assume that the pre-empt has done its dirty work and they have bid to the wrong contract. This is usually the case.

So this powerful heart suit, not-vulnerable, is easily good enough for a 4 pre-empt. You have somewhere between 7 and 8 tricks on your own: if the opponents have a game, then 4 will be a good sacrifice. And if they don't have a game, they may try one anyway, and even if they defend, 4 could make, or be a decent sacrifice against their partscore. There are just so many ways for 4  to work.

And once they bid over 4, it's up to your partner to make any further moves.

As it turns out, their 5 (or 4♠) doesn't have a prayer, but you can hardly expect them to meekly pass out your 4.  Your 4 won't make either: three rounds of diamonds destroys it.

Julie More, Maggie Kelly and Anna Kearon were the three Easts that overcalled 4 and then shut up, defeating the opponents' contract by various numbers of tricks.  

A few East/West pairs did bid 4 but then carried on to 5 creating an even bigger minus for themselves.  

And a number of Easts bid less than 4 (1 or 3) and made up for it by bidding more hearts later.  By this time, their opponents had learned enough about the hand to let E/W stew in their heart contracts.

Pre-empters: give it your best shot at your first bid, then shut up.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 2/2/22)

I found this bidding problem extremely interesting, not that I have a definitive solution to it. Partner's auction suggests a balanced 12 to 14 HCP hand.  It raises many questions about what to do next, in particular ...

- game or slam?

- if slam, will you ask for aces, and if so, how do you do that?

- hearts or notrumps (or even spades)?

What are your answers to these questions?  What's your next bid?

Here's the way I see it, with no warranty offered.

West has a powerful hand, and should look for a slam. I of course could be cheating,  because East had an absolute maximum, and slam was there.  Still, the heart suit is very powerful. And whilst the singleton K is perhaps not that great, if partner has the ace, then it works fine. You can visualize discarding your losing club on the A, for example. Even if partner has only Q, that might be OK. I think those that settled for game were being unduly cautious.

As for denomination, forget the spades. For starters, partner probably doesn't have them (didn't bid 1♠ over 1), and you already have a presumed 8+ card fit in hearts. 

The decision between hearts and notrumps is more interesting. If you're only going to bid game, I recommend 3NT. Go for the extra 10 points. There could be danger in diamonds, but it's relatively low risk, given you have the king.  Those that did bid 3NT, including Kerri Jones, Michael Ryan, Moira Hecker, Ros Davies and Jo Quinlivan tended to get better scores than the 4ers.

If you want to go for slam, then hearts is safer. Whilst there's still an extra 10 points to be had in 6NT, the best strategy when bidding marginal slams is to play the safest one, because you can expect to score very well for bidding and making any close slam. 

For slam purposes, this deal is probably one for Old Trusty: Blackwood. If partner has at least 2 aces, then go for it ... bid 6.  Whether you do this via a Gerber 4♣ (my recommendation after the natural 1NT rebid), or 4NT, is up to your own partnership agreement. Mary Adams asked for aces, got the delightful 3-ace reply, and duly bid 6 for a near top.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 27/1/22)

A declarer-play problem for you today. You are West, playing in 4♠ on North's lead of J.

What do you play from dummy, ace or small?

Suppose you win dummy's A, rightly or wrongly.  What next?

Who has the K?  Not North, surely. Only a lunatic would lead the J from a holding that includes the king.  (If North held KJ10, then maybe the jack could be plausible, but North cannot have that.)

No, South has the K, and playing low here in the hope of winning a cheap trick with your queen is futile. If you do play low, as a number of declarers did, then South will win K, and return a diamond for North to ruff. Down you go, when the heart finesse loses later. 

You should go up with the A at trick 1, and draw trumps. You can then lead 10: South will win the K, but if she still remains with 9x, that 9 can be finessed.

Drawing trumps should be easy, but there is a small point of technique involved. Do not play ♠Q on the first round, as some did. If North should happen to have all four outstanding spades, her jack will take a trick. You should start the trumps with the ace. If either opponent shows up with all four trump, then they can be finessed.  4-0 breaks are not unheard of.

Good work by Brian Morrow and Lanny Chan, the only declarers that got tricks 1 and 2 correct.

Other declarers made 10 tricks when North didn't lead their singleton diamond. I'm sure I've written this here before, but side-suit singleton leads to trump contracts should be just about automatic. Some Norths were distracted when their partner made a dodgy 1 overcall, but it's not really an excuse. You need to have a really really good excuse to avoid the singleton lead.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 26/1/22)

The most satisfying bridge deals are those that present interest in both the bidding and the play. This is one of them.

If you aren't going to reach the excellent 6♣ (and it's not easy to find a way to do so) then you want to be in 3NT with its top 10 tricks and a score of 630, compared to at most 620 in 5♣, if it makes an overtrick.

North has a gruesome rebid problem after South rebids 2♣: there's enough strength for game, and even though one is mindful of the advantages of 3NT, can one really do that with only Jx in both unbid suits? And what if partner, improbably, has 3-card heart support ... then you may belong in 4.

So one has to hand it to Lyndon Charlesworth who was the only North with the courage to jump to 3NT over 2♣ ... what a well deserved equal top that was!

Only an equal top because Adrienne Reid, holding the South cards, rebid 1NT after the 1 response, raised effortlessly to 3NT. I think I would have made the dull 2♣ rebid myself, but the choice of 1NT has lots of merit ... well done to her.

Now on to the play in 5♣. Let's say West starts with a small spade (as most did) to East's ♠K ... how do you play it?

And as a bonus question: what if West had led a diamond instead (to East's Q)?

It's hard to muck up a trump holding of KQ65 opposite AJ9832, but that's what most declarers  did.

After a spade lead, you want to set up at least one extra heart winner on which you can discard your losing diamond. Christine Walker didn't find that difficult at all. She drew trumps with the ♣A and ♣J, then started on the hearts, A, K and  ruff. Hearts divided 4-2, so there was still a good heart out. She crossed to the ♣K to ruff another heart, setting up dummy's fifth heart. Now she lost her inevitable spade, won the diamond return with the A, ruffed a spade, and discarded her last diamond  on the established heart. 12 tricks for a third top.

It didn't seem difficult, but the fact is that no one rings a bell when you are about to do something wrong. Many many declarers drew trumps in an opposite way: the played the ♣K and ♣Q, and, disastrously, followed with the ♣2 and ♣3. Now there was no trump entry to dummy, and only 11 tricks.  Such little things!

Oh, and on the more dangerous diamond lead? Here you need to establish the heart without losing the lead. You can afford to play the ♣A, but must now turn your attention to hearts, using the ♣K and ♣Q as later entries. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 21/1/22)

Today's deal looks dull, but isn't. It in fact illustrates an obscure but rather fun point of card play. There was a top on offer if you knew it.

You are in 3NT as East, and South leads a diamond, which scares you not one bit.  North discards a heart on this trick.

There are 11 top tricks (3 spades, 2 hearts, 5 diamonds, 1 club) and seemingly no chance at all for a twelfth. But there is in fact a small chance: how do you go about taking it?

The small chance is a squeeze. You must hope that one opponent has the sole guard in hearts and clubs, and that the run of the other two suits forces her to unguard one of them. When North shows out on the opening diamond lead, it is not impossible that she has 6+ hearts and 4+ clubs, which will set her up.

To make the squeeze work, you must do the obscure thing mentioned: you must rectify the count by playing a low club from both hands, losing the one trick you certainly have to lose. Squeezes work best when declarer needs the rest of the tricks ... this is the the way to maximize the pressure on the opponents.

Suppose you duck a club at trick 2, and for the  sake of argument, the defenders win and play a spade ... nothing else is better. You win that, and take all your spade and diamond winners (discarding clubs from West on the fourth and fifth diamonds).  This leaves:

         North
                 QJ9
                ♣ KJ
West               East
 K42               A7
♣ 8                ♣ A4
         
         South

                ♠ 10
                 103
                ♣ Q

You'll notice that North has 5 cards, and the others only 4. North is yet to discard on declarer's last winner, and what will it be?  If she throws a heart, then West's hearts are good; if she throws a club, then East's clubs are good. All declarer has to do is to remember, when she next plays the ♣A whether the ♣4 is now a winner.  If it isn't, she plays A, K and 4, and looks suitably shocked when the 4 wins the trick.  Playing a squeeze like that should make your day, and the only point of technique required was to rectify the count by ducking the club.

No one got the play completely correct (including the robot), but John Enconniere came closest. He did in fact rectify the count by ducking a club, and whilst the rest of the play wasn't quite right, he made 12 tricks when North erred on discarding.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 20/1/22)

How's this for a problem to be hit with on board 1? Partner opens with 2♠, 6-10 HCP and a 6-card spade suit. What do you do?

If you think you can bid this scientifically, finding out whether you can make a slam, then I'm all ears.

As long as you survive the hearts, then surely you will make slam: the odds are heavily in favour of having no spade losers, and your diamonds will take care of everything else.

If partner has the A or K or a singleton or void, then that would be great. 

And if partner doesn't have heart control, then they still need to lead hearts to beat your contract: if they don't, declarer's hearts will be discarded on the diamonds. How likely is the heart lead? Nobody knows. If opening leader has the A, then maybe it will be led, and down you go. But if not, then it's likely they will lead something else.

I think the chance of partner controlling the hearts, combined with the possibility that the opening lead is not in hearts, makes it more likely than not that slam will make, and would recommend going to 6♠.

Two players agreed with me: Elizabeth Gibas and Lilian Young: I applaud their judgment, if not their luck (both opening leaders found the killing heart lead!)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 19/1/22)

Not too many declarers were faced with this problem, but those that did were unable to find the right play. See if you can.

You're in 6 (although if you are not in slam, the declarer play problem is the same): you are trying to make 12 tricks. Let's say South leads J and North discards a club on this. How do you go about it?

There's an old saying: two chances are better than one. (If this isn't an old saying, it should be.) Here, you have 11 top tricks (8 hearts, 2 spades, 1 club) and there are two chances for a 12th: the K and getting a third spade trick by finessing someone's ♠Q.

The trick is to take these chances in such a way that if the first one doesn't work out, then you still have the option to try the second one.  It's not totally obvious how to do this: if you start by finessing in spades, and it loses, then you are down, losing to the A as well. Or if you lead up to the K hoping the ace is onside, and it isn't, you quickly lose two diamond tricks.

The correct play, after taking the A and K, is to cash the ♣A, discarding a diamond from your hand. Now ruff a club and lead your last remaining diamond up. If South has the A, then there's your 12th trick. But if North takes the K with the  A, you can ruff the next diamond, and hope to sniff out the ♠Q later. Well done if you found this neat combination play.

Two declarers didn't get the chance to show their wares.  Rosie Richmond and Faye Norton-Old were the two Souths that led the Q (top of the sequence) to East's slam, reaping the first two tricks. This was the correct lead both in theory and practice ... it could have worked in several other ways as well, and had the added advantage of being reasonably safe.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 14/1/22)

Try this rebid problem, which stumped much of the field today.

Partner opens 1 and you correctly respond 1♠, the first order of business being to check out whether there's a 4-4 spade fit. Partner rebids 1NT, showing a balanced opening hand weaker than whatever your 1NT opening bid means.

Now what?

There are several possible final contracts. You may belong in 3NT, if partner can cover the hearts. Failing that, you have at least a 9-card diamond fit, so perhaps 5 is the go. Even 6 if partner has the right cards. Then there's a possible 4♠ in a strong 4-3 fit, which could score very well if 3NT is not playable.

The problem is: you cannot find out.  Or if  you can find out, via some super-sophisticated gadgetry, then even if you avoid one partner forgetting the system, you clue the opponents in on how to defend. 

The fact is that in these situations, simplicity is best, whether you're a beginner, an expert or a world champion.  You don't have an 8-card major suit fit. You do have enough strength for game. Ergo, bid 3NT and let nature take its course. If the opponents can defeat you in hearts, then too bad: it's not likely (after all, partner has to have her points somewhere) and the cost of trying to find out whether that's the case is prohibitive.

A number of Souths flirted with dangerous bids like 3 (is that forcing?) or 5, or a checkback bid, but mainly they came a cropper. Bob Leighton, Pip Liebelt and Faye Bell bid the honest 3NT, getting to the correct contract with a minimum of fuss.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 13/1/22)

Try this opening lead problem. East has shown about 18-19 HCP, and ended up in 3NT.

What's your choice?

It would be a mistake to lead your longest and strongest suit, hearts. In a million years, it could do no good.  But it could easily do lots of harm.

West has at least four hearts, declarer presumably at least a doubleton. That leaves partner with at most a doubleton. Even if that doubleton allows hearts to be eastablished (give partner a miraculous KJ doubleton), it won't help, because the ace will be held up until the second round, and any entry you might have wlil only be available on the next deal.

On the flip side, leading away from that holding could easily cost a trick (for example, declarer with AJ and dummy the king).

In summary, the heart lead is futile and dangerous:  choose another suit.

Clubs is a non-starter - after all declarer did open the suit. It's between spades and diamonds. Two arguments point to the diamond lead. First the 109x is nice to lead from: you can lead the 10 (top of a sequence) to help develop whatever diamonds partner might have. And there's a subtle reason for not choosing a spade. If partner held 5+ spades (which is what you would be hoping for), then why didn't she bid 1♠ earlier in the auction?  Partner presumably has a few HCP, given that you only have two.  Partner's silence is the "dog that didn't bark in the night": she didn't bid spades, because she doesn't have them. But she could easily hold diamonds, where an earlier bid would have had to be vulnerable at the 2-level.

Good work by Shyamala Abey, Ray Carbuhn and Judy Lyon, all of whom successfully led a diamond in this situation.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 12/1/22)

Today's problem is straightforward, but contains an excellent learning  point.

You're the dealer, and simply have to decide whether to open 1 or 1♠.

It's normal to open your longest suit, 1 in this case, and almost everyone did.

But when deciding how to open distributional hands (6-5 shapes present the most frequent dilemma), one should also ask oneself the question: how will the auction develop if partner makes a likely but unhelpful response? 

Here, if you open 1 and partner responds 1NT, or 2♣, both likely enough bids, what will you do?  If you bid the spades, you are reversing, showing considerably more strength than you have. Even worse, partner will assume you have exactly 4 spades ... to show 5, you will have to bid the spades again, and now the auction will be in the stratosphere.  But if you don't bid the spades, you may well miss out on a 5-3 major suit fit.

Now consider what happens if you open 1♠ and partner responds 1NT or 2♣.  You bid 2, not promising extra high card strength, and showing 5+ spades and 4+ hearts. Yes, you haven't conveyed your heart length, but if the auction continues, you will repeat the hearts, and now you are getting much closer to an accurate representation of your hand. And all the while, leaving partner the option of returning to spades without raising the level. 1♠ is the choice that plans for the future.

If you lack reversing values, and your 5-card suit is not too decrepit, you are usually best off opening the higher 5-card suit instead of the longer 6-card suit, with 5-6 shapes.

One hand proves nothing, but in actuality, you belong in 2 and only one pair was able to achieve it. Jenny Gray opened 1♠, partner Colin Walker responded 1NT, and Jenny rebid 2 passed out. That worked well!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 6/1/22)

You are North, playing in 4♠ ... your opinion of the auction?

East, the opening leader starts with the ♣A, then switches to 4, to the 2, 9, and your K.

Now what?

In the auction, the key bid was South's 3♠.  Only 12 HCP, but the club singleton adds significant distributional strength. I don't know what the right answer is in theory, but I do know that if I bid only 2♠, I would be very uncomfortable that I had underbid the hand. (Those playing mini-splinters - you can google it - have a solution to this problem.)

As for the play, one question you should ask yourself before doing anything  much is: should I draw trumps? Usually the answer is yes, but not here. You're in a diamond race: the defenders are racing to set up a diamond trick, and they're going well. But you have a counter: to set up the hearts for a discard.

If you play an instinctive trump at trick 3, you will lose the race. The defenders will win ♠A and play another diamond, and you cannot avoid a diamond loser. This is one of those times when there is something more urgent to do than draw trumps.  You must immediately play hearts, to set up your discard. The opponents can win A and play a diamond, but you can now take two more heart tricks to discard North's diamond.  Only now is it time to play on spades.

Well done to Jo-Anne Heywood, who was the only one of several declarers in this situation to see the necessity of playing a heart at trick 3.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 30/12/21)

A double-barrel question for you today. Holding the North cards:

1) Do you agree with the Pass over West's 1?

2) What do you do, if anything, after West's 2 bid?

Let's deal with question 2) first.

North is in what is known as the "pre-balancing position". He doesn't know how high E/W plan to progress, but if their auction is actually about to die out in 2, he would want to come back in with a balancing bid, holding a decent hand with 4 cards in both unbid suits. In other words, if North was South, holding that hand in the pass-out seat, he should double 2 for takeout. It follows the adage: don't let your opponents play at the 2-level in a fit

But North isn't in the pass-out seat, and doubling here is dangerous. Nevertheless, I think it is the best choice, even though being vulnerable gives one pause. Bridge is a game of calculated risk, and this is a beauty. Only one North, Richard Fitzherbert, made the pre-balancing double, and he hit paydirt and an equal top. Partner bid 3♣, and that contract was easy-peasy when the A lay with the opening bidder.  Even had the A been wrong, down 1 in 3♣ would still probably be a good score, because then, 2 is likely making.

Still, the double could have worked very badly, if N/S were heading at least 2 down in their contract. Which takes us back to question 1).

I seem to spend much of my consulting time telling people not to make a takeout double when you have a shortage in an unbid suit, even though you have opening points. Well, here is the reverse situation, where you have good shape, support for all unbid suits, and nearly opening points. I think North should double 1 (only the Robot did). You're a whole level lower than what actually transpired: it is quite a safe bid.  Experienced players have learned that it's a good idea to get into the auction early, and then shutup.  Richard's shared top was with the robot partnership, that also got to the making club partscore.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 23/12/21)

This rebid problem struck me as quite interesting today.  As South you open 1♣ and partner responds 1.

What's your rebid?

And what's your rebid if East comes in with 1 over 1?

With 17 HCP, this is the point at which you have to show some strength. One honest and righteous choice would be 3♣, showing about 16-18 HCP and a good 6-card club suit. That's what you have.

Three Souths went in a different direction: Dawn Thistlethwaite, Basil Danylec and Penny Robertson all rebid 2NT instead. Since this bid suggests 18-19 HCP and a balanced hand, they were lying all over the shop. How dare they!

But with such powerful major suit holdings, and trusting (hoping) partner to cover the diamonds, they wanted to head towards a higher scoring notrump contract. And right they were. North is unlikely to willingly consider notrumps after a 3♣ rebid, with the singleton heart (particularly if East has bid the suit), and the partnership will likely end up in clubs. After the 2NT rebid, it's a different matter: the partnership appears to have enough points for game (add 8 to 18-19), and North is blissfully unaware of the 10-card club fit: from her perspective, partner might have as few as 3 clubs.

The moral of all this: there are few rules in bridge bidding, only guidelines. The 2NT rebid was a highly pragmatic choice.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 16/12/21)

Bridge is a game of seemingly limitless variety.  No one got the play of this 3NT correct, possibly because no one has experienced this situation before. It is worth examining.

Against your (East) 3NT contract, a low heart is led from South, and you take North's Q with K.  There doesn't seem to be anything clever you can do except play the clubs. On your ♣A, lo and behold, South drops the singleton ♣K!  Happy days.  All those clubs are winners ... in fact you now have 10 top winners (6 clubs, 2 diamonds, 1 spade, and the heart trick already taken).

But you want more. What do you do?

Most declarers gleefully overtook the ♣J with ♣Q and ran the clubs. The problem was then discarding from the East hand. If you discard too many hearts, you unguard the suit, and it would then be dangerous to finesse in spades or diamonds. But if you keep your hearts, then you have to throw too many of the other suits to take advantage of any winning finesse.  

In short: running West's clubs squeezes East's hand. 

So don't cash the clubs. After overtaking the ♣J with ♣Q, run the ♠Q.  If the finesse works, there's your 11 tricks.  You're still in dummy and can take the clubs: you might even scramble 12 tricks if the defenders get their discards wrong.  And if the spade finesse loses, South has the lead, and your hearts are still there to guard that suit. Either way, you have safely developed an extra trick in spades.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 9/12/21)

It didn't take long today to find a board that was both interesting and instructive.

I will give you the E/W hands and ask you what you think the correct contract is (precisely) and how one should get there. East is first to speak.

The correct contract is 3NT, played by East.  The position of declarer is crucial.

Take a look at all four hands. It may not pan out, but if West declares 3NT, North could lead a heart, in which case East's Qx is toast. But if East is declarer, and South leads a heart, then that rides round to the queen. 

Indeed the hand record says that East can make 11 tricks in notrumps, West only 10.

A queen-doubleton holding is generally a decent one to have if you're thinking of bidding notrumps first.  It comes into its own should dummy have Axx.  Even if dummy has Kxx, you want the lead coming up to the queen (think about opening leader having the ace).  Of course it's not so great if dummy has xxx ... but in principle, if notrumps is on the horizon, then you should be happy to bid it with Qx in a suit, even though it's not a full stopper.

The correct auction, in my humble opinion, is 1♠ by East, 2 by West, 2NT by East (showing the points and balanced shape, and mentally beaming at the Qx), 3NT by West. Voila. Well done to Lyn Mayer, Fiona Trescowthick and Marie Malcolmson, who all made the 2NT rebid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 2/12/21)

Here's a puzzler for you. Partner opens 2NT, 20-22 HCP balanced.

What do you do?

The trap here, playing in a matchpoint duplicate, is to bid 5♣.  This is the worst of both worlds ... losing out to all those who bid 3NT.  It may beat  those who try for a slam and go down, but it could also lose to them, when the slam is making. No, I think you have three valid choices:

1. 3NT 

2. 6♣ 

3. 4♣ (Gerber, planning to play 6♣ if partner shows 2-3 aces, and 4NT otherwise)

I like option 3 (found by Valerie Remedios), but also option 2 (chosen by Pam Richardson). But then, I'm an optimist. I respect the multiple Norths who soberly bid 3NT.

As it turned out, slam was so-so, depending on rooting out the club queen. That proved to be no problem. But the learning point should be that in this sort of situation: it's either 3NT or a minor suit slam, almost never a minor suit game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 25/11/21)

It would be easy to get too high on this deal, but let's say you manage to stay at a safe 4 contract, by West.

North leads ♣3. The play doesn't look too complicated, but it contains a hidden point. So what do you do?

All things being equal (as they are here), you should play off the ace and king of hearts.  The saying is "8 ever - 9 never", meaning: with an 8-card fit missing specifically the queen, you 'ever' finesse for it; with a 9-card fit missing the queen, you 'never' finesse, hoping instead that the queen drops.

And there's a spade loser, and probably a diamond loser, unless the Q falls short.

The hidden point is this. If you can sneak a spade trick without losing to the ace, then you can discard dummy's remaining spade on clubs. The sneaky play is to win the club, and immediately lead your nine of spades. If North is caught napping and fails to play his ace (assuming he has it), then the queen will win. Now, after the two top trumps, you will play off the clubs, throwing away your spade loser. Voila.

North probably shouldn't fall for this ruse, but it's easy to reflexively play second hand low. Worth a try!  Well done to Adrienne Reid and Mariette Read (there must be something in the name) who both made an early play of leading a low spade from hand.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 18/11/21)

Bridge can on occasions be an irritating game.  Try this particular irritation.

You hold a hand that is short on points but long on distribution, and irritatingly, the bidding is up at the 4-level before you have the chance to speak.

What will you do over RHO's 4 bid?

A bid of 4♠ here is hard to justify on any rational basis.  You have the makings of about 7 tricks (it's a 6-loser hand), but vulnerable against not, this means that 4♠ could be catastrophic. If it gets doubled and then goes 2 or 3 down, then the 500 or 800 point penalty is more than the value of the opposition's game.

Or 4♠ might go down when 4 wasn't making in the first place.

One can only justify a 4♠ bid based on experience, which says: "always bid 4♠ over the opponents' 4".  It just seems to work more often than not, and is one of the best rules-of-thumb there is. (Obviously there must be some context for this rule, such as you having some spades in the first place!) Most Easts made the rational pass here, so well done to Moya Crowley, Yuko Yoshida and Jenny Matheson who bid the irrational 4♠.

If East does bid 4♠ then North will be faced with a difficult decision. The winning option is to go on to 5 but that is hardly clearcut. And even if North does bid 5, there is something to be said for West competing with 5♠. 

(As an aside, some Souths opened 2, a Multi. This gave East a lower entry into the auction, as North could not bounce up to 4♠ at his first turn, not knowing what partner's suit was. This is one of the several downsides to the Multi.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 15/11/21)

I think it was P. G. Wodehouse's character Psmith who said "never confuse the improbable with the impossible". It was very apt to this deal, where none of our declarers recognized the improbable. 

E/W likely have 13 tricks in spades, hearts or  notrumps, but only one pair, Ella Lupul - Jeffrey Fallon reached a slam of any kind, so they get today's elephant stamp. 

Meanwhile, see if you can dig out the improbable, playing in a spade contract by West. North leads ♣Q. Let's say you win it, and draw the trumps which divide 3-2. Take it from there.

There are 6 spade tricks and 2 minor suit aces. If the opposition hearts divide 3-2, then there are 5 easy heart tricks for a total of 13. 

So a good player would now think to himself: "what if hearts are not 3-2 - can I do anything about that?". 

If South has Jxxx, then the answer is "no". You can take 3 heart tricks, and ruff a heart to set up a winner in dummy, but there's no entry to dummy. Sadly, you will go down in 6♠.

But if North has Jxxx, you can pick up the suit, as long as you deal properly with your 10.  Suppose you play a small heart to the ace, then a heart back to the queen, and you discover North still has the guarded jack. Then your 10 is a big problem: you lead it, but North ducks. The 10 wins but you are now stranded in your hand, with no entry to dummy's two remaining winners. Down you go. Instead, play the 10 to the ace, then back to the queen. Now, when you discover North with Jxxx, you can lead your 3 for the proven finesse, and run the hearts for 13 tricks.

Congratulations, you have dealt with the mildly improbable. But you didn't handle the very improbable, which was the actual layout today. The correct play is, after drawing trumps, to play Q. Suppose all follow. Now 10 to dummy's ace. If South shows out (North having started with Jxxx), it's no sweat. You return to your A and finesse North out of his jack.

Where this pays off is in the very improbable situation where North has all the hearts, Jxxxx.  The Q reveals the situation, you then play 10 finessing once, and then a third heart finessing again. You have successfully brought in all 5 heart tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 11/11/21)

Try your hand at this slam contract.

West leads ♠J to your 6♠ contract: how do you play it?

The question is what to do with all your club losers.

You could try to establish the suit perhaps. Win the trump and play ace and another club. The defence will doubtless play another spade. Win that and ruff a club with dummy's last trump. If clubs divide 3-3, you are home.

If not, you have another string to your bow. Lead K from dummy planning to discard a club if East plays low (a ruffing finesse). If East has A and plays it, you ruff, and dummy's QJ and diamond winner will provide more than sufficient discards for your remaining club losers.

Sadly none of these good things will come to pass. The clubs divide 4-2, and West has A, so your ruffing finesse fails. I think I would go down in 6♠ on a trump lead.  (The winning line, not quite as good, is to start with the ruffing finesse in hearts. Even though West will win A, dummy's long heart can be established, the suit dividing 4-4, to provide sufficient discards for all your clubs.)

So it seemed like bad news for the two pairs, Jenny Matheson - Mariette Read and Lanny Chan - John Robertson who bid to the excellent slam. But their bidding virtue was rewarded when both their Wests led A (given that North had opened 1, this was probably not a very good idea). The declarers ruffed, drew trumps, and threw all their clubs away on red winners, to score an overtrick.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 8/11/21)

This opening lead problem may not seem very interesting, but humour me.

The opposition has climbed to 5 and it's your lead. A top spade seems obvious. Is it?

Well yes it is obvious, but there's a very much non-obvious alternative.

Your side is taking at most one spade trick, for sure, so you need two more. One of those could come from you ruffing a club, if you can get partner in before trumps are drawn.  It's possible: you could cash a round of spades, then shift to a diamond to partner's winner. Finally a club ruff to defeat the contract. That of course depends on partner having (probably) the A.  

A better chance, and one that might get your name up in lights, is to depend on partner having the ♠J: well, she did support the spades so the probability of this is higher than that of partner having the A.  Suppose you were to lead the ♠2. Crazy perhaps, but when partner wins ♠J, after getting over the shock, she will realise what you're up to. A club return, plus partner's other winner, will sink this contract. And so it would transpire.

Of course such a venture could explode the defence and perhaps your partnership. The opponents win the ♠J, bye-bye spade trick, and it's another bottom.

In real life, only one table played in hearts, and North led a totally normal ♠A: 11 tricks made. All the other E/W allowed their opponents to play in 4♠, except Kerri Jones, who went on to 5 as East, and then easily defeated 5♠ when the opponents pushed on.  In the tables that played 4♠, East led a top heart, and with one exception switched to clubs, resulting in 10 tricks. The exception was Mike Pogson who switched to Q, generating four tricks for the defence (1 heart, 2 top diamonds and a diamond ruff). That switch could have backfired, but it was a worthwhile shot.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 4/11/21)

The auction on today's deal is a bit of a puzzle ... what should South open as dealer? The hand seems a bit strong for a 3♠ opening, when not-vulnerable. But is it good enough to open 4♠?  A compromise is to open 1♠, and treat the hand as a minimum opener with a long suit. That would probably be my choice.

There were quite a few bidding accidents ... either finishing too high or too low, but really, all roads should lead to 4♠.

West leads ♣Q. You win this, and cash ♠K, to which all follow. What now? Decide, then click [Show Answer].

There are 10 tricks, no sweat (7 spades, 2 diamonds, 1 club), but what about an 11th?

Some declarers drew the last trump with the ♠Q then ran the J, some sort of quasi-finesse. That's an incredibly risky move, because if East wins Q, the defence can take three more top tricks, and your 10 tricks has turned into 9. 

An alternative is to run all 7 trumps and hope for the defenders to go wrong. Whilst never a bad idea, it's highly unlikely to do any good in this case. The defender with Q will almost surely hang on to the suit, looking at dummy, and there's no scope for anything good to happen in hearts or clubs. Even if the defence let some diamonds go, setting up the suit in dummy (with AK and a ruff) won't help, as there's no entry to cash the established winner.

There's only one legitimate approach for an overtrick and you should take it: draw the second round of trumps (leaving a spade entry to dummy), and play A, K and ruff a diamond. Maybe, just maybe, the queen and ten will appear on these three rounds, in which case you can cross to dummy's spade and cash the winning diamond. And lo and behold ...

Well done to Lesley Johnstone and Lanny Chan, the two declarers to take this line of play.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 1/11/21)

I didn't have to search far when looking for a worthy hand for today's writeup.

The deal presents lots of interesting questions in both bidding and play. Have a go at them, then we'll discuss.

1. Should North bid anything as dealer?

2. What should West do after East's 3♠ bid?

3. West declares 4♠  on the auction shown. What should North lead?

4. Suppose North chooses a heart lead. How should South defend?

5. On that heart lead, how should West play 4♠?

1. It looks normal to pass, but consider the merits of a 3♣ opening bid. Yes, only 6 clubs, but the suit is excellent, and the extra shape provides lots of playing strength.

Monika Cornell was the only North to open 3♣. Her partner Diana Crowther bounced up to 5♣, and there they played, stealing from E/W's game. This was only a second top, because ...

2. Christine Paine was the only West to try for a slam, which is in theory an excellent contract. She Gerbered over 3♠, reaching 6♠ after partner Larry Allender admitted to his two aces. A heart ruff sunk this contract: bridge can be a cruel game.

3. Even without South's heart bid, North is best off leading his singleton heart. The side suit singleton is one of the very best opening leads to a suit contract. Only an AK suit is better. (If you have both, you could lead the ace, retaining the option of switching to the singleton).

4. South strongly suspects partner's lead is a singleton. Therefore he will play the ace, and return a heart for partner to ruff.

What then? South would just love partner to next play a diamond, so South can ruff this. This is achieved by returning the jack of hearts, a McKenney Suit Preference signal, saying that you want the higher suit played of the two remaining non-trump suits.

5.  When the lead is a heart to South's ace, West must play the king on it! That will sow the seeds of doubt into South's mind: could the original lead have been from 65 doubleton? 

West doesn't need to save the K: once he gets the lead, he will have all the tricks anyway: this play comes into the category of the "obligatory falsecard", and of course it needs to be done without too much thinking, to avoid giving the show away.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 29/10/21)

Today's deal features a tough bidding problem and interesting declarer play problem.

The only pair to get to the correct 4 contract was Ismail Gulec (West) and Lisa Yoffa (East), via the auction shown. The keys to their success were the 3 and 4 bids.

Ismail's 3 with the lousy suit served two purposes: to maybe show a heart stop and get to 3NT, and to also seek out a 4 contract. And if partner had a bit of spade support, then she could bid 3♠ and 4♠ would be reached.

Meanwhile, Lisa drew an important inference from 3: that it would be a 5-card suit. Why? Because she herself had denied having 4 hearts, when she failed to bid 2 over 2.  Therefore, 3 must logically suggest a 5-card suit.

Very well bid, but now you have to make 4.  North starts with A and Q. You ruff. How do you attack the hand? 

You have 8 hearts, the opponents 5. The first thing to do is make a positive assumption: that they divide 3-2.  If they are 4-1, you are surely doomed.

On this premise, there is a foolproof play, if you think of it. Play a heart from your hand, and duck it in dummy. Let's say the defence wins and plays a club (nothing else is any better: a spade you win with the ace, a diamond you ruff in hand).

Next play A. Assuming the opponents follow, there is one heart outstanding for the defence. Finally, start playing all the winning clubs. The opponents are welcome to ruff with their final master trump, but you are left with a trump in dummy. Whatever they return, you can enter dummy with that trump (eg by ruffing a spade) and take the remainder of the clubs.

The concept of getting to a position where the defence has the one remaining master trump, with you playing your other winners, is a frequent and useful scenario.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 28/10/21)

Today, you're sitting East and partner opens 3♠ , vulnerable. That's a sweet hand you have: could there be a slam? And if so, how does one look for it?

I haven't spruiked the Rule of Two and Three recently: it's time for a re-run. It says that when vulnerable, partner's preempt should show a hand with enough strength on its own to be within two tricks of the contract. (Non-vulnerable, it's three tricks.)

So when partner opens 3♠ , a 9-trick contract, he should have about 7 tricks in his hand. 

You can use that factoid. If partner has 7 tricks, then you have a pair of ace-kings, that's four more, and your diamond singleton combined with three spades, should provide at least one ruff. So 5 tricks from you: 7+5 = 12.

There's probably a slam. But not definitely: you want to check that you're not off two aces, or if you play RKCB, two keycards.

You should bid 4NT to check on this, and when partner's response is satisfactory, bid 6♠.

Partner's 7 promised tricks were of the purest form, so this is a textbook hand, but the Rule of 2 and 3 is surely one of the most useful there is.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 27/10/21)

Today you are East. When RHO opens 1, your instinct is to check the back of the cards, to see whether one of you has taken their hand out of the wrong board. But no, that can't be the case here.

So what's the plan?

A couple of Easts, Shayne Wurf and Sandra Hart, couldn't think of anything sensible to do, so they passed, and ended up defending 1. That worked beautifully, 1 going down 3 at one table and down 5 (!) at the other.  The pass is a very plausible action, although I would much prefer it if the opponents were vulnerable, so that they go down in 100s rather than 50s. 

Most of the other tables got too high E/W, going down in high notrump contracts.

But one pair nailed it, systemically. Jane Griffiths doubled 1 for takeout, and when partner, Pip Liebelt advanced 1, Jane made the key rebid: 1NT.  This shows a hand too strong to make an immediate 1NT overcall (about 15-18 HCP), and therefor depicts about 19-21 HCP, balanced ... a close approximation to her hand.  Pip passed that, and this pair were the only one to stay at a safe low level. Great auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 26/10/21)

Here's a simple opening bid decision for you. Go for it.

The field found 6 different calls. In decreasing order of popularity:

1 (7 times). Very reasonable. What it lacks in HCP it makes up in playing strength. It has two downsides: you'll won't be able to communicate the long strong diamonds later ... if you at any stage jump in diamonds, partner will play you for much more high card strength.  And the bid does nothing to interfere with the opponents, who may have a fit of their own.

Pass (3 times). These players couldn't find a bid that fit the hand, so they passed. Again understandable, but experience says that some diamond bid, even if imperfect, will do better than passing up the opportunity to do anything. 

3 (2 times). An underbid. The problem here is that partner won't expect 8 solid tricks.  This may result in missing a winning game (or slam).

4 (2 times). An accurate bid. Vulnerable, a 4-level preemptive opening should show about 8 tricks (two short of the contract), and 8 tricks is absolutely what you have. The downside? It takes you past 3NT. 

5 (1 time).  An overbid. Not much more to say. Too much red meat.

And then there was one player, Susan Douglas, who made a strange bid. She opened 3NT, the Gambling 3NT, systemically showing a solid (AKQ-headed) 7-8 card minor, and at most one king outside of it. The idea is to make a descriptive preempt, whilst still retaining the possibility of playing and making 3NT. Her partner, Christine Walker, was on the same wavelength. Seeing that they were probably wide open in hearts, she removed 3NT to 4♣, corrected to 4, and there the partnership rested, in the theoretically correct spot. They had both preempted the opponents and bid to the right contract. Good stuff.

A 3NT opening is not really needed to show a strong balanced hand ... you can open 2♣ instead. The Gambling 3NT has worldwide popularity.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 22/10/21)

What do you do with North's cards here?  Partner's 2 rebid is a reverse, showing extra strength (typically 16+ HCP), because it forces the partnership to 3-level if they are to go back to opener's first suit, diamonds.

If partner has 16+ with 4 hearts, then your hand is very powerful, even applying a small discount for the singleton king. There could be a slam, but how would you go about trying for it?

Most Norths contented themselves with 4, which usually ended the auction. (A few Souths then turned into Superman and bid on themselves, to which I say: there's no arguing with success.)

Just one North saw the huge potential in the hand, John Foreman. However ...

He bid 4NT over 2, Roman KeyCard Blackwood with hearts (the last bid suit) as trumps. Can you see the gigantic problem with that bid?

Suppose partner has, I don't know, ♠Jx   AKQx KQJxx ♣Qx, an 18-count. What's his response to 4NT? It is 5♠, showing two keycards and the queen of trumps. You have now just forced yourself to slam missing two aces! One thing you must always check on before embarking on any form of Blackwood (particularly RKCB): is there a response that takes you too high, with no escape? 

Fortunately for John, that little nightmare didn't eventuate, and they ended up successfully in slam.

So if 4 is too wimpish, and 4NT is too dangerous, what can North do?

Two suggestions.  A 4♣ splinter bid (showing support for the last bid suit and shortage in clubs) would clearly act as a slam try. That will work just fine opposite South's actual hand.

Or if splinter bids are not in your armoury, then the simplest slam try of all ... why not just bid 5, inviting slam? Once in a blue moon, partner will have the wrong minimum and that contract will go down, but it really is a very good mechanism for finding out whether partner has a minimum for his reverse, or extra values. Here South has a superb hand, full of aces, kings and distribution, and would not hesitate to go on to 6.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 21/10/21)

Today you are South, declaring 1NT. Not a very thrilling contract, but the beauty of a matchpoint duplicate is that every deal counts. You could win or lose based on what you do here.

Enough of the pep talk. West leads 3, you play low from dummy, East 8 and you win J. Good start!

What now?

It's all about the clubs. There's a lot of potential in the suit, but entries are a problem. Indeed, the only entry to your hand is in the club suit itself.

That's where the solution lies: you want to establish the clubs, whilst maintaining the club entry to your hand. The correct play is to lead a low club from your hand at trick 2. Assuming the suit divides 3-2, you will then be able to later lead a club from dummy and run the remainder of the suit.

Did you find the low club play? Stan Angelidis, Marie Shenker and Ian Cox did. And so also Larry Allender and Dennis Goldner, after a different defensive start. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 20/10/21)

Here's an interesting little problem faced by most Wests today.

Playing with your favourite partner, what do you do after RHO opens 1NT?

A number of Wests passed. They jointly share the Caspar Milquetoast award.

Others overcalled 2, their better suit, which as it happens finds their 6-1 fit rather than their 5-4 fit.

Almost all these players ended up defending notrumps, led their 4th best heart, with the result that declarer made many more tricks than deserved.

This is a hand in desperate need of a bidding convention, and there are many of them out there. What they all have in common is a mechanism for showing two-suited hands after an opponent opens 1NT, and having both majors is by far the most important of these.

A very simple and effective convention is Landy, where an overcall of 2♣ is artificial, showing both major suits (at least 5-4 shape). There are others, including Multi-Landy and Cappelletti. If you can show both majors, partner will bid spades, and whatever happens next, you are better off (for example now you know to lead a spade to South's notrump contract).

The best potential outcomes were earned by Faye Norton-Old, Alison Wright and Suzy Narita.  They all made the two-suited overcall, partner bid spades, the opponents competed further with their combined 24 HCP, and now all three Wests bid 4♠. Great contract, which while no means laydown, is likely to make and should indeed do so.  They share the Indiana Jones award.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 19/10/21)

I wasn't sure whether to present North's hand or South's for today's deal. I'm going with North, because about half the Souths made the right bid, whereas very few Norths did.

You can see the auction ... the question is what action, if any, North should take over partner's 1NT.

The hand doesn't look very notrumpy, what with the singleton spade. So a lot of players in this position removed: mostly to 2♣, a few to 2. It's understandable.

But perhaps they were missing a useful inference, which was that partner didn't have to bid 1NT.  This 1NT was volunteered, rather than forced upon partner. If South has some lousy 6-9 point hand, then he can simply pass the 1♠ overcall ... after all, he doesn't need to keep the bidding open for partner - East has done that.  So partner actually wants to bid 1NT, which strongly suggests multiple spade stoppers, which indeed partner did have, in spades, as it were.

In which case, a notrump contract should be just fine and dandy. One North recognized this and actually jumped to 3NT: let's call that overbid a strong compliment to their partner's declarer play skills. In this case, justified, as 3NT made for a total top (the ♠Q opening lead helped).

No, I'm with Joan Courtemanche and Christine Walker who coolly passed their partner's 1NT bid. That contract comfortably scored better than any minor suit partscore.  I'll add John Royle to the honour board, suggesting he would have passed 1NT, but didn't have the problem, when West perhaps unwisely raised to 2♠, a contract that failed by 3 tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 15/10/21)

What would you do as South in this position?  

First things first: partner has shown at least 5 spades. With a 4-card spade suit, he instead makes a negative double of 1.  So there's an 8-card fit in spades here: you should play in that suit.

How good is South's hand in support of spades? It's a whale of a hand. Those 15 HCP are pure: none of your lousy queens and jacks here.  The singleton adds to it. And the side suit of ♣AKxxxx is powerful. An old partner of mine used to say: "ace-king-sixth is the world's best side-suit".  That's because whatever sits opposite, there's a healthy chance of it being developed for many winners and no losers.

Putting the purity of the points, the shape and the strong side-suit together, nothing less than a jump to 4♠ is sufficient. That was well judged by Richard Fitzherbert, Dawn Braham, Marcus Brodmeyer and Cath Whiddon who all bid 4♠ here. Indeed, even opposite the lousy 6 HCP North hand, this can make 12 tricks if the defence stays off diamonds.

PS. Some Wests jumped to 2 over 1♣, a weak jump overcall.  And why not indeed. See how much harder it makes life for N/S: North doesn't really have sufficient strength to bid at the 2-level, and E/W may well buy the contract in hearts. I haven't checked all the tables, but if you as West bid 2 over 1♣, give yourself an elephant stamp.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 14/10/21)

Today, you can test your defensive skills. You are minding your own business sitting North, with East declaring 4♠.

Partner leads 3, dummy plays low. Should you play the king or the nine?

"Third hand high" is a pretty good rule. However it should not substitute for thinking, in particular about what partner has in diamonds, and therefore the layout of the whole suit.

The missing honours are the ace, queen, and ten. Partner should not have the ace. If your partner underleads aces against suit contracts, now is the time to buy him a book on opening leads as an early Christmas present.

So partner will have the queen, or the ten, or both, or neither. 

Forget about neither: declarer has AQ10, and it doesn't matter what you do.

If partner has both the queen and the ten, you better play the 9, forcing declarer's ace. That will yield you two diamond tricks. Whereas if you play the queen, dummy's jack will come into play as a second trick.

If partner has only the 10, you also better play the 9. Declarer has AQx, which will be worth just two tricks to him, as long as the defence stays off the suit from this point on. Playing the king gives up the whole suit.

It's looking good for the 9, but what about partner holding the queen but no 10? Here, playing the 9 allows declarer, who started with A10x to win cheaply with the 10. But does this matter?  Declarer always had two tricks in that setup, whatever card you played now. Unless declarer can get a discard somewhere (possible, but very unlikely), you will still eventually get the diamond trick you are owed. Note that partner's lead of the 3 (with you holding the 2) means he probably has a 4-card suit, giving declarer 3 diamonds.

So the 9 is the correct play in theory, as well as practice. There was a lot to think about in working that out, which is why defence is so darned difficult.

No one found the correct defence, but then again few had the opportunity. Why? Because most Souths stubbornly led a heart, from their longest and strongest, throwing away a trick. I'm telling ya: leading away from unsupported kings against a suit contract is a bad idea!

So kudos to Margaret Hughes, Marjorie Pertzel, Shirley Stewart, Brenda Glyn and Dennis Goldner, who all found the diamond lead.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 13/10/21)

Today's scenario is a little unusual, because it never occurred. But it might have. And the deal is worth looking at.

Put yourself in the East seat. What do you think of that 3♣ opening, in third position? Three players did it: Jim Stewart, Elly Papasavas, and an American who was filling in a half-table. It's an excellent bid. Sure you only have 6 clubs, but they have quality if not width. And after two passes, you can bet your socks that LHO has a good hand.

Those who passed instead gave N/S an easy ride to a making partscore. But the 3♣ opening created a N/S nightmare. Two Souths doubled 3♣ for takeout (as would I), and North knew she should have skipped today's game. Both responded 3, their stronger major, and got raised to 4, too high and in the wrong suit: a lethal combination.

Now the hypothetical ... a bit advanced but let's go for it.

Suppose North rolls the dice and passes the takeout double, hoping for a positive score on defence. South leads a top heart. What should East (declarer) play on this trick?

You don't want the defenders to continue hearts. If they do, they will certainly take three heart tricks, together with at least their two other aces. If on the other hand, they switch to another suit, maybe just maybe you will be able to get a discard for your losing hearts.

The trick is to make North's spot card look like a discouraging signal, convincing South to switch. But how to do that? It depends on your opponents' signalling methods, which they should have stated at the start of the round.

If they typed something like "standard signals", then a high card encourages. You want to make the 8 look "low". To do that you play the 3.  Then perhaps South will think partner started with 1098, in which case a switch is suggested.

Or if they typed "low encourage" or "high=hate, low=like", then a low card encouragaes.  You want to make the 7 look "high". To do that you play a high card yourself, say 9.   Then perhaps South will think their partner started with 1073, and again switch.

The rule-of-thumb is: "play a spot card that is consistent with your opponents' signals".  In other words, if opponents play standard, you yourself play high to encourage a continuation, low to discourage. If they play reverse, play low to encourage, high to discourage.

Like I said, it's all a little advanced. smiley

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 12/10/21)

Today's deal presents an interesting tactical and judgmental problem.

You are East, and partner makes a takeout double of South's 2 raise. You bid a fairly normal 3♠ over North's 3, but when that rolls around to North, he persists with 4.

How do you react to that?

You could bid pass 4, double 4 or bid 4♠.

The robot bid 4♠ which seems a bit crazy to me: what was it thinking? But it worked like a charm: 4♠ made, rather luckily. (Some players think the robots cheat by peeking at the 4 hands, but I don't believe that is the case.  Anyway, robots and their human partners do not earn masterpoints in Northern BC games.)

The other player in this position, Deb Fogarty, passed 4, a wiser move, surely. But what about trying a penalty double instead. There are two good reasons for this:

1) What was North doing? He contented himself with 3 then pushed on to 4 over your 3♠: unless he is playing a deep game, he doesn't sound very confident.

2) More importantly, you have an excellent opening lead to their heart contract: the singleton club. Short suit leads are particularly desirable when you hold length and control in trumps: here you have both. You lead a club, maybe declarer will win this and lead a trump,  but you will win A, find partner's entry in spades or diamonds (she has to have something for her double), and get a club ruff in return. That's three tricks, and you still have K plus other high cards that partner clearly has. And so it transpires: 4 goes two down with the greatest of ease. +300 would be a near top.

Anyway, defending 4 for 2 down still earned Deb a decent score, because many Wests 'forgot' to double the 2 raise, and let N/S out lower without a peep. So good work by Cecile Senior, Faye Norton-Old, Joan Courtemanche, Edwina Willis and Gail Feller who all made takeout doubles with that West hand, to force N/S too high.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 8/10/21)

In today's deal, the field as a whole was remarkably cautious. Only two human pairs reached the excellent slam, Brian Morrow - Jim Stewart and Geoff Pratt - Ron Irwin. The auction you see here is from the latter pair.

Whether you are playing 4♠ or 6♠, you, West, receive the lead of the A. You ruff, and draw a couple of rounds of spades, everyone following, so that's the end of the enemy's trumps.

What now?

12 tricks is now 100% (do you see how?), so your eye should be cast on making 13. 

The next step is to play the 3 top diamonds, discarding a club from dummy. If diamonds turn out to be 3-3, they are all good: you can discard another club from dummy and ruff the two losing clubs with dummy's two remaining trumps.

If diamonds are 4-2 (or worse), ruff the fourth one, and now take a ruffing finesse in hearts: leading the Q ... if South plays low, then discard a club. If North wins K, then your J is a winner, on which you can discard another club. You reach dummy by ruffing your last diamond.  If South plays K on Q, then ruff, ruff your last diamond and discard your two little clubs on the J10.

Shirley Stewart was the one declarer to find this correct play, so although she wasn't in slam, she still gathered in a 90% score. Isn't it nice that you can sometimes use the play to recover from being in the wrong contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 7/10/21)

Many West players today were confronted with an unusual situation on board 1.

Their LHO dealt and opened 1, RHO responded 1♠. Hmm. Is there anything that can be done?

The point to recognize here is that your RHO (South) doesn't need to have anything other than 4 spades for this 1♠ response. He might hold ♠5432.

In this modern world of Michaels and other cue-bids, it might seem strange that a 2♠ overcall is simply natural, but that's how it should be played.  After all, if you had the other two suits, you could make a takeout double, or perhaps try an Unusual 2NT bid. 

Indeed a 3♠ bid or 4♠ bid would be even more natural. 

On the actual layout, if you meekly pass here, "biding your time", then you may well hear 2♣ on your left then 3♣ on your right, and it will be too late to try a spade bid.

I don't believe anyone found the direct 2♠ overcall of 1♠, but two Wests, Deena Pathy and Rosemary Polya, did balance with 2♠ when their opponents stopped at a lower level, making their contract for an excellent score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 6/10/21)

Here's a play problem that trapped many players in various ways. You try it.

You're in 3NT as South and West leads ♣Q.

a) Do you win this trick? (If not, a second club will be played.)

b) When you do win, what next?

a) You should win trick 1. Some declarers artistically executed a holdup play, but this wasn't the deal for it. Look at it this way: if East has ♠Q, it can be finessed for 12 tricks, so why needlessly give your opponents a club trick?

b) The real trap on this hand is to run the hearts. It's very tempting - all those lovely tricks - but you will have to make 3 discards, and what will they be? A club and a spade are easy, but the last discard executes a squeeze on your own hand. If you throw another spade, then you give up on winning 2 spade tricks, and if you discard a diamond, you give up on 4 diamond tricks. 

The correct play is to cross to dummy in diamonds and run the ♠J. If it wins, then 12 tricks will be there (3 spades, 4+ hearts, 3 diamonds, 2 clubs). If it loses to West's ♠Q, and the defenders continue with clubs, you still have the chance of winning  11 tricks with 0 spades, 5 hearts, 4 diamonds  and 2 clubs.

Well done to Sue Potter and Lilian Young, who both successfully deferred playing off the hearts. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 5/10/21)

Today's bidding problem presents an interesting bit of bidding theory.

Your LHO opens 1♣, partner makes a takeout double and RHO bids 1. What do you do? 

Several Easts bid 1, perhaps obeying "4-card suits up the line" principles.  When South's 3♣ bid came back to them, it was too late to try spades, because then if partner wanted to go back to hearts, it would be at the 4-level, too high.

This is an auction where up-the-line bidding doesn't apply. Just one East, Susan Shand, bid 1♠ instead. This left her better prepared for later in the auction. If the opponents persisted in clubs, or maybe diamonds, she could consider bidding hearts next, allowing partner the choice between the majors without raising the level.  The difference between this situation and the one where you, for example, respond 1 to partner's opening is that in this auction, your bid is not forcing and nor is partner going to bid a 4-card spade suit next.  In a sense, when you bid spades here, you are supporting partner's implied spades, and if that doesn't work, you may later support partner's implied hearts.

As it turned out, Susan's partner, Shyamala Abey, freely (and correctly) bid 3♠ after South's 3♣. She noted that the 1♠ bid was not forced, and therefore showed a little something. South had been successfully removed from his making 3♣ contract.

What would have happened if West had 4 hearts but not 4 spades?  Then 3♣ would have been passed back to East, who then has another go with 3.  Either way, the major suit fit will be found.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 1/10/21)

Today's deal features a delicate defensive problem.

You are West, defending South's 4. You kick off with the ♠Q - ♠3 - ♠8 - ♠A.

Declarer plays  J, you win with the ace as partner follows 2.

Now what?

Where oh where is that ♠K? If partner has it, you may want to continue with the spades, to win whatever tricks you can before declarer potentially discards spades from dummy on some other long suit.

But if declarer has it, it may be very risky to continue spades, particularly if declarer also has ♠10.

Partner's play at trick 1 might help you. If you play "high=hate, low=like", then that ♠8 is a hateful card. Partner doesn't want you to continue the spades. 

(If playing "standard", where a high card is an encouraging signal, then partner would have followed with the ♠2 at trick 1.)

Assuming partner has played a discouraging card to trick 1, you should switch to a minor, clubs for preference. (Do you see why? There are two reasons to prefer clubs to diamonds.)

Good work by Ramona Enconniere, Sue Douglas, Faye Norton-Old and Robert Ziffer, who all switched to a club at trick 3.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 30/9/21)

The thought processes behind this bidding decision struck me as interesting. Let's see if you agree.

Partner opens 1♠  and the next hand passes. Your move.

There could easily be a slam here. All you need is for partner to have 3 of the missing key-cards: ♠AK, A, ♣A. So it's tempting to bid 4NT right now, particularly if you play Roman KeyCard Blackwood, which immediately focuses on what you need to know. (Even if playing simple Blackwood, 4NT is almost as good, getting you to a likely slam if partner holds 2+ aces.)

But there's a fly in the ointment. What happens if partner holds only one of these key cards? You could end up in 5♠, off for example 3 aces. Embarrassing! It could easily happen, partner holding useless lower honours in hearts and clubs to make up his opening bid.

Notwithstanding this risk, I think 4NT right now is the correct move. It seems to me that a making slam is far more likely than going down at the 5-level. Moreover, I can't see how you can ask partner for their opinion. Look at partner's actual hand, and take away the ♣K. Now partner's hand is hardly even worth an opening bid, and the slam is cold. There's just no way of finding out what you need to know without risking Blackwood.

Good work by Kerri Jones, Nerida Eastoe, Adrienne Reid, Aviva Kamil and John Robertson, who successfully made an immediate ace-asking bid.

Useless fact #1: I know of one pair who play a device called "Roman Key Card Gerber".  I hate the idea. But credit where it's due: they would have had the auction 1♠ - 4♣, thereby finding out what they needed to know without getting to the 5-level.

Useless fact #2: The website shows the "Optimum Contract" on any deal ... what will happen if both sides can see all the hands. Also known as the "double dummy result".  Here it's 7 doubled down 5, a score of -1400, beating out -1430.  It does, I suppose, support the concept of bidding 4NT immediately, preventing the opponents from getting together.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 29/9/21)

This HotD arose out of an email correspondence I had after last Friday's writeup.

You have that exciting South hand, and hear RHO open 1♣ ... your call.

Of the 27 Souths who faced this, most overcalled 1 (a few doubled instead).  I say to them, what's your plan?  To which I imagine the answer is, to bid 4 next. Which they duly did.

If your plan is to bid 4 next time round, then why on earth aren't you bidding it the first time, to make life as hard as possible for the opponents? 

To which a possible answer was: "I've been taught not to preempt with a side 4-card major". Which brings me to the email I had. On Friday's HotD, a player was meant to preempt with a side void, and my correspondent admit she didn't do it because she had been taught not to preempt with a void.

These reasons against preempting are seriously overhyped. They have their place, perhaps, but in principle, one should look for reasons to preempt, rather than reasons not to.  On this deal, three of the 1 overcallers allowed E/W to find their cold 6♣ contract ... they shared the bottom results on the board.

Four sensible Souths, Suzy Narita, Trish O'Brien, Arie Meydan and Jan Lonergan jacked it up to 4.  For three of them, their opponents with all bidding room removed, subsided in 5♣.

But for Jan Lonergan, it was different. 4 rode around to East who bid 5♣.  Jan, with the making of 10 tricks in her hand, and feeling that 5♣ was a good thing, persisted with 5.  West raised to 6♣ and now North, Ian Williams, with zero defence (less than zero actually) went on to 6.  He realised that with Jan preempting wildly, 6♣ was going to make, and 6 should surely be a cheap sacrifice. Indeed, 6 goes down less than the value of an E/W game, let alone slam.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 28/9/21)

Today's deal may not be the most exciting ever, but it does illustrate an important strategy.

You are West, on defence to North's 3NT, after North opened a 15-17 HCP 1NT and was raised to game. Partner leads ♣Q.

a) What is partner's hand?

b) How do you defend?

a) Partner must have ♣QJ10 and 10 other low cards in various suits, not a point amongst them.

Did you work that out? It's actually simple arithmetic.  You have 11 HCP, dummy 10 HCP, that's 21 in total.  Declarer has 15-17, so South, West and North total 36-38 HCP, leaving partner with 2-4 HCP. Partner has ♣Q and ♣J, that's 3 HCP, so can have at most one further jack. But since you can see the other three jacks, then there's no other point left for partner. 

Finally partner should have ♣10, because with ♣QJxx(x), he would have led a low club rather than top of the sequence. (Viewing dummy's ♣9 bolsters this analysis.)  

Nothing about the above is difficult, but it's a matter of developing a habit. You can always see your and dummy's strength, and often declarer will have indicated some sort of HCP range.  You can then deduce an HCP range for partner, an invaluable piece of information.

b) So how to defend? Well, you should go in with the ♣A.  If you duck the  lead, declarer might duck too. Then when partner continues clubs and you win the ♣A you will have no club to return. Against notrumps, holding doubleton-honour in the  suit led by partner, it's almost always correct to play the honour, whatever dummy plays.

And you should continue with a club at trick 2, even though it's completely futile, partner not having an entry to take any established clubs. The point is that declarer doesn't know this. In particular, if you can clear the club suit, declarer may decide not to risk taking the spade finesse into the danger hand (remembering that you know he has ♠AQ).

Good work by Annette King and George Campbell who found this correct defence. (It didn't help either of them, because their declarers, perhaps correctly, decided to take the risky spade finesse anyway.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 24/9/21)

Honestly I could write a book about this hand. The bidding I've put up is how I think it should go. Three points:

1) If you as South don't open 4, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, etc etc.

2) Most Easts, facing partner's 4♠ overcall, Blackwooded. This did not solve their problem when partner showed one ace (or one keycard). What East really wants to know about is the hearts ... are we off two top tricks there?  A much better choice is a raise to 5♠, which should ask partner to go on to 6♠ if she doesn't have two heart losers.

3) The double by South, found by Ramona Enconniere, is a great bid. It's the Lightner double, asking partner not to lead a heart, but instead lead their long side-suit which will be ruffed. Her idea was to ruff the diamond then take a top heart.  We'll come back to that.

The play in 6♠ (a very fine contract) is fascinating.  On a heart lead, you ruff, play ♠A and ♠K, and with trumps drawn, ruff a second heart. Over to the ♣A to ruff the third heart. Now play to the K.  You plan to play another diamond, covering South's diamond. If North wins that, then declarer claims the rest.

What happens if South discards on the second (or first) diamond?  It's easy! Just play a low diamond from your hand on the second round of the suit. North wins, and is stuck.  He either leads a diamond up to declarer's AJ, or a club up to declarer's ♣KJ.  Either way, 12 tricks are there.

Back to Ramona's table. Partner John Enconniere read the Lightner double perfectly and led a diamond for partner to ruff. But he led the queen!  That was no good. Ramona ruffed it, but it was the defence's last trick.

If you want to see true beauty in bridge, check out the play after North leads a low diamond, ruffed. It would seem that there's an inescapable further diamond loser, but the contract can still be made. The technical description of the winning play is Dummy Reversal plus Squeeze.  If you'd like to see it play out, use the "play it again" button.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 23/9/21)

Here's a neat declarer play problem for you. You land in 6 by East, and let's say South leads a trump.

A trick audit yields 11 top tricks, with a potential loser in each of the minors. You need to develop another trick from somewhere, and there are a couple of possibilities.

For example, the spade finesse could work. That would boost 11 tricks to 12. 

Or the outstanding six clubs could divide 3-3. You could then establish dummy's long club on which you discard your diamond loser.

So how do you play it?

There's no reason why you can try each of these chances. For example, after drawing trumps, play ♣A, ♣K and a third club. If the suit divides, then great, and if not, you take the spade finesse.

Even better is to make those plays in the reverse order. Draw trumps ending in East, and try the spade finesse. If it loses, then get the lead back (if a diamond is returned, win K), play ♣A, ♣K, then ♠A to discard your third club. Now ruff a club, hoping that the suit divides.

What's the advantage of this approach? Look at the full hand, in which everything is working. The spade finesse wins, and the club suit is 3-3. There are 13 tricks for the taking, by discarding a club on the spades, then ruffing out the suit to generate a diamond discard. Greed is good!

Shyamala Abey was the only declarer to play this hand correctly for all 13 tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 22/9/21)

Today's deal involves interesting decisions for all four players, so rather than present it as a problem, let's discuss the excellent auction that occurred at one specific table.

East opens 1. What should South do?

                                                                       

Rather than bid a major (which one?), why not show them both with a Michaels Cue Bid of 2 (which specifically shows 5-5 in the majors over a 1-minor opening). If you instead overcall, who knows how high the auction will be once it comes back to you: it might be very uncomfortable to come back in to show the other one. Suzy Narita was one of about half the Souths who bid 2. Now what should West do?

                                                                       

Mary King bid 3. Some Wests cautiously passed here, perhaps fearing that partner had opened a 3-card diamond suit. This is losing strategy. For starters, it's unlikely in the first place, and even more so once South has shown the majors. If you count distribution points for the side-suit singleton, this hand is definitely worth a raise.  And we come to North - what should she do?

                                                                       

North's has only 6 lousy points and little shape. However those two honour cards are golden, because they are in partner's long suits. Put that ace and queen into the minors and one should certainly pass, but in the majors, this is a very decent hand. With the known 8-card  spade fit, Susie Kiddie duly bid 3♠.  We're back to East.

                                                                       

Quite a few Easts were faced with this situation (some after South had overcalled 1♠).  Only Maggie Kelly bid 5.  Why not? Partner has shown diamond support. You have a good hand with distribution. 3NT is out of the question, with the opponents bidding your singleton spade. 5 is a make, and ultimately guaranteed a good score for her side.  And now South had to decide what to do.

                                                                       

I think Suzy Narita did the right thing by sacrificing in 5♠.  It seemed likely that 5 was making, and with her extra distribution, 5♠ should make at least 9 tricks, which would translate into a worthwhile sacrifice.

No one doubled this contract (West might have considered it), but the vulnerability robbed N/S of any value.  Down two, -200, was a bigger minus than all the tables that ended up in an E/W diamond partscore, or a lower major suit contract N/S.

The learning points from this interesting deal:

  • Michaels cue-bids allow you to show two suits with one bid
  • With support, show support
  • Where your honours are can have a big effect on your bidding
  • See game, bid game
Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 21/9/21)

You are East, declaring a heart contract. I've made it 6, but it could easily be 4. Either way, your objective is to make 12 tricks.  How do you play it if:

a) South leads a diamond to North's A, who returns a diamond, or

b) South leads ♣9.

(Hearts will divide 3-1.) 

a) On a diamond lead to the ace, and a diamond returned, it seems you will have to hope that the ♣K is onside. However, there is an extra chance: if the ♠J drops in three rounds, then there will be two club discards available for the East hand, in which case you won't need to take the club finesse. Dianna Middleton was the only declarer to see this. She won the diamond at trick 2, cashed AK, then ♠KQ. Next she drew the last trump with Q, and tried the ♠A. Bingo! The ♠J dropped and she had her 12 tricks.  If the ♠J hadn't dropped, she would have ruffed the last spade and then tried the club finesse. Two chances were a whole lot better than one.

b) The ♣9 lead is tougher. Now you don't have two chances ... you have to stake everything on one chance: the club finesse at trick 1, or alternatively, you can go up with the ♣A and hope that the ♠J drops in three rounds.

The raw odds say that the club finesse, at 50-50, is the better option: the odds on the ♠J dropping are only 36% (you don't have to learn that number, only use common sense: with 7 outstanding spades, any particular card is more likely to be with the defender who has the longer spades).

But, what do you make of that lead of the nine? It feels to me like it's from a weak holding, such as top of a doubleton. If South had the ♣K, wouldn't he lead a low club instead?  It looked that way also to Jamal Yazdanparast, who made the courageous play of going up with the ♣A at trick 1 and staking everything on the spades. Bravo!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 17/9/21)

Today's deal is a re-run, but the concept is so important, it's worth it.

You have an exciting hand: what do you do with it after partner's 2♣ rebid?

Some Norths simply signed off in 4♠. They knew that in all probability, partner was short in spades, and since she has only shown a minimum opener, slam was unlikely.

Other Norths launched into 4NT, asking for aces. They knew that their spades were almost self-sufficient, and if partner had a couple of aces, slam was surely there.

One North, Viv Braham, just didn't know. Perhaps there was only 4♠ in the deal, or perhaps there was a grand slam. He needed to find out more.

So he invented a new suit bid, 2, to see what partner did.  Partner, Dawn Braham, now jumped in spades, indicating 3-card support, and a maximum strength hand within the constraints of the 2♣ rebid.

Now Viv bid 4NT, and followed it with 5NT.  When he discovered that partner had two aces and two kings, he could count 13 tricks: 7 spades and the ace-king of each of the other three suits. So he bid 7NT to obtain the maximum score possible on the board.

It's the same old story: when you need more information, make a forcing bid and see what partner does.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 16/9/21)

Here's a situation that traps a lot of players. See if you fall into it.

Your 1 opening runs around to RHO, who bids 1.

What now?

You had a plan. Partner would probably respond 1 or 1♠ and you were going to jump to 2NT, showing a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT (typically about 18 or 19 HCP).

The trap is to continue with that plan.

The problem is that this is a different auction. When partner responds to your 1 opening, she is showing 6+ HCP. Your side therefore has a combined 25+ HCP and a probable game. But here, your partner has 0-5 HCP, and your side almost certainly does not have a game.

The correct bid is just 1NT, showing 18-19. It feels wrong, doesn't it? 1NT should show 12-14 HCP. But if you had 12-14, bidding 1NT in this auction would be like putting your head into the lion's mouth: it's crazy. With a minimum opener, opposite 0-5, you would just pass.

A few Wests fell into the trap of following the plan with a 2NT rebid. A few others doubled 1 (no shape), and others passed 1 (no guts). But a pleasing number got it right: Deena Pathy, Shirley Stewart, Tatiana Stratford, Jan Downing, Susan Douglas, Dawn Thistlethwaite, Mariette Read, Nicole McManamny and Susie Kiddie all correctly bid 1NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 15/9/21)

This tricky problem defeated almost everyone today. 

What do you rebid with East's hand on the auction shown?  What would you have done if West's rebid had been 3 instead of 2?

You want to reach game, but is it 5, 3NT or 4♠?

Some Easts just blasted 3NT. I like their style and panache, and also their luck when partner produced an unassailable club stopper. (Imagine partner with ♣Kx: you want her to be declaring 3NT, not you, so that the king is protected at trick 1.)

Other Easts went for spade or diamond contracts, with less success.

This is a hand where you want to consult partner. Does partner have spade support? Then 4♠. Does partner have a club stopper? Then 3NT. And if partner has neither of these, then 5 it is.

You can ask these questions by making a bid that tells a teensie-weensie lie. Over 2 bid 2, as Dorothy Bush did.  Or if partner had rebid 3, bid 3 as Maree Muir did. Both these will wring a bid out of partner to help you.  In each case it was a notrump bid, showing a club stopper (clubs being the unbid suit), and Bob was their uncle. 

If partner had volunteered some spade support over the heart bid, then 4♠ would have been the contract. And if partner had bid something unhelpful, like repeat the diamonds or raise the hearts, then it's back to 5. You've found out what you need to know.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 14/9/21)

This hand presented interesting problems for North, South and East (and also in a few cases West), but I will choose to present the very first problem.

Do you have a plan?  What is your opening salvo?

I feel very strongly that you should open either 5 or 1.

The hand may feel too strong for a preemptive opening, but at this specific vulnerabiliy (you are vulnerable, they are not), opening preempts do denote a good hand. The Rule of 2 and 3 is invaluable: vulnerable, a preemptive opening should have 2 fewer tricks than the contract bid for.  This hand is a 9-tricker: 7 in diamonds (you are prepared to lose to the Q, and 2 in clubs: the king and you hope your fourth club will come good.  So if it's 9 tricks, you should make an 11-trick opening: 5.  That's what I'd open, but I only had one soulmate: Andrew Muir

The 5 opening not only preempts the hell out of the opponents, but accurately informs your partner of your strength. In this case, Andrew's partner might have considered that he had 3 tricks to add, to make 12, although I freely admit that's a tough decision.

Any lower diamond preempt is totally inadequate.

That leaves 1 (which is what you should certainly start with if not vulnerable ... your hand is too strong for a Rule of 2 and 3 5, and you can hardly open 6).  Lots of Norths did so, but you only get full marks if your plan was to repeat the diamonds at the 5-level, to show partner your enormous playing strength.

Edwina Willis opened 1 ... it went 2 on her left (a Michaels cue-bid showing the majors), pass from partner (biding his time), and 2 on her right. She rebid 5 as planned, and South Ian Jesser read it perfectly, giving 6 a shot, despit the big gaps in the major suits. Brilliant stuff!

Finally, in the humour section, we get to West. Three N/S pairs played 3NT by South (let's call that contract 'interesting'). Two Wests led a club, ignoring partner's bidding, leading to -690, an equal second-bottom.  Only Margaret Lehmann did the partnership thing, leading partner's bid spade suit. 3NT still made, rather fortuitously with all four top major suit cards with East, but at least she avoided a wipeout.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 10/9/21)

Today's deal contains an important point of bidding theory. Let's present it as a problem.

Partner's 1NT rebid shows about 12-14 HCP, balanced, and denies 4-card heart support. What do you do now?

Your objective here should be simple. You need to find out if partner has 3-card heart support. If she does, you play 4 ; if not, 3NT. Complicating this thinking is not a winning strategy.

So how best to achieve this, without risking stopping in a partscore?

A number of Norths bid 2. The problem with this natural bid is that 2 is non-forcing. It is not a "change of suit", because your new suit is being bid after a notrump bid. It's only when you go from a suit to a new suit that it is forcing. As it turned out, these Norths got lucky ... their partners, with 3 hearts and 2 diamonds, took them back to 2, resulting in the correct 4 contract. But they could have easily been left to languish in 2.

There are a couple of solutions to this dilemma, and you should choose one. The simplest is a convention called New Minor Forcing. It applies specifically after a 1NT rebid from opener. If you bid a new minor (2 in this case), then it is not a natural bid, but simply an artificial force, asking partner to keep describing their hand. This is how you safely find out whether partner has 3-card support for your major.

The second somewhat more complex approach is Two-Way Checkback.  In that method, a 2♣ rebid (which forces opener to bid 2) begins a game-invitational sequence. A 2 rebid over 1NT is an artificial game-force.  That set of rules applies no matter what bid opener started with.

Two-Way Checkback requires a little bit of work (although it's a great method, used extremely widely throughout the world). New Minor Forcing is almost as good, and there's less to learn. You should pick one.

One pair got this deal right. Lisa Yoffa bid 2 and self-alerted it as an artificial game-force. When partner Ros Davies bid 2, the 4 contract was reached with authority. 

If any of the other pairs that had this same auction were in fact using New Minor Forcing or Two-Way Checkback, keep it to yourselves, because you failed to alert. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 9/9/21)

Consider this bidding decision for West: what to do after RHO's 5♣.

I reckon you should bid 5♠. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find three reasons why this is a good idea.

1. The vulnerability. You are non-vulnerable, which means if this turns out to be a sacrifice, then it will be worthwhile. You only need to take 8 tricks in 5♠ to guarantee a better score than them making 5♣. And the fact that the opposition is vulnerable makes it seem likely that they were bidding 5♣ to make it, rather than as a sacrifice themselves.

2. The six spades. Partner's 4♠ is of a 'weak-freak' variety ... lots of spades and very few points. Partner will have 4 or possibly 5 spades, which combined with your 6-bagger means you will be lucky to take a single spade trick against their contract.  You will probably make a diamond trick. Which brings us to:

3. The ♣K.  This card is likely waste-paper. North probably has the ♣A for his overcall, which will chop off the head of your king. Factors 2 and 3 combine to make it likely that 5♣ will make. As indeed it will, with the greatest of ease.

So very well done to Joy Millen and Carolyn Hope who both progressed to 5♠. Their reward for this good judgment: a shared bottom board! Sometimes it's better not to get out of bed. Congratulations to their two sets of opponents, Fiona Ferwerda - Penny Robertson and Martin O'Dell - Basil Danylec, the only two North-South pairs to both overcall that marginal North hand (they felt the quality and width of the clubs) and progress to 5♣ as South. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 8/9/21)

Here's an interesting bidding problem for you. Partner opens 1♣, you respond 1 and partner raises to 2, which shows about 12-14 HCP and 4-card heart support.

What now?

You have a pretty good hand - could there be a slam?

Let's see, 17 HCP and 0 distribution points.  Add this to partner's 12-14 and you get 29-31. Normally you would need 33 total points for a suit slam, so it seems to me you are not quite strong enough to go on a slam hunt. Slam could be there, but frankly it's unlikely.

So you might just bid 4, as many did. But your dead flat distribution should make you think about 3NT. It's entirely possible that there are exactly the same number of tricks in notrumps as hearts, in which case you would want to be in notrumps for the extra 10 points.  It's also entirely possible that there is an extra trick available in hearts, if partner has a bit of distribution.

You can have your cake and eat it. The correct bid here is 3NT, offering partner the choice between 3NT and 4. Looking at partner's hand, she was maximum in points (14) but also dead flat. If you were to suggest 3NT, she should accept the offer. There were indeed 10 tricks available in both contracts.

Well done to Yuko Yoshida, Jenny Gray and Elizabeth Gibas, who found the 3NT bid in this auction, and to their respective partners who passed it. An intelligent way to stay out of the 4-4 major suit fit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 7/9/21)

Here's a very fine defensive problem that no one at the table solved. This was probably due to the fact that no-one was informed in advance that this is a very fine defensive problem.

You have been informed ... see if you can work it out.

Sitting East, you are on defence to North's 5. You decide to lead the ♠A, and declarer, North, follows with what appears to be (and is) a singleton king.

What now?

One very useful defensive technique is to count the missing HCP and mentally divide them between declarer and partner, based on the bidding.

Here, you have 11, dummy 13, so there are 16 outstanding. Declarer opened the bidding and will have most of these 16 HCP. You will be lucky if partner can contribute one useful card to the defence.

Next you look at dummy and see those threatening clubs. The king is missing: if partner has it, then you will defeat 5 easily enough with three top tricks. 

But if declarer has, as is likely, the ♣K, trouble looms. He will have 5 trump tricks, the ♠Q, A, and once your ♣A has been knocked out, 4 club tricks (as your ♣10 obligingly drops  early): that adds up to 11.

So there is no time to lose: you must hope partner has Q and switch to diamonds, establishing a diamond trick for the defence whilst you still have the ♣A. As I said, no-one found it, but it is completely logical. And as you can see it works.

What if the Q and J were interchanged? Then your diamond  switch would have run around to declarer's queen, giving him an undeserved extra trick. However it would have made no difference, as the clubs were always going to be established anyway. This is a situation where an apparently dangerous play is not dangerous at all.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 3/9/21)

You're playing 2♠ as South, and West leads a low diamond. You hopefully try Q, but East covers with K, and you win A.

The correct play here is to start drawing trumps. Anything you might try in the other suits can wait. So you lead the ♠A, West follows with ♠2, East ♠9.

Now what?

Your next trump play requires a bit of calculation. The first thing to note is that if the 6 outstanding spades divide 3-3, then what you do now doesn't matter. You will play 3 rounds, eventually, and that will be the end of the enemy trumps. The second thing to note is that if that ♠9 is a singleton, then West started with exactly ♠KQ1042, and as long as you don't play the ♠3 next, it also won't matter.

The key situation is when the ♠9 was played from a doubleton. It could be ♠K9, or ♠Q9 or ♠109. The first two combinations also don't matter: whatever you play next, that honour will win, and West will have two further trump tricks coming.

There is in fact one and only one scenario where your next play matters, and that is the actual real-life layout of East with ♠109 doubleton (and West with ♠KQ42). Then it is essential that you play the jack next, smothering East's 10. You will hold your spade losers to two.

Very well done to Billie MacKenzie who made that exact play to wrap up her contract. Valerie Remedios also played ace-then-jack, but later in the play.  Playing good bridge requires hard work.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 1/9/21)

This bidding problem illustrates an important principle of bidding. if you disagree with West's 2♣ response, let's assume you've been called in to replace the actual West, whose internet has dropped out.

What now?

Partner should have 6 spades and a minimum opener. Maybe there is a slam in this, maybe there isn't, but one thing I know: asking for aces is not going to help. The problem is your void heart, which means you are not interested in the A ... the ♠A and ♣A are what you are after. 

Some Wests used Gerber. They found out that partner had two aces and then two kings, and they still couldn't know whether slam was cold, possible or hopeless (you could be missing the ace and king of trumps).

On this deal, you are never going to scientifically find out about the crucial cards that you need: the ace and king of trumps, king of diamonds, ace and queen of clubs.  In my opinion, after this start, you should either bid 4♠ (give up on slam), 6♠ (try a slam) or ...

Why not ask partner what she thinks about her hand?  I recommend 5♠, a natural invitation to slam. It's as good as anything, and in my view better than taking the decision yourself. In this instance, partner has a maximum, 15 HCP, and although the king and jack of hearts are entirely waste paper, it's an excellent slam and she will bid it.

I don't think anyone made this bid, but two Wests, Shayne Wurf and Lanny Chan, simply blasted 6♠ in a slightly different auction ... North had stuck in a heart bid over 2♣ , and partner then volunteered a repeat spade bid. That changed the nature of the auction, in a sense East showing that they would accept a 5♠ invitation in the auction I postulated. The point is that neither of them bothered with 4NT, a bid that could not possibly help them.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 31/8/21)

It's a little difficult for this deal not to be hand-of-the-day. As you can see there are 14 stone-cold tricks in either a diamond or notrump contract.. So up front let me congratulate Anne Kirkpatrick - Carol Wilson and Edwina Willis - Ian Jesser, the two pairs who reached a grand-slam and shared the E/W top.

As for the bidding, it wouldn't surprise me that the 16 tables saw 16 different auctions. Despite the 14 tricks, it's not necessarily an easy hand to bid. But there are a few useful learning points to make.

Let's start at the start ... what should West open?

I wonder if anyone considered opening 4NT, as simple Blackwood. It's a thought, right? 3 aces = 7NT, 2 aces = 6, 1 ace = 5, 0 aces = oh s..t.  Well, it's a plan, and not a bad one.

But if you don't go for it, my strong opinion is that you should open 2♣, as our two successful pairs did. Normally one would expect more than 13 HCP for a 2♣ opening, but the big problem is that if you open 1, you will never ever ever be able to communicate to partner the vast playing strength of your hand.  

Suppose you do open 2♣ and partner gives you a positive with 3♣.  Now perhaps bid 4NT?  Even if partner reads this as Roman Key Card  Blackwood for clubs, your ♣K protects you from an ambiguous response. There are dangers with that plan, in particular over the 0 or 3 response to RKCB. This is a rare situation where you can't tell for sure which one it is!

So I prefer the auction to  start 2♣ -  3♣ - 3.  Now at one table I watched, East leapt into Blackwood, 4NT, and got a 5♠ response (two key-cards with diamonds trumps plus the Q). East then asked for kings with 5NT, which brings me to the second learning point.

When you use Blackwood, of any form, and then follow up with a 5NT bid asking for kings, it promises that you hold all the aces (or keycards).  Why? Because it forces you to a slam anyway, and why would one bother with a king-ask if it wasn't to keep a grand slam in the picture?  So 5NT here should guarantee ownership of 3 aces, and this can result in my recommended winning auction:

  2♣ - 3♣ 
  3 - 4NT
  5♠ - 5NT
  7NT 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 27/8/21)

Here's a nasty bidding decision for you. It is worth noting that even the most gruesome problem provides an opportunity to win lots of matchpoints. You just have to make a less-worse decision than everyone else.

Partner opens 1, you respond 1♠, LHO overcalls 2♣ and partner rebids 2. Yuck. What do you do?

And what do you do if partner had instead rebid 2?

Over the 30 tables in play, East-West managed to go down a total of 83 tricks - an impressive performance.  So the aim here is to say as low as possible so you can go down as few as possible.

West's hand is truly horrible: 7 lousy points, no fit for partner's suit(s) and with LHO's club overcall sitting over your clubs. 

Let's dispense first with the scenario where partner rebid 2. With or without the 2♣ overcall, you should pass. Partner's rebid shows a 6-card suit, so at least you will have the majority of the trumps. Those that bid on in this auction were contravening a basic rule of everything: "when you're in a hole, stop digging".  Good work by Jean Macleod, Teck Chan, Faye Bell, Sarah Walter, Jan Downing and Moira Hecker who duly passed 2 to avoid a wipeout. (They don't get their names in bold, because I reckon passing 2 is totally clear ... sorry about that.)

The situation where East rebid 2 is nastier. It's a change of suit, and should normally be played as forcing. Still ... what is West going to rebid? 2 preference on a singleton? 2♠ on a rotten 5-card suit? 2NT? Good luck making that contract!  And a problem with all of these choices is that they give partner another bid in the auction, and unless you see "pass", you are going to be very unhappy.

So kudos to Jo-Anne Heywood and Lesley Johnstone who passed 2, potentially (but not actually) ending up in a 6-card fit. They stopped digging, and scored well. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 26/8/21)

Try playing 5  here. You can see the bidding: that might be useful input.

North leads A, and a trick two, switches to ♣5.

What to do, what to do?

One of the more useful (and challenging) techniques in bridge is to put yourself in an opponent's place and ask: "what would I do in that situation?"

On this deal, if North has ♣K, you can play low from dummy and win the trick in your hand. This will likely lead to an easy make, as the clubs can be established for a spade discard.

BUT, North is looking at that threatening club suit in dummy ... would he really lead away from the ♣K in that position? It would be crazy, surely. Much more likely is that South has ♣K, and that North has led from a doubleton club, or even ...

Looking at the full deal, you can see that ducking in dummy is fatal: South will win ♣K and give partner a club ruff.

If South does have ♣K, the hand makes quite easily. Rise with the ace at trick 2, draw the trumps and lead towards the ♣Q. Eventually dummy's fifth club will be establised on which you can discard your losing spade.

Easy enough, but first one must place oneself in North's shoes and ask "why is he playing a club?"

Well done to Lanny Chan, the only West to get this right. Her opponent led the club at trick 1, but the reasoning was the same: this is far more logical as a shortage lead, rather than from strength against dummy's known 5-card club suit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 25/8/21)

Here's a problem that might have arisen today, but actually didn't.  You open 1 and partner responds 1♠. What's your rebid?

It's a tricky one. A 3♠ bid promises 4-card support, which you don't have. 2NT shows 18-19 HCP, which you don't have. In my view the best compromise here is to bid a 3-card minor (2 in this case) to keep the auction rolling along. Of course that lies about the diamonds, so my solution is hardly perfect. 

The auction never came up for two reasons. Most Norths gave heart support, resulting in a 4 contract. Jim Stewart was the only North to respond 1♠, by far the best choice in my view. With the dead flat hand, I don't think North should commit to a heart contract just yet. Spades (if partner partner has support) or notrumps might be far better.  At his table, East bid 2 which actually resolved South's rebid problem.

The other reason the auction 1 - (P) - 1♠ - (P) never came up is that about half a dozen Souths opened 1NT. The question of whether to open 1NT with a 5-card major has been around for donkey's years, but one reason why it's a good idea is that it allows you to avoid nasty rebid problems when you open 1 of a major. It's good for the blood pressure: open 1NT and let nature take its course.

Col O'Brien, Rosemary Polya, Lisa Yoffa and Sandra McCaughey were among the Souths who opened 1NT. Their partners all used Stayman, and rebid 3NT over South's 2 response. The 5-3 heart fit was missed, but 3NT was by far the best contract both in theory and practice. The fact is that a 5-3 major suit fit is not always the key to the city.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 24/8/21)

Sit East, defending North's 3NT contract. What do you lead?

It looks to me to be a bit of a toss-up between clubs and spades: the clubs are longer, but the spades are stronger. For the sake of the upcoming problem, let's say you start with ♠Q.

Down comes the dummy, which plays low, ♠5 from partner, ♠A from declarer.  So no damage done so far. Next declarer plays ♣K. You should probably duck this, to see what declarer does next, but suppose you win ♣A, partner following with ♣7.

What now, and why?

If you 'responded' to this problem by considering what partner's ♠5 at trick 1 might signify, then you have answered correctly.

Some level of defensive signalling is essential if you want to win. A simple and effective rule is that when partner is simply following low to one of your leads, she gives you an attitude signal. For example, playing "low = like, high = hate", a good method, a low card would say she likes the suit, all things considered. 

If you are playing that way, then the ♠5, being the lowest outstanding spot card, says 'like'.  That would be consistent with partner having some help there, the king, or more likely the ten. So you should continue at trick 3 with your small spade, continuing the spade attack. This will defeat the contract, as partner had ♠1073.  Declarer cannot hold up the spades, and cannot develop 9 tricks before you get 5.

If partner had instead started with ♠75 doubleton, then she would have played the ♠7 at trick 1, discouraging the suit. You would then look elsewhere, rather than lead a second spade into declarer's ♠K10 jaws.  And if partner had started with ♠5 singleton?  Well, that would be unfortunate, but perhaps then declarer might have bid 3♠ over South's 3.

Only one East-West pair defeated 3NT.  Pam Davey led a 4th best ♠3 to resolve the spade situation with ease. Good old 4th best leads to notrump contracts. Partner Gail Feller then cooperated appropriately in the defence to leave declarer with no chance.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 20/8/21)

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Dutch liqueur company Bols ran a series of "Bols Bridge Tips" where the world's best players wrote about their favourite tips for players.

One of the best known of these was by Benito Garozzo, the Italian star, who wrote the tip, "Against a slam contract, attack!".  See  tinyurl.com/nsstm2n5 

His advice was to make passive opening leads to game contracts, but aggressive attacking leads to slams.

Bearing that in mind, choose a lead to this slam.

If you read the article, you will see that in each case, the lead of an unsupported honour defeats the contract (jack from KJ, king from K10xx, king or jack from KJ98). Sadly these setups exist only in the world of bridge fantasy, and liqueur-addled articles. In the real world, dangerous attacking leads against slams are much more likely to toss an unmakeable contract into declarer's hands.

I'm no Benito Garozzo, but I suspect if you gave this problem to a bunch of international stars, they would unwaveringly do the opposite of his advice, and lead a quiet trump, giving nothing away. And so did Kerri Jones, Eveline Fallshaw, Teck Chan, Deb Fogarty and Helge Pedersen.  In due course, declarer lost both minor suit finesses (unlucky!) to go down in the excellent slam. Those who led an attacking diamond let the contract make.

At a few tables, North was declarer in slam. East had nothing but passive leads, and could lead his left boot to defeat the contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 19/8/21)

Today, let's consider an interesting opening lead problem. What do you lead? Or in more detail, what score, out of 10, would you give to each of the leads: a spade, a heart, a diamond or a club?

I can't think of a single good thing to say about a club lead.  It is declarer's second suit, so leading up to is most unwise.  Let's say Club = 1.  If you chose the club, keep quiet about it.

The diamond lead was more popular. Perhaps some led it due to the "fourth highest of your longest and strongest" rule, but that really only operates for notrump contracts. A diamond lead could develop tricks for your side, but it is probable that those tricks will be available later in the play anyway. In other words, what's the rush? There would only be urgency if declarer can develop diamond discards on dummy's spades, and frankly, that scenario is unlikely, as partner may well have spades sitting over the dummy.  And the potential downside of a diamond lead is obvious, that it gives declarer a free cheap trick. I will give Diamond = 5.

What about the spades? That's a good lead. Whilst there's not a great chance of getting a ruff, leading through a weak dummy's suit is always a viable option. The spade lead gives nothing away, and is a fine lead, found by Chris Heesom and Lanny Chan.  It duly defeated 4  and I give it Spade = 9.

Finally there is the dynamic headline-grabbing lead of a trump. How many hearts does dummy have? Or clubs?  Almost certainly dummy has two hearts, and any number of clubs from 0 to 3. Declarer may want to trump clubs, and your trump lead (perhaps followed by another one if you get in with a club) will foil that plot.  In my view, Heart = 10.

The four Do's and Dont's out of this:

  • Don't lead declarer's second suit
  • Don't necessarily lead 4th from longest and strongest again a suit contract
  • Do lead from weakness through dummy's strength
  • Do lead trumps to stop dummy getting ruffs
Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 18/8/21)

Test yourself on this 3NT.  You are East, and South leads ♠5.  You play low from dummy, and North follows with ♠4.

How do you play it?

It's all about the overtricks. There are 9 tricks on top, and at least 2 more in all likelihood from the clubs. All things being equal, with an 8-card fit, the best play in that suit is to finesse the jack, hoping North has ♣Q. If it works, you will make 12 tricks.

But are all things equal? Suppose you finesse in clubs, and lose to South's ♣Q. Now if South plays a heart, your K is exposed. If the A is with North, you could take as few as 9 tricks.

This is a situation where South is the danger hand, the hand you don't want to give the lead up to. So I agree whole-heartedly with Yuko Yoshida and Ian Williams, the two declarers who banged out the ♣A and ♣K at tricks 2 and 3. Gratifyingly, the ♣Q dropped from South, so 12 tricks were there: I love it when a plan comes together.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 17/8/21)

Today's deal is a declarer play problem, but the bidding is also a challenge. What should South do after her 1♠ response is raised to 2♠?

It's tempting to try for slam, but the hand is dead flat, and the spades are awful. There's probably not enough strength for a slam.  Most Souths just bid 4♠, but a few tried 3NT, offering partner an alternative contract, which could be best if partner is also dead flat, or perhaps has only 3 spades. I think it's a good idea, and North should probably go back to spades, with legitimate 4-card support and a side suit doubleton.

Anyway, you are South declaring 4♠ and West leads a low heart. How do you play it?

Your only losers are in trumps. The clubs and hearts are solid, and you can ruff your third diamond in dummy.

Trumps will divide either 3-2 or 4-1 (we don't want to think about the situation where one opponent has all 5 spades). If trumps are 3-2, it doesn't matter what we do, but if they are 4-1, some care is needed. A number of declarers played ace and another spade. They put their contract at risk, because if spades were 4-1, all their trumps would be extracted, and it's bye-bye diamond ruff.

The correct play, found by Brian Dean, Penny Robertson, Annette King and David Hudson is to play a low spade from both hands at trick 2. They won the return and now played the ♠A. If spades were indeed 4-1, they would find out at this point, and be in control. A diamond is ruffed, and all the other side suit winners taken. A defender is welcome to his two remaining trump tricks whenever he wants to take them, but the contract is secure.

The trump ace of course is the most valuable card there is. It can be used to control your play in the trump suit, as here. As luck would have it, trumps were 3-2, so the four declarers gained no extra points other than the satisfaction of having played the hand correctly.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 13/8/21)

The Multi 2 convention is becoming increasingly prevalent around the world. Escaping from England back in the 80s, it has spread globally like a virus.  Only America seems to have been vaccinated against it: it is hardly played there.

Enough of the silly analogy. I don't much care for the Multi myself ... I think that on balance the 2 opening (a weak two in an unidentified major, or 20-22  balanced) is a losing proposition against properly prepared opponents. 

However, the convention has a huge upside in how it frees up to the 2 and 2♠ openings, which become real weapons. Those bids are best played as showing about 6-10 HCP, a 5-card major in the opened suit, and at least 4 cards in an unidentified minor. (Some partnerships require the minor to be 5 cards long, but perhaps that reduces the frequency of the opening too much.)

Look at how it operated on board 2 today. What can N/S do to counter the 2 opening, raised to 4 by West?  In my view, nothing. Being vulnerable, how can they possibly enter the auction?  Even if South screws up the courage to overcall 3♣, that is not going to help North after West's 4.  4 makes easily, and so in all probability will 4♠.

Three E/W pairs deployed the convention here: Jenny Gray - Tony Georgeson, Anna Kearon - George Campbell and Robin & Moira Hecker. Their opponents were left with my sympathy and very few matchpoints.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 12/8/21)

On today's deal, partner opens 1NT.

This doesn't look too complicated, but how do you bid it?

At one level, this is straightforward. You have 6 hearts, so there is a guaranteed 8+ card heart fit. And you have 10 HCP, so there's enough overall strength for game.

Most Souths considered it no further, transferring into hearts (via 2) then raising themselves to game. Note that it's far preferable that partner be declarer, so that the opening lead comes around to his hand.

But one South, David Hollands, thought about it more deeply. Was there not a healthy possibility that whatever tricks are available in a heart contract are also there in notrumps? Partner has got nothing in hearts, so it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that any of the other suits pose a threat to a notrump contract.

So he took the completely opposite approach, and simply raised 1NT to 3NT!  Sure enough, after a club lead, partner had no difficulty taking 12 tricks, for a top score. And well deserved it was too.

A third "middling" approach is possible. Transfer to 2, then rebid 3NT offering partner a choice between 3NT and 4.  But I prefer David's decisive action.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 11/8/21)

It's the first board of a red-point duplicate, and already you are given a tricky decision. That's bridge!

You are West. LHO opens 1NT, RHO responds 2, a transfer, and LHO's 2♠ is passed back to you. Are you going to balance back into the auction, or not?

Practically everyone passed out 2♠, which is understandable. Your hand is rather moderate and there is a strong notrump on your left.

The outcomes in 2♠ varied dramatically, from three down to two overtricks, but all these scores were worse (from an E/W perspective) than E/W making 170 or 420 in a heart contract.

One brave West, Carolyn Hart, balanced with 3 and played it there, for an excellent score. This is also understandable ... the 10 provides protection in the suit, and the vulnerability is all-green, which is absolutely the best situation for competing for a partscore. (It often pays to buy the contract at nil-vulnerable, when either you or your opponents are going down in only 50s.)

However there is a better solution - a far better solution - to this problem, found by Libby Persson. She doubled 2, a completely safe way of showing her hearts without getting sucked into the auction. The result was gratifying: partner Mike Pogson competed to 3 over 2♠, and when N/S unwisely competed with 3♠ he went on to 4 and made it with an overtrick. Whatever he had done, Libby's double of 2 had locked in a good score.

Doubling a transfer (or Stayman club bid for that matter)  is a fine way to show a suit: it can point the way to the best opening lead or, as in this case, allow you to compete for the contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 10/8/21)

You are North, playing a heart contract. It could be 4 or 6: it really doesn't matter: you just want to make as many tricks as you possibly can.

East leads ♠A (a Greek gift). You trump it, and take stock. What's next?

Dummy's ♠K has been set up, but it's of little use to you: what you really want to do is establish the clubs, by ruffing out the king. 

The problem is entries to your (North) hand. The opening lead has removed one of them. It won't matter, as long as you clear out the ♣ A before drawing trumps.

The correct play is ♣A at trick 2, then K, A. If trumps divide 2-2 (as they did), you can ruff a club, and as long as that suit divides 3-2, you still have two entries back to your hand to ruff the clubs good: making 13 tricks.

If trumps are 3-1, run the ♣Q next, being prepared to possibly lose a club trick, but making the rest easily.

Neither of these schemes will work if you don't clear away the ♣A early (which is also the safest way to make 12 tricks: several pairs didn't).

No-one found this line, but well done to Jan Lonergan and Ian Williams, the only pair to bid and make 6.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 6/8/21)

This cruel hand illustrates an important point of theory, involving ace-asking, solved by only one pair.

The early part of the auction had many variations, but the heart fit should be revealed, and North will typically investigate slam. In the auction I have given, let's call 2NT a "notrump raise", showing hearts and some sort of good raise.

North then unleashes Blackwood, and let's say South gives a "1430" style response, with 5♣ showing either 1 or 4 keycards for hearts.

What should happen next?

From North's perspective, it's certainly possible that partner has only one keycard. So Liz Gillies (and a bunch of other Norths) correctly bid 5, fearing that even that cautious contract might not make.

But South has four keycards, and realizing that North was worried about her having only one, should clarify matters and bid 6Hayley Mitchell (and a few other Souths) did so.

Now North should sit up in her chair and re-evaluate. If South has 4 keycards, they are the ♠A, K, A and ♣A.  In which case surely 7 is an easy make!  Liz was the only North to make this deduction and bid the almost laydown grand-slam.

Almost laydown. Alas, the spades broke 5-1, and the hand with the singleton had 3 trumps. After two rounds of trumps, Liz played spades, planning to ruff the third round high to establish the suit, but West ruffed the second round.  That was truly unlucky.

(Technically, 7 should be made. On say ♠J lead, declarer should win, and play A then ruff a diamond high. Next a trump to the K and ruff another diamond high. When the K drops, dummy's last two diamonds are good. Declarer draws the rest of the trumps  and claims. If the K has not appeared, declarer plays a second trump, and does the normal thing of trying to ruff the spades good. But only the most cautious of declarers would bother with all this.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 5/8/21)

Consider this bidding decision, the genre of which crops up frequently.

You open 1♠, partner gives you 2♠.  Could there be a making 4♠ here?  What do you do?

Some Norths saw a 13 point hand opposite 6-9, and cautiously passed 2♠. That was too little.

Others counted distribution points, length points and any other points they could find, and blasted 4♠. That was too much (at least it was if their partners were like all of mine, who never have the right hand).

Finally there was the group who thought they were Goldilocks and invited with 3♠.

Of those 3♠ers, most of their partners passed, a few went on to 4♠.

The hand is worth an invitation to game, but it should be targeted. What you really want is for partner to help you in clubs, with either honours or a shortage. A bid of 3♣ here is a Long Suit Game Try (also known as a Help Suit Try). It says to partner to evaluate whether their hand is minimum or maximum, but particularly whether they can help deal with your losers in clubs, either with honours, or with a shortage so that clubs can be ruffed.  Conversely, it tells partner to pay less attention to honours/shortages in the other side suits, hearts and diamonds here.

There should be no danger of this bid being misinterpreted: you are hardly going to end up in clubs when you have an announced spade fit.

Look at partner's hand. It's only 7 HCP, but the ♣AK are pure gold in the context of the long suit game try.  And indeed 4♠ is a mighty fine contract, on 20 HCP total, but fitting like a glove.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 3/8/21)

Robots rule. I noticed this interesting declarer play problem in the hand record, and was wondering how many would get it right. Only the robot did, which makes it a truly impressive piece of software, because it's not entirely obvious.

See if you can play as well as the robot. You end up in 4 by North, and the 4 is led ... 5, 10, J.

Take it from there.

Should you draw the rest of the trumps?  Whilst you have only 3 top losers (2 diamonds and a  club), the third and fourth spades in the North hand need to be dealt with.

You could try to trump them in dummy, but there's a snag. Suppose you play ♠A, ♠K and trump a spade. How will you get back to your hand to trump the  last spade? You have to give up the lead, at which point the defence will play a second round of trumps, removing dummy's last heart. It won't work.

The solution is to set up the dummy's (South's) clubs. And you have to start that right now, because if you do establish the clubs, the only entry to them will be in the trump suit, hearts.

At trick 2, play ♣Q.  If the defence win and play a second trump, then play ♣K, ruff the clubs good (you can afford to ruff the third club with A) and draw the final trump to dummy.  You will need both trumps and clubs to divide reasonably, but it's your only chance.

Are you as good as the robot?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 29/7/21)

Today's deal might appear to feature the world's most boring bidding problem, but bear with me.

You are North. Partner opens 1♣, next hand bids 1 ... and you?

Nearly everyone bid 1. This was not necessarily calamitous, although it does get you to an inferior heart contract, whose fate depends on the defence.

Just one North, Jenny Gray, chose a negative double. This is a far superior bid, as it brings spades into the picture. This negative double shows at least 4-cards in both majors. One way of seeing, philosophically, why the negative double is better than 1 is that it immediately shows 8 of your 13 cards to partner (4+ spades, 4+ hearts). 1 on the other hand only shows 4 of your 13 cards.

Making a bid that shows less of your distribution is not necessarily wrong, if you have a plan to continue describing your hand later.  That plan usually depends on your having plenty of strength,to justify more bidding later. This is not the case here. Suppose you bid 1, next hand 2 and partner passes, lacking heart support (which could have happened on the actual layout).  Now what? Are you going to repeat the hearts, when partner could have a singleton? Or bid 2♠ taking you to the stratosphere if partner fits neither major. It's much better get almost all your hand off your chest immediately.

On the actual layout, a negative double works perfectly: you will reach your 4-4 spade fit, and stay safely at the 2-level. 

The takeaway: with limited strength, choose a bid that shows as much of your hand as possible.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 27/7/21)

This deal was a study of contrasting contracts. I will show you the North and South hands and ask you how you would start the auction.

West deals and opens 1♠. What should North say?  

Whatever North does, East will pass. What should South say?

The main teaching point on this hand is that North should pass 1♠. The hand lacks one of the conditions for a takeout double: 3+ cards in each side suit. If North doubles, what will he do if partner responds in clubs? There is no answer. Passing 2♣ could land you in a ridiculous non-fit. But there's no suit to show, and a followup 2NT shows 19-21 HCP. One simply has to learn to pass these hands. Good job by the half-a-dozen or so Norths who did so, including Shyamala Abey

If North does pass 1♠, what about South, when East also passes?  2 is tempting, on the basis of adding 3 points in the balancing seat. I admit that I may well bid 2, but I think in the cold light of day, it's an error. The ♠Qxxx sends a big signal. If partner couldn't bid over 1♠ (eg a takeout double with a spade shortage), and North also has some strength, then she is likely to have length in spades. In which case marooning the opponents in 1♠ might be the winning action. A huge round of applause to Shyamala's partner, Susan Shand, who did indeed pass out 1♠.

Take a look at all four hands. 1♠ goes down, and meanwhile, E/W make 6♣! One of the Norths who doubled 1♠ lost control of things. Partner responded in diamonds, West bid clubs and suddenly E/W were in business. N/S competed to 5 but East now bid 6♣, doubled by N/S.

As N/S, I'd much prefer defending 1♠ than 6♣.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 23/7/21)

Life is rather challenging in Melbourne (and elsewhere) at the moment, so I thought I would laud a decision that was taken quite a few players.

You hold the North hand and partner opens 1NT, 15-17 HCP.

What's your plan for this auction?

In one of my (many) written lessons, I have a flowchart for how to respond to partner's 1NT. Part of it reads like:

If at least 10 points, then
    If 5+ major, then transfer, etc etc
    Else if 4+ major, then Stayman, etc etc
    Else 3NT

It's a simple piece of logic, and pretty reliable in real life. Assuming you add some length points for the 6-card club suit, it tells North to bid 3NT and damn the torpedoes.

The danger is overthinking it: ooh, I'm worried about the singleton diamond, or ooh, I'm worried that we won't be able to run the clubs. It's fine to worry, just don't let it affect your bidding.

The following Norths stuck to the flowchart: Viv Braham, Sue Hollands, Jim Stewart, Carolyn Hart, Robin Hecker and Denise Donald.  Good job.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 22/7/21)

Today's deal features bridge's most awkward distribution: 1444, with a singleton spade. You're up as dealer, and must choose your opening bid.

It's a good idea with tricky hands like this to ask yourself the question: "If I open X, what will I rebid if partner responders Y?"  Y is a likely and unhelpful response (in this case 1♠). 

So I ask you: what do you open, and what do you rebid if partner responds 1♠?

The field came up with a number of 'solutions', few of which worked.

1 then 2♣ was quite common, lying about the number of diamonds held. Then when partner repeated the spades, 2NT to show the extra strength.

Or 1♣ and then 2 or 2, a reverse bid on doubtful strength, and also misdescribing the distribution.

1♣/ followed by 1NT was another option, lying immediately about the strength.

Lies, lies, lies.

No one selected my choice, 1NT, which of course is also a lie. But it is a lie that doesn't come with a rebid problem. In fact this is why opening bids of 1NT on offshape hands are worth considering, because at least you won't be stressed later in the auction. It employs a bidding tactic which is one of my favourites: hoping for the best.  And in this case, at least your singleton is an honour.

On this deal, a 1NT opening will have you shortly declaring 2♠, which might not be what you hoped for, but is nevertheless the best. The correct contract to reach. 

A handful of pairs reached 2♠. A couple of them Helen McAdam & Moira Hecker and Maggie & Nick Truscott reached it via a weak jump response of 2♠, passed by opener: another bidding tactic of which I am particularly fond.

For a second example of a good offshape 1NT opening, see the South hand on board 6.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 21/7/21)

Here's a neat declarer play problem for you. Not an easy one, by any means, but not impossible either.

You're East playing in a heart contract. In 4, it's all about overtricks: if you don't care about overtricks, then imagine you are in 6, as several Easts were.

The opening lead is ♣K. You win that and lead the A, all following. There's just one enemy trump remaining.

Now what? There are no losers in hearts, diamonds or clubs, but there is certainly a risk of two spade losers, a likelihood even. Is there a layout in spades that could work to your advantage? Or something else you could try?

Have a good long think about that, then click [Show Answer].

If an opponent started with ♠A-doubleton (or ♠A singleton), you can make this. Suppose it is South.  You lead low from your (East) hand, South must play low, and your ♠Q wins. Next you play a low spade from both hands, on which South wins the ace perforce ... your ♠K is a winner.

Or if it is North with the short spade ace, you cross to dummy and lead low towards your ♠K for the same effect.

It's not much of a chance. In fact it's only 27% that the short-ace scenario is in play, and you have to halve that because it's pretty much a guess which way round to play the spades.  You don't have to learn these percentages, but it should be clear that it's an unlikely setup.

In fact there's a far superior play for 12 tricks, 50% in fact ... it is to finesse North for Q. This seems weird, when you have no losers in diamonds, but it's actually a risk-free approach. You draw the second trump with dummy's Q, then lead a diamond to the jack. If it wins, then K, and a third trump to dummy's beautiful 6 to play the A on which you discard a spade. If the diamond finesse fails, you've lost nothing, in fact just switching losers. You will eventually discard a spade on dummy's A to lose the two tricks you were always likely to lose.

Very well done if you found this play ... I don't believe anyone did at the table.

As (bad) luck would have it, the Q was in the wrong hand, so the correct play wouldn't have helped. C'est la vie.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 20/7/21)

This East hand presented a well-known bidding problem. It is when partner opens 2NT and you have precisely 5 spades and 4 hearts.  (They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place, but here it did: board 16 presented exactly the same scenario.)

The problem with the instinctive response, which is to bid 3 as a transfer to spades, is: what will you do then?  If you rebid 3NT, you might miss a 4-4 heart fit. But if you bid 4, perhaps you belonged in 3NT all the time?  And a 4♠ rebid presents the worst of all worlds.

Is there any other solution to this dilemma?

Three Easts found three different solutions to this dilemma, although they all started the same way, with a Stayman 3♣ response. This was the only way they could uncover a 4-4 heart fit. If partner had responded with a major, then Bob would have been their uncle, as a major suit game is bid.

But partner was unhelpful, as partner's tend to be, bidding 3 to deny a major.

Now Pam Davey continued with 3NT, giving up on a 5-3 spade fit. Her spades were not very strong, so she effectively treated them as a 4-card suit. That would have been my plan also.

Jim Stewart on the other hand continued with 3♠. Since partner had denied holding 4 spades, that must show a 5-card suit, and, logically, 4 hearts as well, to give purpose to the Stayman enquiry. Partner, Brian Morrow, read this perfectly and raised to 4♠: the 8-card fit had been uncovered with no stress.

Finally Jo-Anne Heywood wheeled out the heavy artillery, continuing with 3, alerted and explained as the Smolen Convention, showing a 4-card suit and longer spades. Smolen is popular in the USA, where it is most commonly employed after a 1NT opening.

But the bottom line is: if you ever find yourself holding precisely 5 spades and 4 hearts after partner bids a strong 2NT, Stayman is your best option.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 19/7/21)

Consider the East hand here. Partner opens 1, you respond 1♠ and partner jumps to 4♠.  That shows a very strong hand, with 4-card spade support: so strong that partner expects you to make 4♠ even if you have a pathetic 6-point hand.

Well your hand is not so pathetic. In fact, could there be a slam here? Should you try for it, and if so, how? (Don't peek!)

Partner should have around 20 total points for the raise to game. You have 11 TP, so the combined total of 31 TP would seem insufficient for slam. Everyone who faced this problem came to the same conclusion and passed 4♠.

Nevertheless, I think this hand is worth bidding on with. The point is that the 10 HCP you do have are pure gold.  The two aces are great, right? But so is Q, because it is in partner's opened suit. That card is going to pull a lot of weight.

Take a look at partner's hand ... see how the Q fills in the suit. Indeed 6♠ is just about laydown: it would take a wrecking ball of bad distribution to defeat it.  Some queens are better than other queens: switch that queen to hearts, or clubs, and now the slam has practically no chance. Secondary honours, queens and even jacks, are far more powerful in your side's long suits than in your short suits.

One pair did bid the slam: Lindy and Ken Anderson. They were playing splinter bids, and West (Ken) rebid 4, showing enough for a spade game and with a singleton or void heart. Now East (Lindy) knew for sure that her Q was a huge asset and bid 5♣, a cue-bid showing a top honour (or shortage) in clubs. When Ken returned the compliment with 5, that was enough for Lindy, and she bid 6♠. Well done!

(The 5♣ cue-bid points the way forward for East if West instead makes the bulky raise to 4♠.  The East hand is not great for Blackwood, with the small doubleton heart.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 15/7/21)

Many many lead problems are of the genre: "Nothing stands out: it's a guess". But just occasionally, you get one where you are spoiled for choice.

This hand is a good example: on lead to 4♠ there are two excellent leads available: the Q top of a sequence, or the singleton diamond.

Which one is it to be?

Here's a tip based on several decades of experience: When in doubt, lead a side-suit singleton against a trump contract.

It just works. Dell Macneil and Stan Angelides were two Souths that led their diamond. It went A, diamond ruffed, Q - K - A, another diamond ruff, with the ♣A still to come ... down two. The many Souths that instead led their Q found that 4♠ made when the second heart was ruffed by declarer.

I know that one deal proves nothing, but it should be noted in that in the wonderful book Winning Suit Contract Leads by David Bird and Taf Anthias, the authors perform massive computer simulations to discover what leads tend to work best. Their conclusion? "Side suit singletons are excellent leads and should nearly always be chosen."

This deal had another very interesting point to it. Sit yourself in the East chair, declaring 4♠. The lead is a diamond, and a diamond is returned and ruffed. Damn it! Next comes the Q.  There is absolutely no point putting the K on this: it is totally obvious that North has A.  If you play low, then the Q will win, South will play another heart, which you ruff. The defence's second diamond ruff has been avoided. You still go down one, but down one is a whole lot better than down 2.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 13/7/21)

I was curious to see how the field would evaluate this North hand, after partner has opened 1NT.

How would you approach it?

Just how good as this hand? There are two aspects to it that merit consideration.

First, the singleton K. We are taught to discount the value of singleton kings, but that's not really the whole story. For notrump purposes, it doesn't matter all that much that the king is singleton, particularly when put together with a strong 1NT opener. It will provide value when combined with honour cards in partner's hand. Basically, it still deserves its 3 point allocation.

Secondly, the 6-card club suit. That's worth plenty, in a notrump contract, the point being that the suit may well get established and run. That is why the good Lord invented length points.  A length point is allocated for every card beyond 4 cards you hold in a suit. So in this case the clubs provide 2 length points. (Length points must never be used in conjunction with shortage points, otherwise there will be severe double-counting.)  

In summary, for notrump purposes, this hand is woth 11 points (9 HCP plus 2 length points) and is sufficient to go to 3NT.

Helen Snashall was the only North who agreed with this evaluation. She bid 2♣, Stayman, to check for a possible 4-4 spade fit, and when partner responded 2, denying a major, she went straight to 3NT. This, I think, is the right way to bid the hand.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 8/7/21)

You may find the following play problem instructive.  Sitting North, you are in 3NT (do you agree with partner not using Stayman?), and the lead from East is the ♣5.

The question is ... what should you play from dummy (South)?

If East has led from a suit headed by KQ(xxx), then you should put in the jack.

But if he started with K10(xxx) or Q10(xxx), then it's right to play the 9 ... this will force West's other honour, and your remaining AJ will deal with East's honour.

The correct theoretical play is right there in those two sentences.  Playing the jack caters for one class of holding (KQ), whilst playing the 9 caters for two classes of holding (K10 and Q10). 

You should play the ♣9 at trick 1. Evelyn Borner, Gordon Travers and Colin Wilshire found this correct play ... and fell flat on their faces.  West won ♣10, returned the suit, and down they went. Virtue had to be its own reward for those three.

Two further little points:

1) If opening leader has bid the suit, then led it, then you might consider this changes the odds. Perhaps they are now a bit more likely to have started with KQ, in order to bid it. You must judge whether that's the case.

2) This deal illustrates why you should play 4th highest leads (rather than top of a limited sequence) to notrump contracts. Anyone who led ♣K gave the show away.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 6/7/21)

This problem defeated several South players tonight. The solution is a little bit of technology.

First the problem ... then the solution.

You would like to compete in clubs, but don't want to get partner excited. For example, if you bid 3♣ here, partner will regard it as a forcing bid, and bid on. That's not what you want.

The solution is a nifty little convention called Lebensohl. You bid 2NT, which commands partner to bid 3♣ and then pass your next bid (if any). With this hand you would pass 3♣, but if your long suit is diamonds instead, you convert 3♣ to 3, and expect partner to pass that. Neat!

Lebensohl is best known for when partner opens 1NT and they intervene, but it works equally well if partner overcalls 1NT.

Of course conventions like this also have a downside. What if you want to bid 2NT naturally, inviting partner to bid 3NT? You can no longer do so. So there are swings and roundabouts to the Lebensohl convention. But experience says that the swing of being able to compete in a suit without getting partner excited is far more valuable and frequent than the roundabout of not having an invitational 2NT available.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 1/7/21)

Today, we have a declarer play problem, which involves expertise at two different levels.  Let's see how you fare.

You are West, declaring 6NT after the simplest (and correctest) of auctions.  North leads a spade.

Over to you.

Start, as always in a notrump contract, by counting your top tricks.  3 top spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs = 10. You're looking for 12, so where are the extra two tricks to come from?

You could finesse South for the ♣Q: if it works (a 50% chance) there are 4 club tricks, not 2. That brings your tally to 12. 

Or you could play on diamonds. If diamonds divide 3-2, which they usually will, then you can, for example, play AK, give up a trick to the Q. East's two remaining diamonds are good, and there are your extra two tricks.

Even better, if the diamonds are foul, you will find out when someone discards on the second round of the suit. You can then divert to Plan Clubs, again making if the club finesse works. 

How did the field do? Well, of the 19 tables, 9 reached the correct contract of 6NT, and of those, just three planned the play correctly. They are the Level 1 Play Problem winners.

The Level 2 issue is more advanced. After the A (all follow small) you could play the K next (as Maggie Callander and Warren Cousins did), hoping the Q appears. When it in fact did drop, they scored up an overtrick.

Or, after A has won, you could play a low diamond from dummy, towards your J, which is how Dennis Goldner played it.  This is a safety play, because it will score up the slam if South started with Q10xx, without needing the clubs.  If making your contract is your sole objective (and it often should be, even playing for matchpoints), then that line of play gives you the absolute best chance of success.

Deciding which of these two good plays (AK or A then low to jack) is a tricky business. It depends on your estimate of what the field will be doing. If you think you will be the only one in 6NT, then you should take the safety play, as Dennis did: just making your contract is paramount.  But if you think everyone will be in 6NT, then Maggie and Warren played it right, as the possibility of an overtrick is a more likely outcome than you needing the safety play. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 29/6/21)

Of the 8 tables in play, no one quite had this problem, but I thought it was worth discussing anyway.

As West, defending South's 3NT, you decide to lead a low spade (the unbid suit). Partner plays ♠K, which wins the trick, then ♠J, also winning, then ♠9, which declarer wins with the ace.

Next declarer plays a heart. 

How will you defend?

As a defender, it's important to try to construct, as best you can, declarer's hand. 

For example, if declarer has, as well as the ♠A, both minor suit aces, it's essential that you grab your A right now. If you don't, you won't get it! Dummy's K will win, then declarer will play the minor suit aces, cross to dummy with a minor, then take a lot of minor suit tricks ... in fact, all of them, as your J10 fall like ninepins.

But if declarer has only one minor suit ace, then he's in trouble, as long as you let the K win. Now declarer has only one entry back to their hand, and the hearts cannot be established (see the actual layout).  Declarer is quite likely to go down in this scenario. 

I don't know the correct theoretical play.  You can give yourself a big tick if you at least thought of these two scenarios.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 24/6/21)

Today's deal features a setup that arises from time to time. Indeed, it was there also on board 9 of this session.

You're East playing in spades - it could be anywhere from 2♠ to 4♠ - and the defence starts with a club to North's ace, then ♣Q and a third club, which you ruff. 

All you have to do is look after the trump suit. How do you play it?

Clearly you play a diamond to dummy, and lead a spade. What will you do if North plays a small one?

You could play the king (or queen). if South wins ♠A, you will need to hope that the jack falls on the next round of the suit. If your king wins, then you would play the ♠Q next, again hoping to see that jack. (It would be an error, after your king wins, to play a small one next, hoping that North has the now bare ace - do you see why?)

Or ... you could put all your eggs in one basket, and finesse the ♠10 on the first round of the suit.

There are two ways to work out why it is vastly superior to finesse the ♠10 at once: one easy, one hard.

The easy way is to read a book (or this article) that says it's correct. There's nothing wrong with learning by rote the right way to play suit combinations. It's an important aspect of the game.

The hard way is to count all the setups where one play works and the other doesn't, and choose the one that has the most. Playing king then queen works when South started with J9, J8 or J4: 3 cases. (If North has one of these, both options work).  Finessing the 10 works when North started with AJ9, AJ8, AJ4, J98, J94, J84: 6 cases!  It's no contest.

No one found the correct play, but next time, I hope you will.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 22/6/21)

How would you approach this hand?  Your partner opens 1NT, and RHO overcalls 2♠, a natural bid.

Your call.

I thought this hand is worth writing up, because of the impact of the 2♠ overcall. Obviously your hand has great potential, but it rather depends where partner's points lie.  If partner has lots of HCP in the majors, then you may belong in 3NT. Conversely, if he has lots of points in the minors, you probably should bid a slam in diamonds.

The 2♠ overcall gives you a clue. For his vulnerable overcall, South will have multiple honours in spades, which reduces the number of points partner will have in spades. This shifts the odds.

I'd like to think that with West's hand, I would have dramatically bid 6 over the 2♠ overcall. That might improve my reputation, or possibly destroy it. But I believe the odds are that 6 will make. 

And so it proved ... indeed even 7 had a chance. Well done to Marie Warncken who was the only West to get to 6.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 17/6/21)

How would you deal with this 19 point hand? You open 1, partner responds 1NT, showing 6-9 HCP.

Your bid.

A show of strength is required. There's only two realistic options.

You could jump to 3, which after the 1NT response is a forcing bid. It shows 5+ hearts, 4+ diamonds, and 17+ HCP, which is what you've got. 

Or you could bid 3NT, which takes you directly to the most promising looking game, although the club situation is fraught.

There are two factors here that I would like to draw to your attention.

First, if you bid 3, you make it extremely difficult to get to 3NT. Partner is not going to bid it, because she has at most 3 spades without a high honour. She is more likely to support the diamonds, and that takes you past 3NT.

Second, just how "fraught" is that club situation, with the singleton king?  Regarding the ace, there are three possibilities: South has it, West has it or East has it. If South (partner) has it, then great: that's at least two club stoppers.  And if West has it, that might also be great, as she's not going to lead it. If she does lead clubs, against 3NT, it will be her fourth-best club that she leads, and your singleton king will win at trick 1.

If East has, then it's not so great (assuming West leads a club), but 2 out of 3 ain't bad. The point is that a singleton king may turn out to be a stopper, even when it isn't.

On the actual deal, partner had the ♣Q, which combined with your king was a certain stopper. And there were 9 easy tricks to take in 3NT, with no other game making.

Well done to Helen Schapper, Jenny Gray, Roshni Chand and Colin Wilshire, who all bid 3NT over partner's 1NT response.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 16/6/21)

Deciding how to bid the East hand here is a bit like a Myers-Briggs test: it reveals your personality. Let's see if you are type P, type W or type G.  It's OK, just as they tell you with personality tests, there's no right or wrong answer.

RHO opens 1♠. What's your approach?

Type Ps (preempters) pick a level to preempt to, make that bid, and then never bid again. They force their opponent to make a decision over their high bid, and hope that it will be the wrong one. The Rule of 2 and 3 assists them in deciding how high to preempt.

Here, E/W are vulnerable against not, so preemptive bids need to be made with some degree of caution.  I think it is perfectly OK to preempt with either 4♣ or 5♣ here. But you need to live with that decision. Don't be a type S-P (schizophrenic preempter) and, for example, bid 4♣, and when LHO's 4♠ comes around to you, have another shot with 5♣. That's a huge tactical error ... it means you should have bid 5♣ in the first place, which might have induced 5♠ from the opponents.

Type Ws (walkers), start low with 2♣, planning to keep repeating the clubs up to a certain level and no higher. This gives up on the preemptive value, but delivers the extra chance of having some sort of auction where your side can maybe work out what the right level for you is. 

Two Ws did this effectively. Ron Verrier overcalled 2♣, and when it came back to him at 4♠, he packed it him (clearly his 'certain level' was no higher than 4♣).  4♠ went down, giving him a decent score.

And Geoff Swanson also overcalled 2♣.  On the next round it was at 3♠, so he bid 4♣.  That rode back to North who bid 4♠ and he passed. The bonus was that his partner Stan Angelides doubled 4♠: down one for a better score.

Finally, there are the Type Gs (gadgeteers). They wheel out a device, a 3♠ overcall, jumping in the opponents' suit, which asks partner to bid 3NT if he has a spade stopper. And why not? If partner can stop the spades, you have 8 club tricks to add, making 9 in total.

I don't think anyone found the 3♠ bid, but Jim Stewart faced a 1 opening on his right. Whenever you have a solid minor, you should be thinking about 3NT, and Jim did more than think about it: he bid it. 3NT made when the defence led and continued hearts. Bravo!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 15/6/21)

This bidding on this deal is a callback to last Thursday's VHotD. Again, East has rebid 1NT with an unbalanced hand, a singleton in partner's suit.

I had a subsequent conversation with a player about doing this: she wasn't keen on the idea at all. But I ask you, what else can you do with that East hand?

But I want to examine the defence. Sit yourself South, defending 4♠. Partner leads 3, declarer plays A from dummy, J from their hand. Next comes ♠9.

What's the plan?

There are a lot of rules-of-thumb in this game. Here are two of them:
   Second hand low
   Cover an honour with an honour

Everyone in this position played second hand low ... they probably didn't consider the 9 to be an "honour", and therefore not worth covering.  But in the context of this deal, it certainly is. The point of covering an honour with an honour is to promote winners in partner's hand. It particularly applies when you yourself are short in the suit, meaning that partner may well be long. The bottom line is that in the right context, "cover an honour with an honour" trumps "second hand low".

Look at the entire deal. If you play the ♠Q on ♠9 it eventually establishes your partner's ♠7 as a winner. That will probably be the setting trick. But if you play low then ...

What happened at two tables was quite impressive. It went ♠9, ♠8 (mistake), ♠2, and North let that win, a good idea. But it didn't help, because the two declarers, Dawn Braham and Geoff Pratt, later got to their hand and played the ♠K (!) which squashed South's ♠Q.  That was excellent technique (no other play can work), and the two declarers duly made 4♠ to share the top.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 11/6/21)

I probably shouldn't be saying this in public, but it is my belief that this East hand should make a 1♠ overcall of North's 1 opening.

Clearly the basic requirements for such a bid are missing, in particular, the 6 lousy HCP.  Nevertheless, there are three reasons why 1♠ is a good tactical move.

Can you work out what they are?

1. Favourable vulnerability.  In particular, you are not vulnerable. The vulnerability is so important in these situations. Suppose you bid spades with your poor hand, and end up in a spade contract, going down. Then going down in 50s is infinitely preferable than going down in 100s. Going down in 50s when the opponents can make something is usually a good result.

2. Suit quality. If you are going to bid with lousy points, then you should have a good suit. If the opponents then win the auction, you will be pleased when partner leads a spade.

3. Spades. Having spades confers a huge advantage in the auction. Your side can outbid their side without raising the level. Suppose instead that your majors are swapped: you have AQ109x and three little spades. Now the overcall is a lot less attractive. You bid your hearts, the opponents bid spades, and now it's partner who has to raise the level when supporting hearts. You are a full trick to the worse.

Of course, none of these advantages may come to the fore. You could fall flat on your face with an overcall here. Nevertheless, keep in mind those three factors: vulnerability, suit quality and spades, when considering a light overcall.

Gwen Branton and Diana Saul were the two Easts who overcalled 1♠. Their partners had strong hands in support, but wisely kept to the 3-level when supporting. 3♠ is a great contract: it should make, whereas if you keep quiet, you will allow the opponents to make something, or perhaps take them down one for a lousy 100. 

Finally a shout-out to Jim Stewart who overcalled 2♠!  That's an even more far-out choice, but the three factors still hold true. And his partner, facing a weak jump overcall passed 2♠, which became the final contract. Hard to do better than that.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 10/6/21)

Try this two-parter for size.  You open 1, partner responds 1.

1. What's your rebid?  1NT? 2♣? 2? (I can't think of anything else.)

2. Whatever your choice, partner rebids 2. Now what?

1. I recommend 1NT, for the simplest reason: it could well be the correct final contract, particularly in a matchpoint duplicate. Whilst usually 1NT will be based on a more balanced hand than this, when partner has bid your shortage, why not go for notrumps, rather than a minor?

Of course not rebidding 1NT might work better, particularly if partner's hearts are weak. You pays your money and you takes your choice. My point is that you should be allowed to rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit. If you intend to not rebid 1NT, then 2♣ is far superior to 2.  It opens up more possibilities, and anyway, rebidding the diamonds here strongly suggests a 6-card suit.

Speaking of which ...

2. When partner rebids the hearts, after any of opener's rebids, that is showing a 6-card suit. In most auctions, bidding then rebidding a suit promises a 6-carder.  There are exceptions, but this auction isn't one of them. If partner repeats the hearts, then I am going to expect 6 of them, and if she doesn't have 6, then whatever disaster might ensue, it's her fault

The 2 rebid is unpleasant, but it's essential that you pass it: when you're in a hole, stop digging. And as it turns out, 2 is the right contract. 

Cheryle McBride, Stan Angelides, Hazel Viccars and Sandra Mansell were the four Norths who agreed with me, rebidding 1NT and passing 2 to land in the top spot.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 9/6/21)

Today we look at a bidding area that is often butchered by players: balancing auctions.

1 is passed around to West, who is in the 'balancing' seat. This means that unless she bids something, the auction will end.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to work out what the one and only correct E/W auction is. The opponents will be silent from here.

You weren't fooled by all those question marks, were you?

The golden rule of balancing auctions is that the balancer (West here) should mentally add 3 points and bid accordingly. So West has 14 actual points, and 17 'mental' points. A balanced 17 points with a diamond stopper would normally overcall 1NT, and that is West's correct bid here.

To keep the world in balance, partner of the balancer (East here) mentally subtracts 3 points and bids accordingly. East has 9 actual points, 6 'mental' points. A balanced 6-count opposite a strong 1NT passes.

The correct auction is for West to bid 1NT and East to pass it. So simple, no? And whilst you can make 2NT, one would far prefer to be in 1NT. Well done to Lisa Yoffa - Ros Davies and Helen Snashall - Maggie Callander, the two East-Wests who conducted the officially approved auction.

The reason for this 'add-3 / subtract-3' concept is that it allows the balancer to make bids on hands that would normally pass in the direct seat. And you want to make a bid if you can, because otherwise the auction will die out at the one-level, which is usually not what you want.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 8/6/21)

After this abbreviated auction, you have to make an opening lead. I suppose any one of the four suits is a possibility, but you may disagree. 

What's your choice?

Let's work through the alternatives.

Normally I would look at each of those side suits with revulsion and lead a trump. I dislike leading from suits with one honour (or disconnected honours) against a suit contract ... there's too much risk of this running around to declarer's honour and giving away at trick.

But this is not a normal situation. Declarer's high preempt means he doesn't have much in the way of side-suit honours, so there's much less downside. Whilst a trump remains plausible, those who led one were dismayed at the outcome, their three defensive tricks all evaporating.

The K lead could work spectacularly if partner provides the ace, but it's an all-or-nothing choice. No one went for it.

Leading a low diamond is a good option. There's an excellent chance partner has an honour, so this lead is relatively safe and also constructive. 7 Wests chose it, and safely took their three tricks.

Then there's clubs. I like the ♣A lead: you get a look at dummy, which may help you decide what to play next. Only Col O'Brien led the ♣A. That was one trick for the defence, at least avoiding a wipeout. He then made a devastating play at trick 2: the 9!  Declarer didn't like the look of that one bit ... it seemed it might be a singleton. So rather than risk two-down, she went up with the A, and Col became the only defender to defeat 4♠. I'm not suggesting declarer did the right thing, but you have to admit that defeating 4♠ when a bunch of declarers made 13 tricks is impressive.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 4/6/21)

Today's deal featured many many different auctions, but only 4 were successful.  Here is one of them.

Partner's jump rebid of 3 shows about 16-17 HCP and a long strong diamond suit. The question is what to do, if anything.

Obviously you could pass with your moderate 8 HCP. 3 is an option, as partner could still have 3-card support. Or 4. Or 3NT. Or ...

What's it to be?

Jo-Anne Heywood bid 3♠.  Partner couldn't possibly have four spades (he would have rebid 1♠), so this bid was more stopper-showing than natural. It's by far the best choice, as it allows partner to check his clubs and then decide whether to bid 3NT. Bob Jacobs, North, had no problem bidding 3NT over that, and there they were in a contract that had 9 top tricks, and only a very small chance of defeat via the spade suit. Good auction.

And the other three successes? Helen Schapper and Rosemary Polya opened the North hand 1NT, and soon found themselves in 3NT after partner invited. Actually the first thought that comes to mind when picking up that North hand should be "3NT".  You have 7½ tricks, and is it so much to ask partner to provide 1½ more?  So 1NT was a step in the right direction. My only quibble with 1NT is that the hand might be considered a bit too strong for that bid.

And at another table, in Bizarro-World, West opened 3♣ after two passes. This bid breaks any number of preempt rules, but in fact has a lot going for it. Lying to a passed partner is not a capital offence, and the vulnerability is favourable. It would work on many days. But today, Dell MacNeil was North. Her 7 tricks had turned into 8 (with the ♣AQ), and she could reasonably expect partner to have some help in the majors, sitting over East's majors. Since East had passed as dealer, and West had preempted, partner had to have something. So she bid 3NT, got the ♣K lead from East, and wrapped up 11 tricks. It's fair to say that West's imaginative preempt didn't pan out too well!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 3/6/21)

I thought board 8 today posed some interesting decisions in various directions. I've put in some of a plausible auction, but there were as many variations on this as there were tables in play.

Let's start with East. I'm sorry to have to report that about half the Easts overcalled 2♣, putting all their faith in that rickety club suit, when a perfectly good takeout double was available. Perhaps they were of the school where a takeout double promises 4 cards in any unbid major. My advice is to throw that little piece of nonsense away.  Mostly the 2♣ overcallers did very poorly, basically allowing their opponents to make a spade partscore, because they never found their lovely diamond fit.

The rest of the field correctly doubled 1♠, and the question is what South should do, if anything. Mostly they passed, but several Souths gave a single raise. I'd give a shoutout to Faye Bell and Dell MacNeil, who made a pre-emptive raise to 3♠, somewhat blindly obeying the Law of Total Trumps (bidding immediately to the level of their fit in a competitive auction).  Of course their partners went on to 4♠, after all who wouldn't, and that contract was at the mercy of an unlikely club finesse. In theory, that N/S auction was a good one, as E/W can make 5.

The most interesting (to me) decision was that of West's, in responding to the takeout double. Should she bid the longer diamond suit or the very major hearts? You will probably get two chances to bid here, given your short spades, so a plan is required.  Mostly West bid the diamonds, raised by partner: surely they must have been nervous that they were missing a more profitable heart fit? So I'm with Dawn Thistlethwaite who responded in hearts keeping the diamonds in reserve. She  ended up in the correct contract of 5, with a gold star, having investigated hearts along the way.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 2/6/21)

Today's deal is a tough one to bid. In particular what should North open? The possibilities are 1♠, 2♣ and 2NT.

I'm not keen on 1♠, because of the raised blood pressure whilst waiting to see if partner responds to it. 1♠ is too little.

2♣ on the other hand is perhaps too much. If partner gives me a 2 response, then I have a choice between 2NT (23-24 balanced), or 2♠ which is best played forcing to game. The hand falls short in both departments.

I wouldn't say 2NT is the Goldilocks bid: it's not just right, but it is perhaps the best option. It shows 20-22 balanced, which is what I've got. I'm not too fussed about the 5-card spade suit, since I have good spread-out values. This might very well be the hand that is worth going for the extra 10 points in notrumps.

In responding to 2NT, South should bid 4NT, quantitative: a natural invitation to 6NT. That is precisely what that very pleasant 11-count is worth (pleasant because of the decent 5-card diamond suit).

And North has a clear acceptance of the invitation.

So we've reached the correct contract of 6NT, as did about half the field. Kudos (or commiserations) to Diana Wilson and Geraldine Newbegin and perhaps others, who agreed with me on the 2NT opening.

Now to the play. East leads ♣3. Let's say you win ♣A and cash K, Q and are pleased that both opponents follow. The diamonds are good.

Take it from there.

You're up to 11 tricks: 5 diamonds, 3 clubs, 1 heart, 2 spades. And a twelfth trick is easily available via the jack and ten of spades. So there's no problem making this contract, but what about an overtrick? That will be available if West has ♠Q, but you may need to finesse twice to make both your jack and ten of spades.

You have two entries to dummy (the third diamond and a club) and both are needed to finesse in spades. The correct play is to play a diamond to dummy, run the rest of the diamonds if you like, and then take a first round finesse in spades. If that wins, use the club entry to finesse spades again.  If you play one top spade first, then you cannot pick up 4 spade tricks, as West held ♠Qxxx.

Good work by Christine Paine and Brenda Glyn who found the correct sequence of plays.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 1/6/21)

Bridge is a very tricky game, and today's deal illustrates that par excellence.

You are sitting West, as partner leads the 5 to North's 3NT. The 4 is played from dummy, and you win A as declarer follows 3.  

Have a (long) think about what to do next, then click [Show Answer].

This problem is quite difficult because it's unclear what your goal is here. Are you trying to defeat the contract? Or, with those threatening clubs in dummy, is the idea to reduce the number of overtricks that declarer takes, an important factor in a matchpoint duplicate.

To keep most of the balls in the air, the correct play here is to switch to the A at trick 2. If you look at the entire deal, you will find that this is the end of the story. You've taken your two aces, declarer has the rest, and -660 is an fine score for you, as most declarers got 12 tricks.

But if it's not the end of the story, you will get a signal from partner. She will play an attitude card on your A (for example, low=like, high=hate), and that will determine which red suit you play at trick 3.  For example, if partner shows she likes diamonds, perhaps another diamond to her king will get you a third trick. Or if she hates them, a second heart to the king in that suit.

A number of Wests got an opening lead of a small diamond from partner, to their ace (some Norths had responded 1♠, ignoring the diamond suit).  Curiously, the same logic applies. The correct trick 2 play in that scenario is the A, the other ace, to get a signal from partner.

As I've said, most Wests continued the suit of their partners lead, giving declarer a trick in that suit, 7 clubs and 4 spades, for 12 tricks in all. Just three took their other ace at trick 2: very well done to Brian Morrow, Gill Minson and Christine Walker.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 28/5/21)

Consider this bidding decision.

What call do you make when LHO's 1 floats round to you? Would it make any difference if RHO had responded 1?

It's a pretty good hand. Just give partner one teensy-weensy card, the ♣J, and you would appear to have 10 probable tricks: 7 spades, 2 clubs and the ace of diamonds.

If you bid anything less than 4♠, and you end up in a spade partscore, and partner puts down a 1-point hand, that point being ♣J, what are you going to do after you've made 10 tricks? Perhaps say to partner: "why on earth didn't you support my spades with that lovely J?"

In fact, partner did provide the ♣J, plus a few other completely irrelevant honour cards, and making 10 tricks was easy.

There is another reason why you should be bidding 4♠ here: it is that it prevents the opponents from having a dialogue. They could perhaps profitably bid 5 of a red suit, either as a make or a sacrifice ... this is particularly the case after East responds 1. Why make it easy for them to discover this? It doesn't always work out, but in most cases, removing bidding space from your opponents makes it harder for them to find the right level. 

Bidding in bridge is a multi-faceted operation. At a superficial level, it is all about reaching your correct contract. But it is also often about preventing your opponents from reaching their correct contract.

Out of the 20 Souths that faced this problem, well done to Helen Schapper, Helge Pedersen, Warren Cousins, Sue Douglas, Frank Kovacs, Susan Lipton and Cecile Senior who found the immediate 4♠ bid. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 27/5/21)

A simple one today.

RHO opens 1. Do you or don't you?

You should overcall 2♣.

There are two potent reasons for this, which far outweigh the miniscule risk of entering the bidding (which is about equivalent to crossing the street during a lockdown).

First, if West happens to become declarer in a heart, or maybe spade, contract, you want to tell your partner what to lead. Seven of the twelve Souths in this position did choose to pass. The auction proceeded 1 by West, 4 by East. Partner led the obvious ♠K, and declarer drew trumps, ran diamonds discarding a club on the fifth round, and lost just one club and one spade. A club lead on the other hand allows you to cash two clubs, and a third trick is inevitable in spades.

And second, the 2♣ overcall of specifically 1 is well known for causing sometimes intractable problems for the opponents, making it very difficult for them to investigate the majors.

Look what happened to the five Wests, Fiona Ferwerda, Stan Angelides, Margaret Shewan, Faye Bell and Bron Simmonds who made that 2♣ overcall. Did their partners find the winning club lead against West's 4? Not at all, because none of their opponents were able to reach 4. West, with 6 lousy points, passes, partner obstructs with 3♣ and East is stuck. The best they can safely do is to repeat the diamonds, and the heart fit disappears in a puff of smoke. E/W could only find a diamond fit, in which they couldn't even make game.

The 2♣ overcall of 1: don't leave home without it.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 25/5/21)

This deal was interesting in both bidding and play. 

As West, what would you do over South's 4♠?  Partner's jump to 4 indicates some sort o 'weak freak' ... lots of hearts, but not much else.

It's a tough problem, but let's say you quietly pass, and that's the end of the auction. Partner leads J, South's dummy comes down. Declarer wins A, and plays ♠K to your ♠A.

What now? Have a think about that, and then click [Show Answer].

Since you hold the 10, it is clear that partner's J lead is from shortage. You should hope it is a singleton and return a diamond ... any other winners you have will keep.

And you should play a low diamond. If declarer did start with AKQ8, he could profitably play the 8 on this low diamond, but he won't. North doesn't know the diamond situation: from his perspective, East could easily have J10(x).

What happens next is rather discouraging for declarer. Take a look at all four hands. Declarer plays a high diamond, and partner ruffs it. A heart comes over to your winner, and the 10 forces out declarer's last top diamond, as partner ruffs with her last trump. Now a club play (necessary) through dummy's ♣AQ, establishes a club trick for you, and your 9 is also a winner.

Three down! Great defence by David Hudson (West) and Joan Courtemanche (East) who were the only E/W pair to hold declarer to 7 tricks, and an 80% score.

As for a 5 contract, that should make (basically it needs the ♣Q to be with South), but only Adrienne Reid both bid 5 and made it, doubled to boot, for the E/W top. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 20/5/21)

Once in a while, a perfect example of good bidding strategy comes along. Here is such an example.

Your RHO, West, deals and opens 1♣. What say you?

Oodles of Norths bid 3♠ here, bravely preempting. Their LHO bid 4, passed back to them, so they (correctly as it turned out) had another go and bid 4♠. Not to be silenced, East persisted with 5 and that was the end of the auction. 5 made easily, losing to just the red aces.

North's bidding is wrong, wrong, WRONG! (Sorry, got carried away there.)

If you think 4♠ is the right bid the second time you get a chance, then you simply must bid it the first time you have that chance. With this auction, 3♠ then 4♠ is simply saying to your opponents: "please be my guest, have all the room you would like to find your right contract or double us in ours". 

Let's count North's losers.  1 in spades (the ace), 1 in hearts, 2 in diamonds, 2 in clubs.  6 losers, hence 7 winners. N/S are not-vulnerable versus vulnerable: the very best conditions for preempting to the max. The Rule of 2 and 3 tells you to bid, non-vulnerable, 3 tricks more than you have. You have 7, you should bid for 10: pre-empt 4♠ directly over your opponent's opening bid.

Just two of the 12 North's bid 4♠ immediately, Shirley Wanz and Joan Courtemanche. Let's see what happened to them. 

Against Shirley, East was cowed into passing. 4♠ was passed out, went down 3 tricks (partner provided a trick. but the spades produced an extra loser), for a score of -150, a second-top for N/S.

Joan's East bid 5 directly over 4♠, the correct bid, but then West, who had quite a lot of extra strength, took a shot at 6. Down it went for the N/S top. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 18/5/21)

Put yourself in the West seat and consider what you would do when North's 1NT opening (announced as 15-17) is passed around to you. North stole your opening bid: what are you going to do about it?

First things first. Unless you play some fancy-shmancy convention here, a double of 1NT is for penalties. It shows a strong hand and suggests that 1NT will not make.

I think you should indeed double. Let's give North 16 HCP. That means that there are just 7 HCP between East and South. So give them a few each. If 1NT doubled is the final contract, partner will lead from his long suit. If he leads from an honour in hearts, diamonds or clubs, you will be delighted, as you have two honours in those suits and the result should be very threatening for declarer.

A spade lead would be less delightful, but even then, all is not lost.

And whilst it's true that declarer's honors are 'sitting over' yours, North won't have much in the way of entries to dummy to lead cards through you.

Most Wests limply passed out 1NT, but Stan Angelides and David Roseman found the double. And their partners Geoff Swanson and Mr Robot duly passed it out. Their diamond lead skewered 1NT good and proper.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 13/5/21)

Consider the West hand here, and make an estimate of what the likelihood is that you can defeat North's 4, from 0% (couldn't possibly defeat it) to 100% (absolutely certain defeat).

Press [Show Answer] to compare your estimate with mine.

There are some warning signs. Partner opened 3♣ at favourable vulnerabiity: he may not have the world's fair. And North jumped to 4, vulnerable: he will have the world's fair.

Still, the expectation is that partner contributes 1 trick to the defence: a top club for example. And you have ♠AK, A and some cards in diamonds: that's likely to be worth 3 tricks. You must be a heavy favourite to defeat 4: let's say a 75% chance.

The point is this if you think it's more likely than not that you will defeat 4, then you should double it. It's an old-fashioned concept, to double a contract because you think it's going down, but one that is every bit as valid today as it was 100 years ago.

A number of Wests faced this auction, but only Geoff Pratt doubled 4.  His partner Robert White continued the good work by leading his singleton diamond. That developed a diamond ruff for the defence, and 4 eventually went two down (it could have been three down) for +500, a top score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 11/5/21)

Today's deal involved a decision that only one protagonist got right. The 9 tables possibly produced 9 different auctions, but the one shown here was typical.

Partner opens a weak 2, and after a few rounds of bidding, the opponents bid 4♠. The question is whether you, as West, should let this play, double it, or perhaps bid 5.

Decide, and then click [Show Answer].

This is a situation where you can make some decent estimates of who might make what.  You should assume that for his weak 2, partner has Axxxxx and perhaps one other high card.

How will their spades play? Your side has at most one heart trick, as one or other of the opponents will have a singleton, your side having 10 cards in hearts. Your ♣A is a second trick. And partner's 'other high card' might constitute a third. But a fourth trick looks unlikely. The most likely possibility would be partner having the ♣K, and you being able to snaffle 3 tricks there. On balance, they rate to make 4♠ for a score of -620.

What about your heart contract?  You will have 6 heart tricks, and your ♣A: that's 7. And partner's other high card could be a trick; even without one, if partner has at least 3 diamonds, there is an extra trick via a  diamond ruff. And even without that, your ♣AJ10x will likely source another trick. In summary, you are  almost certain to be able to make 8 tricks (at least!) in hearts. The worst case scenario would be 5 doubled by the opponents, down 3, for a score of -500. 

-500 is better than -620. By far the most likely scenario is that the opponents are making 4♠ and you have a fine sacrifice available in 5. The favourable vulnerability (they are, you aren't) helps.

So, well thought through by Mike Pogson who was the only West to keep progressing in hearts. 5 went down one, undoubled, for a near top for Mike.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 6/5/21)

Don't let the machines win. Here is a declarer play problem that only the Robot got right today. Your mission is to prove that you are at least as good as he/she/it.

You declare 4♠ as East, after South has made a club overcall. A low club is led, and you play the queen with confidence. Yes, it wins the trick. Things look good. No losers in spades, diamonds or clubs. It's just a matter of minimizing how many hearts you lose.

Plan the play, then click [Show Answer].

If North has A, then great ... there are just two heart losers.

But if South has it, you might lose three hearts, unless you can discomfit the defence. If you can lose a trick to South in a situation where she has no good play, you can still take 11 tricks. The key is to clear away the other suits first.

Draw trumps, play ♣A and ruff a club, then A and K, so both your hands have nothing but spades and hearts remaining.

Now lead a heart from dummy, and whatever North plays, play a higher card, to force South on lead. So if North plays low, play the 10. If North puts in the J or Q, play the K.

South will win and be well and truly stuck. If she plays a minor suit card, you discard a heart from dummy and ruff it your hand.  You will lose one more heart, but can ruff both your third and fourth hearts.

And if South plays a heart, then that gives you a heart trick. In the actual layout, your 10 will force J. Now when South plays a heart, your king must win a trick. Similarly if North had played an honour, covered by the king and ace, another heart play from South will set up a trick for your ten.

Congratulations, you've brought off an endplay. The key was to clear away the undergrowth, all your minor suit cards in this case, before playing the key suit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 4/5/21)

Today's HotD features a point of system that is worth discussing with your favourite partner.

Partner opens 2♣, you give a negative 2 response (more about that later), and hear 2, a bid that is 100% unconditionally forcing.

In the context of this auction, your 5 HCP hand is very strong. There's heart support, a useful spade shortage, and a king. The question is: what do you bid to convey this strength?

You could bid 3 or 4: which one is stronger? There's two answers, obviously:

1) 4 is stronger because it's a higher bid.

2) 3 is stronger, because you are in a game forcing situation and the principle of Fast Arrival applies. 4 (arriving fast) would be a 'drop dead' bid with weakness. 3 is stronger, giving the partnership room to explore for slam.

There's no way to resolve this except to come to a general agreement with partner whether or not you play Fast Arrival principles (where, in a game-forcing situation, a precipitate jump to game shows weakness, and a single raise to one below game shows relative strength).

A third possibility is to jump to 3♠, a splinter bid, showing heart support and a singleton or void in spades. A good bid, if partner will understand it.

Only three of nine pairs got to the laydown slam.

One had a happy accident about the meaning of a bid (a 2 response to 2♣) - or maybe it was a happy misclick.

A second was where Deena Pathy, North, bid 6 over her partner's 2! Great bid, giving slam a shot ... if you think about it, about all you need from partner is the ♣Q, and how will you scientifically find out about that? There should be more such judgmental bids made. 

And the third was Jenny Gray and Mike Pogson who had the tools. Mike as South responded 3♣ to the 2♣ opening, showing 5-8 HCP and 5+ clubs. Now it was oh-so-easy for Jenny to bid a slam. Indeed, she might even have ventured a grand slam, as she needed nothing more than ♣Qxxxx from partner. I may possibly have mentioned this fine response system before!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 29/4/21)

No one was able to solve this play problem in today's online duplicate. See if you can do better.

West leads ♠K to your 3NT.

It looks like there are 9 probable tricks: 1 spade, 3 clubs and 5 diamonds. The only risk to this is an unkind diamond division. Is there anything you can do about that?

If the diamonds divide 4-1, with West having 4, then no, there's nothing you can do about  that.

But If East has 4 diamonds, and West happens to have the singleton 10 or jack, then the problem can be solved. The correct play is to cash the A, then play a diamond to the king. If West did indeed start with a singleton honour, then you are in dummy at the right time. You can take the proven finesse aginst East's remaining honour.

Everyone instead started diamonds by playing a small one to the king. West followed with the jack,  but of course it didn't have to be a singleton. West could have J10 doubleton or J10x. So all the declarers played back to their ace, and with one exception, down they went.

The exception was Marie Shenker. She had taken the small precaution of ducking one round of spades and taking the ace on the second round. When she then lost a diamond trick, East had to be very careful. East must win the diamond, take the ace and king of hearts, then put South back on lead with a club. When East unsurprisingly failed to find this defence, Marie had her top.

But the moral of this interesting hand is to cash a top honour when you can, to help reveal the layout of a suit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 27/4/21)

How do you think this auction should proceed after East's 6-9 HCP 1NT response?  (A couple of Easts chose 2♣ instead, showing 10+ HCP ... not the worst lie in the world, but it worked poorly when they got cold feet later in the auction.)

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Obviously West bids diamonds next, but how many? The HCP aren't too good: you have 15 HCP, and opposite partner's 6-9, that gives you 21-24, apparently not enough for a game contract.

However the hand has shape, and with those minor honours in the long suits, it's very powerful. Another way of looking at the hand is that it has just 4 losers (one in each suit). I think the two Wests, Marie Warncken and Penny Robertson, who jumped to 3 were on the right track. 

Over any diamond bid, whether 2 or 3, East should return to spades, even though the diamonds are one card longer. Essentially, East knows about two 7-card fits, as partner's diamond rebid only promises 4 cards in that suit (whereas 1♠ showed 5). So going back to spades has two important advantages: it bids to a major rather than a minor, and it keeps the auction alive. This frequent situation of returning to partner's major with a doubleton is known as false preference.  The Easts that dropped their partner in diamonds were doomed to a poor result.

The two Easts that heard a 3 jump, Aviva Kamil and Fiona Ferwerda, both duly bid 3♠, and their partners, staying consistent with their view of the hand, bid on to 4♠. Basically they were banking on partner covering at least one of their four losers, and nothing horrible happening elsewhere. Obviously Easts two aces were a pleasant surprise, but 4♠ was such a great contract that it made even with spades dividing 4-2 and diamonds 4-1.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 20/4/21)

Here's a deal where only one West agreed with my thinking. Obviously I'm going to write her up, whatever the outcome.

When partner jumps to 4♠ in this option, she clearly is showing a pretty good hand with a bucketload of spades.

Do you keep bidding, or allow 4♠ to play?

Most Wests, no doubt concerned about their weak hearts and spade void, passed here, and if you look at all four hands, that's the correct move. South briskly cashed two top hearts, holding declarer to 11 tricks.

Only Helen Schapper was on my side, thinking that if partner could bid 4♠ here, there may be a slam on. That's a mighty powerful West hand on which to meekly pass 4♠. She unleashed 4NT, RKCB, and when partner showed two key-cards and the ♠Q she bid 6NT, looking for the extra 10 points in a notrump contract. 

That wasn't necessary, with every other E/W in game, but on the other hand, it turned out to be extremely necessary. Poor old North led a normal Q, and Helen took 13 tricks: that ♣J was priceless! Perhaps she was a trifle fortunate, but let's face it: fortune favours the brave.

Two further points about the deal. I think I would have opened 4♠ with the East cards, or at least considered it. It would be automatic if E/W were vulnerable (cf Rule of 2 and 3), but perhaps debatable at equal-nil vulnerability. Everything about this deal was debatable.

And two Souths overcalled 1♠ with 2, which I definitely agree with. That would put paid to Helen's result, but then of course, if South had bid 2, then no doubt West would not have gone adventuring to slam.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 16/4/21)

Maybe I'm tilting at windmills with today's deal ... see what you think.

North's 3♠ opening is passed around to you.

What are your options? What do you do?

Practically everyone bid 4 and one can hardly argue with such a natural and apparently obvious  bid.

But ... you have a spade void. Your RHO South has not raised to 4♠. All my experience tells me that in this situation, my partner has spades. So, tilting at a windmill, I wonder if it's best to double 3♠ for takeout, giving partner the opportunity to make a penalty pass with a bunch of spades.

The opponents are vulnerable: you only need to defeat this contract by one trick to score 200 and beat out any partscore you can make. Or beat it by 2 tricks (500) to outscore any game you make.

What are the downsides? There's only one, really: that partner will bid 4, counting on you to have at least 4 hearts. But even that scenario could be a winner: at least your hand can trump spades. 4 could be the right contract if partner has five hearts, and could even work out well if partner has only four.

Looking at all four hands, partner would be delighted to pass your takeout double, resulting in a penalty of 800 points. 

Only one West did anything other than bid 4Fiona Ferwerda passed out 3♠ for a good score. Cautious perhaps, but it sure worked well.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 13/4/21)

Today we have an unpleasant problem of play that defeated several declarers. See if you can do better.

South has opened a weak 2 and you have found your way to 5♣ after an auction that is as good as any.

South leads out the ace and king of hearts, dropping his partner's queen-doubleton in the process, and plays a third round.

Your  J is a winner, but that's no use to you, as North is out of hearts and will ruff. You have to somehow avoid losing a trump.

Decide your play and click [Show Answer].

Who, oh who, has the jack of clubs? If South, then you should ruff the third heart with ♣7 (North can't overruff) and draw trumps. If North, you must ruff with ♣K, and finesse North for that jack.

All you really know is that South has six hearts to North's two. This leaves a lot more space in North's hand to hold any particular card, including the club jack, which in turn makes it more likely than not that she has that card (the actual probability is 62%).

Carolyn Hart was the only East to make the right play. Realising that North was  likely to have the ♣J, she trumped the third heart with the king, and then played a club from dummy to her 10.  As North indeed held ♣Jxx, that was a necessary plan.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 8/4/21)

Only two Wests, Marie Warncken and Marg Ferguson, made the 3NT bid on this deal, after their partner's weak raise to 2. They had 19 HCP, so it looked like game was on, and they shot out the most likely one. Certainly there is exposure in hearts, but the problem with the 2♠ made by many other players is that it gives too much information to the opposition. Note that partner won't have four spades here, so the 2♠ won't result in a spade contract ... it does admittedly start a scientific search for 3NT. 

Sometimes it's best not to 'follow the science'.

Anyway, you are in 3NT as West and North leads the 4.

Decide how you're going to play it, then click [Show Answer].

Whilst not a crucial factor on this deal, do you notice the implications of the 4 lead?  Since you can see the 3 and the 2 in your hands, it's North's lowest heart. Assuming 4th-best leads, that means that North has led from a 4-card suit.

Be that as it may, a hold-up play (withholding the A until the third round, to run South out of hearts) is pointless here. You are going to be finessing in diamonds, and if the diamond finesse loses to North, he will take his established heart winners whether or not you hold up.

And there's a much more serious threat to the contract: clubs. You were lucky to escape a club lead: don't give the defenders the chance to fix their mistake and switch to clubs. Grab that A at trick 1 and run the J.  North will win his king and cash out his 3 heart winners, but you will have the rest: 4 diamonds, 3 spades and 2 aces.

One South, Trish Hargreaves, took advantage of declarer's holdup play in hearts. She won the heart and shifted to the ♣K, leaving declarer full of regret.

The bottom line: holdup plays have their exceptions.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 6/4/21)

It's a bit hard for this South hand not to be in the Hand-of-the-Day. Having said that, it's not a particularly important deal. How often do you have to manage a 28-point hand? (In my case, it hasn't happened yet.) So to all the many North-Souths who failed in the bidding, don't sweat it.

It's an excellent slam, a grand slam in fact, but getting to any slam is the hard part. Just three pairs achieved it.

Two of them, Geoff Swanson - Stan Angelides and Christine Walker - Susan Douglas were helped by a 2♣ methodology that I have been promoting for decades.

North responds 2♠ showing 5-8 HCP and a 5-card spade suit, a 'semi-positive'.  Now it's oh so easy for South to get to slam. (If you would like the notes for this sweet system, get in contact.)

If you have more old-fashioned methods, it's much tougher.  Most Souths, after the negative 2 response, gave up and bid 3NT, ending the auction. Only one, Geoff Pratt, found a way to explore the hand, whilst still leaving 3NT in reserve. He simply rebid 3♣, a natural bid showing a 5-card suit and 110% forcing. What could go wrong? If partner bid 3 or 3NT, they'd play 3NT. If partner supported clubs, he could legitimately give 6♣ a shot with a real hope for success.

In fact partner now bid his 5-card spade suit, and Geoff took a practical view and bid to 6♠. There were no guarantees, but I think his approach gave due respect to having a 28-HCP hand.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 1/4/21)

Today's deal involves what looks like a simple situation, but is anything but. As it turns out, not one of the 12 North-South pairs was able to get the defensive play right.

East opens 1NT and plays there. The problem is for the defenders to take the 6 club tricks that are available to them. If they don't take them at once, then declarer has at least 8 tricks available.

So what is the correct defence? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

South should lead Q (top of the internal sequence).

Leading the ace (as some did) is wrong. If an opponent holds the king, as is likely, and partner holds a doubleton, as is also likely, then the king will win the next trick, and you won't be getting the lead back until at least the next deal. You need to keep that ace, so that if partner gets in, there will be communications between the two hands.

A few led a 4th-best ♣6. Whilst this worked a treat on the actual layout, it is extremely dangerous.  It is entirely possible that declarer will be able to win that trick cheaply with the 10, and still have the king remaining as a stopper. No good at all.

One South led ♣J. I can't explain that at all. Perhaps it was a misclick.

North should put the K on partner's queen (and play one back).

If North does not play the king, then when the queen wins, South will have every reason to believe that declarer has held the suit up, holding the king. North should not be worried that crashing the honours together will cost a trick, as South should have a strong holding in the suit to make the honour lead.  Indeed as North can see the 10 and the 9, it is absolutely certain that partner has at least ♣AQJxx(x) and the suit is ready to run.

The takeaway from this: in notrumps: 1) lead top of an internal sequence, and 2) play third hand high, to clear up any possible confusion.

Finally, one South, Rosemary Polya, overcalled 1NT with 2♣. This was a smart move, getting her to a 3♣ contract which rated to (and indeed did) score better than allowing the opponents to play in 1NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 30/3/21)

Try your hand at this 6 contract. The auction shown uses a splinter bid to reach the excellent slam.  North's 4♣ shows 4-card heart support, a very strong hand and a singleton or void in clubs. This allows South to evaluate his hand. ♣Axx is a perfect holding opposite a  singleton: you can take your ace and ruff your two losers. 

West leads a low trump ... how do you go about the play?

On a good day, the spade finesse will work, but perhaps this is a bad day. In that case, you have just 3 spade tricks, 4 heart tricks, and 3 top minor suit cards. You are looking for two more tricks to bring the count to 12, and as we saw in the discussion of the bidding, that can be achieved by trumping South's two little clubs.

The key to the hand is that you cannot ruff those two clubs if you've drawn trumps first. This is a deal where you must delay drawing trumps until you have done your ruffing.

The correct line, found by Henry Gasko and David Roseman is to win the trump lead in dummy, and play ace and another club, ruffing. Both now took the spade finesse. Things might have got very sticky if West had let the ♠Q win, but unsurprisingly West took the king. After a second round of trumps won in hand, they ruffed their last club with dummy's last trump, got back to their hand with the ♠A, and triumphantly drew the last trump. The rest of their cards were good. Well played.

The moral: decide up front whether you should immediately draw trumps.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 25/3/21)

Today's deal forms an object lesson in playing competitive duplicate bridge.

The decision is simple enough: do you, or do you not, overcall RHO's 1 opening with 1♠?

Well ... do you?

Overcalling 1♠ here:
- takes away a little room from the opponents (no 1 response available)
- takes away a lot of room if your partner can support the spades
- throws the opponents into a competitive auction, rather than leaving them in peace
- opens the door to your side winning the auction in spades
- points your partner to a potentially profitable spade opening lead

As for the downsides of 1♠, well ... ummm ... I can't think of any really.

5 of the 14 Easts made the 1♠ overcall: Bob Leighton, Larry Allender, Pam Dickinson, Mike Pogson and Jim Skeen. One of them was fortunate enough to buy the contract in 4♠ for a top.

The rest of them gained in an unusual fashion. Against 5 by South, West led a spade, as indicated. Declarer drew trumps and played a diamond, which West won. Now West, knowing that partner had 5 spades, realised that a spade continuation was futile: declarer would ruff it. So they switched to clubs, and East took the ace, holding declarer to 11 tricks. Many of the other Wests, unaware that partner had 5 spades, continued with a second round of the suit, and declarer's two clubs were discarded on dummy's diamonds.

Overcalling at the one-level is one of the safest and most profitable bids in bridge.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 23/3/21)

Just one player was able to find one of the two solutions to this interesting play problem.

You are declaring 4♠ by East (I think there are better auctions than the one shown, but we'll worry about that another day) and South leads J.

There are no losers in diamonds or clubs, maybe one trump loser (or even two), depending on how they lie. As for hearts, one of your losers will be discarded on the ♣A, and avoiding the other loser is something worth thinking about. There's no problem making this contract, but there's a 90% score to be had if you can score more tricks than other declarers.

Any idea on how you could avoid that heart loser?

Robert White found one of the solutions. After winning the diamond, he played the ♠A. In isolation this is not the best play in the suit (it gives up on North having ♠KJ or ♠K4, but is triumphant if South has singleton ♠K), but he had more holistic issues in mind.

Next he cleared out all his minor suit cards: ♣KQ, diamond ruff, ♣A (throwing a heart), club ruff, diamond ruff.

Finally, with the hand nicely stripped, he exited with his trump loser. If whoever won the king also held the K, they were dead in the water. A heart exit would allow the Q to score. A minor suit exit would allow Robert to discard another heart in his hand and ruff in dummy - a ruff and sluff. And so it came to pass ... well played indeed.

It's an old story: to avoid a loser in a suit, make the opponents play it!

(The other solution is diamond ruff at trick 2, spade finesse, win the exit, ruff the last diamond, and now play the rest of declarer's trumps. South is squeezed: in order to keep a club stopper, he must bare the K, which then falls under the ace.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 18/3/21)

Try this declarer play problem, that no-one actually faced. You are East in 4, and South leads ♠A. How do you go about the play?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

An important question to ask yourself when playing a suit contract is: should I draw trumps?  The usual answer to this is Yes, but here you cannot afford to. You need to retain hearts in the West hand to trump spades.

The correct play is to ruff spade lead and play a club. The defence can do no better than to win that and play another spade. Ruff that again and play another club. Assuming the outstanding three  clubs divide 2-1, you will now be able to draw trumps (using the A as communication to your hand) and enjoy the rest of dummy's clubs. This is a common theme in declarer play, which is to first establish your side suit,  

Only two Wests, Adrienne Reid and Lesley Johnstone found the excellent negative double that might help their side get to hearts.In real life, their partner could hardly be expected to bid 4, and they had to settle for +600 in 5♣. But well bid anyway.

Meanwhilst, several Norths doubled 5♣, knowing that they had two certain tricks and thinking it impossible that there wouldn't be at least one more. A nice try (I might have done the same), but they needed to listen to P.G. Wodehouse's Psmith (and others) who caution: Never confuse the improbable with the impossible.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 16/3/21)

Here's a bidding problem that defeated most of theWests today. 

LHO opens 3 and your partner doubles for takeout. What do you do?

What about if LHO had opened 1 (as some did) and partner doubles for takeout?

Whether LHO has opened 3 or 1, it's a big error to bid diamonds now, even though partner has asked you for a suit, and you have one.

With your fine 13-point hand, there is surely a game here. Yes it could be 5, however you have two certain heart stoppers, and 3NT is likely to be the easier game to make, not to mention the possibility of scoring overtricks. The correct response to either  takeout double is 3NT, and only Teck Chan found it. On the obvious Q lead, 3NT was all too easy.

(North can defeat 3NT by leading the ♠Q, with South ducking if it is covered by the ♠K.  One unlucky E/W played 3NT by East, after North passed as dealer. The 4th-best spade lead from South had the unfortunate effect, for E/W, of making the defence easy.)

One sensible alternative to 3NT, available after the 3 opening is doubled, was found by Mike Pogson. He saw that N/S were vulnerable and E/W not, and decided to pass the takeout double and play for penalties. 3 slid down one (thank heavens East had the ♠10!) for the magic score of +200 ... beating out all those E/W's who made a partscore, and losing only to Teck's 3NT. You can get rich at matchpoint bridge with +200 scores!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 11/3/21)

Today's deal has a party atmosphere. N/S were Fiona Ferwerda and Penny Robertson.  E/W will remain nameless, but it should be noted that they had just scored a top and then a near-top on boards 1 & 2, so were perhaps in a cheeky mood. 

6 is a laydown here, but it's never easy to bid a making slam missing two aces: indeed only half the field managed it. The early auction was a good one. Penny as South then asked for aces, and when partner admitted to having only one ace, she signed off in 5.  I think Fiona with her void and 8-card suit would have gone on to 6, but we'll never know, as West doubled 5! Why she did that, we'll never know either, but it was almost a spectacular success.

If N/S had happily allowed 5 doubled to play, E/W would have scored average on the board (instead of the very poor result for N/S bidding and making 6).  5 doubled making six (+750) scores less than 6 making six (+980).  But Fiona cleverly redoubled ... and now the final result was 5 redoubled making six (you don't see that every day) for a round score of +1200. 

Whilst I imagine E/W were just having a good time, there is a term for what they did here. West wheeled out what is known as a stripe-tailed ape double.  If you think the opponents are about to bid a making slam, you double them in game!  The idea is that they will be so happy to make the doubled game that they will 'forget' to bid their slam ... and as we have seen, a doubled game making slam scores less than a bid and made slam.

But what if your opponents redouble? Then you must run like a stripe-tailed ape to your sacrifice. Incredibly, and despite the vulnerability, if E/W had run from 5 redoubled into 6♣, then that contract is only down 800 points, once again less than the value of the N/S slam. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 9/3/21)

There were some serious accidents on the bidding on this deal. Only 4 of 11 pairs  had what I consider to be the correct auction shown ... I won't list them, but you know who you are, and well bid.

Other pairs strayed into 3NT, not enjoying the heart lead, whilst still more climbed to 6♠, a sub-par contract that at least had a chance.

Suppose you are in a spade contract, and a low heart is led. How would you play it?

You want to:
1) draw trumps to best effect, and 
2) play on diamonds to win lots of diamond tricks

To achieve 1), you should win A at trick 1 and run the ♠8.  After all, who is to say West doesn't have both the queen and the jack and can be finessed out of their trump trick? It's a 25% chance. Only Angela Morgan found that play. As it turned out, the spade layout was according to the other 75% of the time, so she had to lose a spade trick, but it was the right play.

To achieve 2), you should play the J planning to run it. Whilst this exposes you to a possible diamond loser, it is your best chance of avoiding any outside losers. If the finesse wins, you can repeat it, with a further diamond to dummy's 10, and get rid of your two losing clubs.  If the finesse loses, then that will be sad, but at least the diamonds are established and that will be your only side suit loser.

Helge Pedersen and Ron Irwin  both played J. Whether they were planning on running it, one can't be sure, but I will assume so. In any event their Easts covered with the Q, thus solving all problems.

Finally, very well done to Ruth Harvey, who sat East. She calmly ducked when the J was advanced (looking at the diamond suit in dummy, she was so right to put declarer to the test). And declarer duly chickened out and didn't play the finesse.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 4/3/21)

One couldn't write up today's session without using this hand from board 3. There were 15 tables in play, and 13 different bidding plans.  

What's yours?

Three Souths opened 4 and played it there. Not enough.

One South opened 5 (closer!) and played it there. Still not enough.

I thought someone might open 6 (which, curiously, makes opposite each of the three other hands) but no one did.

Most remaining Souths opened 2♣ and saw a positive 2♠ from partner. Some made an ace-ask, found one ace opposite and bid 6, for which they scored 57%. Fair enough, but they missed the chance to do a lot better. Do you see what it is? Answer below.

Frank Kovacs bid 7 after getting the one-ace reply. He figured that with 8 HCP at least, partner would surely be able to somehow cover his one remaining loser. It seemed a reasonable proposition, and when West didn't find the impossible club lead, 13 tricks were there.

The best auction, in my opinion, was conducted by Lesley Johnstone. She opened 4♣, Gerber. (I don't much care for the Gerber convention, but have to admit that it often works a treat.) Partner showed one ace. She then asked for kings with 5♣ and partner gave her one king. She now bid 7: if the king was a minor, then this contract would be cold; if the king was in spades, then only a club lead would be a problem, and maybe not even then (partner might provide an entry in hearts).

Those pairs shared the top score, but an even better result was available with no extra risk. After partner shows you one ace, you can count 12 tricks on top. So you should now play notrumps for the extra 10 points (6NT yields an 87% score instead of a 57% score for 6; 7NT earns you all the marbles). But no one had that idea.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 2/3/21)

This bidding problem was solved by only South player.  

For the moment, let's not comment about South's bidding to this point, but simply ask you: what would you do over partner's 2♠?

Decide, then click [Show Answer].

Let's start by interpreting South's bidding so far.

The double of 1NT is the only exception to the general rule that doubling notrump bids just shows general strength. In this specific auction, double of 1NT is a takeout of opener's suit ... takeout of hearts, in this case.

The double of 2 is also a takeout double. It says the same thing as the double of 1NT, only stronger. In principle, if you make a takeout double of a suit, then double that suit again, it doesn't 'undo' the takeout nature of the first double, it emphasises it.

And partner obediently bids 2♠.

Of the several Souths that were now in this position, only Greg Nicholson passed ... and became the only South to get a plus score on the board, 2♠ just scraping home.

His reasoning was simplicity itself, indeed simple arithmetic. LHO can be counted on to have about 12 HCP, minimum.  RHO has about 6 HCP minimum. That's 18. Greg had 21 HCP.  21+12+6=39, leaving at best a solitary jack for partner. Partner has nothing! So of course you should pass 2♠. I admit it's difficult to see past your superb 21 HCP hand and realise that you will be lucky to make 2♠. (Indeed, when RHO leads a heart, how is your K feeling?)

All the other N/S pairs stuffed things up royally ... well at least they had company. Several Souths allowed 2 to play, and it made. Some Souths bid 2NT over 1NT (a bid that should be reserved as unusual for the minors). And one South correctly doubled 2 for takeout, but North panicked and passed it!  

The learning point is: if both opponents show their point range, you can work out partner's point range.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 25/2/21)

Today's HotD is quite interesting from several directions. It should probably come with a health warning. 

I'll present it as a problem for East. Your partner opens 1♣, RHO blasts 4♠.

a) What contract do you want to be in?
b) How do you reach it?

a) The answer to this first question is clear: you want to play in 4♠ doubled by North. You have 9 HCP and ♠J10xx ... North won't like that. You are short in partner's first bid suit. There's no question that you will defeat 4♠ (it actually goes 4 down on the correct defence).  Maybe, just maybe, you could score better in some other contract, but how do you reliably find that out?

b) Getting to 4♠ doubled is not easy. What does a double by you mean? Is it for penalties or takeout?  You and your favourite partner need to have a firm agreement:

Just how high do we play takeout/negative doubles?

Agree that today. Common agreements are takeout doubles through to 4, or maybe 4 or maybe 4♠. (This agreement applies when the next hand is presented with the problem at his first turn to bid, not in slower auctions.)

Two Easts faced this problem ... Libby Persson and Larry Allender were the only Norths to make the pressure 4♠ bid. 

One East doubled, presumably for penalties ... but West bid 5♣!  Down one.

The other East passed, perhaps hoping that their partner could double for takeout ... and again West bid 5♣. In fact, if you agree takeout doubles through to 4♠, then that West hand should make one, to cater for this exact situation.  This is why there's a health warning on this article.

Two Easts got to unequivocally double 4♠ for penalties: Penny Robertson and Maggie Kelly.  Both defended well for +800 and a shared top on the board. The problem was North's: who bid spades at a lower level, and then when the auction came back to them at 4♣, they bid spades again.  With a hand like North's, particularly opposite a partner who has passed as dealer. you are best off making one bid on the hand, either 3♠ or 4♠, and hope that it blows the opponents out of the water.

Finally several Souths opened with a diamond preempt ... that generally worked OK as it cooled North's ardour. Preempts work! 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 23/2/21)

Here's a tricky rebid problem for you to wrestle with. It's a simple enough auction, but 'simple' does not mean 'easy'.

You open 1, partner responds 1 and you ...?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Don't look at me ... I have no idea what to do.

I can think of lots of possible rebids: 1NT, 2NT, 2, 3, 2, 3, and they are all 100% wrong. 

1NT, 2 and 2 all show 12-14 HCP, and you have 16.
2NT shows 18-19 HCP, and you still have 16.

3 is right on strength, but shows 4 hearts: you only have 3.

3 is probably the least worst, let's call it 99% wrong. The overall strength is correct, but jump rebidding on Q9xxxx is just awful.

Go back a step ... couldn't you see this coming when you opened 1? A likely response of 1 or 1♠ by partner was always going to leave you in a mess.

Just two players found the correct opening bid: Helen Schapper and Brian Morrow started with 1NT. They accurately described the strength and overall nature of the hand.  Sure they had 6 diamonds, but so what? The rest of the hand was balanced.

In previous articles I have espoused the idea of treating very strong suits (4 of the top 5 honours) as one card longer than actual. Well, the reverse holds. Very weak suits, such as the diamonds here, can legitimately be treated as one card shorter. If you regard Qxxxxx as about the equivalent of a 5-card suit, then 1NT is the correct opening bid.

The full hand was messy, a maybe-game, but one thing I know: Helen and Brian's stress levels were much lower than the other South players. 1NT is such a relaxing opening bid, because the subsequent auction is well defined: I like to use it whenever possible.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 18/2/21)

Today's deal features a point of bidding theory that is not at all well known.  You are North, and partner opens 1NT (15-17). 

In a matchpoint duplicate, it is entirely possible that you belong in 3NT, making overtricks. Conversely, this hand is very powerful, and could easily bring in 6. The problem is that, if you are to somehow investigate a slam, but find out that you don't want to bid it (for example, two aces are missing), then you may languish in 5, and that's the worst possible contract, losing out to all the 3NTers. 

Is there any way out of this? What's your response as North?

You can have your cake and eat it. The correct response, found only by Sheilagh Jones, is to respond 3, an entirely natural bid that says: "I have long diamonds, a strong hand, and am interested in slam".  In this crazy world of transfers (a few Norths transferred to a minor with 2♠ and found it did them no good at all), the simple jump bid in a suit is so often forgotten. 3 gives partner the opportunity to express an opinion. If she likes diamonds, she can cooperate in the slam hunt. If not, then just return to 3NT.

Take a look at all four hands. South has a flat minimum, and Sheilagh's partner duly retreated to 3NT. However, South's points were in all the right places and slam was excellent.

Finally, about half a dozen Easts, playing the Multi, opened 2♠ (spades and a minor). Nasty! Only one N/S pair coped successfully with that: Helen Schapper overcalled 2NT as South (an excellent bid: only 15 HCP, but the ♠AQx in spades represents two stoppers). And after West raised to 3♠, Kerri Jones bid 3NT ... going for the matchpoints in a situation where there was no way to investigate a slam without bypassing 3NT. Well handled!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 17/2/21)

Three questions for you today. North, your left-hand-opponent opens 1♠, partner passes, and South bids either ...

a) 2♣, or

b) 2NT (a conventional spade raise of some sort), or

c) 3♠ (a limit raise)

You would like to mention your hearts, but are you prepared to bid them at the a) 2-level.  What about b), the 3-level?  Or, gulp, c) the 4-level?

Decide!  

You will note that you are not-vulnerable and your opponents are vulnerable: the very best conditions for getting involved in the auction.

At the 2-level, the hearts should certainly be bid: the risk of doing so is about the same as crossing the street during a lockdown.

But at the higher levels, more consideration is required.  The potential advantages to bidding the hearts:
- you help partner with the opening lead against an eventual spade contract;
- perhaps you can find a worthwhile contract in hearts, probably a sacrifice against their spade contract.

And the downsides:
- you could get doubled and slaughtered;
- it might help declarer figure out the play in a spade contract

I think you should certainly bid 3 over 2NT. Anne Roberts did so - her partner Jenny Gray bid 5 over the opponents' 4♠, but North, Ella Levy, did well to soldier on to 5♠ to retrieve the situation for N/S. 

After 3♠, I'd like to think that I would have ventured 4 as West: it's a bidder's game after all, as I might have mentioned in the recent past. Two Wests did so, in the heat of the battle: Faye Norton-Old and Karen Keegan.  It's the right bid I'm sure, but requires courage. And at both those tables, N/S did not bid 5♠ over partner's 5, so down two earned them the top two E/W scores on the board.

As it turned out, both potential advantages of a heart bid came to fruition ... not only was there a heart sacrifice available, but those who didn't bid hearts often found their side giving declarer 12 tricks when East led a minor suit card on opening lead. Food for thought!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 16/2/21)

This bidding problem is simplicity itself ... or is it?

Partner opens 1♠, and you bid ...

You have 11 HCP with spade support: it seems like an obvious 3♠ bid, no?  Inviting partner to bid game.

That's what a lot of Wests did, but I think it's a mistake.

This hand is a lot stronger than its mere point count shows. Of course there's the distribution point for the doubleton club: that could come in handy. But it's the two side-suit aces that are extremely powerful, combined with the useful ♠K.  My point is that the actual hand is considerably stronger than this one:

♠ Axx
 Axxx
 Kxxx
♣ xx

Same distribution and HCP, but here the K may or may not be of use. For example there is the world of difference between Axxx opposite a singleton and Kxxx opposite a singleton. And the trump king is every bit as useful as the trump ace. This is an example of an important principle:

Lower honours in your trump suit are always valuable; lower honours in a side suit may be worthless.

Half the field reached this slam, but Mariette Read as West was the only one to, in my opinion, evaluate the hand correctly. She responded 2, starting a delayed game raise auction, and then when partner, Jenny Matheson, jumped to 3♠, Mariette took over with 4NT.

Finally, a few Norths opened 2.  In theory that's an horrific bid: vulnerable, only 6 HCP, a moth-eaten suit and a side 4-card major. And yet it made it next to impossible for E/W to reach their slam, and I salute those Norths. It's a bidder's game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 11/2/21)

Today's deal presents a challenge in the bidding. The question is: what should South rebid after the auction 2♣ - 2 - 2♠?

2NT, 3, 3 and 3♠ are possibilities, but I can find flaws with them all. Since none of them are clearly right, I can't congratulate anyone on their great bidding.

But the play ... suppose you are in 6♠ as North. East leads ♣J, and that rides around to your ♣Q as West plays low.

How do you play it?

Only 4 of 23 pairs bid and made slam here, and they shared the top score: Deena Pathy - Gordon Travers, Sue Battley - Lorraine Pitman, Gillian Campbell - Fred Eccles and Ian Cox - Bernadette Cashen

In 6♠ you'd like to finesse West for the ♠Q, but the problem is entries into dummy. If you enter dummy in hearts, you block the heart suit, making it next to impossible to take take more than two heart tricks. And trying to ruff a club won't work, as East has surely led from ♣J from shortness: dummy's ♣10 is an informative card!  Therefore East will ruff the third (or second) club with a spade higher than dummy's ♠7, rendering the whole exercise as pointless.

The correct play is to give up on the spade finesse and cash ♠AK. Even if you lose a trick to the queen, that will be your only loser, as dummy's hearts will take care of your low clubs. Sue Battley was one North to get the play exactly right. She was duly rewarded when West's ♠Q fell doubleton.

I can't leave this deal without mentioning the action of John Robertson, sitting West. He opened 3♣ as dealer, making it next to impossible for his opponents to reach the slam. In theory, that's a positively dreadful bid, but he would have had the company of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of expert bridge players who believe in maximum preemption, particularly non-vulnerable versus vulnerable.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 9/2/21)

It pains me to have to give today's gong to the robot, but there is an instructive point to be made on this deal.

First of all, well done to Rosemary PolyaSharon Landers, Janice Meldrum and Myrna Saunders who got themselves to this approximate position, went on to bid 6 and earn an 80% score on the board.

But we want a top, not a measly 80%. With this powerful East hand, could there not be a grand slam? Partner's 5 showed two key-cards, the ♠A and K: if she also has the ♣K, there's sure to be 13 tricks. The only possible loser is a spade, and partner's spades should be able to be discarded on winning clubs.

So how can you find out about the ♣K?

Everyone is taught that once you've asked for aces with 4NT, 5NT is asking for kings.

But over recent decades, players have discovered that when searching for a grand slam, far more important than knowing how many kings partner has, you need to find out which kings partner has.

In modern day bridge, a bid of 5NT here asks partner to bid a suit where she has the king (the proviso being that this can only be done with suits below the trump suit). If you bid 5NT here, and partner bids 6♣, that shows explicitly the ♣K. If partner doesn't bid 6♣ (perhaps 6 to show the K or 6 to show no minor suit king), then East knows the ♣K is missing, and it's too risky to bid a grand slam.

Take a look at all the hands. If partner reads the robot's 5NT bid correctly, she will bid 6♣ and the robot would have bid to the laydown 7 contract. Alas, partner was unaware of this convention and responded 6 to show one king. That wasn't helpful for the robot, and it signed off in 6.

If you have a regular partnership, it's worth discussing with partner how to play king-asks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 4/2/21)

On this deal, you as North pass over RHO's 1♠ opening. (A  couple of players made a vulnerable 2 overcall, which probably crosses the line between 'brave' and  'foolhardy'.)

You get a second chance, after LHO raises to 2♠. Are you prepared to risk 3 now?

Decide, then click [Show Answer].

There is a saying: "Never let the opponents play in a fit at the 2-level".  

The theory behind this is as follows: first, if they have a fit, then you have a fit. And second, if they stop at the 2-level, then your side must have some strength. So don't let them rest in their comfortable contract, compete and see what happens then.

The problem with this theory is that the person in the pass-out seat, North in this case, simply may not have a hand with which to balance into the auction. It might be too flat, or too weak for a comfortable re-entry.  The correct saying is: "Try not to let the opponents play in a fit at the 2-level".

On this deal, you have some shape, and a little bit of strength, and I think the saying holds true.  Just two Norths agreed: Richard Fitzherbert and Susan Douglas: they balanced with 3. Richard got to play there, making easily. Against Susan, the opponents pushed on to 3♠ and that contract went down one.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 2/2/21)

The play problem here revolves around how to draw trumps.

Suppose you are South in a diamond contract, as was most of the field. It doesn't matter whether it's 5 or a lower contract.

West leads 5, East plays Q and you win A.  There's some work to do in the black suits, but first you are going to draw trumps.

You have 10 diamonds between you. If the three outstanding diamonds divide 2-1, then your ace and king will draw them. But if someone has all three diamonds, you need to leave open the possibility of taking a known finesse on the second round.

If West has all three diamonds, you must cash A first. East will discard, and you finesse West next.
If East has all three diamonds, you must cash K first. West will discard, and you finesse East next.

You must decide right now who is more likely to have all three diamonds.

Well ...?

There are two competing arguments here.

1) Since East bid, he is more likely to have the high cards, and therefore more likely to have Q.

2) Since East has long hearts (probably 6 or 7, compared to West's 4 or 3), he is more likely to have short diamonds, and therefore West is more likely to have Q.

Argument 1) may have some merit, but one has to ask: would the presence of Q have much relevance to East's decision of whether to enter the auction?  (Argument 1 can be much stronger in other scenarios; for example suppose a player needs a certain queen to justify an opening 1-level bid.)

Argument 2) is rock-solid, backed up by science. And we all know by now that we must listen to the science. A player having many cards in one suit makes it more likely that he will have few cards in another suit. It is known as the Law of Vacant Spaces.  

There is software available to make the exact calculation. See http://www.suitplay.com. It will tell you that if East has 6 hearts and  West has 4 hearts, there is a 15% possibility that West has all three diamonds, and only a 6.25% possibility that East has all three diamonds.

Some Souths got this decision wrong, but Frances Duckett, Pip Liebelt, Rosemary Polya, Col O'Brien and Mike Pogson all correctly played A first to pick up the trump suit and take 10 tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 1/2/21)

There were three deals tonight that all featured the same important theme. I won't reveal right now what it is, but merely ask you ... what action do you take over East's 1 opening?

The theme is: Look after the most precious suit of all.

Even this early in the auction, you can glean a lot about this hand. Your partner doesn't have an opening bid, so if you are going to win this auction, it will probably be a fight. RHO opened 1, your singleton ... the odds are that they have a heart fit. If they have a heart fit, the best way for you to effectively compete for the auction will be for your side to have a spade fit. 

The right bid here, no ifs and no buts, is to make a takeout double, an attempt to find a spade fit.  You'd certainly like to have four spades, but double only promises three, and you have them. 

Most Souths overcalled 2, and despite finding their diamond fit, they were outbid by E/W's hearts. But three Souths, Leone CarberryMarie Warncken and Cecile Senior, doubled, and were in the running to win the auction. (Cecile actually doubled a 2 opening, but the principle was the same.)  

It didn't work out for all of them, but it gave them a chance. Marie's partnership ended up in 4♠, a phantom sacrifice over their opponents' failing 4 contract. But it didn't matter, going down 1 in 4♠ earned them a 70% score, as so much of the field were in 3 making by E/W. 

Spades is the most important suit, by far. Boards 5 and 11 were also deals where the contract belonged in spades ... as long as the suit is treated with sufficient respect.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 29/1/21)

Today you are East, defending North's 4♠ contract. See if you can match the defence of the one player who got this one right.

You lead your singleton heart, dummy plays low, partner J, declarer A.

Next declarer plays the ♠9 from their hand, and it's up to you to decide how to defend.

What you would like here is a heart ruff. The best way of achieving that is to win ♠K, put partner in with the hoped-for A, and get a heart played back.

Several Wests followed this plan, but only one, Peter Newstead, did it correctly. He took his ♠K, and specifically played the 6, his highest diamond spot. This concept has been in our pages recently: playing a high spot card in defence to show a lack of interest in the suit.  If instead you lead the natural looking 2, as some did, partner may win the ace return a diamond: after all, he doesn't know that you started with a  singleton heart.

After Peter's 6 play, Michael Ryan correctly won and returned a heart for a ruff, thereby defeating 4♠. It was a gold medal defence.

The silver medal goes to Rosemary Polya, who switched to the 5, demonstrating her individuality. She also got her ruff.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 28/1/21)

A subtle 3NT contract for you to consider today.

West leads ♠9, annoyingly taking out dummy's one side entry. If the diamonds are good for 6 tricks, all will be well, but if not, then all is not well.

Weigh up your options (without peeking at all four hands!), and decide how to play it.

Suppose you play off the three top diamonds, as most of the field did, and get the good news that the suit is all good. You play off the remainder, and in the process have to find 5 discards. What will they be? It's exceedingly unpleasant, and you may well find yourself having to settle for your 9 top tricks (6 diamonds, 2 spades, 1 heart). Admittedly, the opponents have to find discards as well, which may cause them similar discomfort.

What about the other scenario, where you play off AKQ, but the J is still out there. That's real nasty, as the diamonds are dead. You could take the heart finesse, but even if it wins, you don't have an entry back to dummy to repeat it. It's an ugly situation, and you will go down at least one, maybe two.

So I think that Marie Warncken and Libby Persson made a great play when they took the heart finesse at trick 2, holding off on the diamonds for the moment. If it won, then they could play back a diamond, take as many diamond tricks as there were available, then repeat the heart finesse.  And if it lost, well at least they held whatever cover they had in the other suits, and could subsequently test their luck in diamonds (and hearts)

It was a terrific play, particularly when, psychologically, you're so keen to find out the diamond position, and rightly earned them excellent scores.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 26/1/21)

What would you bid with the East hand here, on the auction as shown?

Most Easts just bid 4♠, which strikes me as unenterprising.  There must be the possibility of slam here. If you count your total points, there are 18, which combined with partner's opening bid and spade support is most promising.

Maggie Kelly took a more robust view. She asked for aces, and on finding only one of them missing, blasted 6♠ ... a top board for her.  I prefer her auction to all the 4♠ bidders.

But the most nuanced choice came from Lindy Anderson.  She jumped to 4♣, a splinter bid, showing a singleton or void club and interest in a spade slam. Even if you don't play splinter bids, it seems to me that some sort of club cue bid will express your interest in greater things, without going past 4♠.

Sadly, the splinter bid did not quite get the job done. Partner came back with 4, Lindy bid 4,  both of these being presumably cue-bids, and partner signed off in 4♠, where the auction rested. Lindy got the same score as practically everyone else, but I felt they at least got their money's worth out of the auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 25/1/21)

Today's deal showcases a lovely piece of partnership co-operation.  I will present it as a defence problem for North, although South's role was also vital.

So sit yourself North, on defence to East's 3. Partner leads out the ♠A, ♠K and ♠Q (everyone follows to the first two rounds).

What do you play to this trick?

It's not 100% clear whether declarer has another spade. (To see why, please read the previous VHotD.)

However, irrespective of this, Larry Allender ruffed this trick with the 8. (If declarer follows, then no harm done: you can push through a trump.)

Take a look at all four hands to see the effect of this. By ruffing with the 8, Larry promoted a trump trick for his partner, as declarer had to overruff with the queen.  The other North in this position ruffed the third spade with the 4, which did no good at all.

When ruffing as a defender, keep in mind the possibility of playing a high trump in an attempt to promote trump winners for partner. This is not an uncommon scenario.

Why did I describe this as a fine piece of partnership cooperation? Because South, Brian Morrow, did not continue spade bidding to the three level, unlike many Souths in this position. He had already described his hand quite accurately with his voluntary 2♠ bid ... the rest was up to partner. Teck Chan was the other South who was prepared to give it away once the auction reached the 3-level.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 22/1/21)

Today's deal offers problems in both the bidding and the play.

First of all, extremely well done to the two Wests who bid as shown: Marie Pernat and Libby Persson.  Also to Helen Schapper and Pam Lawson who directly bid 4♠ after their partner opened a weak 2.

I'm hoping that these players followed one of my favourite tips: treat a suit with 4 of the top 5 honours as one card longer. In which case West's spades constitute a 6-card suit thus suggesting this bidding. Most others bid 3NT after partner's 1NT response, or opened 2NT. The notrump contracts didn't work ... even if North leads a spade (the spades being unbid), there are only 8 tricks.

But to get the reward from the good bidding, you have to play it right, and it's a lot trickier than it looks. North leads ♣A, then switches to a spade. Take it from there.

There are 9 tricks easily enough: 5 spades, 3 hearts and a diamond. It appeared initially that a 10th trick would come from dummy ruffing your third club, but the trump switch has threatened that plan.

What you mustn't do now is make the ostrich play of drawing trumps. Then the defence will easily take 3 clubs and the A.  But it is equally futile to play a second club, trying to get your ruff. The defence will win and play another trump, and now you are in the same boat.

The correct play is to win dummy's ♠10 and play a diamond to the king, intending to establish the diamond suit.  And if the K wins, play another diamond. The defence is helpless. If they play another trump, you will draw trumps and take all the diamonds. If they continue clubs, you still have a trump left in dummy. And a third diamond can't hurt either, as you can trump high and draw trumps.

Did you find the diamond play?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 21/1/21)

Today's deal involves an interesting point of bidding theory that only 2 of the 18 Easts solved.  See if you can join them.

Partner opens 2NT, 20-22.  You obviously have enough strength for a game, but which one?  3NT, 4 and 4♠ are all in the frame.

How do you bid it?

A majority of East's transferred to 3♠ and then bid 3NT.  They left 4♠ and 3NT open, but completely gave up on 4. (The alternative transfer branch is to transfer to spades then bid 4, but that leaves 3NT behind.)

Transferring doesn't work here ... it would be different if you had 5 hearts and 4 spades, because then you could transfer to hearts and continue with 3♠.  5 spades and 4 hearts is a problem child.

Some other Easts bid Stayman, 3♣, then after partner's 3 response, bid 3NT. This would uncover a 4-4 heart fit, or a 5-4 spade fit, but not a 5-3 spade fit. I regard this as the second best solution. 

Elizabeth Price and Gill Minson found the best auction. They Staymanned, then after partner bid 3, continued with 3♠. This could only describe a hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. As long as partner regards 3♠ as forcing (which they should, in light of the 2NT opening) all options have been thoroughly explored.

The awkward 5♠/4 shape should Stayman after partner's strong 2NT bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 19/1/21)

You are on lead to East's 3NT. A spade is what partner's overcall suggests, although the opponents do seem prepared for it. The alternative is the J which may, or may not, strike gold.

What's it to be?

There are two potent reasons for leading a spade, as Sue Douglas did in this position.

The first, and most important, is about partnership harmony. Partner's 1♠ bid was not only an attempt to compete for the contract, but also a guide for you if you end up on opening lead. If you don't lead a spade, there better be a damned good reason (such as not having any), and even that might not be enough. Even if a diamond lead works spectacularly, partner won't be happy.  Bridge is above all a partnership game, and if one partner thinks the other is stone deaf, it's not going to work out.

On this deal, the spade is what works. Partner's ♠7 and ♠6 turn out to be rather potent! Two down and a top for Sue and partner Deb Fogarty.

The second reason is one I only learned recently, after reading the book Winning Notrump Leads.  In it, the authors pose many lead problems, and then evaluate how each possible lead would have worked against a simulation of 5000 complete deals that are consistent with the bidding, thereby drawing general conclusions about which leads are good (on balance) and which are bad. This book, along with its companion Winning Suit Contract Leads represented a real breakthrough in openig lead theory.

One of the authors' conclusions is that leading from moderate 6-card suits in weakish hands doesn't work very well. It seems that far too often, partner has shortage, and the suit cannot be developed. And it's hard to argue with a 5000 deal simulation! Leading from a 5-card suit is much more productive, perhaps anti-intuitively.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 18/1/21)

Here's an apparently straightforward responding problem that involves an interesting piece of strategic thinking.

Partner opens 1♣: what do you do, if anything, with your 4 HCP?

Obviously you're allowed to pass. After all, 4 points is 4 points, and several Souths did pass. But that did give their opponents a rather easy entry into the auction.

The problem with responding, however, is that you may excite partner too much. For example if you respond 1, as some did, you are telling a filthy rotten lie about your strength, which could have severe consequences ... in one case it did, resulting in a no-play slam.

If Pass is too little and 1 is too much, is there a Goldilocks bid that is just right?  Kerry-Anne HoadBrian Morrow, Ray Carbuhn and James Tulloch all responded 2♣. This nicely got in the way of their opponents, whilst not deceiving partner too much. I think it was the right bid. Normally, it is verboten to bypass a 4-card major in order to support partner's minor, but this situation is the exception. Think of 2♣ as the alternative to pass.

Mostly, the 2♣ raise resulted in an uncontested auction to the top spot of 5♣.

There was one further possibility found by Mike Pogson.  He bid 3♣ (presumably as part of an Inverted Minors structure), which is also a fine choice, as long as partner reads it. And his partner did read it, again reaching 5♣.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 15/1/21)

A simple opening bid decision today. Well maybe not so simple.

What's it to be.

Most of the field opened 3 with varying levels of success. They had no doubt been taught: "6 to 10 HCP and a good 7-card suit" ... that's what you have.

But this simple rule doesn't take the vulnerability into account. I have spruiked The Rule Of 2 And 3 in these pages before, and will continue to do so. 

How many losers (missing ace, king and queen in a suit, up to the number of cards held in that suit) do you have?  One in hearts (the queen), one in diamonds and 3 in clubs (missing AKQ). That's 5 losers, and therefore 8 winners. The fourth and fifth clubs translate into winners, on the assumption that the suit will eventually be established. This 7510 hand is rather powerful.

Vulnerable, you should bid more tricks than you have (that's the '2' in the rule).  So I strongly believe the correct opening is 4: Dawn Braham was the only one who agreed with me. In fact you can make 6 although it's potentially only on a finesse. North's hand is full of points, but understandably was reticent to bid it even after the 4 opening.  But at least 4 cramped the E/W opponents causing them to miss their paying sacrifice in spades.

Two N/S pairs got to 6.  Marie Warncken and Helge Pedersen both opened 3, and when partner supported, they both 'walked the dog' to 6, continually bidding one more over their opponents' spade bids. It's not entirely kosher, but one's gotta respect it!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 14/1/21)

Here's a bidding problem that raises a couple of important points of theory.

With the North hand, what do you bid after RHO's 2 opening?

What do you bid if instead, West opens 2 (Alert! That's a Multi, a weak two in a major or 20-22 balanced.)

Point of Theory #1. In this auction, an overcall of 2NT is not the Unusual Notrump for the minors. It is a natural bid, showing a balanced 16-18 HCP hand with a stopper. Much as you would like to bid 2NT for the minors here, you cannot.  One North did bid 2NT.

Several Norths doubled 2 ... what they planned to do if partner responded in spades, a likely scenario, I do not know, but as it happened the problem did not arise. Double is out.

You can only resort to a natural suit bid, and the normal choice here is 3 the higher, and as it happens stronger, of two 5-card suits. Which leads us to ...

Point of Theory #2. If West has opened a Multi 2, one must recognize that this bid has nothing whatsoever to do with diamonds, and a 3 overcall by you is natural. (At the risk of opening Pandora's Can of Floodgates, a double here should simply show opening strength, essentially balanced.)

I like the auction of Elizabeth Price (North) and Marie-Claire Staub (South). Elizabeth overcalled 3, and over East's 3, Marie-Claire jumped to 5 with her six-card support and rubbish: an excellent application of the Law of Total Trumps. This cowed E/W into passing it out, and two down non-vulnerable in 5 was worth 80%.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 13/1/21)

How should North and South bid this hand?  I've started the auction for you.

The correct contract is clearly 4♠, but can you reach it with panache?

South should double 1, a negative double that describes a hand with precisely four spades.  With 5 or more spades, South bids 1♠ instead. This is a piece of bidding theory that you should not leave home without (or log on to your computer without).

North then bids 4♠ with her monster spade support, confident that partner has four spades.

Serendipitously (I've always loved that word and use it whenever possible), this auction placed East on opening lead. When she quite reasonably didn't lead a heart from her ace-queen combination, one of North's losing hearts disappeared on South's ♣A.

On the surface, it's not complicated, but only Christine Walker (South) and Susan Douglas (North) had this auction. 

After partner opens 1 of a minor, and the next hand overcalls 1, double shows exactly 4 spades, 1♠ shows 5+ spades.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 12/1/21)

This opening lead problem demonstrates very nicely how the form of the game can affect our decisions.

You are on lead to 3NT after an uninformative auction.

1) In a matchpoint duplicate (which is what we usually play at a club), what do you lead?

2) What about if you were playing in an IMPs event (eg a Congress Swiss Pairs or Teams)?

Let's start with the second question: the Congress event, scored by IMPs. In this scenario, your only aim is to defeat the contract, because that will score you lots of IMPs (as many as 12 IMPs). Overtricks are of little importance, as each overtrick conceded costs you only 1 IMP at most.

By far the best chance of defeating 3NT lies with the spade suit. Just give partner the ♠Q, and you might have 5 tricks to run. And even if the opponents have a spade stopper, if your side can get in with another suit, there may be 4 spade tricks to go for 5 tricks again. The standout lead at IMPs is the ♠3.

A matchpoint duplicate is altogether a more complex game. Of course you want to defeat 3NT, but if you can't, then you don't want to give away unnecessary overtricks. Giving away a needless overtrick could result in a bottom.  Leading a low spade here, allowing perhaps declarer a cheap spade trick, could be really bad. Whereas the ♣Q lead is very safe, giving away nothing, and also has a small chance of developing winners in the club suit. The ♣Q is the "don't give away overtricks" lead.

And so it proved. Looking at all four hands, the spade lead hands declarer a 10th trick. Two Souths led it, giving themselves the best chance of defeating 3NT, but conceding an equal bottom in the process. Three other Souths, Jan Classon, Adrienne Reid and Jo Buckingham all led ♣Q, holding declarer to their 9 top tricks. Top leading.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 11/1/21)

I don't want to talk about the bidding on this deal, because I haven't the foggiest idea what East should do when partner rebids 2.

Several Easts rebid 3NT, resulting in an interesting problem in the play. South leads ♠5, you play low from dummy, ♠6 from North and you win ♠10.

You have 9 tricks on top (1 spade, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, 3 clubs), but of course overtricks will be valuable. Decide how you play it, then click [Show Answer].

It rather looks as if South has ♠AQxx(x). In which case the last thing you want to do is allow North in to lead another spade: North is the danger hand

So doing something with the hearts is out, as this will probably let North in. If the outstanding 7 clubs divide 4-3, then you can establish your fifth club as a trick, losing one club. The trick here is to lose that club to South, so that your spade king remains protected.

I think the best play is to go over to the K and lead the ♣9 from the table. If North plays low, you duck it, losing your club loser to the safe hand.

Looking at all four hands, North can do nothing but duck the club, South wins, and now you have your 10 tricks.

No one found this play but Lenora Clarke did even better. She took her four top diamonds. North had to make two discards. She threw a heart first, but then, perhaps worried about dummy's hearts, she let go a little club. After all, how valuable could the ♣7543 be? In fact, that ♣7 was a stopper, incredibly, and she had thrown it away. That led to 11 tricks. 

It's not often that a lowly 7 stops a suit from being run!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 8/1/21)

This bidding problem looks simple, but there is a lot of bridge theory behind it.

1) What is partner showing?
2) What do you bid now?

Partner's 2 bid is a reverse, a bid in a new suit higher than the level of 2 in their first bid suit. It shows extra strength, about 16+ HCP.

As a teacher, I cringe when this subject comes up, because so many players don't accept this fact. More than once I've had this conversation:

  Me: That bid was a reverse.
  Player: Oh, we don't play reverses.
  Me: You really do: it's not optional.
  Player: No, we don't.
  Me: Yes, you do.

and so on. It ends with the player outwardly submitting to my authority, but inwardly disputing and ignoring it.

In this auction, partner's 2 bid shows extra strength, logically and non-optionally, because it forces the bidding high, bypassing forever final contracts of 1NT or 2.

With your hand, if partner has 16+ HCP, you know for almost certain that 3NT is the correct contract, and you should bid it here. Jenny Gray and Joan Courtemanche did so and earn today's elephant stamp. The remainder bid an inadequate 2NT, and were fortunate that their partners raised to 3NT ... a doubtful bid that would not have worked too well opposite some rubbish 6 or 7-count. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 7/1/21)

Let's do another opening lead problem, this one rather different in nature to yesterday's.

You can see the auction to 6♠.  North showed 1 key-card with the 5♣ bid.  I don't know if this helps you at all, but South is Libby Persson.

Your lead.

The question of whether to lead an ace against a slam is vexed. There is absolutely no right answer. The great American player Bobby Wolff put it best:

"I like to lead an ace against slams. That way I can see the dummy, and find out what I should have led."

There are a couple of scenarios where it's right to lead your ace.

1) If you don't take it, you'll never get it ... there might be discards available. Giving up an overtrick could devastate your matchpoint score on the board. On this deal there's no indication that this will be the case.

2) Partner may have the king ... you could have two tricks off the top, again with them disappearing if you don't grab them. This argument has much more merit: it's not that rare that opponents bid a slam off the ace-king of a suit.

This is where you take a look at the person who bid the slam, Libby Persson in this case. Is she a good player? Do you trust her not to have blasted 6♠ holding a couple of small diamonds? 

Adrienne Reid was sitting West here. She did trust Libby to have either a singleton diamond, or the guarded king. In which case it would not be wise to lead off with the A.  Adrienne stayed off the diamond lead, and Libby, who indeed had Kx, was forced late in the play to lead up to the king ... down one.  A good read by Ms. Reid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 6/1/21)

Try this opening lead problem. You are leading to South's 5♣ contract.

I have to admit, I'm not sure about this one. But a couple of times in these pages, I've noted how unpopular leads from kings have become, against suit contracts.

So I dip my hat to Desma Sampson, who took this to heart (literally) and led 8.  It was a killer, generating a heart trick for the defence, holding declarer to 11 tricks for an excellent E/W score. I particularly liked her choice of the 8, trying to suggest to partner that she didn't have honour cards in the suit.

On this auction I would have been tempted to ignore my own advice and lead a spade, as so many Wests did. Dummy's ♠Q won, and now declarer could discard dummy's little heart on the ♠A. One West, Mariette Read, led an imaginative ♠K (her partner had bid spades). That satisfyingly squashed the queen, but did her no good, as declarer was able to develop the diamonds to discard two hearts from the South hand on the established diamonds.

Perhaps there really is something in this "don't lead a way from kings at suit contracts" business.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 5/1/2021)

How would you react with those North cards, after partner opens 1?

I have a few thoughts ...

  1. Go for a slam. You have 9 tricks, if partner's opening bid can't provide 3 more, than off with his head.
  2. If you're not going to go for a slam, for heavens sake, consider 3NT in preference to 5♣.
  3. You would really like to make a simple ace-asking bid, thus avoiding bidding a slam off the two red-aces.  Unfortunately in today's modern world, that can be easier said than done.

Two Norths bid 4NT over 1♣.  One of them received a 5 response, which looking at South's hand must have indicated two key-cards for diamonds (the last and only bid suit), and no Q. North could count herself fortunate that she didn't receive a response of 5 showing 1 key-card which happens to be the K.

The other North was Alex Lees who got a 5 response (1 ace) from partner Jo Buckingham. That pair solved the bidding problem through simplicity ... modern is not always better!

I should also mention Angela Morgan who got to 6NT ... a fine matchpoint contract which would only be in danger on a spade lead, which she didn't get. Sadly, there was a misclicking accident in the play, but it was a great shot.

Enough of the bidding. Suppose you are in 6♣ by North, and you receive a spade lead from East. You guess to play ♠Q from dummy, but West alas covers with ♠K.

How do you play it?

Did you see that you must not waste dummy's precious trumps?

The almost ironclad solution is to win ♠A, take dummy's diamond ace and king to discard your singleton heart, and now play another spade. Nothing can stop you getting the lead back to trump your remaining spade with dummy's ♣8.  The rest of your hand consists of high clubs.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 4/1/2021)

Here's a deceptive little play problem that only one declarer got right tonight.

You are in 2♠ and West leads ♣J. You cover this with the ♣Q, and East wins ♣A and returns a low club to West's ♣10.

You win dummy's ♣K, and successfully draw trumps with a finesse, East having started with ♠Kx. Happy days.

What now?

Actually, the solution is simple. You should play the ♣7 next. Someone will win ♣9, and that will leave dummy's ♣8 as a winner. The defence can take a diamond at this point, but your potential heart loser will be discarded on the ♣8 and you will win the rest, 10 tricks in total.

Why did only one declarer, Teck Chan, find this play?  Several experienced Souths missed it, and this was no doubt because of the low spot-cards involved. Your ♣7 is critical ... swap it with East's ♣6 and you can no longer make 10 tricks.

Bridge is, above all, a game of concentration. And concentrating online at home is not necessarily easy ... in fact generating an excellent excuse for those declarers who missed the combined power of the ♣7 and ♣8.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 1/1/2021)

Perhaps it's because we're in 2021, but today I saw a very high standard of card play, on this deal. I didn't think anyone would get it right ...

You are West, on defence to North's 4. Partner leads ♠8, low from dummy, ♠Q from you and ♠6 from declarer. Now what?

Have a think about that, then click [Show Answer].

One would expect partner to have either ♠8 singleton or ♠83 doubleton. In which case it's tempting to play the ♠A next and a third spade, giving partner either a ruff, or the chance of an overruff. That's what I thought most Wests would have done. It could be what I might have done in that position.

The problem is that it's not particularly holistic. It might give you three tricks, but it also establishes a spade winner in dummy. Unless partner can produce a club honour (ace or king) then that's probably the end of the defence. And if partner does have a club honour ...

So I was particularly impressed to see three Wests Hilary Brear, Richard Fitzherbert and Marcus Brodmeyer switch to a club at trick 2. Take a look at all four hands. If you continue with the spades, declarer will discard one losing club on the third round (as partner ruffs), and after drawing trumps, the second losing club on ♠K: that's game set and match.  But the timely club switch produces two club winners to go with your two spades, defeating 4♠. As they say in basketball: great D.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 31/12/20)

I was in an email discussion earlier today with a member, regarding how best to play a particular suit from yesterday. And lo and behold, up comes this hand today.

You're in a spade contract, it doesn't really matter how high it is, let's pick 4♠. The aim is to make 12 tricks, which means you have to play that trump suit for just one loser. There are three ways to go about it:

  1. Play ♠A and another spade, or
  2. Lead from dummy, and finesse if North plays low. If South wins with an honour, play ♠A next, or
  3. Lead from dummy, and finesse if North plays low. If South wins with an honour, lead a spade from dummy next, and finesse again if North plays low

a) Which of these is best, in theory?
b) How do you play on the ♣Q lead from South?
c) How do you play on the J lead from South?

Playing suits the right way is important, but it can get rather complicated, and at times controversial. The following explanation may not be of interest to you, in which case I wish you a Happy New Year.

The only way to find the right play is to compute all the possible holdings in the suit for your opponents, and then make the play that works the most often. It might assist to be like the precocious youngster in the Queen's Gambit (visualize!), but it is not essential.

Start by ignoring all the setups where your play doesn't matter. For example if South has ♠KQx, you have two losers whatever you do. And you can't go wrong if, for example, North has ♠KQ doubleton. 

1) Ace and another spade. This fails if North has KQ7, KQ5 or KQ75. There are 3 losing cases.

2) Finesse once, play ace next. This fails if North has K75 or Q75. There are 2 losing cases.

3) Finesse once, finesse again. This fails if North has 75 (South has KQ doubleton). There is 1 losing case.

Check it. Recheck it. The best play (and the answer to question a)) is: take two finesses.  It is also the answer to question b).

But question c) is trickier. South has led J. What if South has led from J10x? Then if you finesse, South may win and give North a diamond ruff. You might go down even on a favourable spade lie such as North with Kx or Qx. 

The correct play then is to win and lead the jack of spades from dummy, trying to coax a cover from North. Several Easts did so, and caught their fish when North (incorrectly) covered the spade. No further problem for declarer.

The best play I saw was at the table where Robin Lacey was declarer. She won the ♣Q lead, and played the ♠J from dummy. Jan Downing as North coolly played low (she was the only one to do so). But Robin took the percentage play and played low from her hand.  Well done to both.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 30/12/20)

This problem was faced by several Wests, but solved by only one.

Consider partner's bidding and decide what you would do, if anything, at this point.

What does partner have? She passed as dealer, so will have fewer than 12 HCP.  Your 2 bid was not forcing: partner could have passed it. But she didn't, raising to 3 instead: she must think there might still be a game in this. So I would expect partner to have 10 or 11 HCP and at least 3-card diamond support.

For the sake of argument, let's give partner the K. That would give us 6 diamond tricks. The ♣A makes 7, and if the opponents lead a club, or the king is onside, the ♣Q will make 8. And partner will have 7 more HCP, which one would expect to yield at least a trick. You're up to 9: 3NT!!  Of course, none of this is guaranteed: spades could be your Achilles Heel, but at least partner did bid them.

If you're more a Points Player, then the other approach is to count length points for your diamonds. You have 14 HCP plus 2 length points in diamonds. (You count a length point for each card in excess of 4 you have in a suit - don't count length points and shortage points simultaneously. Length points are for 3NT possibilities.)  So 16, plus partner's implied 10 = 26: that's game.

Moya Crowley was the one West to find the 3NT bid in this auction: making 11 tricks for an outright top.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 29/12/20)

You pick up a pleasant hand as South. Partner, as partners tend to do, makes an inconvenient bid, opening 3.  Next hand passes.

What's your poison?

One of the great skills in bridge is to continually re-evaluate your hand as the auction unfolds. Hands can get better ... or worse. Ely Culbertson gave this phenomenom a great name: plastic valuation. 

On this deal your hand has rather deteriorated once partner opens a diamond preempt. Let's consider the possibilities:

Hearts.  If partner has heart support perhaps you can make 4. The trouble is that the odds of partner having heart support (i.e. 3 cards) are really quite low. He presumably has 7 diamonds, which leaves only 6 cards for the other suits. And the more cards you have in a suit, the less likely partner is to have some length there. If partner doesn't have 3 hearts, a 3 response will probably result in a strangled 4 bid from him, and then what will you do?

Notrumps.  If partner has 9 or 10 HCP, perhaps you have the HCP strength for 3NT, but where are your tricks? You can't expect the diamonds to run: you have to establish the suit and get to partner's hand to run the remaining winners. Unlikely! 3NT is a poor prospect.

Diamonds.  Well, you have a diamond fit of sorts (7-1), but 5 is a long way off. For his non vulnerable pre-empt, partner should be able to supply about 6 tricks. You can see 3 more in top cards, and the Q could provide another. But even 4 tricks will not be enough.

Let's face it, you belong in 3Brian Morrow and Henry Gasko coolly passed their partner's 3 opening, to be two of the three pairs to get a plus score on the board.

The takeaway: with misfitting strength opposite partner's preempt, cool your ardour.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 28/12/20)

There were two deals tonight involving possible slams. On both these deals, the decision on whether to bid slam can be solved the same way. See if you can find it.

I'll give you board 10 as an example.

As West, you certainly see slam possibilities when partner opens 1♠. But how might you explore them?

Make a bidding plan, then click [Show Answer].. (If you use some sort of Blackwood, you will find that partner has two of the three side-aces, and presumably the ♠K).

7 of the 8 Wests did use some sort of ace-asking. Having got their responses, 5 of the 7 went on to slam, the other two signed off at 5♠. 

The final West made a notrump raise, then subsided in 4♠.

As it turned out, partner had the and a singleton heart to boot, and the slam was laydown. But he didn't have to have either of these cards, so the slam bidders were rather fortunate.

This is a deal where you simply need to ask partner whether they like their hand, in the context of the auction. Blackwood doesn't tell you everything you need to know.

If any West had responded 5♠ to partner's 1♠ they would have instantly entered my personal hall of fame. This is one of the great underutilized bids in bridge: the simple 5-of-a-major bid to invite partner to bid slam if they like their hand. Perfect!

The other deal was board 5, where South held:
  ♠ Qxx
   109xxxx
    Ax
  ♣ Ax

and partner opens 2NT. Here there's a possible slam in hearts, if partner likes the concept.  The auction 2NT - 3 - 3 - 5 would have solved the problem.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 23/12/20)

Consider this opening lead problem. East has responded 1NT to West's 1.

Choose your lead, then click "Show Answer". 

There is a very useful inference to be taken from this auction:

East has clubs.

Consider what East didn't bid. She didn't bid a major, so doesn't have 4 cards in either. And she didn't support diamonds. That leaves clubs.

This should affect your opening lead. If East has clubs (4, 5, 6, or more of them), then perhaps leading one from Kxxx is not such a great idea. I'm with Mariette Read who led the Q (result: 7 tricks for declarer). The other three Easts led a club, which eventually established East's suit (result: 8 tricks for declarer).

Mariette scored 70% for her well thought out heart lead. Only 70%, because so many E/W pairs mucked up the auction. In particular, look at West's hand after partner has responded 1NT. West can make exactly the same inference about East's hand: it has clubs. And with only 6-9 HCP, you are on a combined HCP range of 21-24 without a fit. 

A number of West's looked at their singleton club and decided that 1NT was not where they wanted to play. They bid 2 (a suit partner couldn't have!) and got themselves too high. Only Penny RobertsonJane Morris, Mary King and Linda Wilson took the correct inference and passed 1NT.

Tip for the day: 1 - 1NT shows clubs.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 22/12/20)

Consider this problem. You are dealt a superb hand and open 2♣.

LHO jumps to 3, partner passes, and RHO bids 5.  Now what?

Well, the first thing you should do is remove North (Warren Cousins) and South (Dell Macneil) from your Christmas card list, if it's not too late. 

But having done so ...?

Your guess is as good as mine.

You could double, as Diana Jacobs did. She despaired of being able to find a winning contract for her side, if indeed there is one, so decided to take what she could from 5 (three tricks, as it turned out, for down 1 and a poor score).

Or you could take a stab at 5 hoping that partner will cover one of your three apparent losers. That contract depended on finding the ♣A with South: as it turned out, it was. 

Both reasonable choices. And higher bids would surely be too much.

I wrote this hand up for two reasons: first the excellent preemptive barrage of Warren and Dell, supported by their favourable vulnerability. The second is that there is one other option for West in this unpleasant position: it is to pass 5. Given that you have opened 2♣, there is no way partner should be allowed to pass this out. This is a classic 'forcing pass', saying "partner, I don't know whether to double this contract or to find some contract of our own".  It is in essence a takeout-pass. Have you heard of those?  Well now you have.

Look at the East hand. If partner didn't want to double 5 for penalties, then maybe neither should you. In which case, you would bid 5♠, which turns out to be the winning move.  Perhaps I am taking advantage of seeing all four hands, but that would be the neatest of auctions.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 21/12/20)

Here's a tricky 3NT for you to play.

But before we get to that, a shout-out to the various Souths that made that 3NT bid: Helen Schapper, Rosemary Polya, Robin Hecker, Ray Carbuhn and Marcus Brodmeyer.  After North's 3 it was now or never for 3NT, and consistent with recent writeups, over half the field went for the more productive notrump contract. I would point out that the ♣10 is a BIG card: it means that if partner can help with any club honour at all, there will be two club stoppers. In this case, taking away that ♣10 makes partner's ♣J not much use at all.

Now to the play in 3NT. The lead is the ♣4, East puts up ♣K and you win ♣A.  

So you have your two club stoppers, and there are lots of red suit tricks to be taken. But there is a problem with entries to your hand. If you take dummy's two hearts, then how can you get back to your hand to cash the rest of the hearts? 

What do you play at trick 2?

The way back to your hand to cash the remainder of the hearts is via a diamond.  You should play a diamond at trick 2, and finesse dummy's J.  If it loses, too bad but then your 10 will be a later entry. You can cash dummy's two top hearts in peace, and get back to your hand with diamonds. If the diamond finesse wins, then hurrah. You cash the A, and as long as the suit divides 3-2, your 10 will still be an entry, and you've maximized your diamond tricks as well.

No one found this neat play. They cashed the hearts first, and then the AK. And whaddya know, the Q dropped doubleton from West. Lucky, lucky, lucky.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 18/12/20)

Let's end the week with a defensive problem.

You are South. Partner leads the ♣4 to West's 3NT, and you top dummy's ♣K with your ♣A, declarer discarding 3.

Now what?

It seems sensible to switch to a diamond, leading up to dummy's weakness. But which one?

In the middle of the defence, there is an important principle to adhere to (it also applies to the opening lead, but less strongly):

Leading a low spot card indicates honour cards in the suit; leading a high spot card tends to deny them.

Here, you're happy to lead diamonds through declarer's hand, but you don't particularly want partner to continue the suit, expecting you to have some high cards there. You should switch to the 9, showing a lack of high cards above it. Well done to Anne Roberts and Fiona Ferwerda who both switched to 9 and defeated 3NT by two tricks for near tops.

Look at the entire hand. Declarer will cover the 9 with say 10, and your partner will win. But partner needs to avoid playing one back: the 9-spot should clue her in.

This principle is not bullet-proof. Playing an unnecessarily high spot card might be a problem if you need that card for later, to actually take a trick. On this deal, there was no danger of that, as you had 9865, and it was 'sitting over' dummy's 7x to boot. But nevertheless, low cards to suggest honours, and high cards to deny them is a great rule-of-thumb.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 17/12/20)

Suppose you, North, are playing a diamond contract. East leads the J. How would you go about the play?

It seems straightforward enough. There are 6 diamond and 3 heart winners. If West has the ♠A, your ♠K will come good for a trick. So you will make 9 or 10 tricks, depending on the whereabouts of the ♠A.

But what do you do, exactly?

There's no urgency in playing the spade suit for that extra trick. In such cases, it can be a good idea to enlist some help from the opponents.

Win the A at trick 1, and draw trumps (leaving the 10 in dummy). Then play Q, K, clearing out your heart winners. 

Next play your singleton club, planning to insert dummy's 10. If nothing good happens, you can later get to dummy to play a spade towards your king.

But something good does happen. West wins ♣A and is stuck ... she can't return a club, because then you can throw a spade from your hand, establishing the ♣Q as a winner. So West plays a spade, and you play low (you can play a spade to the king later). East wins ♠J and now she is stuck. If she plays the ♣K, then you will ruff, and again the ♣Q has been set up. And if she plays ♠A, then that establishes your king. 10 tricks are there, even though the ♠A was sitting over the king. Well done to Hilary Brear who found this general line of play.

Of course, you had no idea all these good things were going to happen.  But the card-play principle is very strong, and very frequent. Draw trumps, strip out all your winners in a suit such as the hearts here, and then hand an inevitable trick to the opponents. They may be stuck (the official term is an 'end-play'). Or they may do the wrong thing, an even more common scenario. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 16/12/20)

Here is an interesting responding problem. Partner opens 1 and the next hand doubles.

What are your thoughts?

Here's the thing. If your thoughts aren't focussed on a final notrump contract, then you are simply not going to win your fair share of matchpoint duplicates. 

Yes, there's a diamond fit here of some sort, but your hand is balanced and you have cover in all the side-suits. The nature of the scoring system is that ...
   1NT making 7 is as good as 2 making 8
   2NT making 8 is better than 3 making 9
   3NT making 9 is better than 4 making however many
   3NT making an overtick is better than 5 making 12 tricks

On balance, notrumps (if successful) is just so much more profitable than a minor suit contract. There are exceptions of course, but the principle cannot be denied. And it certainly applied here: 3NT has 9 top tricks, 5 cannot make if the defence is careful.

Just three Norths out of 14 saw the principle through. 

Alison Wright bid a natural 2NT (10-12 HCP), and partner Peter Hanneman raised her to 3NT.

Deb Fogarty made an inverted 2 raise, and when partner repeated her diamonds, she bid 3NT.

Ivan Burrows took the simplest route of all: he damned the torpedoes and bid 3NT then and there. Excellent bid!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 15/12/20)

How could this deal (board 1 from our first RealDealBridge Tuesday session) not be hand of the day?

This was the auction at one table.

What do you think of it, and what happened then?

Bridge teachers absolutely hate having to deal with freak hands. There are few rules for 8-card suits, and none for 10-card suits.

Julie More (North) and Janice Meldrum (South) were up against Barb Carter (East) and Faye Norton-Old (West).

Since there were no rules to break, then who can criticise this auction? But I did particularly like the 6♠ and 7 bids.

7 seemed to have 16 or 17 tricks (I didn't bother counting once I got to 13), but Janice, South, couldn't lead her partner's suit. She was inspired to pluck out a diamond ... Julie ruffed it, then led a spade back for Janice to ruff. Two down. That would have to go down as one of the unluckiest results ever for Barb and Faye. Were they seriously meant to get to 7NT?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 14/12/20)

Today's deal demonstrates a couple of pet theories of mine, so is worth an airing. I will give you South's seemingly straightforward response decision.

What say you after partner opens 1?

A good rule of thumb to use is: "when you find a major suit fit, then announce it". The idea is that having discovered the fit, then that suit is where you are going to play, so support the suit appropriately and take it from there.

However there is an exception that applies in this case: don't announce the fit if you might have a better fit in the other major. Here, you certainly have an 8-card heart fit, but if opener has four spades, then you have a 9-card spade fit, which is preferable. So I agree with Judy Seymour, Dennis Goldner and Teck Chan, the three Souths that responded 1♠. Everyone else supported hearts.

Now look at all four hands, in particular North. The three Norths that got the 1♠ response were delighted to support them. Two of them jumped to 3♠ with their 17 total points, but one, Keri Andrews, leapt all the way to 4♠. I think this was a great bid, and follows a saying of one of my former partners:

AK-sixth is the world's best side-suit.

The reason why AKxxxx is a fantastic side suit is that it has excellent chances of being setup without a loser, whatever partner has. If partner has a singleton or a doubleton, it will ruff good. If partner has 4-cards, it will almost certainly yield six tricks. The worst holding is three little, and even then there's a decent (40%) chance that it will come good without a loser.

On this deal, partner did have three little, and the suit divided 3-1, but there was still no loser, because the ♣Q could be used to discard one of the little hearts, and now the suit ruffs good. So the three pairs that got to spades were able to take one more trick than all those in hearts, who had to lose to the ♣A and a heart.

Finally, an elephant stamp to Dennis Goldner and Jim Stewart, the only pair to reach the almost certain spade slam.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 11/12/20)

Here's another of those nasty bidding problems that seem to be ever more frequent in these dark times.

Partner makes a takeout double of 3 and you need to respond. Yuck! I can think of 10 (!) possibilities here (can you?), and I like none of them.

What's your poison? 

James Tulloch responded 4♣, a sound and sober choice. This worked in the sense that it hit partner's best suit. He made an overtrick when the defence didn't find its heart ruff, however it didn't yield a very good score (mainly because a number of Souths opened 4 and went two down, vulnerable).

Joan Courtemanche went for the gold ring by bidding 4♠, an imaginative choice that deserved a lot better than it received. She figured that partner probably had 4 spades ... she had a very good hand for someone who had passed originally, so why not give the major suit game a try? Alas, partner didn't come through for her, and 4♠ went down for an even poorer score.

Finally we come to Barbara Vaughan - she bid 3NT! A different way to grab the gold ring, and this one worked a treat. She was counting on her partner for a heart stopper: after all North hadn't raised to 4, and maybe South, thinking that East has cover, might not lead a heart. There are times when a stopper is as good as it sounds.  

3NT is hugely risky, but in a situation where all the choices are flawed, there's a good argument for going for the one with the greatest payoff. Hats off.

And the 10 options I mentioned? 3♠, 4♠, 4♣, 5♣, 4, 5, 3NT, 4NT (the unusual notrump, asking partner to pick a minor), 4 (asking partner to name a suit) and finally pass, which would have worked quite well.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 10/12/20)

Here's an interesting declarer play problem that no one fully solved (although several weren't put to the test).

As North, you are in a club contract, it doesn't matter how high, and East leads a small heart.

Plan the play.

What happens in clubs happens - you can't control it. There's the ♠A to lose, and two further problems. The fourth spade in your hand may or may not come good. And there's a possible diamond loser, although of course the K might be finessable.

The A will resolve one of the spade or diamond problems, but you need to decide now which one. What do you discard on the A?

It's about 50-50 whether that last spade in your hand will come good (it will be good if spades divide 3-3 or the ♠10 comes down doubleton). Meanwhile the diamond finesse started as 50-50 bet also, but in fact it's much better than that, because West opened the bidding. E/W only have a combined 15 HCP ... most of them will be with West.  I would rate the diamond finesse as at least 80% to work.

So the correct play is to discard a spade on the A, and run the Q at trick 2. You have to take the diamond finesse right now, because there is no certain further entry to the dummy.

Did you find the play?

One further point of interest in this deal. Three North-South pairs reached 3NT by South: a superb contract that gave them an excellent score. But they shouldn't have been allowed to get there. East has 5-card support for partner's hearts, a 10-card fit. The Law of Total Trumps tells you to bid 4 here. It might be scary to bid 4 after North's overcall (indeed that contract can be doubled and set 800 but it won't be): still, the Law's the Law. Teck Chan was the only East to have the courage to bid 4.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 9/12/20)

Today's deal features what I think may be my most unfavourite bidding convention.

You are West and partner opens 2♣, strong. How do you approach the auction?

A number of Wests responded 2 and typed "Waiting" into the Explain box. They play what I like to call the Waiting for Disaster convention.

"2 waiting" (in response to a 2♣ opening) is absolutely the worst bidding convention in bridge (in my humble opinion). It is completely illogical. The responding (weaker) hand fails to make any sort of descriptive bid, and then is unable to 'catch up' later in the auction. When you have a strong hand opposite a weak hand, you want the weak hand to describe what they have, so that the strong hand can decide where to go, not the other way round. Having the strong hand describe is ridiculous, because the strong hand has too much to show

Take this deal as an example, looking at both East and West. The Wests who bid 2 "waiting" got a 2NT or 3NT rebid from partner and had no idea whether there might be a slam on. Their 8 HCP and 5-5 shape were never shown to partner, never even hinted at. 

Peter Hannerman (West) and Alison Wright (East) showed how it was done. Peter started describing his hand with a 2♠ response (8+ HCP and a 5-card spade suit). That told Alison what she needed to know, and shortly after they were in the correct contract of 6NT. Alison knew not to play in spades, despite the 8-card fit, as the 8 HCP opposite meant that it was almost certain that notrumps would yield the same number of tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 8/12/20)

Today I present you with quite the most nauseating bidding problem I think I have ever seen.

Your LHO opens 1♠ and partner makes a Michaels Cue-Bid of 2♠, showing hearts and a minor (guess which minor!). Your bid.

If you think there's a "right answer", then forget it. Everyone in this position bid 3♣, which is a wrong answer, because 3♣ is a pass-or-correct bid, and partner will take it out to 3. The alternatives are equally wrong. (I think I might have passed 2♠ which ends the agony, at least for me ... partner will be declarer at 2♠.)

So let's not bother with that. Many Souths didn't make the Michaels Cue-Bid, choosing a simple overcall of 2 instead. That bid is no more than "unpleasant" for North. What would be your call, in response to a 2 overcall?  

Many Norths bid 3♣. This was optimistic. Maybe you can make 3♣ but it's a forcing bid: you can't play there. Dollars to donuts you're going to hear 3 or 3 next, and where does that leave you?

So kudos to Adrienne Reid, Rosemary Polya, Ivan Burrows and Larry Allender who coolly passed 2. Two of them were saved when East unwisely re-entered the auction. The other two had to watch partner go down in 2 but at least they stayed lower than others.

Finally, looking again at that South hand, two Souths, Joan Courtemanche and Gordon Travers coolly passed over 1♠.  With hindsight, I would say that was absolutely the correct theoretical call: both red suits are thin, and N/S are vulnerable.  I'm not sure I would have had the iron self-discipline to pass, but it sure worked a treat here, keeping N/S out of trouble.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 7/12/20)

An interesting defence problem today.

Against North's 4♠ contract, you, East, lead ♣A. There's nothing further to be gotten from clubs, so you try A next: maybe partner has a singleton and you can give her a ruff.

Partner plays 6 (you've agreed "low = like, high = hate"), and declarer follows with K. 

It's hard to say for sure what is going on in hearts. Partner might have 65, in which case she is not interested in hearts. Or partner could have the singleton 6, and declarer has dropped the king from K5 doubleton, to put you off giving partner a ruff.

What to do, what to do?

The trick here is to elicit further help from partner. You should try your third ace, the A, and get a clearly readable signal.

Both James Tulloch and Moira Hecker did so, and saw an emphatic 2 in response ("like like like!"). So they knew to continue with the diamonds. Partner obliges with K and plays a third diamond for you to ruff ... the first five tricks to the good guys. 

If partner had in fact started with a singleton heart, she should discourage the diamonds with a high spot card, even holding the king. Then you will know to play a second round of hearts for partner to ruff.

Of course, nothing will help if you are one of those players who thinks that "spots are for leopards".

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 4/12/20)

A slightly off-the-wall play problem today.

But first the bidding. Two Norths, Deena Pathy and Myrna Saunders, rebid 3♠ ... the others bid either 2♠ (not enough) or 2 (misdirected). With those magnificent spades alongside the puny hearts, is there any situation where you would want to be in hearts rather than spades?

What's more, the simplified auction gives the opponents less to go on, and the 3 was led by East, West playing K.  You have all those gorgeous spades, and those luscious clubs, so is there anything to think about in the play?

The point I want to make is that you should sadistically play out every one of your 6 top spades before turning your attention to clubs.

Show all four hands and put yourself in the East seat. You will have to make four discards. If you want to hold on to all five of your clubs, you will have to discard either the Q or A. When the last spade is played, the only winning discard will be A.  (West can and should help with the discarding by throwing her K at the first opportunity, telling partner: "I've got diamonds under control".)

This is not a simple hand. But the takeaway is: try running your long suit ... there's no telling how much real or perceived pressure this might exert on the opponents.

Some other interesting things happened at various tables. Billie MacKenzie, Larry Allender and Pip Liebelt led a club as East. I'd like to think they were reacting to my diatribes about avoiding leading from unsupported honours to suit contracts. This had the serendipitous effect of giving dummy its one entry at the time when declarer couldn't make full use of it. 10 tricks was now the limit (and declarer needs to play well to achieve even that).

Some Wests overcalled 2 after South's 2♣ response. This was dangerous, vulnerable, but effective: steering East to a winning diamond lead.

Finally, the best move of all was by Moya Crowley. As West, she opened 2. What a great move, and boy did it work. North overcalled 2♠ and South passed it, both reasonable decisions, and game was missed. It's the old story: with four of the top five honours in a suit, bid it as if it is one card longer.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 3/12/20)

Try this opening lead problem. The auction has been ... uninformative.

Did you stay away from "4th highest from longest and strongest"?  Good ... give yourself a pat on the back. The right suit to pick here is spades.  Well done to Faye Norton-Old, Faye Bell, Richard Fitzherbert and Robert Ziffer who did so. Many did not.

"4th highest" leads are for notrump hands. There's a clear strategy: lead your longest and strongest suit in the hope of eventually developing winners in that suit.

The strategy doesn't work for suit contracts, because once you've developed those winners, then declarer is likely to trump them. Playing safe, leading short suits, leading sequences, leading trumps:  they are the useful strategies for leading to suit contracts. It's a more complex business ... but leading from a suit like Kxxxx is not particularly attractive. It is far more likely to give up a trick (as it did here) than gain anything.

Leading from kings is particularly dangerous ... experienced players avoid them.

This reminds me of the time I declared 4 on this auction against a husband-wife pair (who will remain nameless but no longer live in Victoria). The wife held:

♠ Kxxx
 -
 Kxxx
♣ Kxxxx

She led a low card in some suit, costing a trick, and 4 made.

Hubby exploded: "How many times have I told you not to lead away from kings?!"

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 2/12/20)

Today you are West, and are facing the auction shown, which is a tad uncomfortable.

Before you bid, reflect on what partner is showing. She must have at least 5 spades and at least 4 hearts: with 4-4 shape, she would have either bid the hearts first (up-the-line) or made a negative double of 1. And partner must have a decent hand, as 3 is a change of suit, and therefore forcing.

So what's your bid?

The reason this hand is worth writing up is that you very much prefer to end up as declarer on this deal. You visualize North as having AQ ... if partner is the declarer, South will lead a diamond, and your Kx is toast. But if you are declarer, then North has the opening lead, and your K is protected, at least for the moment. As in real-estate, it's all about position, position, position, and indeed this is an important facet of bridge.

So I think the Wests that gave grudging spade support with a 3♠ bid were making a mistake. As it turned out, partner had Q, so the mispositioning didn't cost: however spades was not the best place to play.

An alternative choice is 4♣ which does keep you as declarer, but clubs is not a particularly desirable destination. Indeed here you are off 3 top tricks.

Only Lyn Mayer bid 3NT, perhaps muttering a small prayer as she did so. She protected her and reached a profitable contract.  That was a well-reasoned decision.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 1/12/20)

Sadly, no one grabbed the brass ring on today's deal. But on the upside, perhaps everyone can get something out of the writeup. smiley

The auction starts as shown. The question is, what should South do now?

Practically every South in this position took a sledgehammer to the deal and bid 3NT. But their diamond stopper of Qxx proved too shaky: they lost the first four diamond tricks and the A later.

There was no rush to get to 3NT.  With such doubtful diamonds, it was worth exploring alternative contracts: 4♠ perhaps, or 4. Such exploration was available via a bid of 2fourth suit forcing. This asks partner to make a descriptive bid: primarily bidding notrumps with a stopper in the fourth suit (diamonds), otherwise showing some extra length or strength in a suit.

As it was, partner had nothing in diamonds, and would have rebid either 2 or 2♠.  In which case, 3NT is unlikely to be the right contract, and South would veer into game in whichever major North has bid, which as it happens will make.

Fourth-suit-forcing is a great tool: it says: "partner, we have enough strength for game but I don't know where: please bid naturally".

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 30/11/20)

A simple decision today, but one that has a subtle twist. 

RHO opens 1♠, and you must decide whether to bid 2 or pass. (A third possibility, a double, should not be seriously considered, because any minor suit response from partner will leave you very uncomfortable.)

What's it to be?

Of the 7 Easts to face this, 6 overcalled 2, and just one, Kerin Tulloch, passed.

I think Kerin had the right idea. The basic objective of a 2 overcall is to win the contract, probably but not necessarily in hearts. If your side belongs in a contract, well then, you need to start bidding.

But is this a plausible possibillity? Not really, because partner passed as the dealer. Your side is most unlikely to have the combined strength to compete for this contract, particularly as if your side has a heart fit, then their side probably has a spade fit, and spades beats hearts.

And 2 carries a considerable risk, particularly with your side vulnerable. You are catapulting yourself in to the auction with a very moderate hand, and partner having passed as dealer. It's risky: just take a look at all four hands to see how risky.  Kerin's opponents bid themselves to 2NT, not unreasonably, and went down. Meanwhile, most of the Easts that overcalled 2 were left there high and dry, going several down themselves.

If North had been the dealer, I would have no major objection to a 2 overcall: after all, E/W could have enough combined strength for game. But with partner having passed as dealer, it had little to gain and a lot to lose. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 27/11/20)

I'll let you see both North and South's hand in this auction.  There's a good lesson in each of them, so I ask you, what should happen after East overcalls the 1 opening with 2♣?

South has a somewhat bland 10-count, with no interest in a major, nor much in diamonds.

However, it does have one very positive feature: the clubs. ♣KJ74 is sitting over East's clubs. If East has the ace and queen of clubs, then this equates to two stoppers in the suit. It's like you have ♣KQxx, which would make South's hand 11 HCP.  Indeed, in terms of trick taking ability, it's almost like ♣AKxx: that would put you up to 13! But let's not take it that far: the point is that the positional ♣KJxx makes the hand far stronger than its raw point count.  Conversely, if it had been West bidding the clubs, the hand would get weaker.

South should upgrade his hand and bid 2NT, showing about 11-12 HCP with clubs stopped.

North, in reacting to South's 2NT has minimum points, but a splendid 6-card diamond suit, which has potential for a lot of tricks. I think it's worth punting 3NT. This is an upgrade based on another factor: suit length. In fact, this is why 'length points' were invented: they give strength to a shapely hand for notrump purposes. Shortages are no good for notrumps, but long suits are.  

If you look at all four hands, you will see that on West's club lead, 3NT will make: a 22 HCP game! The positionally strong clubs and the long running diamonds was what made it all work. Of course it helped that East's Q drops singleton, but even without that, 3NT has excellent chances.

Three pairs had the recommended auction: Lyn Mayer (S) - Suzanne Lewis (N), Ismail Gulec (S) - Mike Pogson (N) and Brian Morrow (S) - Larry Allender (N). They got the buzz of the making 22 point game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 26/11/20)

Board 1 today was a good illustration of why I am often asked a certain question ...

After partner responds 2 to your opening 1♠ bid, what's your rebid?

Most players facing this decision rebid 2NT, which strikes me as particularly dangerous. How is partner to know that you have 16 HCP rather than 12 HCP? As it turned out all of the Norths came to the rescue by raising to 3NT, although I'm not sure I would have.

A couple of Souths rebid 2 or 3, which have problems of their own. They are perhaps even bigger lies than 2NT.

I'm with those that jumped to 3NT over 2, bidding to their likely game. Still, it's an uncomfortable bid, and again not very accurate on strength. In this case, could South not have 19 HCP?

This brings me to the question that I am most commonly asked, or at least was asked when I could actually talk to people. It is:

Should you open 1NT with a 5-card major?

I always deflect that question with a non-commital response, because in fact I don't have a strong view one way or another. But let's face it: it solves this, and other, rebid problems. You show your strength accurately, the only downside being that you may miss a profitable spade fit. 

Kudos to Max Williams and Geoff Pratt, the two Souths who opened 1NT, resulting in an effortless auction to the correct 3NT contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 25/11/20)

Put yourself in the North seat, defending 3NT. 

You lead J, dummy's Q is played, partner 3, declarer 2.

Declarer plays a club to his ace, and then another club. It's going to be a long day.

Any thoughts?

Hands like this are actually quite easy to defend, if you are prepared to cast your mind forward 7 tricks.

Declarer, who has the K, is about to take the first 8 tricks with a heart and 7 clubs. Your side will want to win the rest. 

Your last 5 cards will need to be the ♠A, A109 and a precious diamond. That means that if declarer, at trick 9, leads a spade, you can win ♠A, play a diamond over to partner's A and have partner shoot a heart through declarer's remaining Kx. It requires some good things to happen, but it is your only chance. Well done to Helen Schapper and Anne Rosengren both of whom discarded correctly to defeat 3NT.

What if declarer has the A? Then there's no beating 3NT, and keeping a diamond can do no damage.

The moral: when declarer is about to run a long suit, project forward.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 24/11/20)

Today you are South, defending 3NT on the auction shown. 1NT showed 15-17 HCP, and the rest was Stayman.

You decide to lead ♠K (Dawn Thistlethwaite was the only South to make this lead, which I think is the best choice, even with East having shown 4 spades). Partner, playing standard signals, follows with ♠2, declarer ♠4.  You are still on lead.  Two questions for you ...

1) What is partner's hand? (Don't click "Show All Hands"!)

2) What do you play next?

1) It may seem unreasonable to ask you to name partner's hand when she hasn't made a bid, but you can draw a lot of conclusions from declarer's bidding, and applying a bit of subtraction.

First and foremost, points. Declarer has 15-17, dummy 13, you 10. So in total, 38 to 40 points are shared between, South, West and East. Poor partner has between 0 and 2 points.

So partner does not have a club honour: there's no point hoping for it, and a club play is futile. Partner does not have ♠A.  Partner could have Q or ♠J, but not both. 

In terms of shape, partner has 3 spades, 3-4 hearts, 3-5 diamonds and 2-4 clubs. All this can be worked out by listening to the auction.

2) So what to play? Not a club, as noted above. A heart is almost as bad. Even if partner has Q, it won't help, and could do harm. A spade continuation puts all your eggs in the basket of partner having ♠J. If she doesn't, then you've blown it. 

The correct continuation is 2. It achieves nothing, but does no damage whatsoever. There are many deals where the defenders must simply avoid throwing tricks at declarer, and this is one of them. 

But the point of today's article is that if you are prepared to do the hard yards, you can discover quite a lot about partner's hand by listening to the opponents' bidding. It can be worth the effort.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 23/11/20)

There's a certain class of bidding problem that requires a different form of thinking from normal. This hand is a fine example.

After partner opens 3♠, what do you do?

What would you do if partner had opened 4♠?

At 5 tables, North bid 4♠. They probably figured that partner was showing about 6-10 HCP, which when added to their 22, didn't meet the threshold for slam. Well partner had 8 HCP, middle of the range, but a grand slam was there off the  top.

So something must be wrong with that reasoning. When partner pre-empts, you need to work with tricks not points. Whilst the 6-10 HCP range is correct, what they are really doing is showing you a number of tricks, consistent with the vulnerability.  The Rule of 2 and 3 says that a preempt shows tricks to within 2 of the contract bid when vulnerable, and to within 3 of the contract bid when non-vulnerable.

A vulnerable 3♠ opening shows around 7 tricks. Looking at the actual South hand, South held 8 spades to the KQ. Allowing for the missing ♠A, that converts to 7 tricks, hence the 3♠ bid.

As North, you need to count what tricks you can add. If partner has 7, you can provide 5 more for certain: ♠A, A, A, ♣AK. 7+5 = 12: you should bid a slam. Two Norths did: Tina Theodore and Rune Drevsjo.  They shared the top score on the board.

Finally, three Souths opened 4♠, thereby showing 8 tricks. It all depends on what value you attribute to the singleton K: this strikes me as a truly borderline decision. Their three partners all bid 6♠, which is all very well. But if you add  North's 5 tricks to the 8 that partner is showing, North should really go for a grand slam here. Indeed the K did, as it happened, provide the 13th trick.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 20/11/20)

It's appropriate that today's VHotD features fine South Australian play. We know how they're feeling at the moment.

You're West, declaring 4♣.  The lead from North is J, which wins, then 10 which you ruff.

Let's say you now play ♣A, North follows low, and South plays ♣J. Have a think about what to do next, then click [Show Answer].

It's so tempting to start trumping spades. But that's not a plan that's going to work well, because you simply don't have sufficient entries back to your hand to keep doing it.

Anyway, trumping spades can wait ... what about doing something with those diamonds? After all, you will want to play on diamonds at some stage, and you will probably be able to set up the suit for discards.

Carole Foreman was the only West to correctly approach the play. She played ♣K next, and sure enough, South discarded. Now she played a diamond to the jack. When that won, she kept going with A, K, that suit failing to break, so ruffed a diamond. Next, she played ♠A, ruffed a spade, and played the 5th winning diamond, discarding another spade.

North was helpless. If she trumped this, dummy would still have a club left to deal with West's last remaining spade. And when she didn't, Carole simply trumped a heart, leaving North in the same dilemma.  11 tricks were there for an excellent score. Most other Wests didn't see the play so clearly and took only 10 tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 19/11/20)

I would expect few if any pairs to get to the correct contract on this deal, and I was not disappointed.

Still, let's give it a try. You have the South hand and the auction begins as shown.

1) What is partner showing? (Be precise.)

2) What is your plan?

One can't get to the correct contract without solving question 1).

1) Partner is showing at least 6 diamonds and about 11-14 HCP. The 6-card suit is the key. If partner has only 5 diamonds, then she has either a side 4-card suit, which could be bid at this point, whichever it is, or some 5332 shape which must rebid 1NT to show the balanced hand.

There are no ifs or buts to this logic.

2) You could certainly blast 6NT right now, with confidence: surely that contract will make, and it's a higher scoring contract than in diamonds. Several did. But if you have Roman Keycard Blackwood available, why not try it? If you bid 4NT, it implies that diamonds (the last bid suit) is trumps. Partner will respond 5♠, showing two key-cards and the Q.

Now you know that partner has at least the following:

  ♠ ??
   ??
   AQxxxx
  ♣ A??

Well on top, it looks like 6 diamonds, and three sets of A-K in the side suits, giving you 12 top tricks. Any queen will add the thirteenth trick, and even without it, you will almost surely be able to set up a heart trick by ruffing out the opponents' hearts.

Look at the actual North hand, which doesn't include a side queen. Say you get a trump lead to 7: you draw the trumps, discarding black card(s) from dummy, then play A, K and trump a heart. Go to the ♠A and trump another heart, in case there is one more outstanding. Then over to the ♣K, triumphantly cash your established 5th heart, and there's your 13th trick.

The only genuine danger to 7 (apart from some foul diamond break) is if partner has exactly 2-3-6-2 shape (three little hearts). Then if all else fails, you may have to take a finesse in clubs.

No one found the grand slam. But if there's something to be taken away from this deal, it's the important inference about opener's diamond length. This inference is only solid when both the third and fourth suits can be bid without reversing. For example, the auction 1 - 1♠ - 2, whilst likely showing 6 diamonds, might be based on only a 5-card suit if opener has say 2-4-5-2 shape.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 18/11/20)

This deal caught my eye when I saw the hand record, and even more when I looked at a couple of table outcomes.

The auction you see was what happened at many tables. How would you play 3NT on the lead of the ♠4, East playing ♠Q?

That's not the lead you wanted! If you take the diamond finesse, and it loses, then the spade suit is wide open, and you will likely go down in 3NT. 

Still, assuming the club suit behaves, you have 9 tricks in 3NT: 5 clubs, 1 spade, 2 hearts, 1 diamond. Most declarers held up the spade to the third round, then duly took their 9 tricks.

One declarer didn't. Susan Lipton won the first round of spades, and played off her clubs. This was a neat psychological manouvre: a display of confidence. Most defenders would assume from this that declarer was well bolstered in spades, otherwise why wasn't a holdup play made? It's a false bravado worth remembering. The declarers who held up until the third round made it crystal clear to everyone what was going on in spades.

It didn't work, although to hold on to all her spades, and keep her cover in hearts, East had to discard both her diamonds. Then when Susan crossed to the K to play a diamond, thinking of maybe finessing, East discarded, so declarer had to be content with 9 tricks (as did all the declarers who held up).

Let's return to the auction. It seemed clearly correct to me, until I noted that Joy Wauchope as North rebid 3 over 2NT, surely showing at least 6 of them. Now South, Billie MacKenzie, looked again at her majors. If Joy was suggesting diamonds, might that not indicate that one of the majors was a weakspot for notrumps? And the aces were just fine for diamonds. So she bid 4 which Joy then raised to 5.

With every suit stopped, one would normally expect 3NT to be a better matchpoint contract than 5 of a minor. But not here. I think that auction was very nuanced, and Joy and  Billie deserved their 80% score from 5 making an overtrick. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 17/11/20)

Here's a hand where there are multiple possible destinations.

You are West. Partner opens 1NT and you are certainly strong enough for game. But where?

Decide how you are going to bid the hand, then click [Show Answer].

Some Wests looked fearfully at their singleton heart, and went for a spade contract.  They transferred with 2 and bid 4♠ over partner's forced 2♠. That's called 'unilateralizing'. 

Others were made of sterner stuff. They wanted to be in 4♠ if partner had spade support, or 3NT if not. Partner would have to look after the hearts. So they transferred to 2♠, then bid 3NT, giving partner a choice of contracts. Ordinarily, I would approve, but could one do even better?

Four Wests, Sue Hollands, Mary Elson, Col O'Brien and  Greg Nicholson had their cake and ate it. They transferred to 2♠ then bid 3, a natural change of suit and forcing. This clued partner into the true nature of their hand, and opened up a third possibility, 5. It's not a likely contract, but if partner happens to have something like:

  ♠Qx
  Jxx
  AQxx 
  ♣AQJx

then 5 is the right contract. And partner, with flimsy hearts, and lacking spade support, will choose it. (On the actual deal, partner had an obvious 3NT call, even with that diamond support, as she held stoppers in the other two suits.)

It's worth remembering this adjunct to transfers: if you transfer to a suit, then bid a new suit, that is natural and forcing.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 16/11/20)

Today you are on defence as South.

Partner leads the 2 to West's 4 contract. Dummy plays low, you play K, and declarer drops J.

Take it from there.

First things first. Partner has led a singleton diamond. Declarer dropping J is just a ruse, and you shouldn't fall for it. If that J is truly a singleton, then partner would have led the 2 from 42 doubleton, and she wouldn't.

So you should return a diamond, for partner to ruff. But which diamond? Well to answer that, you want to think about what will happen then. Partner will be on lead, and you would like her to play a spade to your ace. Then you can play a third diamond: perhaps partner can over-trump declarer, and even if she cannot, at least declarer can not take a discard on the third round of diamonds.

To get partner to play a spade, return the 10 at trick 2. This high spot card says you like the higher of the two remaining suits, out of spades and clubs. It's the classic McKenney signal. (Lots of pairs have incorporated more McKenney signals into their plays, but this was the original usage of it, when giving partner a ruff).

Full marks to Brian Morrow who duly returned the 10 for the ruff.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 13/11/20)

It's Friday the 13th: you didn't think you were going to have a nice time, did you?

West's position here is worthy of any horror movie. What do you do to escape?

10 Wests faced this. (The remainder were saved by South who took a bid over East's takeout double. Perhaps they feared a final contract of 1♠ doubled: after all it was Friday the 13th for them as well,)

6 Wests threw up their hands in despair and passed partner's takeout double, defending 1♠ doubled, and giving reality to South's so-called nightmare scenario. Given they had one trick in their hand (maybe 2 on a good day), it's optimistic to expect partner to produce 6 more. 

And so it proved. Partner had a perfectly good 14-count, including the helpful ♠10x, but could only assist with 3 tricks. All the declarers made overtricks.

One shouldn't pass takeout doubles unless you are confident you can defeat the opponents' contract. Here you must suck it up and bid 2. It is up to partner to realise that you are showing about 0 to 7 HCP for this bid.

Good work by Marie Warncken, Sue Douglas, Susan Lipton and Ian Muir who all made the correct 2 bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 12/11/20)

This deal was exciting on several fronts. I've chosen to present it as an opening lead problem.

What is your lead to East's 6NT? 

If you were one of the Souths that led 4th highest of longest and strongest (6), you will have learned something today: no need to read this article.

Fourth best leads to notrumps are a great idea because they begin the long and sometimes slow journey to establishing winners, whilst retaining communications with your partner's hand. But there's no time for 'long and sometimes slow journeys' against a slam. You are only going to get in once ... if more than once, it means you've defeated the slam.

The correct lead is K. Then if declarer has to lose a trick in order to establish winners, you are ready with the setting trick.  Well done to Sandy Peterson, Kerri Jones and Helen Pryor, who all led it. And Libby Persson led an astute K to a 5NT contract, which amounts to the same strategy.

Looking at all four hands, the play is a little puzzling, and was too tricky for several declarers. I'll leave you to think it out. 

And now to the funny business. Dawn Thistlethwaite doubled 6NT as South. I give her a lot of credit for that: she had a nasty surprise in the heart department, West having rebid in hearts. But my credit is all she gets, as declarer wrapped up an overtrick for a score of -1880. That was a bottom of course, but Dawn can take solace that even if she hadn't doubled, she would have received an identical bottom. That's what can happen when the opponents do the right thing against you.

And Penny Robertson, sitting North, won the "Christmas has come early" prize, when her opponents strayed into 6♠ and she saw herself looking at ♠1098754.  Of course she quietly passed it out  ... doubling would probably have resulted in a 6NT contract. 6♠ down one was a N/S top.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 11/11/20)

Try this declarer play problem.

You are declarer in 4♠, after West made a Michaels Cue-Bid, showing 5 hearts, and 5 of an unidentifed minor.

The Q is led, and you win with the K. Take it from there.

You had a good think?  OK then ...

You should play the ♠6* to dummy's ♠K, and assuming no ♠Q has appeared, play the ♠4 back and finesse East for the ♠Q.

Despite the rule "Eight ever - nine never" which suggests that with a 9-card fit, you should play the ace and king to try to drop the queen, the auction and lead take you in another direction here.

If West has 5 hearts and 5 in a minor (you don't actually know which minor), then there are only 3 cards left for the other two suits, one of which is spades. This makes her statistically much more likely to be short in spades, i.e. have a singleton. (There is software available to calculate this: in fact, West is three times more likely to have a small singleton spade than Qx.)

Furthermore if West does have Qx in spades, that gives her a singleton in a minor, and would this not have been a more attractive lead than Q? There are valuable inferences to be taken from things that didn't happen, although they can be hard to spot.

So well done to  Carole Foreman and Deena Sampson, who both took the correct play in spades to generate excellent scores. 

* Why the ♠6 and not ♠2? Because if your calculations misfire, and West wins a spade trick with the ♠Qx, dummy's ♠5 will be an entry. That could be extremely valuable, depending on what happens in clubs. Give yourself several thousand brownie points if you thought of that issue.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 10/11/20)

Most Souths today had to deal with this pesky preempt.  You have three options:

1. Pass

2. 4♣ 

3. Double

Your job is to rank them.

All options had their supporters. All had their pros and cons. It's worth exploring some of these, which might help your thinking in the future.

Pass. It puts you in the running for Wimp of the Month, but it's not stupid. Partner passed as dealer, so no game seems certain. (I would rate pass a distant third if partner were not a passed hand. In that situation you could be passing out 3 when you have an easy game, or even a slam.) And whatever alternative you choose, you might end up going down instead of potentially defeating 3. Still, pass is mighty cautious, given the prettiness of your hand.

4♣. This will work well if you belong in 4♣ or 5♣, as you may well. But it shuts the door on all other possibilities: game in spades, or 3NT, or defending their heart contract. 4♣ is putting all your eggs in one flimsy basket.

Double. This is a good choice as it leaves so many possibilities open. If partner responds 3♠ or 4♠ she shouldn't be too unhappy with your dummy. If she bids 3NT, with good hearts, then that contract may well make, developing your club suit. And if partner passes your takeout double, you will be ecstatic, as that should earn you a nice penalty.  The only downside of the takeout double is a diamond response from partner: that would be revolting.

I'm with Helen SchapperJuanita MonahanHelene Harkin and Judy Banks, all of whom made the takeout double.

The hand record says no-one can make anything beyond the 2-level, so two of their partners, Stephanie McQueen and Cheryle McBride aced the deal, converting to a penalty situation by passing the takeout double. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 9/11/20)

Suppose you hold the South hand. Partner opens 2♣, you give a negative 2 and partner bids 2♠, showing at least a 5-card suit.

What are your thoughts?

I would have fallen in love. Given that you have shown, ostensibly, 0-7 HCP with 2, your 6-pointer is a maximum. But it gets better. You have three  nice spades, and a singleton diamond! 3 total points for the shortage and you're up to 9. And there's a decent 5-card club suit that might be developed. 

S.J. Simon, in his book "Why you lose at bridge" (regarded by many as the best bridge book ever written) noted that two errors players often make is "overbidding strong hands" and "underbidding weak hands". This hand might have started as a dull 6-count, but it's blossomed. The thinking you need is: once you've shown 0-7, your hand is now strong. Strength is relative.

So how did our Souths react? Most simply bid 4♠, and with one exception this wasn't enough. (The exception was Cheryle McBride, who as North proceeded on to the lay-down slam. The other Norths all passed: they had no reason to expect the massive playing strength that South provided.)

A splinter bid (jumping to 4) would have worked well. I mentioned splinter bids in a previous VHotD: in this case, the unusual jump bid has no reason to be natural (with long diamonds just bid 3) so the jump shows a singleton or void diamond and spade support. That would have been most pleasing to North. No one splintered.

Geoff Pratt found another approach that had a lot of merit. He postponed the spade support for the moment and bid 3♣. Then over partner's 3NT he returned to 4♠. He was trying to show spade support, and clubs, and presumably a decent hand (with an indecent hand, he would have just raised spades immediately). This convinced Ron Irwin to try for slam with 5♠ and Geoff accepted, bidding 6♠. Very nicely done!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 6/11/20)

To demonstrate the learning point of today's deal, I will show you two hands.

First, put yourself in West's place (ignoring North, whose hand you can't see), and tell me what you would bid over South's 1♠.

Having mentally made that bid, tell me what you would have North do over it.

West. I say close your eyes, take a deep breath, and obey the Law of Total Trumps with a 4 bid. Partner's overcall shows 5 hearts, you have 5, 5+5=10, it's a competitive auction, bid to the 10 trick contract.

If you think too much about it, you will chicken out. Well done to Marie-Claire Staub, Susan Lipton and Geoff Dixon, who were the only West players out of many to make the legal bid. Everyone else bid just 2 or 3: they were too focussed on their own correct contract, not their opponents'.  See the hand-of-the-day from Wednesday.

North. Now place yourself in North's seat, as West is contemplating their bid. You would like to support your partner's spades, but you don't want to have to do so at too high a level: after all, partner passed as dealer. If West bids 2, you will happily bid 2♠; if West bids 3 you might nervously bid 3♠. But if West bids 4? Oh Lord! I can't go on to 4♠ there, can I, with a flat 13-count opposite a passed partner? Surely not. 

I would probably have cautiously passed as North, if West had bid 4. Two of the Norths agreed with me. But one, Shayne Wurf, followed one of my pet teaching  points: always bid 4♠ over their 4. Hats off to her.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 5/11/20)

Consider this rather pleasant scenario. Your opponents conduct a Stayman auction to 4♠, a contract where you have a surprising trump holding.

Would you double this? What are the pros and cons of doubling?

There's only one 'pro' for doubling: it is that if the contract goes down, you will get a better score.

Is it likely that the contract goes down? Very likely really: you have at least three trump tricks, and a fourth trick could come from several sources. Trumps themselves for example, or your K, or partner providing some help.  I would rate you at least an 90% chance to defeat 4♠.

That means there's a powerful case for doubling, when playing a matchpointed duplicate. Increasing your score from +100 to +200 could be the difference between an average and a top. Mathematically, playing matchpoints, if you think a contract is 51% or more likely to go down, you should double it!

No one doubled. 4♠ invariably went down one or two tricks. Perhaps all the cautious passers were worried about the cons:

1) the contract may be legitimately making

2) doubling may tell them how to play 4♠: declarer will suspect in advance that you have all the spades

3) the opponents might escape to a winning contract, in particular 4NT

Frankly, none of these is likely. I think that in real life, the Easts were simply too delighted at the turn of events, and forgot about the possibility of doubling to increase the penalty.

Just one East, Geoff Pratt, did in fact double 4♠, but he was assisted by his partner Robert White who overcalled 1NT with 2♣: a pretty decent tactical bid, at favourable vulnerability. A well-deserved top for them, and a not-at-all-deserved bottom for their unfortunate opponents. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 4/11/20)

Only one North player here found what I consider to be the right bid here. See if you can match him, or her.

Partner opens a weak 2♠.

There are two ways to "win" an auction:

1) Bid to your correct contract, or
2) Stop your opponents from bidding to their correct contract

Everybody likes to focus on 1), but 2) can be just as important.

Take this deal. From your perspective, it seems you've already achieved 1): 2♠ is likely your correct contract. And so it proves, if you peek at all four hands: 2♠ is all you can make.

But passing to reach your correct contract won't achieve 2) stopping your opponents from reaching their correct contract. East will bid, perhaps 3♣ (or double, in which case West will bid either 2NT or 3), all of which are making contracts for them. You might then bid 3♠, but now you've failed to achieve either objective: you allowed your opponents to bid their correct contract, whilst simultaneously reaching your wrong contract.

That's why Christine Walker's decision to bid 3♠ immediately was so well judged. It gave up on 1) but achieved 2). East came in with 4♣, as who would not, and that contract could not avoid four red-suit losers. Christine's bid was a fine example of the Law of Total Trumps at work: in a competitive (or likely to be competitive) auction, bid immediately to the level of your fit. She could see a 9-card spade fit, and so immediately bid to a 9-trick contract.

She also needed her partner-in-crime, Sue Douglas, who as South recognized that the 3♠ bid was not an invitation to 4♠  She quietly passed her maximum hand, and earned her side a plus score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 3/11/20)

A simple one today, as we are (I am) in holiday mode.

You're up ...

If you don't open this with 4, then you are not going to win too many bridge events.

Pre-empting is good. You should look for reasons to pre-empt, not reasons not to.

Reasons to pre-empt:
- favourable vulnerable
- an 8-card suit
- wild distribution increasing playing strength

Reasons not to:
- don't have two of the top three honours
- side ace
- side void

The second set of reasons are mainly phoney. The first one is legitimate in a way: the suit quality is indeed average, but the suit quantity is excellent. The other two reasons are best permanently consigned to the dustbin.

Looking at all four hands, E/W mainly handled the 4 openers, with West overcalling 4♠ with East passing it. But some caught their fish with West either doubling or passing, and East introducing the dreaded club suit.  Those who opened only 3, or passed, gave their opponents an easy ride to 4♠.

Finally, what if you are doubled in 4? Partner gives you a heart void and no high cards of any value. Yet you take 7 tricks quite easily for -500, a better score than -620 against their 4♠. If 4 works even opposite that North hand, what could possibly be wrong with it? 

Honour roll of those who opened 4Marie Warncken, Lyn Mayer, Sue Everist, Frances Duckett, Annette King, Doug Harrah, David Hollands, Russell King.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 2/11/20)

Suppose you are West. You felt a bit guilty overcalling 1NT with that 4-trick hand. But nothing catastrophic happened: you were passed out in that contract.  The 5 is led and a 3-point dummy appears.

1) Are you happy or sad?

2) How do you play it?

1) You should be happy to be going down in 1NT. Delighted even. 

Why? Because North-South have missed their heart contract. How does this go for N/S in hearts? You can work that out fairly accurately. They will lose the A and the A, and some number of club tricks. If their six clubs divide 3-3, then three club tricks, meaning they can make 2.  If they divide 4-2, then only two club tricks for you, making 3.  And if 5-1, one club trick for you, making 4. So your opponents can make at least 2 for a score of 110. If you can restrict your losses in 1NT to -100 (two down), you will have, at least in theory, a strong score.

Which leads us to ...

2) Can you get the necessary 5 tricks to go only two down in 1NT? There is a way ... you can and should take your 5 tricks now.  Your A, A and three top clubs. And if the opponents' clubs split 3-3, one more club trick for one down.

The trap to avoid, which several fell into, is to play on your combined long suit, diamonds. The problem is that this will release too many tricks for the defence, and you will end up at least 3 down.

Strong analysis by Gillian Farrell and Dennis Goldner to cash out in 1NT, for an excellent score.

Which leads us to North-South ... please display all four hands.  N/S can make 2 and no more, but only one pair reached that contract after the 1NT overcall. Jenny Gray bid 2 over 1NT (rather risky, but reasonable) and Libby Persson made the fine decision to pass it (no one else did).

The key point here is that 2, despite being a change of suit, is non-forcing after the 1NT overcall.  Only Libby recognized this, but just how high do you want to get when you have a 1NT interjection? If North truly has a strong hand interested in higher things, she should start with a penalty double of 1NT. After all, if North does have 10 or more points, is not West in a bucketload of trouble?  

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 30/10/20)

Here's a beautiful set of cards, with a beautiful contract available (7). The question is how to bid it properly to get there.

There are a number of important bidding principles in play here, so it's worth a bit of effort to construct the correct auction (not quite found at any of the 29 tables).

So have a go (I will start you off with 2♣ by West), and then you can compare to mine.

East responds 2♠.  The 8 HCP is sufficient for a positive response, and the higher of two 5-card suits should be bid. Bid spades, then hearts, then if the opportunity arises hearts again, to depict 5-5 shape. If you respond 2 (as quite a few did) you will find it impossible to communicate your 5-card spade suit to partner. 

(Whilst the 2 responders found the heart fit easily, their shapely status was never revealed, and the grand slam missed.)

West bids 3♣. Why not bid naturally at this point? You never know what might happen.

(Some bid 3NT, ending the auction. They were rushing things, and they also forgot to count points. If partner has 8 HCP, as advertised, and you have 25, doesn't that make 33, enough for a slam? 6NT would be a better bid than 3NT.)

East bids 3. Showing her second suit. So 5+♠  and 4+.

West bids 4NT.  This setup is perfect for Roman Keycard Blackwood. Your partnership must assume that the last-bid suit is what will be trumps, in this case hearts. West wants to know about the ♠A and the K.  Simple Blackwood won't be as effective, because you will find out about the ♠A, but not which red king East holds (when giving a one-king response to 5NT). The K is so much more important than the K!

East bids 5.  Two key-cards, but no Q.

At this point we had lost 28 of the 29 East-Wests. Only Cecile Senior (East) and Rick Gaylard (West) were still in the game, having made all these bids.

West bids 7.  It's trick-counting time. There are 4 heart tricks, 2 spades (ace and king), 1 diamond (the ace) and you expect 5 clubs = 12. The thirteenth trick should be easy enough: just trump a spade.  So Rick took quite some risk when he bid 7NT. This worked when Cecile delivered a fifth heart for the thirteenth trick, but make that heart a minor suit card and they would have been in deep trouble. Still, full marks to them for conducting essentially the right auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 29/10/20)

Try yourself on this quiz. You are in 3NT, after the auction shown. West leads 6, you duck in dummy, East wins 10. East continues J, you discard a spade, West plays 4.

  1) How do you like your contract?

  2) What is the heart position?

  3) What does the auction tell you?

  4) What should you do?

1) How do you like your contract?

It's not perfect. 6 is almost laydown. You trump a spade in dummy, and lose only to the ♣A. 

Still, how many pairs are going to reach the slam? Very few would be my guess. (Actual answer: none). And some might reach 5, scoring 620. So your aim in 3NT should be to make at least 10 tricks (630), outscoring those in the diamond game. You have only 9 tricks on top, so there is some work to do.

2) What is the heart position?

West led 6, then followed with 4. If she has made a 4th best lead, then that means she started with KQ864, and East has J10. Of course there's an 'if' in that sentence, and opponents are not always to be trusted. But it is at least a working hypothesis.

3) What does the auction tell you?

If West did indeed start with KQxxx, then one would expect East to have the ♣A, otherwise why did West not overcall your 1 with 1? This sort of inference is common, but can be difficult to see, because it comes from something that didn't happen. It is Sherlock Holmes' "dog in the night".

4) What should you do?

If all your deductions from questions 2 and 3 are accurate, then you should win the A at trick 2, rattle off your 6 diamond tricks, then play clubs, expecting East to have the ace, and no more hearts: this will get you 11 tricks.

However, if you pay more attention to question 1, and/or trust your opponents less, you will do what Sarah Acton did and duck the second round of hearts. East had no more hearts to play, and Sarah was able to set up clubs for the easiest of 10 tricks, beating out the pairs in 5 and earning herself 72% on the board.

None of what I described above is beyond anyone's thinking. The question is whether you are prepared to go to that effort. If you do, and it pays off, it's very satisfying!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 28/10/20)

A play problem today.

First of all, very well done to the two pairs (Pip Liebelt - Jane Griffiths and Mary King - Maggie Kelly) who conducted the auction shown. West's 3 bid was really delicate, leaving open 3NT as a possibility, a contract which would be lost if you bid 4♣.

Looking at the E/W hands, 4 on the 4-3 fit is the perfect spot. All things being equal, you should be able to make 11 tricks, losing to just the two missing aces. 3NT has only 10 tricks, 5♣ is worth only 600, and 4♠ is at the mercy of a 3-3 spade break, if you want to get 11 tricks.

But unfortunately, all things weren't equal. North leads a club, you win and play the A and  J, expecting to be able to draw trumps, and knock out the ♠A.  East's K will guard against diamonds (North obviously has the A on this bidding), and you will take 11 easy tricks. This plan is thrown into disarray when North discards a diamond on the second round of hearts. South, the villain, started with five hearts to the 10.

What now? Have a think about that, then click [Show Answer].

West's precious 3 is the key. If you waste it, by playing a third round of trumps, you are dead in the water. South will eventually be ruffing a club and playing on diamonds. You will win K and can draw any outstanding trumps, but that will be the end of the trumps, and once you finally play a spade, North will win ♠A and have a winning diamond for the setting trick.

The correct play is a spade. Then if the defence win and play diamonds, you merrily play off all your black suit winners, the 3 standing sentinel against further diamond attack. Use either the BBO history, or the "Play it Again" feature of the Northern BC web site to explore the possibilities. 

No one in a heart contract (there were four in total) found the difficult winning play. It's a cruel game: they were in the best contract, and got the worst scores.  Such is life.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 27/10/20)

Today's bidding problem is one steeped in strategy, rather than technicality or system. As such, there's no definitively right or wrong answer, but I do have a point to make.

After two passes, it's your call. Do you have a strategy?

Several players, and the robot, employed the Ostrich Approach. They stuck their heads in the sand, decided the hand didn't meet the requirements for either a one-level opening or a pre-empt, and therefore passed. It could work, but I personally would have to be in a coma to pass that hand.

Many more applied the I Know A Good Hand When I See It style, and opened 1♠. It is a good hand if you get to play in a black suit, but there are two big downsides. First, if partner should persevere in the red suits, or bid notrumps (in other words, it's a misfit), or generally bids too much thinking you have opening strength, then you could be in strife. Or worse strife if the opponents get involved and partner eventually doubles for penalties ... your hand has very little it can contribute to the defence.

(As an aside, I think 1♠ is a poor choice in first or second seat, but in third seat, as it was, it's a fair strategy, because an alert partner will take into account that you may be opening light.)

Finally, Jenny Matheson and Angela Morgan employed the Let's Break A Cardinal Rule strategy. They opened 2♠, planning to bid again if they got the opportunity. That is indeed breaking a rule, as pre-empters are not meant to voluntarily bid again. I'm with them. It gets them into the auction, without misleading partner as to their strength. The bid-again part will, they hope, be justified by their wild distribution. And indeed, when partner supported spades after East's overcall, they went ahead and bid 4♠, even though they were not technically 'allowed to', and made that contract.

So my point is: with very wild distribution and not a lot of strength, try pre-empting, and then bidding again later, if possible.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 26/10/20)

This might not seem the most beautiful deal to write up, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it sorts the sheep from the ... well, perhaps I don't want to call anyone a goat. Probably not good for business.

Anyway it's your lead to 4♠. What's it to be? You can give an order of preference if you like.

Here are the rankings:

Best5 (top of the doubleton)

Medium: a trump

Equal worst: a minor

Jean Davis, Moira Hecker, Ron Irwin. Juanita Monahan and Faye Norton-Old all found the heart lead. On the actual deal, only a diamond lead (straight up into declarer's AQ) is costly, but of course that could have been the same in clubs.

Experience says that leading away from unsupported kings throws a trick more often than it gains one (more on this in a minute).

In choosing between a heart and a trump, the heart may gain if you can develop a heart ruff, and why not? 

I offer two points of external evidence to support that leading away from kings (to suit contracts) is usually a bad idea.

1. British international Tony Forrester has been known to threaten the life of any partner of his that does so. It's probably not a serious threat, but why would any of his partners risk it?

2. David Bird and Taf Anthias wrote a superb book "Winning Suit Contract Leads" that attempts to solve the problem via simulation. For each problem they generate 5,000 hands consistent with the auction, and work out what is the best lead. Direct quotes from their book:

"Side suit doubletons are much better leads than most people realise ... against one-suit auctions, it is often better to lead passively from x-x-x or x-x-x-x than from a suit headed by one or two honours."

The defence rests.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 23/10/20)

This bidding problem faced by 34 Easts and resulted in a strong consensus. Still, perhaps it's worth discussing.

Your mission is to find a response to your partner's 1♠, using whatever methods you like.

The vast majority bid 4♠. If this was intended to show enough for game, then OK. But if it was describing a "weak freak" (which I'm sure practically everybody did), then I would contend that the hand is neither weak, nor a freak.

East's hand is excellent, 12 total points, five-card support, the king and jack of hearts supporting eaching other. A damned fine hand. 

So I'm much more comfortable with Sandra McCaughey's 2NT Jacoby game-forcing raise, or Sue Douglas's delayed game raise (a 2 response followed by a jump to 4♠). Sadly neither of those routes propelled the partnership to the excellent slam. Pam Dingwell also bid a Jacoby 2NT, and her partner George Campbell co-operated with some cue-bids: they reached the slam.

Lindsay Young found the best solution ... she bid 4♣, a splinter bid, showing spade support, a singleton or void club and enough strength for game.  Now look at West's hand: ♣Axx is a perfect holding opposite a singleton, so partner Chris Scott duly asked for aces and reached slam. 

If you are a Gerberologist, you may not like that 4♣ bid, but the fact is that splinter bids are wonderful tools, as long as you don't tread on them.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 22/10/20)

Here's a very tricky bidding problem, brilliantly solved by three players.

North's 1♠ opening bid is passed around to you. Choose your poison.

You might be able to make a slam (give partner a spade void and a long minor). Or you might have nada (give partner a weak hand with some hearts). What's worse is that there is no bid or sequence available that remotely comes close to describing your hand. You should mentally add 3 points for being in the balancing seat, giving yourself a massive 23-count. So I guess you double, but then if (when) partner bids hearts, you bid ... notrumps? One thing is for sure: partner will never figure out what you have.

It's a big fat mess. 

But there is one auction that doesn't result in a big fat mess, and three players found it. Faye Norton-OldMariette Read and Jo-Anne Heywood all passed out 1♠.  They noticed that their opponents were vulnerable, so a most possible score of +200 (two down) would beat out any partscore that their side could make. And a partscore is all they can make.

Meanwhile, N/S can make a slam in hearts! With a combined 15 HCP. No one bid it of course, but several N/S's found themselves doubled in 4, and one of them made all 13 tricks when East didn't lead a club. +1390 was most satisfactory.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 21/10/20)

On this deal, I was curious to discover whether any N/S pairs would conduct the auction I think is correct. The result was negative, nevertheless a couple of pairs came very close.

Let's sit North. The first 'departure' was that a lot of Norths rebid 2NT rather than 1♠, immediately showing their 18-19 HCP. Whilst this was by no means the world's worst bid, the hand looks far too suitable for a suit contract to suggest notrumps at this point.  For example, one North, Penny Robertson, rebid 1♠, and then when partner produced a 4th-suit-forcing 2♣, now she jumped to 3NT. That described the hand very well.

But back to our given auction. You rebid 1♠ and now partner jumps to 3NT.  Two questions:

1) What is partner's strength?

2) What are you going to do?

Partner thinks she can make 3NT opposite a minimum opener. She should have, at a minimum, about 13 HCP, or perhaps a good 12.  Let's say a minimum of 12½.

And as a maximum? I would say about 16. With more, she would probably be fishing around for slam.

So partner has 12½ to 16 HCP. That gives you a combined total of 30½ to 34. You may well have a slam!  So I think the oodles of Norths who passed 3NT were being overly cautious. The benchmark for a 6NT contract is 33 HCP ... you need to know whether partner has the 15 or 16 HCP that will fulfil that. And the way to find out is to make a quantitative 4NT bid: a natural invitation to 6NT. Partner did have a nice 15 count, so she should accept that invitation, and there you are in your excellent 33 HCP slam (which requires either the diamond finesse or the spade finesse to make).

No one bid 4NT, but Alison Wright did see the slam potential when she blasted to 6NT. I think that's a lot closer to the mark than the wussy pass, given that powerful diamond holding.

If I were asked to give a single bridge bidding tip, it might well be:

After a natural notrump bid, a bid of 4NT is a natural invitation to 6NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 20/10/20)

Suppose you are West, defending a 5 contract on the auction shown. North was Maggie Kelly who found that excellent 4NT bid: yet another Unusual Notrump for the Minors. 

You lead A, partner follows with 3, declarer 5.

What now, and why?

Partner's 3 should mean something: the question is what.

Most defenders play attitude signals (eg "low = like, high = hate") in this situation, but there is no point signalling attitude to hearts here. Dummy's K means there is no future in hearts, none whatsoever. In circumstances where an attitude signal is known to be unnecessary, such as this one, it makes sense to play suit-preference signals. That means that a high spot card is encouraging a switch to a high suit, a low spot card is for a low suit. A middling card says I don't know and I don't care. There are usually two suits in play (the other two side suits) so this is not a difficult signal to apply.

So partner's 3, the lowest heart she has, is screaming for a low suit play next, i.e. clubs. Partner ruffs your club switch, plays a spade back to you, and ruffs a second club. Two down on good defence.

Did anyone find this? No, because no one faced it. At Maggie Kelly's table, West was Jenny Matheson, who over 5 very wisely went on to 5 (she was short in diamonds, it was likely that partner was short in clubs: 5 must have excellent chances ... indeed 6 was on a finesse).  

Finally, elephant stamps to all the Easts that opened 3. Many didn't, perhaps because they had a side 4-card major, but when your primary suit is the other major, that argument holds much less water. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 19/10/20)

Today's deal involves a 'book' play. Sadly, none of our contestants had read the book. So allow me to help.

You are North, defending 2♠ after a transfer auction. Your partner leads the A, dummy comes down with a singleton there, and you have to decide what card to play.

Any thoughts?

It's pretty clear that partner has the K as well. After all, who would lead the unsupported A after this auction?

So your side has all the top hearts, but partner doesn't know this. It is absolutely mandatory that you inform him of this fact by following with the queen. This tells partner that it is completely safe to continue hearts, forcing dummy to ruff, if he so pleases.

And he does so please. Holding four spades to the king, nothing would please him more than forcing dummy, the long trump hand, to start ruffing hearts and shortening his trumps. Indeed this is the only defence that legitimately holds declarer to 8 tricks. You will take a top heart, a top diamond and three trump tricks. If you don't force with the hearts, declarer will take 9 or even 10 tricks.

But at all the tables where this happened, North followed with the 2. Even if this was "low = like" it failed to hit South over the head, and every South switched to another suit.

If partner leads an ace to a contract, and you have QJ, you should as a matter of course play the queen.

Postscript.  Some Souths chose a diamond as their opening lead, unsuccessfully. They ignored the well known fact that The Good Lord gave you an ace-king suit to tell you what to lead.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 16/10/20)

Today's deal is an East-West bidding problem. The fact that they have a total of 10 HCP doesn't detract from that.

With the auction so far, how should E/W bid this? (South's 5 bid shows one ace.)

West. It seems North is going to be playing in a heart contract, and your partner will be on lead. You would appreciate a diamond lead, would you not?

There are two ways to achieve this:

1) Stare pointedly at your diamond ring - that won't work on BBO.

2) Double 5.

It's called a Lead-Directing double.  Greg Nicholson was the only one to find it, and when North subsided in 5 his partner duly led a diamond to avoid giving away a second overtrick. That yielded a 72% score ... allowing 5 to make 13 tricks would have been worth only about an average.

Some Wests didn't get the chance as South made a 1430 response of 5♣ (although then the failure to double 5♣ might just have pointed East to the winning diamond lead).

You see, even with a moderate hand, you can be in the game.

East. Speaking of moderate hands, if West doubles 5 and North bids 6, then East should probably take a favourable vulnerability sacrifice in 7!  No one did so, unsurprisingly, but the website will tell you that the optimum (par) contract on the deal is 7 doubled, by East or West.

Finally, a shoutout to Dennis Goldner, who over 2♠ came in with 3.  The resulting diamond lead from partner achieved the same good score. Favourable vulnerability should make heroes of us all.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 15/10/20)

Today's hand features an interesting problem of tactics. RHO opens 1♠ and you have to decide how to manage that fistful of hearts.

You may be tempted to just bid 4, but the downside of that is that it's a red-rag to a bull, and your LHO may well bid 4♠ which is not what you want to hear. 

But if you don't bid 4 now, then you might miss game. After all, your hand is very powerful, with the side 5-card club suit. 

What to do, what to do?

A number of Norths bid just 2.  Their LHO bid 2♠, and when that came back to them they bid 3. LHO persisted with 3♠, passed around and they bid 4!

It's a technique called walking the dog. It requires nerves of steel, but the opponents may get sucked into thinking: well North's an idiot, and just wants to play the hand at all costs. So they double your 4 and of course, it makes (partner providing the lovely ♣K).

Three Norths, Shayne WurfPip Liebelt and Helge Pedersen caught their fish (I might be mixing up my animal references here), and got to play 4 doubled for the top N/S scores.

Of course there's a further potential downside to walking the dog. Not only might you get stranded too low, but you also give your LHO room to freely support spades at a low level.

So other Norths bid 4 directly, and for some of them it worked well, because their LHOs were cowed into passing. 

But many Easts did indeed follow the golden rule of 'always bid 4♠ over their 4', which brings me to the second brilliant display of tactics. Shyamala Abey bid 4 directly, but when East's 4♠ came around to her, she doubled it!  She knew there was a fair chance that her opponents had been bullied into 4♠ by her preempt, and she was prepared to try for a penalty. She cashed two top hearts, switched to a club, and when partner's ♣K scored, ace and another diamond set the contract two tricks for a 500 point penalty, more than the value of the N/S game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 14/10/20)

This tricky problem was faced by all 23 Norths today. It seems to me, you have three options after partner opens 1NT:

  1. You could pass it and hope for the best.
  2. You could transfer partner into 3♣ and hope for the best.
  3. You could use Stayman to try for a heart fit, and if there is none, bid 3♣ and hope extremely hard for the best.

What's your poison?

Options 1) and 2) stand on their own two feet.  They either work, or they don't work. But neither gives you the chance to reach a possible 4-4 heart fit.

Option 3) is the best solution ... Stayman, followed by a retreat to 3♣ if a heart fit isn't found. A number of Norths tried it, but with only one exception, it didn't work, because their partner, after the 3♣ bid, went on to 3NT. That's a contract that won't make, as long as West holds the ♣A up until the third round.

The exception was Jane Griffiths, who bid Stayman then 3♣ and her partner Pip Liebelt duly passed it. That was the official Northern-Bridge-Club-approved auction, reaching 3♣ whilst investigating the possibility of a heart fit.

The takeaway: if you Stayman, then bid a new suit over partner's response, you want to play there. You were trying for a 4-4 major suit fit, but didn't find it. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 13/10/20)

Very few Wests solved today's bidding problem.  Your partner opens 1♠ and you have to decide upon an auction.  What's your plan? (You have my permission to use whatever methods you like, eg notrump raises smiley)

And how might your plan change if South were to overcall 2♣?

First off, the hand isn't that great. The dull distribution and three little spades should not excite. So those who bid beyond the level of game were overly optimistic, and they got suitably punished with a minus score, despite partner holding a perfectly good 14-count.

The real question is whether to play in 4♠ or 3NT. Those who simply bid 4♠ or gave a notrump raise to reach 4♠ made a unilateral answer to that question.

Still, this is the sort of hand that makes the same number of tricks in notrumps as in spades (after all, your hand won't be getting a ruff in 4♠), so shouldn't you at least think about that?  I strongly agree with Marie Warncken and Ismail Gulec who bid 2 here, willing to hear what partner said next. Marie made this bid after a 2♣ overcall from South.

Well what partner bid next was 2NT, showing a balanced hand (and in Marie's case certainly a club stopper). And that was enough to motivate them to bid 3NT, reaching the correct spot. Marie's partner Aviva Kamil added icing to the cake by somehow snaffling 11 tricks, for an outright top.  Very sensitive bidding by the two Northern Bridge Club members!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 12/10/20)

I bet you've faced this sort of problem on more than one occasion. Partner opens 1 of a suit, and you have a very weak hand but with a long major suit.

You'd like to show the major, but if you respond, there is a real risk that partner will bid too much, expecting you to have more strength than you have. But if you don't respond, you might be stuck in a horrible contract at the 1-level (this is particularly the case when partner has opened in a minor, and might have as few as 3 cards there).

Is there any way out of this dilemma?  What would you do with this hand?

There is a very nifty convention to solve this problem that I recommend: weak jump responses.  Specifically, after partner opens 1 of a suit, if you jump to the 2-level in a new suit, you are showing a very weak hand (about 3-6 HCP) and a 6+ card suit.  It must be a jump, and it must be to the 2-level. 

This hand is a good example. Admittedly, you could pass 1 here (as several Wests did) and not be too concerned, because at least you are in a 5-2 fit or better.  But imagine if you had only a singleton heart, or partner had opened in a minor: then you would definitely want this gadget at your disposal.

There's no downside to weak jump responses (IMHO), because making a strong jump to the two-level is usually a bad idea. With a good hand, you are much better off just making a one-level response, and showing your strength later. That way you get a better idea, from opener's rebid, what sort of a hand your partner has.

Weak Jump Responses: don't leave home (or log on to BBO) without them.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 9/10/20)

It was a serious red point duplicate today, and this was a serious problem befitting of it*.

You open 2♣, partner bids a negative 2, and you bid 3♣, praying that partner won't pass it. (A few Norths gambled 3NT instead, perhaps fearing being stranded in 3♣, with mixed results.)

Partner honours your force and bids 3♠, showing at least a 5-card suit.

Now what? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

(* No, the boards are not 'fixed' for red points.)

You've found a spade fit and should play in that suit. What about a slam? If partner has a top card in diamonds (ace or king) and the ♠Q, there is a good slam to be had. On the other hand, if partner has none of these cards, there is only a good game to be had.

What are the odds? Expecting partner, who may have zilch, to provide both these things seems unlikely. As against that, if the opponents don't find a diamond lead, it may not matter that you are missing the ace and king, as partner's diamond losers may disappear on your clubs.

So one could go either way. I respect the decision of Ivan BurrowsWarren Cousins, Rob Nurse and Tom Hackett, who all bid a safe and sober 4♠. Who said that men are adventurous bidders? 

Perhaps they felt that they couldn't reliably investigate a slam anyway. How true, when you compare their choice with the various players who Blackwooded here. They got a zero-ace reply, and subsided in 5♠.  Blackwood solved nothing, as you could be cold opposite that zero ace reply (give partner K and ♠Q), or even maybe go down opposite a one-ace reply.

Now is the time for me to put in my regular plug for an often forgotten bid: the natural invitational raise to 5 of a major. A 5♠ bid here might cause the cognoscenti to turn up their noses, but it can be highly effective. It says: "partner, go on to slam if you have maximum values for your bidding". It will get the job done nicely here.  

As it turned out, partner had the 'nothing' option, but 5♠ was a fortunate make when the ♠Q dropped doubleton.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 8/10/20)

Two for the price of one today.

Suppose you reach 5♣ and the opponents start with two rounds of hearts, forcing you to ruff.

Or alternatively, maybe you reach 5, and again two rounds of hearts, this time forcing you to ruff with the A.

There are no horrible breaks, but you need to play these contracts right. Go for it.

5♣.

There's a club loser for sure, so you need to do something about your (East's) spades.  One possibility is to ruff the spades good, but unless the suit divides 3-3, that's not going to work. A 3-3 break only occurs 36% of the time (that's a percentage you do need to know), so there must be a better plan.

If diamonds are 3-2 (a 68% chance), you can make use of them. The correct play is to cash the AK, and when all follow, play ♣K, then ♣A.  With only one trump outstanding, run the diamonds, discarding spades. An opponent is welcome to ruff in at any time with the master trump, but then you can ruff a spade, and play more diamonds.

5.

This could be ugly. Forcing you to ruff with a top trump exposes you to a possible trump loser. That means you will need to avoid losing a club. The only place for West's third club to go is on an established spade, so in this contract, you need to ruff the spades good. Entries to the East hand are surprisingly limited, and at trick 3, you must immediately play ♠A, ♠K and another spade, ruffing. If spades are 3-3 there will be no problems, and even if they are 4-2, you will likely still be able to establish the fifth spade for a precious discard.

These two problems provide an interesting contrast in declarer strategy: in one, you must establish a side suit; in the other, you must not. In each case, the correct play was rewarded by the actual layout. Unsurprisingly, the various declarers in these minor suit contracts had a lot of difficulty.

How did you score: 2 out of 2, 1 out of 2 or 0 out of 2?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 7/10/20)

The 20 or so Norths who faced this bidding problem today came up with a bewildering number of 'solutions'.

What is yours?

Here are the 5 choices made, and my objections to them:

  Pass: no guts

  Double: and if partner bids hearts?

  3♣: and if partner has diamonds?

  3: and if partner has clubs?

  2NT: and if partner doesn't understand it?

2NT is the correct bid, and was found by Janice MeldrumJenny Gray and Jo-Anne Heywood.  It is the Unusual NT for the minors, and solves all your problems. My 'objection' to it is real, because no good can come of it if partner is confused. But it's logical: how likely is it that you have 16-18 HCP balanced with a spade stopper in this situation? Highly unlikely, and what is more, if you do have it, then partner will have nothing and you'll regret coming into the auction. That logic paves the way for the good-old unusual notrump. We've seen another example recently in VHotD (2/10).

One word of warning though, there is a similar auction where 2NT is defintely not the unusual notrump. It is when your RHO opens 2♠ or 2 and you overcall 2NT. That is a natural bid: the difference between the two auctions is that after the weak-two opening, your side could have a game, or even a slam. Both partners have to be able to distinguish between the two similar sounding but very different auctions.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 6/10/20)

Here's an ugly little bidding problem for you.  What do you rebid when partner responds 2 to your 1♠ opening bid?

Would it make any difference if West had come in with a double of your 1♠?

I apologize for the trick question, but in fact this isn't an ugly problem at all. It's easy. 

Partner passed as dealer ... so 2 is no longer a forcing bid. It shows about 10-11 HCP and 5 hearts.  So 2 is exactly where you want to be, and you should pass. 

One might ask: "couldn't partner have only 4 hearts - after all, responders are allowed to bid 4-card suits, aren't they?".  The answer is that the auction 1♠ - 2 is special: 2 promises a 5-card suit. If partner has only 4 hearts and a 4-card minor, he should respond 2 of the minor, on the principle of bidding 4-card suits up-the-line. And if partner has 4 hearts and no 4-card minor, that makes him 3-4-3-3 shape exactly, and why isn't he supporting your spades?

The takeaways:
  - bids by a passed hand are rarely forcing
  - 1♠ - 2 promises a 5-card heart suit

Good work by Juanita Monahan, Julie Sheehan, Desma Sampson, Judy Banks and Brian Morrow who all passed 2♥. A double by West should have no effect on this decision.

Postscript. Two Souths, Diana Sher and John Moore opened 1 rather than 1♠. What do you think of that?  I think it's a fantastic choice. If West wins the contract, which is certainly possible, then you would much prefer a diamond to a spade lead from partner.  In essence, they treated the ♠97642 as a 4-card suit, and bid accordingly. They both had no difficulty reaching the correct 2 contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 5/10/20)

This deal presents an interesting point of theory that followers of Roman Key Card Blackwood should be aware of.

You are North, and after the auction shown have to decide whether to bid a slam. Partner's 5 bid shows two keycards, but no queen of hearts.

Do you pass or bid 6?

Partner has either both black aces and only low cards in hearts, or one black ace, and the K, but no Q.  Either way there's a certain loser, and a further possible trump loser.

However, three Norths, Barbara HollowayKerin Tulloch, and Geoff Pratt all went on to 6.

They were right to do so. Their seventh heart acts as a surrogate queen. In this auction, partner has (at least) 3 hearts, giving you a 10-card fit. The odds are heavily in favour that the missing Q will drop under the AK in two rounds (or if partner has xxx, there is only one loser). With a 10-card fit, don't worry about the missing trump queen.

If you look at all four hands, it turns out that hearts were 3-0 (an 22% chance) but as long as you cash the K first, West's queen can be finessed. It warmed the heart to see that all three declarers did precisely that.

Finally, in a few auctions, it was South that Blackwooded. In that scenario, North must show the Q even though he hasn't got it! The correct response by North to an RKCB 4NT from South is 5♠, showing two key-cards and the heart queen. If South happens to have the Q himself, he will be puzzled, but will learn from experience (or this article) what the reason is for both players apparently holding that card.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 2/10/20)

Here is an absolutely brutal bidding problem faced by a small number of Easts. 

You have agreed that partner's double of 4 is for takeout. So what do you do?

One possibility is to give up and pass, taking what you can (if anything) from 4 doubled. On this deal, probably down 1 for a poorish score.

Alternatively, you can guess which minor to bid. Good luck with that.

Jenny Gray found a third, elegant solution. She bid 4NT, hoping that partner would construe it as the "Unusual Notrump", showing both minors. This was an excellent bid, and it worked very well when partner, Anne Roberts, did indeed choose a minor.  Diamonds worked out a whole trick better than clubs.

Bidding 4NT in response to a takeout double as showing the minors, rather than Blackwood, is a vastly superior way of playing. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 1/10/20)

This deal is actually mostly about the bidding, but I've already covered this precise situation in VHotD (see Monday 7/9).

To recap, as East, when partner opens 1♣,  your mind should focus on 3NT, 3NT, 3NT. So bid 1 (no club bid will do, unless playing inverted minors), and when partner rebids 1, Bob is your uncle.

Well done to Di Britcliffe, Teck Chan, Christine Paine, Joan Courtemanche and Alan Farrington, who had this auction. (And also to Jo-Anne Heywood, who used inverted minors to reach 3NT.)

This locked them in a great score (>80%), but I want to ask you about the play in 3NT on the 6 lead from South to North's K.

Assuming the clubs are good for 6 tricks, that gives you 10, beating out all other games. Still, amongst our elite group of six tables in 3NT, you can earn a little extra by maximizing your overtricks.

Have a think about this, and come up with a plan.

You can't do anything with the spades. If you play one, the opponents will win and play another diamond, establishing the suit for them. You will have to then take what tricks you have.

The correct line is to play a round of clubs, to clarify that the suit is running. (If it turns out you have a club loser, you will need to lose it, and take perhaps as few as 9 tricks.)  When both follow to the first round of clubs, you should get to the East hand with a club and play a heart to the jack, finessing South for the Q.  If it loses, then too bad, you have to content yourself with +630. But if it wins, as it did, there's your 11th trick. Joan Courtemanche was one declarer who took that strange-looking, but completely safe heart finesse to wrap up 11 tricks.

By the way, if you mentally responded to the play problem with "I play a club to the king", then you may have made a big mistake, if that club was the 2. Do you see why?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 30/9/20)

Today you are North, on defence to East's 4 contract.

Partner leads the 7, and you top dummy's J with the Q, as declarer follows with 2.

Now what? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Partner's 7 doesn't tell you much. It could be singleton 7, or 75 doubleton or even a muddy 975.

Several Norths discounted that last possibility and merrily continued with the A. But declarer ruffed (it was a MUD lead!) and the sky fell in.

Were those Norths unlucky? Not really, because they could indirectly get partner to tell them whether to continue with the diamonds or not.

Brian Morrow found the right move, on the auction shown. He played the ♠A at trick 2, and eagerly awaited a signal from partner. When Larry Allender played a super-encouraging ♠10 (this pair play standard signals, high to encourage), he continued with another spade to reap the three tricks owing to the defence.  Nice work. If Larry had discouraged the spades, Brian would have reverted to diamonds.

This was only an equal top, as several other Norths also found the ♠A play.  But they had help in the auction, because their partners had found a way to support diamonds (not that I'm at all criticizing Brian and Larry's auction).  So now when South led a diamond, they knew it was from three little, and continuing the suit would be fruitless. It's like I said yesterday: the best thing you can do in bridge is support your partner's suit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 29/9/20)

This is a fine deal to write up because it presents interesting problems in the bidding for all four players.

I'll start it off for you. North opens 1♠, East overcalls 2. What should the next four bids be?

Here's my opinions ... feel free to disagree.

South should bid 2♠.  Only 4 HCP I admit, but the spades are charming. What's more, if you don't bid them now at the two level, then later in the auction, where your choice may be to dangerously support at a higher level, you'll wish you had done so lower.

West should bid 3.  This time it's 5 HCP and a load of rubbish, but at least you're not vulnerable.

Psychologically, the very best thing you can do at this game is support your partner. It casts a warm glow over the partnership relationship, and says that you trust your partner to play the hand well. 

North we will assume bids 4♠ ... we'll get back to him.

East has an interesting call. One could certainly pass here and hope to beat 4♠, but if I had to place odds on doing so, they would be considerably less than 50%. Meanwhile, at this vulnerability, 5 will certainly take at least 8 tricks, which makes it a paying sacrifice.  Three down doubled and non-vulnerable is -500; 4♠ making against you is -620. If you think 4♠ is likely to make, you should bid 5.

If you as South bid 2♠, give yourself a pat on the back.
If you as West bid 3, give yourself a pat on the back.
If you as East bid 5, give yourself a pat on the back.

Finally if you were North, and 5 came irritatingly back to you, what should you do? Most Norths passed, but that is a mistake. You have 17 HCP and partner has freely supported your spades. You have the balance of strength, and East is likely taking advantage of the vulnerability to sacrifice. I have no problem with a 5♠ bid here: as it happens it doesn't work, as 5♠ goes down. But if you decide against bidding 5♠, then you have to double 5 for penalties. 

Maggie Truscott was the only North to double 5.  She beat it one trick for a slightly-below-average score, but +100 was considerably better than +50. In fact 5 doubled is the 'par score' on the board: the result achieved when both sides can see all four hands. (Maggie also gets the prize for having the scariest BBO username in the club, 'tentacular': she's a menacing opponent.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 28/9/20)

Freak hands do not make for good lessons, but it's a bit hard for this hand not to be featured in HotD.

Well, you're the dealer, not vulnerable versus vulnerable, desperately in need of a plan.

What's your plan?

I have no plan. But I do have a couple of observations.

Some pairs opened 4 with their stone-cold 10 tricks. Remind me to never double them. The trouble with 4 is that it describes a completely different hand, a much weaker pre-emptive type. So this opening gives up on a possible slam.

Other pairs opened 1, perhaps a teensy bit nervous that it would be passed out. Actually the risk of that catastrophe is very low (if partner is not responding, surely one of the opponents, who will have good shape, will bid). The problem with 1 is that it doesn't really solve the problem. You get another chance, but surely your next bid is going to be 4 ... even that auction doesn't do justice to the playing power of your hand.

So I agree with the three Norths that opened 2♣, Hilary Brear, Pam Richardson and Lindsay Young.

After partner had responded 2♠, Hilary just bid 6 which strikes me as a very good choice. Partner's spade bid helps to fill in your hole in spades, so you should have a fair shot at slam.

Pam and Lindsay followed up with a 3 bid, and both eventually reached 6.

Of course you could view all four hands and say "bad bidding you lot - only a diamond lead (or unlikely spade) allows slam to make", but it strikes me that they bid it best of all. And whaddya know, all three did get the diamond lead!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 25/9/20)

Suppose you are East, declaring 2.  It's hardly your best spot, but the auction is finished, and there's not much you can do about that.*

South leads the ♠3 ... what do you play from dummy, king or small, and why?

(* If you were to email me after the game, which anyone is welcome to do, I would respond by saying that I agree with your 2 bid, and partner's pass of it.)

This game would be a whole lot easier if you could trust your opponents. It's a big no-no to underlead aces on opening lead against a suit contract, but does South know that?  If he does, then you can safely assume that North has the ♠A, in which case you should play low from dummy at trick 1, hoping that South has the ♠Q.  

Aviva Kamil and Tania Nahum were two Easts who trusted South and played low at trick 1. Their "reward" was down 1 for a 48% score on the board. Still, down 2 would have been a wipeout, so at least that was avoided. 

Some Easts got the ♣A lead, and then a switch to a low spade. In this scenario, you can make make no such deductions about the ♠A.  South, having seen the dummy, could well be underleading the ace, hoping that you will guess wrong in this layout. In fact, the stronger the South player, the more likely he is that this is exactly what has happened. Food for thought.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 24/9/20)

Both bidding and play today. 

Bidding. After two passes, what do you bid on the West cards? It looks like an obvious 1 opening, but is it?

Play.  Suppose as West, you end up in 2, as some did. North leads 5, you play low from dummy, South plays 9 and you win Q.

What is your plan?  In particular, in diamonds and hearts ...

Bidding.  Noting that partner passed as dealer, where do you want to play this hand?  A low heart contract is the obvious answer. There's not enough combined strength for a game, there's no non-heart suit that could be of interest, and whilst a notrump part-score could conceivably be the right contract, no auction is going to get you there. (For example if you open 1 and partner responds 1NT, you're going to repeat the hearts, right?)

The correct opening bid here, one that very few people in the entire world would make, is 2. No one today found it, and you shouldn't feel bad about that. But it makes perfect sense if you think about it. It's a bid that both pre-empts the opponents (North on your left might have a good hand) and shuts partner up. That latter scenario is what happened today: partner has 11 HCP, and if you open 1 she may well force the auction to uncomfortably high levels.

In 3rd and 4th seat, opposite a passed partner, it can be a good idea to pre-empt with a goodish hand, to shut all three other players out of the auction.

Play. Dollars to doughnuts, North has the K, and you should plan to repeat the diamond finesse and throw a spade on the third round of diamonds.

But it's the play in trumps that is worthy of note. This is a pure piece of statistical combinations: the correct play is to lead dummy's trump, and put in the 9 (or 10), finessing South for the jack. It has to be done on the first round of the suit, as dummy has a singleton. Stephanie McQueen was (I believe) the only declarer in a heart contract to do this, and she was rewarded with a 90% score for making two overtricks in 2.

Unfortunately there's no easy way that I know of to teach suit combinations. You just have to learn them, I suppose. At the table, you can work it out from first principles by counting cases, however, you may get your opponents reminding you about the damned clock. 

But for the record, playing the king or queen will pay off if North has AJ-doubleton (1 holding) or Jx (4 holdings: one for each of the spot cards).  So 5 in total. Note that you must play your other top honour on the second round of the suit.

Playing a first round finesse will pay off if South has AJx (4 holdings: one for each of the spot cards), or Jxx (6 holdings: 4C2 in statistical parlance, the six different ways of choosing two spot cards from four). You still with me?  So 10 in total.  10 holdings to 5 holdings: the finesse is twice as likely to work as playing high.   On all other setups, it makes no difference what you do. (This is a slight simplificaton, as there are various outcomes available if hearts divide 5-1.)

Phew! Like I say, it's hard to teach. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 23/9/20)

Here's a pleasant bidding problem for you: pleasant in the sense that you have a nice hand.

Partner makes a takeout double of 1: how should you respond?

With 16 HCP and partner showing something approximating opening strength, you need to get to at least a game. So bids like 1, 2, and 3 are simply not enough. None of them is forcing, and partner would have every right to pass them.

Two Souths, Desma Sampson and Peter Hannemann therefore bid 4, and lived happily ever after. No argument from me about bidding 4: partner showed the other three suits, and they picked one of them at the necessary game level.

But some people, and I am one of them, are 'glass-half-empty' types. They fret that partner might not have four hearts: indeed she has only technically promised three of them. They wonder whether, in that scenario, another contract might be better: 3NT perhaps, or 5♣.

For such pessimists, we have the cue-bid, 2. That's what Dell Macneil bid, and I'm with her. The cue-bid shows a strong hand, but uncertainty about where to end up. It starts a natural dialogue with your partner, and generally casts a rosy glow over the auction. As it turned out, partner bid 2 over her cue-bid, and she reached the same 4 contract as the others, but this was an informed auction.

The takeaway: with a good hand but uncertainty about denomination, try a cue-bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 22/9/20)

Here's a problem faced by several Norths in today's open red-point session.

East opens a natural weak 2.  What do you do?

And what would you do if East had opened 3?

I got an email query recently asking: "Can you use a Michaels Cue-Bid after an opening pre-empt?"

Well, here's your answer ... yes, yes, yes!

In some ways, the availability of a Michaels Cue-Bid is even more important after a pre-empt than after a 1-level opening. There's the same amount of communication to be made, but less room to do it in. Here if you make a takeout double (the only conceivable alternative), what will you do if partner responds in clubs?  Guess a suit to bid?

Well done to Cheryle McBride and Adrian Beaumont, two Norths who bid 3 to slide effortlessly into the correct 4 contract.

It was nice to have a hand come up to illustrate the point of the email query that was made to me. But you could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw board 12 from the same set. Same problem. Same solution.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 21/9/20)

This hand reveals some nice points about both strategy and system.

You open 1♣, partner responds 1, and you ...?

If a little voice isn't saying "3NT" into your ear, then you need to get your hearing checked.

You're sitting there with 8 tricks ... only needing one more from partner. Partner bid diamonds: one can hope that she will have diamonds stopped. As for hearts, is it too much to hope for that partner has at least the queen?  Together with your jack, that will combine into a stopper.  Even three little might be enough.  Even two little might be enough. 

The problem with a 3♣ rebid is that it doesn't show the immense power of your hand. It is too likely that partner will pass with the requisite goodies for 3NT.

So well done, very well done, to Moira Righetti and Fran Minson, the only two Norths to rebid 2NT here, showing their 18-19 HCP. The shape wasn't classic, but the outcome was, as partner bid 3NT, East led a normal spade, and they racked up 11 tricks to share the N/S top. You were lacking a heart stopper, but even a heart lead wouldn't stop 3NT.  3-small opposite 3-small is actually not too bad a holding for notrumps (the point being that it's not a great holding for a suit contract). 

And the point of theory? You can use a 3NT rebid here to show a strong hand with a long solid suit. It's the same notrumpy expedition, but tells partner something specific about your hand, which could just help you get to a slam.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 18/9/20)

Today's deal gives us a chance to do a bit of revisional homework (for the original 'lesson', see HotD 26th August).

N/S can make a heart slam here, not that one would ever bid it. But you should of course get to 4, a feat that less than half the field achieved.

After South's obvious takeout double, North has to make a bid, and South react to that. What is the official, correct, okey-dokey auction?

Reviewing the important formula for bidding in the balancing seat (after 1suit - Pass - Pass) ...

Re-opener mentally adds 3 points and bids accordingly
Partner of re-opener mentally subtracts 3 points and bids accordingly

This rule of thumb allows you to avoid passing them out at the one-level when it's appropriate to compete.

So North's 10 HCP becomes only 7 virtual points, and he should content himself with a 2 response, showing about "0-8" points. Most Norths did so ... if partner had doubled directly over an opening bid, this would be a clear 3 jump, showing about 9-11. 

But South, unbeknown to many, actually has a monster. His 15 HCP becomes an 18-point hand, to which he should add more distribution points for the singleton spade. That's sufficient to invite a game, and South should bid 3.  Then North, who is at the top of his "0-8" range accepts and bids 4♥.

2 - 3 - 4 is the correct sequence, after the takeout double, and it was found by 6 of the 34 N/S pairs.  The honour roll of those who had done their homework:

Shirley Bowman - Max Williams
Fiona Trescowthick - Angela Morgan
Constance Bruce - Jill Shirley
Jenny Matheson - Mariette Read
Brenda Glyn - Jan Downing
Warren Cousins - Dell Macneil

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 17/9/20)

We haven't had a lead problem in a while, and this is a good one. 

You have a featureless 1-count, and yet you, and only you, will determine who gets the good score on this deal.

All you have to do is choose a card.

This auction is informative. South Staymaned, and North bid spades. When South went to 3NT, the clear inference is that he has hearts ... why else would he have used Stayman?

If North has spades and South has hearts, there is no good reason to lead a major (if you had to choose one, it would be a heart I suppose).

You should lead a minor, and it's not a complete guess which one.  If partner had long strong clubs, he might have made a lead directing double of the 2♣ Stayman bid. When he didn't, it points (just a little bit) towards a diamond lead.

And lo and behold: a diamond lead holds declarer to 10 tricks. Anything else and it's 12 tricks. An educated lead that pays off.

Very well done to the seven scholarly Easts who found the diamond play: Joy Wauchope, Kerry-Anne Hoad, Patricia Stewart-Uden, Joan Courtemanche, Sue Douglas, Fran Minson and Alan Farrington.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 16/9/20)

There were 22 Norths today who had to wrestle with this tricky hand. I've presented you with one possible auction, and ask this:

1) Do you agree with the 1 opening, or do you prefer 1♣?

2) What now?

1) I don't profess to be the fount of all knowledge when it comes to deciding what suit to open with these awkward 6-5 shapes. When asked, I usually say: "you should choose the suit I don't". A couple of thought processes that can be useful:

  • You might treat a weakish 5-card suit as a 4-card suit.
  • Think about how you will handle a typical rebid problem: here if you open 1♣ what will you bid if partner responds 1♠?  2 is a reverse and shows more strength than you have, and doesn't get across to partner that you have 5 of them. On the other hand, 1 - 2 is no bed of roses either.

Here I think 1 is best. If partner responds 2 I'll stretch to 3♣, also a reverse, but at least here I know partner has 10+ HCP. If partner doesn't respond 2 there shouldn't be serious problems.

2) I admire the iron self-discipline of those Norths who passed partner's 2♠ and played in a 6-0 fit (at least partner's spades are decent, so that contract will make). 

However I agree with Deena Pathy who looked for greener pastures by bidding 3♣.  Then when Gordon Travers, South, went back to 3, she bid 4 and made it!  That was aggressive bidding, but justified. I had a top-level partner once who used to say "AK-sixth is the best side-suit in the world!"  (Can you see why he liked to say that?).

Helen Schapper was the other North who got their side to 4 on a very similar auction. They shared the N/S top scores on the board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 15/9/20)

This deal is an automatic writeup because of West's shape. 4711: it's known as the Eau de Cologne hand.

I hope you don't regard the bidding as smelly: for me, it's come up roses. This West hand needs to play in its long suit, and opposite an opening hand, it's surely worth a shot at game.

Well done to Shayne Wurf, Deb Fogarty and Fran Minson, who were the only ones to conduct this auction.

That's it for the shout-outs, because no one got the play in hearts right. North leads the ♠7: dummy is thorny in the heart department, but otherwise it's a lovely bouquet of aces. What's your plan?

People often panic in this situation and try to take tricks quickly: they start using dummy's entries to trump minor suit cards. But as a parent might tell a child who wolfs their dinner down quickly, there's no prize for finishing first.

Declarers who trump cards in the long trump hand are often making a mistake: they are taking tricks with the long trumps that were always tricks anyway, and it has the effect of making them lose control of the hand. Unless it is aimed at establishing a side suit in dummy, it is not a good plan. 

The correct play here is ... drum roll ... to draw trumps. Win the spade lead in your hand, play A, and when North drops an honour, continue with a low heart.  You will make it by drawing the opponents' trumps with the loss of only two trump tricks. You will win 5 trump tricks, and you have 5 top cards in the other suits. You don't actually have to ruff anything to make this contract.

The takeaway: unless you are trying to establish a side-suit, don't trump in the long-trump hand.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 14/9/20)

Against your 4♠ contract, East leads the ♣Q and you win with the ace.

It seems simple enough ... you could cross to dummy's K, and play the ♠J to finesse for the king.

That's what most declarer's did ... but not one of them. Can you see a sensible alternative?

Cheryle McBride played the ♠A, and East dropped the singleton ♠K offside! 

She drew the rest of the trumps, discarded dummy's remaining clubs on her hearts, and lost only to the A.  Making 12 tricks was an unsurprising top score. Most declarer's made just 10 tricks when the spade finesse lost (losing that spade, a club and a diamond).

In face-to-face bridge, East would glare at North and push her chair back several feet. But in BBO there was no peeking.

I'm not sure whether Cheryle's play was technically the best one, but it had merit. Aside from East's singleton king dropping, if East had ♠Kx, and three hearts, then after the ♠A had drawn only small spades, four rounds of hearts would deliver 11 tricks, and also a top score. Well done to her for seeing the possibility of taking a quick discard.  It is the sort of play one makes when desperate for a top, and who isn't?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 11/9/20)

Before we get to this bidding problem, a couple of notes about North's 2♣ response.

1) When responding, bid 4-card suits up-the-line at the 2-level as well as at the 1-level. So 2♣ rather than 2: after all, if partner has hearts, he'll bid them next, and you easily find your heart fit. The corollary, if you think about it, is that a 2 response to 1♠ shows 5+ hearts.

2) Some Norths responded 3NT (or 2NT, which is clearly not enough). That's wrong, wrongwrong.  A great way in fact to pre-empt yourself and miss a possible heart contract. Whilst I love 3NT bids in general, there's no need to overdo it when you can always make them later.

All right then ... partner rebids the spades, which denies hearts (and diamonds probably) and is highly likely to be a 6-card spade suit.

What now?

Most Norths saw an 8-card fit, and proceeded directly to 4♠. No argument from me.

A few Norths ignored the 8-card fit, and bid 3NT. They were hoping to take the same tricks in notrumps as in spades, and gain an extra precious 10 points. Could work a treat, but their diamonds were a little shaky.

One North, John Foreman, had the best of both worlds. He bid 3, even though he had no intention of ending in a heart contract. Having bid clubs and hearts, he was focussing partner's attention on the diamonds: if she could bid 3NT at this point (with a diamond stopper), then that might well be the higher scoring contract. When partner couldn't bid 3NT, they ended up in 4♠, but having thoroughly explored the possibilities. Well bid!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 10/9/20)

This deal caught my eye because the hand record said that every player had exactly 10 HCP consisting of an ace, a king, a queen and a jack (how often does that happen?), and yet N/S can make 4♠.

Can they get there? Should they get there? How do you think the bidding should go?

6 tables passed it out, for 30% N/S, 70% E/W.

A seventh West, in 4th seat after three passes, opened 1♣  (a violation of the Rule of 15, but he came to play bridge, I suppose). He ended up in 4♣ after spade intervention, and was able to escape for one down and a 60% score. 

I was surprised that six Easts opened 1 in second position. Is that an opening hand? They had mixed results.

Most of the rest of the field had South opening 1♠ in third seat: a reasonable choice.

If West passes, I think North should invite game, for example with 3♠. Yesterday, I extolled the virtues of bidding immediately to the 4-level with a 10-card fit, but this situation is different. Your vulnerable opponents have passed at their first opportunity: you almost certainly have the auction to yourselves. So this is a good time for trying to get to your side's correct contract (delicate bidding), rather than cruder pre-emptive bidding.

Whilst 4♠ can make, it's a very poor contract.

Well done to Kerri Jones who was the only North prepared to let it go in a spade partscore, with her 3♠ bid.

The best auction I saw was from Ella Lupul (South), who opened 2♠ (spades and a minor). Perfect! And then Jeffrey Fallon (North) bid 3♠, which was also perfect: just the right amount of preempting whilst trying to protect a plus score. When Ella took 10 tricks, that was a 75% score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 9/9/20)

What would you do in this situation? Partner opens 1, RHO bids 1♠ and you have to decide what to do with your excellent heart support.

Would your decision change if, instead, RHO had bid 2, a Michaels Cue-Bid, showing spades and an unidentified minor?

Decide, then click [Show Answer].

Often, bridge bidding offers a choice between the delicate and the crude.

Bidding delicately gives you the best chance of reaching your correct contract.  4 may be on here, but it might have no play. A jump to 3, or perhaps a cue-bid of 2♠, will tell partner about the heart support, and help you decide between a final contract of 3 and 4.  I like to describe this as 2-handed bidding.  

Bidding crudely, on the other hand, gives you the best chance of having your opposition reach their wrong contract.  It's a different philosophy. The crude raise to 4 may or may not work for your side, but it certainly won't help the opposition. Your LHO will have to decide then and there whether to bid 4♠. Take a look at North's hand and ask yourself what you would do after a 4 bid. Making bids which disrupt both your side and your opponents I describe as 4-handed bidding. 

This is a deal for crudity. 8 out of 22 Wests were crude, and I salute them: Moya Crowley, Libby Persson, Merren Ward, Billie Mackenzie, Penny Robertson, Dell Macneil, Cecile Senior and Faye Norton-Old.  4 follows the Law of Total Trumps: 10 card fit = bid to a 10-trick contract, immediately.

The delicate bidders let North in, and often resulted in a final N/S contract of 4♠, which indeed is your opponents' correct contract.

Finally a shout-out to two Norths: Rune Dresjvo and Jo-Anne Heywood. Their partners made a Michaels cue-bid, West correctly bid 4 and they bid 4♠!  I like it: always bid 4♠ over your opponents' 4.  But it did them no good: East went on to 5, making easily. That was the other upside of the crude 4 bid: it clued partner into your extra distribution.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 8/9/20)

Here's a bidding situation that nicely illustrates two very important principles.

I'm going to impose the first round of the auction on you. The questions now are:

1) What should South do over 5♣?

2) and if South passes, what should North do?

1) South should pass.  In fact South MUST pass.

It is a fundamental premise that once you make a preempt, you hand captaincy of the auction over to your partner. Some Souths bid 5♠ here: perhaps they felt guilty about not having opened 4♠ in the first place (although they shouldn't).  The fact is that they must lie in the bed that they made with their 3♠ opening. When you make a preemptive bid, do not bid again unless invited to by partner.

2) North should double.

This is the sort of auction where no one knows who can make what. The opening preempt forces everyone to bid by the seat of their pants. Here North is certainly not going to go on to 5♠, so it's a question of whether 5♣ can be defeated. Nothing is certain, but you would hope to make your aces, and that leaves you with three other honour cards that could make a trick. And there's no law against partner providing some help.

In summary, it's more likely that 5♣ will go down than it will make, and on that basis you should double it.  If 5♣X makes, then too bad. As the saying goes: if they don't occasionally make a doubled contract, then you are not doubling enough.

Well done to Richard Fitzherbert (who passed 5♣ as South) and David McKenzie (who doubled it as North). They took their three tricks, for a well-constructed 76% on the board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 7/9/20)

This puzzler stumped a lot of the field tonight, and is worth exploring. It seems innocent enough: partner opens 1♣ and you need to respond.

Can you formulate a plan?

The hand is strong enough to go for a game contract, so the Easts that simply bid 3♣ didn't really have a plan. The problem is that 3♣ is where they played, and that is simply not high enough. 

One East bid 5♣, which worked OK, and I guess can be called a plan, of sorts. 5♣ made for a decent score. The problem with the 5♣ bid is that it leaves 3NT far behind, and 3NT is where the matchpoints lurk.

There are three plans available, all of which give you a shot at 3NT, or if that doesn't work out will at least get you to 5♣, and all were on display tonight. I offer these plans to you at no charge.

1) Splinter bids.  The Robot bid 3, which it then described as "5+♣, 1-, 3-♠, 14+ total points". There's a lot of system in that explanation. An 'impossible' jump in a suit can be used  as a splinter bid, showing a singleton or void, and support for the previously bid suit. In this case at least 5 clubs, as opener may only  have 3. And fewer than 4 spades, as otherwise you would respond 1♠.

But maybe you don't play splinters. Then how about ...

2) Inverted minorsA popular approach that involves (basically) swapping the meanings of 2♣ and 3♣.  3♣ now becomes a weak raise, and 2♣ shows support and 10+ HCP, forcing.  A 2♣ bid here will allow your side to have a real conversation, maybe leading to 3NT.  Jenny Gray (playing with Libby Persson) and John Foreman (with Carole Foreman) both made inverted minor raises, and effortlessly reached 3NT, making an overtrick to share the top score. Ain't science grand?

No inverted minors? Then I offer ...

3)  Fake a suit.  Bid 1.  The world won't come to an end.  You'll get a bid out of partner ... if it's 1 or 1NT, you can bid 3NT with some confidence. Otherwise head to 5♣.  Alison Wright was the only East to make a diamond bid, which showed a good appreciation of the possibilities, and was the right choice lacking the sophistication of options 1 and 2.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 4/9/20)

You could write a book about this deal.

Results were all over the shop. Many North-Souths landed in spade contracts, from 1♠ up to 5♠.  Others defended E/W minor suit contracts, including 5 of a minor, and several neglected to defeat those games ... the defence being a most interesting matter. 

But I can only give one problem for you from the deal, and I choose this one: North playing 4.  Quite a few tables found the heart fit, but this auction was a model of sobriety, with North passing her 3-point hand initially, and then coming to life when South made a nuanced double. 

And it was at this table that South made the correct play, reaping 11 tricks, compared to several declarers that went down in 4.

How do you play 4 by North on a diamond lead?

Raji Muir was the successful declarer.  She followed one of the very useful principles of declarer play:

Set up your side suit early.  

The correct play is to start establishing the spades. You have 3 more entries to dummy, A, K, 9, so there should be ample time to get some spade winners.

The play went: ♠A, spade ruff, trump to the 9, spade ruff, trump to the king, spade ruff. That was four rounds of spades played, exhausting the opponents of their spades. Now a final round of trumps to dummy's ace, and two good spades to discard a diamond and a club. 11 easy tricks.

But not so easy actually, as other declarers played a top trump at trick 2, and suddenly found themselves in deep trouble, when trumps proved to be 3-0. Now there was no time to switch to ruffing a club (East keeps playing trumps), and a key entry had been wasted making it harder to establish spades. The contract can still make, but guesswork is required.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 3/9/20)

Here's a nasty bidding dilemma: the good news being that there is a solution. Either you know it, or you don't.  Your call.

You would like to get to a contract of 3♣. If RHO had stayed silent after 1NT, you could have achieved that with a transfer bid*.

However after 2♠, partner will regard a 3♣  bid as forcing, and not pass it.

The solution is a nifty convention called Lebensohl. A bid of 2NT here is not natural, but says to partner: "Please bid 3♣, and then pass my next bid."

It is a way of competing to the 3-level and no higher. Here you would bid 2NT, and when partner dutifully bids 3♣  you pass it. If hearts or diamonds had been your long suit, you would have bid it then, and partner would pass.

Of course, all bidding conventions have their downsides. Playing Lebensohl, you can no longer make a natural invitational 2NT call. The bridge world decided long ago that the gain of Lebensohl was well worth the cost.

* No E/W had Lebensohl in their kitbag, but Dell MacNeil, playing with Colin Wilshiredoubled 2♠ and explained it as a "stolen bid double" ... in other words, without the intervention she would have bid 2♠ as a minor suit transfer. That solved the problem well, and deserves today's gong.   

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 2/9/20)

Try this rebidding problem in the South seat.

Partner responds 1NT to your 1♠ opening ... and you?

With 20 HCP opposite partner's 6-9, you want to be in a game, but which one?

Some Souths, nervious about what bids might be forcing and what mightn't, bid 3NT, which will usually work OK but might miss a heart fit, 4-4 or even 5-4. As luck would have it, they did.

Other Souths bid 2, perhaps based on "change of suit is forcing" principles, and that's where they played it. For "change of suit is forcing", you need to read the fine-print: it has to be from a suit to a new suit, not from notrumps to a suit. 2 was a non-forcing bid, and North correctly passed it.

Still more Souths avoided this whole problem by opening 2♣ (or even 2NT) in the first place. That mostly worked, but I don't fancy it. Apart from the fact that your hand is simply not that strong (1♠ could easily be the right contract), opening 2♣ with two-suited hands is often ill-advised, as the auction will get very high very quickly as you try to show your suits.

Just two Souths, Libby Persson and Henry Gasko, bid 3 over the 1NT response. That bid is completely and utterly forcing, and therefore they gave themselves every chance of reaching the correct denomination. Partner duly bid 4 and they played it there. This was the official Northern-Bridge-Club-Approved auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 1/9/20)

Some challenging declarer play today, which defeated all but one of our contestants.

Before we get to that, what do you think of West's 3NT bid? I like it ... although you might (and actually do) have a 4-4 spade fit, with that dull shape and modest strength, it feels like a hand that is more likely to make 9 tricks in notrumps than 10 tricks in spades.

South leads 5 to East's 3NT, 2, 3 and you win 7.  So that's one trick, 4 hearts, 2 spades, and a club gets you to 8. You'll need to do something with the spades, and you don't want to let North in, because he will play a diamond, and it seems South has AQxx(x) poised.

So you lay down the ♠A, and lo-and-behold, South plays the ♠Q. Interesting. Suddenly there's the possibility of taking 4 spade tricks, which would fulfil your contract.

If South started with a singleton ♠Q, go over to dummy's J and run the ♠10, exterminating North's ♠J.

But if South started with ♠QJ, play the ♠K next and wrap up the suit that way.

Which is it to be?

Jim Stewart was the only East (I believe) to find that far-sighted play of ♠A at trick 2, having been raised to 3NT by his partner Brian Morrow

And now he did the right thing, playing for the queen to be singleton: he crossed to dummy and finessed in spades. +600 ... I'll need to investigate why that wasn't a top score.

The reason that was the correct play in theory as well as practice relates to the Theory of Restricted Choice, which is far and away the most mind-boggling aspect of the game. 

I could spout on about Restricted Choice until the cows come home, and still many players wouldn't get it. It has fooled professional mathematicians. But in bare essence, there are three layouts where you can pick up the spade suit for four tricks here (given there is only one entry to dummy, and ignoring the foolproof North with doubleton ♠QJ):  South with doubleton ♠QJ, South with singleton ♠Q, South with singleton ♠J.  In two of these three layouts, finessing on the second round is the winning move, and so Jim went correctly with the 2:1 odds. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 31/8/20)

I've been playing competitive bridge for almost 50 years, and so have seen most of the tricks in the game.

But tonight, there was something new for me. Let me present it to you as the Lead Problem From Hell. Leading away from kings in a suit contract is regarded these days as a Very Bad Thing, so holding this hand would seem to be punishment for some misdeed.

What's your poison?

Many Norths faced this, sometimes against lower spade contracts (but all the E/W auctions involved only spade bids). To a man or woman, they led a diamond ... straight up into declarer's AQ. Whilst the play contained further complexities, that was surely not a good start for the defence.

Leads from kings against suit contracts are dangerous because of the risk that you will subsequently never make your king, as happened here. But there was one suit in which your king will certainly live to fight another day, and that is trumps. I would have led a low spade (although I do wish I didn't have the ♠10). 

What you really want is a clue from partner. Glancing at her diamond ring perhaps, or clutching at her heart. This brings me to my learning point. Annette Ruegg, Cheryle McBride, Geoff Pratt and John Enconniere all doubled 1♠.  Normally I loathe these flat hand takeout doubles ... you're meant to be short in their suit, not 3 cards. But here it served a real purpose: to try to get a bid out of partner which will help with the opening lead to a very possible final spade contract.  All four players saw a heart bid from their partner, and subsequently led one. The heart lead is easily best on this layout, putting declarer into their hand and making her do all the work. That's a trick I'm going to remember.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 28/8/20)

Bridge is just a beautiful game. As evidence, I give you this offering.

You find yourself in a club contract.  West leads a heart, East plays the king and you top it with the ace. All follow when you play the ♣A.

Now what? (Don't rush it.)

Did you solve it? Your next club play from hand must be, explicitly, the seven, winning the trick with dummy's 10.

Then lead the ♠J from dummy: West can win the ♠A and play a red suit to put you back into your hand, but now you triumphantly play your ♣3 over to dummy's ♣4 (the enemy has no trumps left) to lead dummy's ♠10, successfully finessing East for the queen.

Who would have thought dummy's ♣4 could be such a valuable card?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 27/8/20)

When I see a play problem with South as declarer, I grab it. So nice not to have to swivel your head 90 or 180 degrees to play it.

The auction was interesting. South seemed to be following the rule Always bid 5♠ over their 5, which I must say is a new one for me.  It doesn't look to have worked here, as it's likely both 5 and 5♠ will fail. Still, all of North's and South's decisions seem reasonable.

But the play's the thing. West leads A, then switches to ♣K. Take it from there.

Trumps need to be drawn, but how? There are only three trumps out, so you can probably pull them without a problem, but what if one defender has all three? Then you will want to have played the 'right' honour on the first round that will allow you take a proven finesse on the second round.

You must ask yourself: which defender is more likely to be void? And the answer is clearly West, who has both a lot of hearts, and bid on to 5 over your 4♠. That's the bid of a player who has a void spade, not ♠Qxx.  So play the ♠K at trick 2, and when West shows out, you can finesse East out of her queen. If you carelessly play a spade to the ace, you will find yourself with a trump loser.

And miracle of miracles, your 5♠ bid was a stunning success ... it went down, but 5 was making, losing to only the two minor suit aces.

Well done to Brian Morrow (who with Jim Stewart had the auction shown), Bob Leighton and Lindy Anderson, who all played 5♠ correctly. And a shoutout to Hilary Brear, the North player who put Bob into it. (Northern Bridge Club regulars will know that Hilary is absolutely fearless when it comes to the bidding.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 26/8/20)

Often when I write this column, I am a little irritated because the setup isn't quite perfect for the point I want to get across. 

But this deal is perfect: you could put it in a book.

What do you do as South on this auction?

When your LHO opens 1 of a suit, and it's passed around to you, there is a rule-of-thumb to apply, and it's a good one:

Mentally add 3 points to your hand and bid accordingly.

So you have 14 HCP, balanced with a spade stopper. Add 3 points gets you to 17. With 17, of course you have the world's most obvious 1NT overcall. You should bid 1NT.

Now look at the North hand. The rule-of-thumb for partner of the reopening bidder is this:

Mentally subtract 3 points from your hand and bid accordingly.

That way the world stays in balance. North has 10 HCP, subtracts 3 to get 7, and therefore passes the 1NT overcall. And 1NT is the right contract. As I said, someone should stick it in a book.

There were 23 pairs facing this problem, and two got it right: Cecile Senior & Paulina Baker and Margot Moylan & Rod Binsted.  What's particularly impressive about the latter pair is that they were pickup, via the partnership desk. They don't even live in the same state. But they both knew the 'rule'. 

As for the other 21 pairs, well it was horrible, just horrible. Some Souths passed out 1♠ and found they couldn't beat it. Others doubled, and N/S reached a diamond contract in a 4-2 fit. Yet others correctly bid 1NT, but their partners took them to 3NT. Ouch!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 25/8/20)

Today it's a pleasure to report on some really advanced bidding.

North was Lindy Anderson (BBO: lindyken), South was Ken Anderson (BBO: kenlindy). Their BBO usernames fry my brains: I can never seem to work out who's who. But I digress.

Their auction, all explained at the table:

1: normal
3: strong raise (notrump raisers can think 2NT or 3NT)
4NT: Roman Key Card Blackwood
5: two keycards, no Q
6♣: asking partner to bid 7 with the ♣K
7: OK then!

Impressive. Five others bid to 7, but none with such startling accuracy. Well done anyway to: Jean Barbour - Greg Nicholson, Helene & Peter Harkin, Susan Douglas - Deb Fogarty, Pam Davey - Gail Feller and Margaret & Kevin Lehmann.

That asking bid is a neat trick: you might like to add it to your armoury. You just need to be absolutely certain that you are playing in another denomination, so that the asking bid won't get passed.

Superb as the Anderson's auction was, it wasn't quite perfect. Can you spot the flaw?

If South has the two missing aces and the ♣K, 7NT is just as cold as 7. Then you don't have to share the top with five others.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 24/8/20)

Here's a "simple" opening bid decision for you. No hints, no clues.

The robot passed. She had probably been programmed not to open a weak two with a void, and no other opening bid was permitted. Foolish robot!

A majority of the field opened 2♠ (or its Multi equivalent 2). Some of them either played it there, or defended an undoubled N/S diamond contract. If you look at all four hands, you will see that this was not a nice result, as E/W can actually make 6♠. A few of the 2♠ openers got to 4♠ because of helpful competition from their opponents.

Four Easts, Elizabeth Angelatos, Susan Everist, Jenny Gray and Rune Drevsjo, opened 1♠. They of course had no difficulty getting to 4♠ and earning their 70% score on the board.

Why is this hand way, way too strong for a 2♠ opening?  The answer is through a backup procedure you should use when estimating the worth of a hand: it is to count losers. This is a 5-loser hand: 2 hearts, and the top 3 clubs. The fourth and fifth clubs you expect to become eventual winners.  That makes it worth 8 tricks, a powerful hand indeed. Just as a benchmark, the typical "normal" opening 1-bid is based on a 7-loser hand.

I texted this hand to my regular partner, Ben Thompson and asked him what he would do.  He texted back, and I quote: "1♠. Don't want to miss a slam."  That's why he's my partner. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 21/8/20)

Suppose you are playing 4 as East. South leads a club to North's ♣A, and North plays a club back.

The hand doesn't seem complicated: you plan to lose to the ace and king of hearts, and take the rest. Could there be any bumps in the road?

The main potential bump is a 4-1 heart break. You may or may not be able to overcome that. 

The key to the hand is that, whereever you decide to win this trick, your next play should be a low heart. Then should the second hand to play have a singleton A or singleton K, they will be forced to play it "on air". You will retain the Q, J and 10 to deal with the other defender's remaining three hearts.

Several players went down by leading the Q from the East hand. North won the singleton A, and South subsequently was able to win two more heart tricks with their remaining K9x. These declarers were following the maximum of playing the honour from the short hand. They forgot subclause (i) which says: if you can, lead towards the honour in the short hand. 

Leone Carberry, Brian Morrow and Barb Carter  were amongst those who ensured they led towards the Q. There were probably others, so good work by them also.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 20/8/20)

After partner opens 1, you wait patiently for her to request an Undo. No way has she got a 1 bid, given your hand!

But no Undo is forthcoming, and you are forced to assume that she actually meant it. 

Life's too short to worry about the delicacies of this deal. You want to know how many aces partner has, and there's no time like the present. So you bid 4NT.

What do you do if partner shows you one ace?
What do you do if partner shows you two aces?

Partner has one ace

Bid 6. You're missing an ace, but surely that will be the only loser. 

Yes, once in a blue moon, you will be missing the ace and king of spades, but they haven't led a spade yet. Life's too short to worry ... etc etc.

Partner has two aces

Well now! What about a grand slam? A couple of Norths bid 7 here, which was good thinking. Partner has to have something beyond the two aces, and 7 will surely be somewhere between a decent contract and a laydown contract. But they don't get a shoutout here, sadly, because ...

Is 7NT a possibility. Why not ask for kings?  When partner shows you two kings, you can count partner's ♠AK, AK, and your 7 diamonds and  ♣AK.  2+2+7+2 = 13 stone cold tricks.

Well done to Joan Courtemanche and Tom Hackett who went through the full Blackwood rigmarole to land 7NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 19/8/20)

The area of the game I find hardest to both play and teach is defence. Perhaps that's because defence is rather like chess, a game of pure logic, and I am hopeless at chess.

Oh well, here goes. You are South. Against 4♠, your partner leads J, you win A, and declarer plays Q.  

Your move.

Defence is all about constructing the two unknown hands based on this assumption: Neither partner nor declarer are insane. I know, insert appropriate joke here. But whilst you might have originally hoped partner has led a singleton jack of hearts and can now ruff, it just isn't possible. That would mean that declarer started with KQ8, and what sane player would waste the queen on the first round, exposing himself to a second loser in the suit?

It is medically certain that partner started with J8 and declarer KQ, in which case a heart return by you is futile.

Lots of Souths returned a heart, leading to an easy overtrick for declarer, who now had time to establish the diamonds and throw a club from dummy. Sue BeckmanMiriam Miller and Angela Morgan astutely switch to the ♣K, establishing a third trick for the defence and an 85% score on the board. Good D.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 18/8/20)

A bit of system today.

But first, I noticed that several Norths passed this hand as dealer.  They had fallen foul of Aces and Spaces Syndrome where the lack of picture cards deceives a player into undervaluing their hand. I had thought that this illness might only occur in face-to-face bridge, where you can see the physical cards, but apparently not. It is an on-line disease as well.

You open 1, partner responds 1 and RHO comes in with 1♠.

Now what?

Nothing quite fits. 1NT, with just the single unimprovable spade stopper, seems inappropriate. Bidding 2 would show 4-card support.  Passing is possible, but your hand has actually got better for suit play, hoping that partner can ruff spades (or overruff East).  All these flawed choices were chosen by our Norths.

That leaves double. Several Norths doubled, but without alert or explanation, so I imagine they were uncertain as to what it means. Making a takeout double with a doubleton in the one unbid suit seems weird.

A bit of history. Back in his student days, future American superstar Eric Rodwell played with a guy called Ken Bloom. In these situations, Bloom would continually and obstinately support Eric with just 3-cards, and it was driving him nuts. So he said to Ken: "look, if you have 3-card support for me, don't raise: double". Thus was born the Bloom Obstinancy Double, as Eric named it.

It was a brilliant bidding invention. Since renamed more boringly the Support Double, it applies in the following auction: you open with a suit, partner responds in a new suit, and the next hand intervenes with a non-jump bid.

Double by opener then shows exactly 3-card support in responder's suit. A direct raise guarantees four, and if you do something else, including pass, you probably have at most a doubleton. If the opponent's intervention is a double, then you can make a Support Redouble, again showing 3-card support for responder's suit.

Actually one North did make a Support Double, fully explained, and it was the Robot. Support Doubles have been coded into the Standard system used by the BBO software: that's how entrenched it is. You should add it to your armory. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 17/8/20)

There were heaps of interesting boards tonight, but the Director was rather busy, so didn't have time to examine everything. But this deal did tell a simple and useful story.

Partner opens 2, and the next hand passes. Your bid.

I'll give you a hint. The hand record says that you've already gone past your last making contract.

Geoff Pratt was the only South to pass. Some Easts came in (with 3 or double, both rather dangerous bids), and if my calculations are correct, Stan Angelidis was the only South to pass at that point.  They share the Monday gong.

This deal illustrates the fluidity of the game. South has a very nice hand, 6-5 shape with solidish clubs, but their hand self-destructs before their very eyes when partner opens 2. It's not easy to take a breath and re-evaluate the situation, but those two players did, and they came up with the correct answer.

A couple of Souths responded 3♣ and their partner passed, thus surviving to a degree. In my universe, 3♣ is a forcing bid, but perhaps those partnerships had a different agreement. Still, they were rather fortunate that the 2 opener had some useful values for a club contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 14/8/20)

This hand struck me as providing an interesting bidding decision.

You open 1NT, showing 15-17 HCP. Partner transfers to spades, then bids 3, a natural bid. She should have approximately 5 spades, and 4 hearts and about 8-10 HCP (noting that she passed originally).

This exact problem was faces by quite a few Easts. You should definitely go back to spades, into your 5-3 fit. But do you bid 3♠ or 4♠?

The question is whether you consider this hand to be a maximum or a minimum. If you just look at HCP, you are 15 in a 15-17 range. A minimum ...

BUT

  • there's a ruffing value: the doubleton diamond
  • there's the wonderful gorgeous beautiful Q, which fills in your partner's second suit
  • there's the three aces, 100% certain tricks
  • I won't even bother mentioning the ♣10, which combined with the ♣J may provide tricks in some circumstances

This hand is not minumum. It's not even middle-of-the-road. It's a big maximum hand, and you should do as John Foreman did, bid 4♠. That fine contract makes rather easily, with 15 HCP opposite 9. 

The moral is: there's a lot more to bridge bidding than points. It's what they are (aces are significantly undervalued on the 4-3-2-1 scale, as are tens), where they are, and how they combine together.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 13/8/20)

Consider this deal, for which I will show you all four hands and the auction. 2♠ doubled made (it can't be defeated), for a near top for E/W, near bottom for N/S.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to critique the auction.

Bridge is not played on an ideal plane. Despite the dreadful N/S result, I regard this as a darned good auction.

First North (Alison Wright) made the correct 1NT overcall. Lots of North's doubled 1, but they would have been stuck had partner responded 1♠ (a 1NT rebid would show 19-21 HCP). Perhaps some Norths didn't like their ♠Jx, but that suit hasn't yet been bid by the opponents. Not bidding 1NT is like being afraid of crossing the street.

East (Deena Pathy) bid 2♠: again many Easts were intimidated into passing, but at favourable vulnerability, why not compete for the contract?

South (Trish O'Brien) passed of course.

West (Gordon Travers) recognized that partner's bid, even though a change of suit, was non-forcing after the 1NT overcall, so he correctly passed. 

Now Alison as North had a decision to make. All her counterparts passed it out in this position, and usually 2♠ made, for a lousy N/S score. She however backed in with a takeout double, hoping to find a winning contract in another suit. If N/S had been non-vulnerable, this double would be clearcut in my opinion. Even vulnerable it was a worthwhile effort.

But ...

It put Trish as South in a no-win position. Her only 'suit', such as it was, was ♣8753. Yuck!  I think she did the right thing to roll the dice and try to defeat 2♠ doubled. It was not to  be: c'est la vie!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 12/8/20)

Try your hand as North, playing a spade contract. I've made it 4♠ here, but the problem applies however many spades you are in.

East leads A, K and a third diamond, which West ruffs. Curses!  Now West leads 10, J, Q, A. It just keeps getting worse. You have to make the rest, which seems impossible: there's a heart loser.

In such circumstances, when things look dire, you should ask yourself the question: "what layout of the cards allows me to make this?".  If you can find one, then assume that is indeed the layout, and make the necessary play. If it doesn't work, then at least you have given it your best shot.

Did you visualize a winning layout? You can just click  [Show All Hands] to see the most likely one.

It is that East started with ♣Kxx (or shorter, but with the king), and the remaining two spades dividing 1-1. Then the play is smooth:

♣A
low spade to dummy's ♠K (drawing the remaining trumps)
club ruff high
low spade to dummy's ♠9
club ruff high, extracting East's ♣K
low spade to dummy's ♠8
triumphant play of ♣Q, throwing your heart loser

It's not difficult, but you have to visualize it, and play for it. Several didn't, but Penny Robertson and Barb Carter did for fine scores.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 11/8/20)

Today you are North, on defence to East's 3 contract.  Partner leads 8. Declarer wins A and plays the 10.  The question is whether you should play the Q or the 5.

Here are two cliches to "help" you:
- second hand low
- cover an honour with an honour

All right, they don't help at all. They are saying different things. But you can deduce the correct play through pure logic. 

Give it a try, then click [Show Answer].

The idea behind "2nd hand low" is that declarer may well play a high card to this trick, so why waste yours?

The idea behind "covering an honour" is that it will help promote any high cards in partner's hand. 

On the auction, declarer has 6 or 7 diamonds, which means partner has 4 or 3 of them. The possibility of promoting winners in partner's hand is particularly live here, and if you look at all four hands, you will see that playing Q promotes partner's lowly 9 into a trick. If you play low, however, declarer will let the 10 ride, and subsequently be able to draw trumps without losing one.

There are many other setups where covering will promote extra tricks for partner. Most Norths played 2nd hand low, but Jenny Gray and Jim Stewart both covered to obtain an excellent score.

There are no certain answers to this type of decision. In general though, the shorter you are in the suit, the more you should consider covering. If you're short, partner is long, and you may promte winners in his hand. The longer you are in the suit, the more you should consider playing low, trying to save your honour as an eventual winner. For example, if you had held Qxxx on this deal, you would play low, knowing that eventually your queen will come good.

It's a difficult game ... but of course, you already knew that.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 10/8/20)

Here's a deal that might have driven several Easts to the bottle. It starts innocently enough with a simple auction, and you find yourself on lead to 3NT.

What's it to be? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Against these sorts of auctions, where the opponents haven't investigated the majors, it's advised to select a major suit, and here you have two of them.

I can't think of a reason not to lead your stronger one, so the only issue becomes which heart?

I've pointed out before in this series, when leading to notrumps, that if you have a sequence, and there are three high cards involved, lead the top card of the sequence part.

That applies here: you have the K, 10, 9 in hearts, with the 10 and the 9 in sequence. You should lead the 10: this might do some good, such as, for example, trapping dummy's jack.

And it might do other good. In this case it unblocks the suit for the defence. After three rounds of hearts, you still have your precious 6, which you can play over to your partner's 7, allowing your side to run 5 hearts and defeat their silly 3NT.

But no, all the Easts followed the apparently unbreakable "4th highest" mantra and led their 6, killing their side's chances.

So I will have to look to a North and South to congratulate, and I found one. Don Tylee (North) and Robin Hecker (South), also known I believe as The Wrecker, had a rather impressive auction to the impeccable 5♣ contract and scored a nice overtrick when East led a spade.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 7/8/20)

There's no better feeling (in my view) than sitting down to a game of duplicate bridge and picking up your first hand of the day. A couple of hours full of interesting mental challenges await.

You are sucked to the table and presented with this.

So are you opening 3♣ or not?

I would say that players who like to bid properly do not.
And players who like to win do.

The problem with opening 3♣ is not the void (the advice against opening preempts with a void is just a load of old rubbish). It is that the hand is rather lacking in playing tricks. You clearly have 8 losers (♠AKQ, AKQ, ♣AK) and therefore only 5 winners. If partner can contribute nothing, and you are doubled in 3♣ you will go down 800 points. The 3♣ bid is a violation of the Rule of 2 and 3.

Still, that would be unlucky. So many good things can happen after you open 3♣, such as the opponents not knowing what to do.

The first table I looked at, Andrew  Slutzkin opened 3♣. East bid 3♠, Susan Everist as South bid 5♣ (a fine bid conforming to the Law of Total Trumps), and this was allowed to play, down two undoubled, and a good score.

Sorry, I didn't have the energy to check what happened at the other 30 tables! But well done to the Norths who passed initially. And well done to the Norths that didn't.  On that positive note: have a great weekend!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 6/8/20)

Here's a problem that was faced by a little over half the field. Partner opens 1♠ and your RHO overcalls 2♣. 

What say you? Decide, then click [Show Answer].

  • Some Norths doubled to show their 4 hearts.
  • Others bid 2 to show hearts and 10+ HCP.
  • A few bid 2NT, emphasizing the points and club stoppers.
  • And yet others compromised with a 2♠ raise.

To all of these Norths, I say: "what is wrong with a final contract of 2?"  Your opponents are vulnerable. If you pass and partner passes out 2♣ with a minimum opener, then West will go down hundreds and hundreds when all you make is some lousy partscore.

Jenny Gray, Colin Wilshire and Col O'Brien all correctly passed 2♣ as North.  But it was only Col O'Brien's partner, Anne-Marie Withers, who then went ahead and passed it out. +300 earned them over 90% of the matchpoints.

Now let's look at all the hands and make a few comments.

First of all South, after 2♣ is passed around to them. The other two Souths bid 2, a harmless enough choice, but not what their partner wanted to hear!  If you decide against passing it out, it's much better to double 2♣ for takeout. It could get you to a winning heart contract, but much more importantly, it caters to a final contract of 2♣ doubled. 

Finally West. That rubbish is not a vulnerable 2♣ overcall. It probably isn't even a non-vulnerable 2♣ overcall. An ordinary 5-card suit and two doubleton-queens swaying in the breeze, both of which were worth precisely nothing. So a small hat-tip to the Wests who did indeed pass. This was a deal for passing.

Hand of the week 3/12

I'm glad I didn't hold this North hand last night.

What would you do when your partner opens 1♠?

Nothing fits.  The "book" answer is to pass, showing 0-5 points.  That's probably what I would do: I'm hoping that my left-hand opponent will make a bid, then I will later be able to show my long clubs without misleading partner into thinking I have points.

If you click [Show all hands] you will see that my pass doesn't work out very well.  1♠ will be the final contract, and it is not the contract of our dreams.

Looking down the scoresheet, I see that not a single player with those cards did in fact pass partner's opening bid.  The alternatives are to respond 2♣, which is telling a big lie as it promises 10 HCP, or 1NT, showing 6-9 HCP.  I prefer 1NT: I'm hoping (expecting) another bid from partner, and now I can show my clubs.

If you do get into the bidding, the REAL key to the hand is to insist on a club contract.  2 N/S pairs got to 3NT, and that contract is hopeless, because there is no entry to the long clubs.  But the other 5 pairs did superbly, bidding to 5♣, an excellent contract that makes.  The North players Roll of Honour for getting to 5♣ is: Liz Wilby, Larry Allender, Raie O'Brien, Marie Warncken and Grant Scott.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 5/8/20)

North has "super-accepted" South's transfer bid, so it's your lead to 4♠.

A trump would be worse than pointless, as it has every chance of skewering partner's spade holding.

A club would be equally bad, as in all likelihood you are holding the ♣AQ over declarer's ♣K.

So it's the choice between the red suits. 

Decide which, then click [Show Answer].

I can't think why the fact that one suit has 4 cards and the other 3 indicates anything. So is it a flip of a coin?

Not quite. Look at the auction: South bid 3, a transfer bid. If West had strong hearts, she could have doubled that bid, to help partner with the lead. The fact that partner didn't double 3 makes it just a teensy-weensy bit more likely that she has good diamonds rather than good hearts. That tips me towards a diamond lead. I'm not sure if Ros Rodger, Maggie Kelly and Tania Nahum had the same reason, but they all led diamonds, which I think is the correct lead. So incidentally did the Robot, not that anyone cares.

Now take a look at all four hands. In fact West did have powerful hearts, and should double 3 as a lead directional effort. It's totally unlikely that E/W can win the auction in hearts, but a Good Samaritan will help partner with one of the toughest opening leads in bridge: up to a 2NT opener. Akiko Stark, Heather Trumble, Fiona Ferwerda, Teck Chan and Carole Foreman all astutely doubled 3.

As it turned out, merely avoiding a black suit lead is enough to defeat 4. The defenders will take a spade, a heart and two clubs as long as they play passively. But the lead-directing double and the inference available when it is not made is a concept worth remembering.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 4/8/20)

This deal struck me as raising an interesting point of system.

As North, you have a splendid but complicated hand ... 4441 shapes are like that.  You start with a double of 1 and partner responds 1.

Your move.

This hand represents a trap for many players ... did you fall in?

Partner is showing between 0 and about 7 HCP for their 1 bid. The trap is getting into the mindset that because partner has bid something, she has to have something. You forced her to bid, with your takeout double.

Look at it arithmetically. Give West at least 12 HCP for the opening bid. You have 21. That's 33 accounted for. 7 HCP remain to be shared by West, East and South. You expectation for partner is 2.33 HCP. Depressing, isn't it?

I can't think of any better option here than veering into notrumps, and you should bid just 1NT. This actually describes your hand pretty well, in fact. If a direct 1NT overcall depicts about 15-18 HCP, then a 1NT bid after doubling shows a stronger range, about 19-21. That's what you've got.

So good work by Mariette Read and David Hudson with their 1NT bids. They made their contract, although sadly didn't score all that well. The really good scores were achieved by the pairs whose E/W opponents committed suicide by bidding too much themselves. So virtue had to be its own reward. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 3/8/20)

It was serious red points tonight, so here's a serious hand to go with it (from the Open section).

Partner's 1NT rebid shows about 12-14 HCP, balanced. Your bid.

Suppose instead, West had rebid 1 rather than 1NT? What would your bid be then?

Oodles of Easts, after either 1NT or 1, bid 3 and when partner passed, they were unhappy. When dummy came down, they remained unhappy. And when they'd racked up 12 tricks, they were extremely unhappy.

(It is a fact of life that when you stay low, all the finesses work and breaks are even; when you bid 'em up, your finesses fail and the breaks are horrible.)

So after partner's 1NT bid, you should either make a forcing bid (typically 2 'new minor forcing' or 2 'game force in 2-way checkback'), or else ...

bid 3NT, the bid of champions. That's what Mairead Kelly did, and 12 tricks later she had her equal top. A few other pairs got to 3NT, but none as impressively as Mairead. She rates herself as 'beginner' in her BBO profile. I think not!

After the 1 rebid, East has the right to be worried about spades, it being the one unbid suit. A fourth-suit-forcing bid is called for, which in this specific auction, 1♣ - 1 - 1 is usually a 2♠ bid (1♠ would be natural). Partner bids 2NT, showing a spade stopper, and you bid 3NT with relief.

Finally, which is the correct rebid with that West hand, 1 or 1NT? 1 is normal, but followers of Walsh (google it) would bid 1NT. I'll spare you the 2-hour seminar that explains why.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 31/7/20)

Life is full of unpleasant suprises ... our state has been experiencing them full-on recently.

The virus seemed to spread into the bridge today, with a series of ghastly misfits. Here's the current instalment of "Revolting Hand of the Day". 

Partner rebids his suit, your void. What now? Decide, then click [Show Answer].

The hand record is a curiosity: it says your side can make 1 of anything: 1♣, 1, 1, 1♠, 1NT; E/W can't make a contract. So you're too high already, and are likely to reap a poorish score. (The N/S pairs that did well were those that chose to let the opponents play something.)

But three Souths followed a maxim that I think is worth stating: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

So well done to Elizabeth Fogarty, Sally Thornton and David McKenzie, who passed, and allowed their partners to do their best in the relatively shallow hole of 2

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 30/7/20)

Suppose you are in a spade contract as West, and North leads 2. (The bidding is interesting as well, but today, the play's the thing.)

After winning the A, try formulating a plan, then click [Show Answer].

You're in dummy, and it rather looks like you won't be back there for a while! So you need to make the most of it.

There are finesses possible in clubs, diamonds and even spades. (However, you wouldn't plan to finesse in spades, as you have 9 of them, and would normally play for the drop.)

Many declarers in this position were in a hurry to draw trumps. They led a spade to the ace, then the ♠K, discovering that North still had the ♠Q.  At this point, they found themselves stuck in their hand, with no good play available. I don't even want to look at what they did next. Lost far too many tricks, I imagine.

The perceptive declarers used their A entry to take a minor suit finesse at trick 2. And the best one to take is to lead a club to the queen. Because whether it wins or loses, you expect to be able to, later in the play, ruff a club in dummy, giving you a second entry (maybe even a third entry if spades behave) to take diamond finesses. 

Well done to Stephanie McQueen, Dell MacNeil, Deb Fogarty and Michael Ryan, who all cleverly played a club from dummy at trick 2.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 29/7/20)

This was a lively deal, although it might not seem so from the North seat. And yet North holds the key: one of the charms of the game is that a weak hand can still have a great influence on the result.

What do you bid in this situation? What about if West had bid 4 rather than 3?

Most Norths passed in this (or a similar) situation. They'd given their all with 1NT: what more could partner expect of them?

Still, Kx is rather lovely support of partner's spades, and you are not vulnerable. Robyn Sutton and Virginia Cameron both bid 3♠, saw their partner push on to 4♠ and then make that contract. That was very good judgment.

Several Norths had to deal with a 4 bid from West. That's tough - North is so weak - and they all passed. And 4 was an easy make for E/W: this was a double-game-swing hand.

If only they had remembered Newton's third law of bidding: always bid 4over their 4.  It's the action and equal-and-opposite reaction of bridge.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 28/7/20)

Here's a bidding decision that really separates the sheep from the goats.

The field came up with a large array of selections for opener's rebid, in ascending order: 1NT, 2, 2, 2♠ and 3♠.

In my not-particularly-humble opinion, one of these bids is the right choice. The remainder are 100% wrong.

Can you pick the winner?

It's true that all the choices have flaws:

    1NT: with a singleton club?

    2: you call that a 6-card suit?

    2: 13 HCP is not a reverse!

    2♠: missing a fourth spade.

    3♠: what substance are you on, and can I have some? 

Some of the flaws are serious. 1NT with a singleton in an unbid suit is totally unacceptable. That's a huge distortion.  Sometimes rebidding a 5-card suit (2 in this case) is a least-of-evils choice, but this suit is poor, and what's worse is that it's a minor. 2, a reverse, and a popular choice, tells a dirty filthy lie. (Mostly partner rebid 2NT, and the reverser, feeling guilty, passed, leaving N/S in the wrong denomination at the wrong level.)

2♠ does lack the fourth spade, but there's a nice side-suit singleton, so you may be able to score a ruff or two, it describes the general strength of the hand, and importantly, it gets you to a major suit. Can you see where I am going with this?

The one North who jumped to 3♠ made a huge overbid, but at least he was on the right track.

The lesson of the day is: giving a 3-card major raise can be the best compromise in difficult rebidding situations. Good work by Jan Lonergan, Carolyn Righetti and Helge Pedersen, who all found it.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 27/7/20)

On this deal, West is in the hotseat. Partner's jump to 3 shows extra values (around 16 HCP) and 4-card heart support. You've agreed to play Roman Key Card Blackwood, and this seems a good time to wheel it out. Partner's 5♠ response shows two key cards and the heart queen.

Now what? Decide for yourself, and click [Show Answer].

Partner has AQ and A: that's 10 HCP. She has more high cards somewhere. What's more, if partner has diamonds and hearts, then she is short in the black suits: some of your black suit losers can be ruffed.

So I say, live a little, and bid 7.  

Partner does have 16 HCP, and by my calculation, you can make about 16 or 17 tricks if you play it well.

So very well done to the two Wests, Carole Foreman and Mariette Read, who did indeed bid 7 to share the top on the board.

In fact you score well by bidding even a small slam, as several pairs stayed in game.

If you did bid 4NT, or responded 5♠, I ask you this question: did you alert and explain your bids?  Very few did, but all these bids should be explained as they are made, because partner cannot see the explanations, and your opponents have the right to know them.  A gold star to the very small number of Easts and Wests who explained their Blackwood sequences.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 24/7/20)

A play problem today. 

But first, a word about the auction. North's 3♣  is forcing, no ifs, no buts. Any Souths that passed are either unaware of this, or perhaps lack faith in their partner's bidding and/or declarer play. Let's hope it's the former.

Anyway, in 3NT as North, you receive the lead of the 3.

Decide how you will play it, then click [Show Answer].

Did you notice that the lead of the 3 is good news. It's the lowest outstanding heart, so if it's a 4th-best lead, it means that East has exactly four hearts, and the suit is breaking 4-4. 

If that's the case, there's no need to panic and try to run the clubs from the top. You can afford to play on diamonds first, hoping to establish the suit. 

The right play after you win the A is the K. You want to suck the defenders into taking their A, and that may give you 4 diamond tricks, to go along with your 5 top cards in the other suits.

If the diamond king is ducked, and a second diamond to dummy is also ducked, the diamonds are dead. But at least you are in dummy, and can finesse West for the club queen. 

I regard the play of the K as quite advanced, and so was pleasantly surprised when three Norths found it. Very substantial elephant stamps go to Jenny Gray, Carolyn Righetti and Peter Shaw.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 23/7/20)

Today you are North, and the auction is as shown.

What call do you make after West's 3?  What would you do if West had bid only 2?

Decide, then click [Show Answer].

This deal illustrates one of my favourite bidding concepts.

Most Norths supported partner's clubs. A few Norths took the cautious route and passed. Super-cautious, really.

Just three Norths, Robyn Sutton (over 2), Mary Adams and Sue Douglas (over 3), repeated their hearts.

Sacrilege! To voluntarily repeat a suit should show 6 cards. This is where the concept comes in:

Treat suits containing four of the five top honours as one longer than their actual length.

Now look at all four hands. 5♣ needs some luck in clubs, which it gets. 4 needs practically nothing to make, and it scores more as well. The solid 7-card major suit was far more profitable than the 10-card minor fit. Indeed, even a heart partscore was worth plenty of matchpoints. That 10 is a golden card, worth a full trick.

In Sue's case, partner Deb Fogarty raised to 4 doubled by East on the basis of her five hearts. East's hearts may have had quantity, but they lacked quality. Making 4 doubled was a well-deserved top.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 22/7/20)

Today you are on defence as West, to South's 4♠.  You lead the ♣A, partner follows with the ♣4, declarer ♣6.

Now what? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

I can't tell you what the right play is, but I can identify the wrong play.

It is wrong to play the other top club. It cannot achieve anything other than potentially setting up a club winner for declarer.

The ♣K can keep until later. You can't possibly lose it, as there's no side suit on which declarer can discard a club loser. You can see that by looking at the rest of your hand.

You should switch to a red suit at trick 2. The Q will work a treat if partner has the K or A.  That's actually the best way to defeat the contract.

The K will develop a third trick for your side, for sure, which could be invaluable playing for matchpoints.

I suspect practically everyone continued with the ♣K, setting up an easy discard for declarer's diamond loser. Making 11 tricks.

Just one West, Teck Chan, found the switch to the K, and was the only one to hold declarer to 10 tricks. A well-thought out switch.

In general, in defence, don't cash winners that are certain to still win later in the hand.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 21/7/20)

I'm sure all the tables had a story to tell on this wild deal. I'll tell a few of them.

It's rare that you have a slam of your own when an opponent opens 2♣.  But that is the case here, if you can eradicate the queen of spades.

Any ideas on the auction?

It's hard to get into this auction, vulnerable versus not, against a 2♣ opener. I'm not sure if I could.

But Diana Sher, as East, came in bravely with 2♠ over North's 2.  It worked a treat: South bid hearts, partner, Carolyn Righetti, gave enthusiastic support for spades. After South bid 5, Carolyn pushed on to 5♠. North doubled that (confidently, as partner had opened 2♣), which told Diana how to play the spades. She finessed North for the queen, racked up an overtrick and all the matchpoints.

Murray Pearce went another route. He opened 1♠. Perhaps he applied the Rule of 20, adding the length of his two longest suits to his HCP: 5+5+10=20. South bid 2, West 4♠, and then when South persisted with 5, he made the great decision to push on to 5♠, despite having started with only 10 HCP.

There was N/S delight also. Faye Norton-Old opened 2♣ as South, and had an uncontested auction to 4.  Suddenly E/W woke up and doubled her. Faye scored an easy overtrick for all the matchpoints.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 20/7/20)

Put yourself in the East chair, vulnerable versus not vulnerable.  Partner makes a weak jump overcall of 2♠ and RHO makes a negative double.

What do you bid?

Suppose you bid 3♠, LHO bids 4, which is passed  back to you.

What do you bid now?

Christine Walker and John Foreman made the winning moves here. They bid 3♠ and then, despite the adverse vulnerability, pushed on to 4♠ over South's 4.

4♠ was an excellent vulnerable sacrifice against 4, and the icing went on the cake when the defence to 4♠ slipped up at both tables to let it make.

Two factors might have entered their thinking:

1) With the opponents apparently having found an 8-card heart fit, partner will have a singleton heart, which goes very nicely opposite your four small. There are no wasted values in hearts.

2) It's the LAW. The Law of Total Trumps I mean. Which says, if you recall a previous VHotD, compete to the level of your fit. So partner has 6 spades, you have 4, 6+4 = 10. Voila: 4♠.

Their partners, Sue Douglas and Carole Foreman, had jump-overcalled to 2♠ on very dodgy values. However if you do a Rule-of-Two-and-Three calculation, you will find that this is the correct bid. 7 losers (2 spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds, 2 clubs) = 6 tricks means when vulnerable bid two more. Voila: 2♠.

That was super-tough bridge all round by the two pairs involved.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 17/7/20)

This would have to be one of the more diabolically frustrating hands I have seen.

Suppose you were one of the 26 Souths who saw partner's 1 opening.

Excitedly you bid 1♠, partner bids his clubs, you bid 4th suit, and partner repeats the hearts. Now what?

Frankly, as soon as I see this hand, I want to have a go at 7NT if partner has the ♣A.

The problem is that in today's modern world, if you bid 4NT, then that will be Roman Key Card Blackwood for hearts. A one-keycard response won't help you, as it might be showing the K and not the ♣A.

So you faff around for a while, hoping the problem will go away, but it doesn't.

If only you could use Gerber!  I only play Gerber after a notrump bid. One player who did try it found themselves playing it. 4♣ going down one was not a success. I sympathise.

Nick Truscott gave up and bid 4NT at this point. Partner, sweet partner, bid 5♠ (two keycards plus the Q): that's a good partner for you. So Nick bid 7NT and on a club lead, he played it carefully. Win the club, over to the A, cross to the ♠J (what a card), and play KQ and ♣K to throw his 3 little diamonds. +1520 was an unsurprising top ... well done.

But my heart goes out to two other Souths: Ramona Enconniere and Pam Richardson. Facing the same dilemma, they bid into 7♠ and a diabolical club was led. Now they couldn't make it, with the hearts not dividing and K offside. On any other lead, it's cold. They truly didn't deserve their equal bottoms.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 16/7/20)

A straightforward bidding problem for you today.

When partner rebids 2♠, she is showing a 6-card suit and about 11-14 HCP. 

What say you? Decide, then click [Show Answer].

If partner has 14 HCP, there are 25 in total, together with an 8-card spade fit. That might bring home a game: you could invite 4♠ by bidding 3♠ now.

But partners rarely have a maximum, I have found, in which case your combined point count is a little lacking.

Only one East, Mike Pogson, bid 3♠: the remainder of players in this position passed.  West, Libby Persson, went on to 4♠ with her 14-count. It was a fine contract, and she duly brought it home.

Was Mike lucky? I don't think so. There are two elements to this East hand that in combination make it a whole lot stronger than "just" 11 points.

  1. The spade queen is golden. It is a valuable card 100% of the time, solidifying partner's spades. Not all queens can boast this. If it were the diamond queen, for example, it may or may not be useful to partner. The queen of trumps is always a good card.
  2. The heart ace and king work in tandem. Together they are worth two tricks, no ifs, no buts. But again, put the heart king into diamonds, and it's not a certain two tricks. The ace is a trick, but the king on its own may or may not be a trick. Honours work better together.

Hand evaluation beyond simple point count can help you with close decisions. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 15/7/20)

What do you think of the auction here?

A: incredibly good
B: reasonable
C: iffy
D: poor
E: incredibly bad

Now suppose you are playing a diamond contract at some level, from West or East. A spade is led, and you win West's ace.

What now? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

I was impressed when Penny Robertson (West) and Fiona Ferwerda (East) had this auction. I'm voting A.

Penny's 2 may not have been a thing of beauty, vulnerable, but the overall hand was OK, even if the diamonds were a bit threadbare. Most Wests passed: but the preempt is the tough competitive call.

And Fiona's 5 was a classic application of the Law of Total Trumps: in a competitive auction, bid to the level of your trump fit. 6+5=11, therefore 5. The auction wasn't competitive yet, but it was likely about to be, and she wanted to make life impossible for South.

Now to the play. Did you ask yourself the question: should I draw trumps? Here the answer is NO, because that will give the defence the opportunity to play on clubs, developing a club trick for them, before declarer can do anything about it.

The correct play at trick 2 is to play the J.  Even if the defenders win this and attack clubs, you can win the ♣A, then play KQ to throw West's losing club. Only then are you ready to play a trump.

Did you  find the heart play? Well done if you had the forethought to do so.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 14/7/20)

Today's hand illustrates one of the most valuable principles in the game.

What is your (East's) call in the auction as given?

And what would it be if your partner had simply overcalled 1 and your RHO bid 1♠?

Decide, then click [Show Answer].

It doesn't matter whether it is a 2 or 1 bid from partner, the principle I am alluding to leads you to the same call.  It is the Law of Total Trumps:

In a competitive auction, bid immediately to the level of your fit, irrespective of your strength.

So if partner overcalls 1, she is showing 5 hearts. You have 5 hearts, 5+5=10 so you would bid to a 10-trick contract, i.e. 4.  4 is the correct bid!

If partner overcalls 2, he is showing 6 hearts. The Law would tell you to bid 5, but that is surely too much of a good thing, so 4 will do.

Look at all four hands, and tell me how, after 4 from East, N/S reach their high-scoring 4♠ contract.  It seems impossible. But after a lily-livererd lower heart bid, South has room to bid the clubs, and North can repeat the spades. The 4 bid removes the oxygen from the opponents' auction.

So well done to the only two Easts who bid 4Adrian Beaumont and Andrew Skutzkin.  Adrian forced his LHO into a 5♣ bid.  Andrew did even better: South doubled 4 (not unreasonable at all), and that contract went 3 down for -500, less than N/S's easy vulnerable game and a 90% score on the board.

(Postscript: it is important to realise when obeying the Law that the bidder is not necessarily intending to make the contract he bids to.  The Law guides you to either making contracts or worthwhile sacrifices. One East jumped to 3 after 1♠, the opponents reached 4and West doubled it, thinking partner had strength. -1190 ... ouch!)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 13/7/20)

Here's an opening lead problem faced by most of the field.  North opens 1NT, no-one has anything further to say, and you find yourself on lead.

What is it to be?  And all you Easts that were on lead, are you happy with your choice?

With one exception, all the Easts led a spade.

The exception was the Robot, who (or should that be "which"?) led the 10.  That's actually not a bad choice, being relatively safe and giving little away. Even though it struck dummy's suit, declarer was limited to her top 7 tricks, and -90 was a good robotic score.

Still, it's normal to lead your long/strong suit here, but should it be the 8 (fourth highest) or a top honour?

Blindly leading fourth highest is the wrong choice, if you think about it. It gains in only rare situations, and gives up a cheap trick in frequent situations. One of the reasons for leading a low card to notrumps, rather than an honour, is to maintain communications back to your hand. But on this deal the presence of the ♣A means that you probably have an entry anyway.

The advantage of leading the ace or king relates to your ♠10.  Leading the ♠A leaves you with ♠K108, potentially sitting over declarer's holding.  A rule of thumb that I teach and strongly believe in is this:

With three honour cards against a notrump contract, and at least two of them in sequence, lead the top of the sequence part.

Here you have three honour cards, A, K, 10, two of them in sequence (AK), so I would recommend the ace lead.

The last advantage of the ace lead here is that you get to have a squizz at dummy. Look at all four hands. The winning defence is to lead a top spade, then switch to dummy's weakness, with a low club play. In theory, the defence can take 5 clubs and 2 spades to defeat 1NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 10/7/20)

For a change, here's a decision where there are any number of good bids available, and only one bad bid.

See if you can avoid the bad bid.

After partner's jump rebid, showing about 16-18 points and a 6-card club suit, there's surely a game available. Maybe even a slam.

If you think there might be a slam, bid 6♣ (perhaps stopping off first with 4NT to check the ace situation). 6♣ and 3NT are good bids.

Or maybe there's not a slam, in which case you might go for 3NT, a higher scoring game contract. 3NT is a good bid.

Perhaps you prefer to get to 3NT from partner's side, to protect a possible tenuous diamond stopper. You could bid 3♠, which doesn't show long spades, but does show a stopper. Spades is not a likely destination, as partner didn't bid 1♠ over 1. 3♠ is a good bid.

You might be interested in hearing whether partner has 3-card heart support. You could repeat the hearts, which is forcing after the jump rebid by partner. That also leaves 3NT or a slam open for business.  3 is a good bid.

The one bid you don't want to make is 5♣, which both gives up on slam and reaches a low-scoring game contract. I'm sorry, but 5♣ is a bad bid.

Well done to Julie More (4NT) and Julie Alliston (3NT) for making good bids!  This was a deal for Julies. (Many non-Julie Souths didn't get the chance due to variations in the auction.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 9/7/20)

Here's a problem faced by many Easts today.

The ones who didn't face it had bid over West's 3♣, which led to considerable anguish. If partner has 6-10 HCP and a good 7-card club suit, what do you think you can make? Well ... 3♣.

It's hard when your rather nice hand is wrecked by partner's bid, but that's bridge!

So you pass 3♣ unhappily, but your happiness improves when South comes in with 3♠.

What now? Any thoughts?

Well yes, I have one thought: they're not going to make it.

Bridge 101 says: if you think you can defeat the opponents' contract, then double it. And that's what you should do here: double for penalties.  (It couldn't mean anything else, could it?)

Perhaps they can somehow make 3♠; or perhaps they can somehow escape to a making 4.  So the double is not a certain bet, but it will do very nicely until a certain bet comes along.

Put the good old-fashioned penalty double into your golf-bag. It applies late in auctions and at relatively high levels, and it says: "you've bid too much, Mister".

Geoff Pratt was the only East to find the double, earning himself a good score. Good job.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 8/7/20)

With your 8 lovely diamonds, you see three passes.

What should you be thinking? How should you bid the hand?

The auction didn't start like this at all tables, because some Easts opened the bidding. But whatever East opens, or doesn't open, your thinking should be the same.

3NT

You have 8 diamond tricks (probably!) and a heart trick. 8 plus 1 equals 9, the last time I checked, and there's your game contract. Compare that to what you need from your partner to cover all those top losers and make 5.

If it went 3 passes to me, and I were allowed to open 3NT, I would. If I'm not allowed to do that, I will open 1 and then bid 3NT next, whatever partner does. That's how much I like 3NT! 

If RHO opens 1, then I bid 3NT.
If RHO opens 1♠, I would also bid 3NT, although my heart would be beating a bit faster.

Only if the opponents bid clubs, should South take the auction slower.

Long live 3NT!  (It makes here. somewhat fortunately, but you make your own luck.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 7/7/20)

Put yourself in the North seat, declaring 4. East leads a little diamond, West puts in the 10, and you win the K.

Now what? Plan the play, then click [Show Answer].

An important first question to be asked when playing a suit contract is "Should I draw trumps?

It's normal to do so, but a common reason for delaying is to ruff something with the short trump hand. Here you would like to ruff one of your clubs, but you can't do that if South's trumps are gone.

You should play to the ace of clubs at trick 2 and return a club. Did you do that? You better have, or the shocking heart break will destroy your 4 contract.

Bouquets to Jenny Gray and Robert Ziffer who were the only two declarers (I believe) to play on clubs before touching trumps.

And don't forget to ask yourself: Should I draw trumps?

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 6/7/20)

There were two closely related decisions for North today, that are worth looking at.  The first is what you see displayed. 

The second is board 12, where North holds

♠ 6
 74
 KQJ10983
♣ KJ7

and is also in second seat, with RHO passing. Although on board 12, N/S are vulnerable versus not vulnerable.

1 or 3 on board 8?
1 or 3 on board 12?

The hands are strikingly similar: 10 HCP and a strong 7-card diamond suit.  Still, I suggest (and it is only a suggestion):

1 on board 8
3 on board 12

Here are three reasons for this:

Vulnerability. Vulnerable preempts typically show about a trick more playing strength than their non-vulnerable counterparts. Because you are not vulnerable on board 8, partner will not expect such a strong pre-emptive hand.

Suitability for other contracts. Whilst diamonds might be the right spot on board 8, you might also belong in hearts or clubs. In both cases, the side suit void and the diamond ace (a sure trick) represent great potential for a non-diamond suit contract.

Major suit potential. Board 12 has no help in the majors. So block out both your side's and the opponents' potential major suit contract with a pre-empt. On board 8, a 1 opening will not rule out a heart contract.

Anyone out there make the same pair of decisions that I did? Nope. Maybe I'll be all alone in the asylum.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 3/7/20)

Here's a relaxing play problem to finish the week.

You are playing 3NT as East, and South leads a spade. North plays ♠Q and you ♠A.  Next you play the ace and king of clubs, and the suit divides 2-2.

Happy days. All the clubs are good and you will make bucketloads of tricks.

What next? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Well, you have 6 clubs, 4 diamonds and two major suit ace = 12. Since you don't have any threatening cards in the majors, you could claim 12 and get coffee.

But first, look at all four hands. South has a Yarborough (no card above a 9) and can beat neither your 9 or ♠10.  North has full responsibility for the defence.

If you take your four diamond tricks now (throwing a heart from dummy), then run the remainder of the clubs, North cannot hold the position. This is what it looks like when the last club is led:

             ♠K
          KQ
          -
          -
♠J                   ♠10
10                  A9
-                    -    
♣3                   -

What does North discard? If it is ♠K, then you (East) throw 9 ... your last two tricks are good. If North discards Q, then you discard ♠10, and your 9 is a miraculous winner.

As East, you don't have to count. If the ♠10 isn't good at this point, you discard it.

North has been squeezed to a pulp. A squeeze is a highlight of declarer play, and sometimes you don't even have to know you're doing it. All you have to do is take all your tricks in the right order. On this deal, it's imperative that you take your diamonds first, so that when the squeeze operates, East is discarding after North.

The squeeze never came to pass at any table. Indeed, surprisingly few E/W pairs got to 3NT. So I'm going to give today's gong to Larry Allender, the only West to correctly raise 1NT to 3NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 2/7/20)

Here's a bidding problem solved by only two Wests.  South on your right opens 1NT, explained as 15-17. And you?

Decide your bidding plan, then click [Show Answer].

Most Wests simply bid 2. Their partners never envisaged such a strong hand opposite and passed 2, which made oodles of overtricks. 

Just because someone opens 1NT against you, it doesn't mean you don't have a game, or couldn't extract a big penalty. The correct move here is to double, simply showing strength. 

The two Wests who did double were Tony Georgeson and the infamous Robot.  Since the Robot has a penchant for explaining her and partner's bids, we can examine it here: "Penalty double - 16+ HCP".  

There you have it folks ... the Robot is programmed with modern standard bidding, and that's the modern standard meaning of a double of a 1NT opening.  

After the double of 1NT, Tony got to achieve a pleasant vulnerable penalty of 200 from 2♠, and a 68% score on the board. The Robot did even better when 1NT doubled was passed out: 800 points.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 1/7/20)

This is a very awkward hand to bid, but suppose you are in 4, after South has opened with a pre-emptive 3♣.

North leads the ♠K. Plan the play, then click "Show Answer".

There's a spade loser and two diamond losers, so the trick here is to avoid losing a trump. There are only three trumps out, and if they divide 2-1, even I could deal with that.

What if someone has all three trumps? Then you want to play the first heart trick in such a way that you can finesse on the second round, when someone shows out. You need to decide who might have three trumps.

Well, North appears to have zero clubs, South having opened 3♣, so she's not going to have zero hearts as well. If anyone is void in hearts, it will be South.

So at trick 2, you should play a low heart to your ace. If South does discard, you can finesse North's Q on the second round. And indeed, that is what will happen. 

Only five Wests were in this position, as most Souths avoided opening 3♣.  And of those five, only Terry Carberry and Nick Truscott found the winning play of a low heart from dummy at trick 2. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 30/6/20)

Here's a simple proposition for you. Should you overcall RHO's 1 with 1♠?  Please note that everyone is vulnerable.

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

Don't tell me you fell for that line about being vulnerable.

You should absolutely overcall 1♠.  Don't tell anyone, but I'd do it even with a little bit less. But here you have 8 HCP and a perfectly decent 5-card suit ... so what are you waiting for?

There are a number of ways to come a cropper when you enter an auction. But it's called an 'auction' for a reason, and you're never going to win it if you don't take a bid. On this deal, you had a splendid 4♠ sacrifice over the opponents' 4.

Well done to Faye Norton-Old and Jan Downing, the only two Wests in the Under-50-MP section to venture the overcall. Their partners (Barb Carter and Brenda Glyn) duly competed to 4♠ to share the top score.

It's a bidder's game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 29/6/20)

If West's hand here isn't "Hand of the Day" material, I don't know what is.

1) Do you agree with the 2 bid?
2) What do you bid now?

In any mature Standard system, opening 2♣ then bidding a suit really has to be 100% forcing. Not 99%, not 99.9% but 100%. If you are forced to jump with a rock-crusher, you've taken all the space out of the auction.

So I personally agree with the 2 bid.

2) I don't know what's right, but I do know what I would do. I'd bid 6 and force partner to choose between the red suits. Many Wests more or less agreed, and they finished in 6 sans a happy ending.

Mostly the Easts did well, not passing 2.  The few who did got lucky, playing their possible slam in a partscore, and scoring matchpoints because the slam doesn't make.

And a shoutout to Helen McAdam and Marcus Brodmeyer, who bid 3NT as West!  That worked absolutely brilliantly because North had a singleton ace of clubs!  I guess they got lucky in a different way.

The takeaway from this deal is:

  • if partner opens 2♣, then names a suit, then do not pass
  • with absolute rock-crushers, I'm afraid it's "good luck and God's speed". Today, there was somewhat upside-down luck.
Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 26/6/20)

Today you are defending as North.

But before that, what do you think of West's pass of 1NT?

Once you've evaluated that ... South leads the ♠K to 1NT ... what should North do?

The Bidding

West's pass of 1NT was spot-on. Many looked for greener pastures, bidding 2 or 2, perhaps worried about the spade situation, but that is overthinking it. With the strength for only a partscore, and no known fit, you should be gravitating to 1NT. How likely is it you have a diamond fit, and do you want to find it anyway?  As for a 5-3 heart fit, it's possible, but even then notrumps might be better.

Good judgment was shown by Arthur Michie, Col O'Brien, Larry Allender, Sue Beckman and Anne Roberts, all of whom passed 1NT.

The Defence

If you trust your partner, you will play the ♠J. 

What does partner have? One would expect her spades are headed by the KQ, at least 4 cards long, probably longer. East did not rebid 1♠, so perhaps doesn't have 4 spades. That will give South a 5-card suit.

This is where the trust part comes in.

What should partner lead from ♠KQxxx?  Fourth-highest, right?

So partner should have stronger spades than this, typically ♠KQ10xx, to justify the honour lead.You must drop the jack to encourage her to continue the suit. If you don't, and declarer withholds the ace, then partner will fear that she is getting Bath-couped, declarer having played low from ♠AJx. She may switch, and you don't want her to.

When partner leads an honour to a notrump contract, and you have an honour, it is usually right to play it.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 25/6/20)

Here's a bidding problem that many Norths puzzled over long and hard.

Happy puzzling, then click [Show Answer].

You have 19 splendid points, with enthusiasm damped a little by partner's pass to your opening bid.

2 is an inferior choice ... you have already shown 5 hearts, and if partner is short there, you are in a bad place.

You could bid 2NT, as many did, but unless partner has a little something, it's not going to work well.

A double risks partner bidding 2♠. Still in that scenario, you can go back to 2NT. Double gives your partner a chance to bid 2. So double is a far better choice than 2NT, which leaves a 2 contract behind.

No wonder people were puzzling!

The final alternative is to simply pass, and let the opponents struggle in 2.  If partner has a little something, you may defeat this by several tricks. And if partner doesn't have a little something, then do you really want to be in the bidding yourself?

Two Norths, Karin Birch and Sue Douglas, coolly passed 2. I think that was the right move.

In fact, the bidders did OK, as both 2NT and 2 were makeable, And N/S will struggle to defeat 2 by more than one trick.  So it seemed the pass was a losing move, but as it turned out, it  was a winning move. Both Easts didn't like their partner's 2 and removed it, catastrophically. Down 4 and down 3 gave Karin and Sue the two best scores on the board. Virtue wins out!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 24/6/20)

Here's a bidding problem that caught my eye.

West doesn't self-alert his 2♣ overcall, so one must assume it's a natural bid.

What say you?

You'd like to make a bid. 2 is natural and non-forcing (do not, do not, DO NOT play transfers after the opponents overcall a notrump bid), and that's what many players chose. (I think only one South misconstrued this 2 bid as a transfer, so not bad.)

Still, 2 does put your eggs in one rather flimsy basket. What if partner has spades?  It would nice to find a 4-4 spade fit. And even a 4-3 heart fit might be a winner. A much better choice is to make a takeout double* of 2♣. This brings all three side-suits into the picture, not to mention the possibility of partner having powerful clubs and electing to take a penalty in 2♣ doubled.

Well done to Ray Carbuhn and Moira Righetti, who were the only two Norths to find the sophisticated takeout double of 2♣.

As it turned out, partner had diamonds, so as long as you make some bid, you are likely to find the diamond fit. The only losing choice was to meekly pass 2♣,

* Postscript. Some people call this double of 2♣ a "stolen bid" double ... partner, they stole my 2♣ bid. Indeed, if West had passed 1NT, you should bid 2♣, a form of garbage Stayman, where you plan to pass partner's response, whether it be 2♠, 2, or 2.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 23/6/20)

Today's session seemed to be full of deals where an opponent bids the suit you're about to bid. Here's an example.

What do you do over RHO's 1♠?

And a supplementary question ... if you decide to pass, and the final contract is 1♠ by South, what do you lead?

What are the alternatives to pass? 

Double? But then how will you follow up when partner bids a suit? A further spade bid by you will be interpreted as a cue-bid, not natural.

1NT? Weird, but it could work I suppose.

I think the way to "bid" this hand is to pass now, and reserve your option to bid later. And if you do pass now, and then enter the auction with a spade bid later, at least partner should realise that you are bidding the suit naturally.

About half the field agreed with me. And 1♠ became the final contract.

As for the lead, you should lead a top spade. Declarer probably has 5 little spades, and you should draw out four of them. Several Wests led either the singleton diamond, or the ♣K, which whilst not fatal to the defence did in some cases lead to declarer making one more trick that he should.  

Rose Darmody was one West that passed 1♠ then extracted four of declarer's trumps. She was rewarded when declarer subsequently slipped up in the play, leading to down 3. That's good work.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 22/6/20)

You are South, and the auction is surprising.  

What's your bid? 

Well, Christmas has come early: you should double for penalties.

You have this down in your own hand with at least 4 spade tricks and the A, not to mention the K and whatever partner can provide.

And yet virtually all the Souths passed. I think they were scared that partner wouldn't read this as a penalty double.

When you open a pre-empt, whether at the 2, 3, 4 or 5 level, and the next hand bids something, then a double by partner is unequivocally for penalties.

There is no such thing as a "negative" or "takeout" double from responder once you have opened with a pre-empt. After all, it's implicit that pre-empter doesn't have another suit.

Well done to Christine Walker, who doubled 4♠ (North, Sue Douglas, correctly opened 4♣ at favourable vulnerability, and East overcalled 4♠). 

And equally well done to Barb Carter, who coolly passsed as East after the robot on her right opened 4♣. She was opposite a passed partner, and didn't want to blindly bid 4♠ ... right she was!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 19/6/20)
Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 19/6/20)

Put yourself in the South seat and decide your bid here.  Bidding on display.

In particular, see if you can find the same bid as the gentleman pictured here.

You could support partner's suit by bidding 2 or introduce the moth-eaten spade suit with 1♠.

Most chose the former, but three intrepid Souths, Dell Macneil, Max Williams and Leslie MacPherson, bid 1♠ here. 

Mad? Aren't you meant to have a better suit than 97642? 

The thing is that spades is the suit that is "special" as it outranks all other suits. If there is an opportunity to bid it in a competitive auction, you should do so. This deal is a perfect example ... how else can N/S find their 5-4 spade fit?*

Max in particular did spectacularly well, as his partner, Shirley Bowman, competed him up to 3♠ which he somehow managed to make, for a near-top.

The great English player of the 1950s, Adam "Plum" Meredith, was famous for bidding spades, indeed whether or not he had the suit at all.  His 1♠ opening bids meant practically nothing.  His contemporary, Victor Mollo, wrote of him:   "No man, no three men, for that matter, have bid spades so often or so devotedly as Plum." 

* Footnote: one other way to find the spades on this deal, which no-one tried, is to overcall 1♠ with the North hand. It conforms with one of my favourite guidelines: "Suits that contain 4 of the top 5 honours should be bid as though they are one card longer."

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 18/6/20)

Here's a pleasant bidding problem for you.

Partner's 1NT shows 15-17 HCP. What's your bidding plan? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

You have 19 HCP, so adding that to partner's 15-17, gives you 34-36.

That should be enough for at least a small slam, but in a suit or notrumps? 

Since you are playing matchpoints: I think you should play in notrumps, the highest-scoring denomination. A spade fit may work better, but it's unlikely. Your diamond suit will probably develop for tricks, whether in spades or notrumps.

So there's nothing wrong with a 6NT bid here, but why not check for aces and kings? If partner has the 3 missing aces, and the one missing king, then there are 13 tricks as long as the diamond suit runs.

This is a great hand for a Gerber 4♣. If partner gives you 3 aces (a 4NT response), then ask for kings with a 5♣ bid. Partner bids 5 (1 king) so she has something like:

♠ xxx
 Axxx
 AKx
♣ Axx

You can bid 7NT with a fair expectation of making: finish the session in a blaze of glory!

Accolades to Lyn Mayer and Larry Allender, who were the only ones to make the Gerber 4♣ and 5♣ bids, and followed up with 7NT.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 17/6/20)

Of the 14 tables in play, I think there were possibly 14 different auctions on this deal.

The auction shown here is a 15th. I don't hold it up as a paragon of accuracy, but at least it was plausible.

Most tables ended up in a club contract, ranging from 5♣ to 7♣ and I want you to play it. North leads the K. 

Decide your play for 12 tricks and then click [Show Answer].

You have 11 tricks: 8 clubs and 3 side aces. Clearly the heart suit is the source of further tricks.

If North has the K, you can finesse it.

If South has the K,  you can ruffing-finesse it. You play the A, then Q.  If South has the K, it's trapped. If she plays it, you ruff, then return to East to play the winning J. There's your 12th trick. If South withholds the K, you take an immediate discard for the same outcome.

So which is it to be, a finesse or a ruffing-finesse? 

T
H
I
N
K

M
U
S
I
C

If you reflect on it, the ruffing finesse works even if the K is with North, as it was. On the Q, you discard your remaining diamond, and North wins. Your spade loser will later be discarded on the J.

Ruffing finesses are usually superior to ordinary finesses, because you get to take a quick discard even if the finesse is losing. That principle operated par excellence here. Keep that in mind when you hold a singleton opposite an AQJ suit (or even AKJ10 ... same idea).

No one found the ruffing finesse, sadly, so I can't congratulate anyone on the play. Next time!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 16/6/20)

The Fight

Here is a deal where your partner seems to be more accurately referred to as your CHO, or "centre-hand opponent". He or she keeps bidding his or her silly suit, and refuses to suport your fine suit. 

Let me start the auction off for you, and pose the question: how much more fighting should there be in this auction?

The answer is: not much.

Before we get into that, a word about the auction to date. Several Wests jumped in spades as their first response. And several Easts, after a 1♠ bid from partner jumped in diamonds.

Neither of these bids are good ideas, particularly the spade jump. When you have a complicated hand (and both West and East are complicated, with their 7420 shapes), you want to bid slowly, to find out as much as you can. And when you have, as both West and East did, a long suit and extreme shortage in partner's suit, you definitely want to bid 'step by step' to give partner a chance to get their suit 'out of their system'.

As for the auction going forward, might I suggest:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

East should at least consider passing 2♠. The last thing they want is to bid their diamonds for a third time, and hear yet another damned spade bid from partner. Hats off to Jenny Gray and Jan Downing, who passed 2♠. 

And if East does bid 3, West should pass it. They've already shown at least 6 spades, it's time to let partner play one. Well done to Helene Harkin and Michael Ryan who allowed their partners play 3 in comfort.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 15/6/20)

Board 2 from tonight has enough material to base several chapters of a bridge book. 

First the bidding. After South's 1, West has a pretty decent Michaels Cue-Bid available: 2 to show spades and a minor. Good work by those partnerships that had that in their arsenal and used it.

Most Wests simply bid 1♠, a perfectly acceptable overcall.

The question is what should North do over that. And then East. And South. And West and North.

In short ... discuss.

North. Several Norths, both human and machine, bid 2♠, some sort of cue-bid raise. I can't complain about that bid, as it's apparently programmed into Standard American, but I don't like it much. The problem is that it gives too much space for E/W to get together in spades, and looking at the North hand and the vulnerability, I'd be worried about that.

Indeed the 2♠ bid did allow one or two Easts to bid a relatively painless 3♠ and E/W were now off to the races in the spade department.

I much prefer the very unscientific 4 bid, bidding a game that you likely can make, and removing the opportunity for E/W to have any form of conversation. A number of Norths did just that, and I congratulate them on their tactical nous.

East. After 4, East should bid 4♠ with that 3-point hand. The vulnerability is perfect (not vul versus vul), and with 5-card support, the Law of Total Tricks tells you to compete to the 10-trick level, as that's your fit (5-5). 

Good work by John Foreman, David Hudson and Fran Minson who all bid 4♠ in this pressure situation.

South. I reckon South should pass 4♠. She has a perfectly normal minimum 1 opener, and cannot be sure of what partner is doing with the 4 bid.  Expressing an opinion here seems presumptuous.

However a few Souths soldiered on to 5 and I can only laud their judgment, because that's an easy make.

West.  If South bids 5, West should pass. It's the same situation: it's their partner who knows better than them what is going on. 

North. If South passes, and 4♠ comes around to them, North should double. Here's a point I want to make strongly. Partner has an opening hand, you have 11 HCP: you must presume that E/W are sacrificing. So passing them out in 4♠ cannot be the right move. If you are not going to go on to 5 you must double 4♠ and try to extract whatever penalty you can.

Don't let opponents play sacrifices undoubled!

Well done to Don Tylee, who correctly doubled 4♠ in this situation.

Postscript

Several Wests made 4♠, despite having four losers off the top. The clubs disappeared on West's diamonds. It shouldn't have happened, but I can understand how the defence slipped up. It makes the simple overcall look a lot better than the Michaels Cue Bid. The simple overcall masked the nature of West's hand, whereas the Michaels Cue Bidders didn't, and even resulted in West being dummy, making the defence very easy. 

This hand is full of tactics, one of my favourite aspects of the game.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 12/6/20)

This auction, or something similar, occurred at many tables today.  Basically North showed long clubs, and East showed a goodish hand with long diamonds.

The question is, what should West do?  Your call ...

You could pass 3, which is hardly likely to be the world's worst contract. That's what practically everyone in this situation did.

Well, maybe South will lead a club, and North will win it and play another one. South might overruff partner, that won't be good. N/S might take quite a few major suit tricks.

Or maybe that won't happen at all, who knows. The point is that whilst 3 might be a normal enough contract, it doesn't rate to be fabulous. Bad things could happen.

What about 3NT? No overruffs there. You have excellent club stoppers, and that beautiful delightful delicious Q. It's a great card, solidifying partner's suit. You have nice hearts, and whilst spades could be a problem, the enemy hasn't bid them. 

The point is that there is likely to be as many (or more) tricks available in notrumps as in diamonds, so why not go for the higher-scoring contract?

Dawn Thistlethwaite bid 3NT on a very similar auction, a club was led and she racked up 10 tricks for +630. 3NT can be defeated on the ♠K lead, but that's not gonna happen.

It wasn't a top for Dawn, as several N/S pairs wandered into 5♣, doubled and clobbered.  I guess some Souths must have eventually supported clubs, but that unattractive pile of bits and pieces should not be encouraging a club contract!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 11/6/20)

Since it was serious red points today, here's a serious play problem for you.

East leads the ♣J to 4♠ . I'll start the play for you. You win ♣ K, play ♠A and ♠K, and the four outstanding spades drop politely. 

11 tricks will be easy. If East has led from J10(xxx) in clubs, you can get 4 club tricks, but it's not clear what discard from your North hand will help.

1) Can you envisage a scenario where that discard will help?

2) How can you bring about that scenario?

3) what do you play next?

Have a good think about that, then click [Show Answer].

1) A single heart discard can never help. It's your third heart you are discarding, and you can trump it in dummy anyway.

A diamond discard can help, if you've already won a diamond trick, and you are then discarding your remaining diamond. 

If you can lead a diamond through the hand with the ace, and that second-hand player plays low, then you bring about the situation that you are discarding your last remaining diamond on the good club.

And if that second-hand player rises with the ace, then your Q is good, which means the K is a winner, which together with your fourth club, gives you two heart discards.

3) The winning play for 12 tricks is to play to dummy's ♠6 then lead a low diamond off the table, hoping West has the  A. That brings about the scenario described above, which is named a Morton's Fork (named after Cardinal Morton of the 15th century).

You could equally play East for the A (by leading a low one from your hand). To see why it's a teensy weensy bit better to play West for that card, refer to VHotD, Tuesday 2/6.

Now, did anyone play it this way? We'll need to wait for the detailed results.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 10/6/20)

Here's a response problem faced by 14 of the 15 Wests today. (The 15th West, obviously a guy, opened this hand with 1♣, and landed on his feet, much to my annoyance. More power to him, I guess.)

What's your bid?

8 Wests bid 2♣, Stayman, got a 2 bid from partner, and supported hearts.

The other 6 Wests, Jean Davis, Mary King, Julie More, Akiko Stark, Jim Stewart and Gordon Travers, ignored the possibility of a heart contract and jumped to 3NT.

You can probably tell which group I agree with!

General expert thinking, based on experience, is: with 4333 shape, don't use Stayman after a notrump opening from partner. Rather than attempt to find a 4-4 major suit fit, play in notrumps.

The reasoning is that your hand has no ruffing power. Of course, if you do have a 4-4 major suit fit, partner's hand may have ruffing power, so this is not a cut-and-dried issue. I merely share current thinking with you.

As it happened, opener was also 3433, and notrumps was where the matchpoints lay, assuming normal play.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 9/6/20)

Here's a bidding question for you.

North's bidding typically shows an opening hand with at least 5 diamonds and at least 4 clubs (although refer to yesterday's VHotD for a possible exception to that rule). You have diamonds and clubs yourself.

1) What's your general plan, and
2) what do you bid?

1) Your general plan is to investigate a very high minor suit contract, whilst leaving 3NT as a possible, even probable destination.

One contract you would prefer not to reach unless absolutely necessary is 5 (or 5♣).  The problem is that it will lose to 3NT if that contract scores overtricks. And it will also lose to 6, if that is making. It has a very narrow band of success.

So the "let's investigate" answer to question 1) drives the answer to question 2). Wheel out 2, fourth-suit-forcing-to-game. That's the way to find out more. Bidding the fourth suit says to partner: "we have enough for game, please describe your hand further".  If partner bids notrumps next, it will show a stopper in the fourth suit, which means that 3NT is likely the place to be.

If she doesn't bid notrumps, then give up on 3NT, show your diamond support, and you can later decide between 5 and 6.

Don't like to bid a singleton? You have to get over it: the fourth suit bid is not natural in any sense, just as a  Stayman 2♣ is not natural in any sense.

A number of Souths faced this problem, but only Gill Minson and Jo-Anne Heywood found the 2 bid, effortlessly reaching 3NT for a good score. 

(Postscript. A few Wests came in with a heart bid, leading to a similar but different problem. A shout out to the Sues, Douglas and Beckman who cue-bid 3 which had the same effect of pointing towards, and reaching, 3NT.)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 8/6/20)

A lead problem today, and on one of my favourite themes.

There were 10 tables and I wouldn't be surprised if there were 10 different auctions. But this is how a Robot (West) and Terry Carberry (East) bid it, which is as good as anything.

Anyway, several Norths faced this lead problem, on this or a similar auction. Choose your poison.

If you take a look at all four hands, you will find that only the ♠K (or Q) defeats 3NT.  It establishes South's spades, who then gets in with the A to win four spades and a diamond. 

Before discussing the lead, what about the auction?

I would never choose this pair of hands for a lesson, because I don't have the foggiest idea how to bid it. 4441 hands are always troublesome, but the ones with a singleton spade are the worst of all (followed closely by those with a singleton club). You could open 1 and rebid 2♣ (over partner's 1♠), as the robot did, which lies about the diamond length. Or you could bid 1♣ and then 2 reversing: some did that. Or you could bid 1 of a minor and follow up with a notrump bid: several Wests did that.

And all along, the hand record says the only game is in hearts! The darned suit never even gets a mention.

Anyway, back to the lead. I think the ♠K is the best lead in theory, as well as it was in practice. Obviously no other suit stands out, but the key point is that, whatever the auction, declarer is short in spades.  My tip is this; against notrumps, try leading the suit that declarer is short in. It so often works a treat.

As a postscript, a number of Souths found themselves on lead to 3NT. Most of them chose the ♠J as their opening lead (as would have I). That won't work, as long  as declarer wins the second round of spades.But one South, Col O'Brien, led his fourth best, the ♠6, and that does work. Well done Col - he would have had Australia's greatest ever player, Tim Seres, in his corner ... Tim just loved fourth best leads to notrumps, even from suits with promising honour sequences, like this one. 

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 5/6/20)

Here's a nice bidding / defence combination hand.

Let's start with South, who with three jacks has a real decision to make.

North's auction, 2♣ followed by 2NT shows 23-24 HCP, balanced.

Should South bid 3NT?  Yes or no?

Next, put yourself in the West seat, as a defender to 2 or 3NT. Partner leads the ♠4.  Your ♠Q loses to declarer's ♠K,

Next North plays ace and another diamond, as partner discards a heart on the second round.

What's going on? What do you do?

The Bidding

Whilst 23-24 + 3 = 26-27, which should be enough for 3NT, the three jacks are not really worth 3 points. They could be worth nothing. Or maybe one of them will be of some use.

The other problem is that setups where one player has has all the strength and the other virtually none do not play well. The problem is lack of entries into the weak hand, It may be impossible to run a long suit or take a finesse.

For example the diamonds here. Maybe they can be setup for winners, but how will declarer reach dummy to take them?

Whilst most Souths played the numbers here and raised to 3NT, Jane Griffiths was one who didn't. She passed 2NT, which I think is the right call, and which her partner, Pip Liebelt would have been pleased about that when she saw the dummy.

The Play

As a defender, this is where you can apply the Rule of 11. Partner led the 4, 11-4 = 7. That's the number of cards higher than the 4 in the other three hands. You can see five of them, your Q, 8, 6, 5, and dummy's 9.  That leaves two for declarer, one of which has already been played (the king).

So declarer has just one high spade left.

Your side has got declarer covered in spades ... you just need to avoid blocking the suit.

Get out of your partner's way by playing the ♠8 back.

Take a careful look at all four hands. This is what happened at a number of tables.  West played back a low spade. East took declarer's ♠J with the ♠A, then cashed ♠10. West still had time to recover, but not seeing what was about to happen played the other small spade. Now East played ♠7, but West had to win it with the ♠8.  East's remaining ♠3 went uncashed.

I haven't looked at all 18 tables, but well done to any West who successfully unblocked the suit.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 4/6/20)

I was called to the table to sort out a misclick on board 1, and stayed to watch a very nice declarer play. You have a go at it.

The lead to your 4 contract as West is ♠5.

Maybe you should be in 6 but making 12 tricks whilst in 4 will earn you a good score.

There's the A to lose, and maybe a club trick. How do you go about the play?  Decide, then click [Show Answer].

One of West's clubs can be thrown on the K, and the other, you hope, on an established diamond. You need to manage your entries to dummy.

One entry has been taken out at trick 1. How many more do you need?

Let's see, A, then one entry to play the K and ruff a diamond, another to ruff another diamond, one hopes to make the last diamond good, and another entry to take it.

So three more entries.  A second top spade, the ♣A, and ...?

Well the first thing to do is play to your A, before one of your precious entries is sucked up with the diamonds still blocked.

Now play the K. The opponents win A and play another spade (your next entry used). Ruff a diamond (you leave the K unplayed, whilst there are still trumps out).  Draw the remaining trumps. Over to the ♣A,  K, discarding a club. The Q is still outstanding. Ruff a diamond: the Q falls - dummy's last diamond is a winner.

Then, and this is the good bit, play a heart to dummy's 7 to cash that winner and claim 12 tricks.

Plays itself, right? Not really, because you need to have a heart lower than the 7 in order to use that card as an entry. You must preserve either the 6 or 2 of hearts in your hand ... if you carelessly ruffed dummy's two diamond spots with those cards, down you go.

This is what you call 'planning the play'.

Nick Truscott was the declarer I watched make no mistake, retaining a low heart in the West hand for a vital entry. Plus 480 earned him 69%. Well done to him, and any other declarers who had the necessary foresight.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 3/6/20)

Here's a bidding problem that came up at most tables. Let's say you open 2NT, showing 20-22 HCP (at some tables this happened in delayed fashion after a multi 2 opening).

Partner transfers to hearts with a 3 bid. You dutifully accept the transfer with a 3 bid, right?

Wrong.

In a previous VHotD, I warned against 'super-accepting' transfer bids, unless you had explicitly 4-card support for partner's suit, and maximum values.

But that was after a transfer over 1NT.

After 2NT, it's different, because your auction is cramped. Partner has no room to make a game-invitational bid: he or she must decide after your 3 whether to bid game or not. 

This means that if you like the look of partner's transfer, you as the 2NT bidder should take matters into your own hands and jump to 4.  After a strong 2NT bid, this usually means any hand with 3-card support, unless perhaps it's dead flat and dead minimum. Clearly this 22 HCP hand is neither of those.

Most Norths did the dutiful thing, and bid 3, playing there. Partner's 2-count gave them no motivation to bid any further, and a rather easy game contract was missed.

Two  Norths, Jenny Gray and Sue Hollands, jumped to 4, to share a well-deserved top board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 2/6/20)

A play problem today. But first I want to have a word about the bidding.

If you didn't have the auction given (assuming Standard American), then I would respectfully suggest you misbid. Any Wests that opened need a dose of Ritalin. And I know there were a few Easts that opened 1♣ rather than 1NT. They didn't like their doubleton spade, no doubt, but it doesn't work like that. If you don't open balanced 16 point hands with 1NT, you will run into impossible rebid problems, as indeed happened to those Easts. 

OK, you're in 3NT, South leads ♠Q, ♠K, ♠A. North returns ♠4 and South wins ♠J. South plays a third spade, the ♠7, you win as North follows ♠5. 

What is your thinking, and how do you play the hand?

Step 1. Count your top tricks: 1 spade, 4 hearts, 1 diamond, 2 clubs = 8.

Step 2. How do you get extra tricks?  The diamond finesse could work of course, but you can get two extra tricks in clubs if you can deal with the ♣Q. This is a two-way finesse position, where one can play either North or South for the queen, and exterminate it by finessing.

Step 3. The plan.  There is an important principle in play here, with a fancy sounding name: it's called the Law of Vacant Spaces.  Play your four hearts. If the suit divides 4-2, then play the defender who has the short hearts for the ♣Q. The theory is that the more space there is for that card in their hand, the more likely they are to hold it. It is a concept that is statistically valid.

On this deal, South shows up with 2 hearts, North with 4: South is more likely to have the ♣Q.  Janice Meldrum was one declarer who made no mistake, finesseing South for that card and maximizing her tricks.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 1/6/20)

For HotD, I was drawn to this board due to the strange statement on the hand record of who could make what. More on that later.

First, suppose you as East hold this monster and decide, rightly or wrongly, to open 1. Partner passes, which you don't like, and RHO bids 1♠, which you do.

What's your next bid?

This sort of decision comes up a bit. You have a choice between repeating the hearts, or showing your clubs. (Never mind the level, that's a separate issue.)

Whilst there is a case for repeating the hearts, based on 'majors are more important than minors', I recommend otherwise.

The argument, which I find convincing, goes like this: if you rebid the hearts, showing 6+, then you are showing 6 of your 13 cards.  If you bid the clubs (showing 4+, along with your 5+ card heart suit), you are showing 9 of your 13 cards.

9 is better than 6, in that it gives partner a better idea of what denomination you belong in. So I recommend you try to show a second suit, when you can.

And what does the hand record say? You can make 3, or ... 7♣! On this layout, it was definitely worth showing the clubs.

About half the field had the problem posed here. To a man, and woman, they repeated the hearts. Bye-bye club contract.

The rest of the field opened 2♣, and actually often had a similar problem at a higher level. To a man, and woman, they repeated the hearts.  Just one pair, Juanita Monahan and Cheryle McBride managed to find a club contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Saturday 30/5/20)

I was struck by this delicate rebid problem, which actually occurred twice today. The first was North's on board 6. This was the second.

What's your decision?

You could certainly rebid 2, showing around 11-14  HCP and a 6-card suit. That's what you've got.

The alternative is to raise partner's spades with only 3 of them. You're meant to have four, but the side suit singleton makes looking for a major suit fit attractive. It's about bowing down to the great god Major.

You could play a nice safe contract of 2, but playing in spades is more exciting, and more profitable, if it works.

The condition for a major suit raise on three is:
1) a side suit shortage (singleton or void)
2) minimum strength

There were a variety of choices actually made, 2 of course, but also 3, 3♠, 2.  But hats off to Margaret Higgins, the only player whose judgment matched mine, with a 2♠ bid.

(For the record, I think on board 6, North should also give a 3-card raise to 2♠ .)

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 29/5/20)

Here's a bidding decision that most Easts faced, in this or similar form.

What do you do? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Partner has shown a strong hand with self-sufficient hearts.  You have heart support, a diamond void (the opponents' bid suit), and the luscious ♣AKQ.

What are you waiting for?

You can make a slam - surely you can make a slam!

You could go down ... South could ruff the opening lead, or maybe against all odds, they take the ace and king of spades. The sky could fall in.

But what does your gut tell you?  It is that you can make a slam. 

I recommend a bid of 6.  Bid the slam - make an overtrick - next board please.

No one did that. But a few Easts at least Blackwooded, and when they found out one keycard (or ace) was missing, they went on to slam. (Blackwood doesn't help much when you have a void ... but at least they allowed their guts to tell them what to do.)  And a few more Easts, when partner Blackwooded and signed off, did the gut-induced thing and bid 6.

Honour role of gutsy Easts: Doug Bell, Mary King, Glenda Edge, Joanne Heywood, and also Gordon Travers - Deena Pathy, who bid the slam on a completely different auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Thursday 28/5/20)

Consider this interesting bidding problem. After RHO's 3rd seat 1♠ opening, what do you bid, and why?

What is your objective here? I would say it is to be allowed to play 4 in peace, and not have the pesky opponents bid 4♠ over it.

(As an aside, if RHO had been the dealer, so that partner was no longer a passed hand, there would be the issue that you might have a slam. That problem is a whole different kettle of fish.)

Well, how best to achieve that? There are two strategies, and you should be aware of both of them.

The first is to bid 4 up front. Maybe LHO will not have a hand on which he is prepared to bid 4♠. On the other hand, that sort of confident bid is just begging the opponents to bid 4♠. 

That leads us to strategy number 2, known as walking the dog. Bid 2, or double. The opponents will bid spades. Then bid 3, and later 4. You hope that the opponents will be 'all spaded out', and listening to your unconvincing bidding, decide that you are going down in 4. Walking the dog requires nerves of steel.

In real life, it was hard to know what works and what doesn't. You can make 4, but it isn't easy. 4♠ N/S should definitely go down a trick.

Well done to Helge Pederson, who bid 4, silencing N/S and then found a way to make it.

One final point. If you bid 4, and N/S bids 4♠, you should double it. Sure it may make, but you've forced your LHO to guess, and with your powerful hand, you have every reason to believe he may have guessed wrong. +100 is a lot better than +50.

In fact, a lot of Easts got sucked into bidding 5: they couldn't let go with their hearty hand ... dummy would have been a disappointment!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Wednesday 27/5/20)

Try playing 4 here as North. East leads the ♠6 which West wins with ♠A.  West now switches to the 9.  Interesting!

Which card with you play, the ace, the queen or the ten?

The ace will work well if East has singleton king.

The queen will work well if East has singleton jack.

The ten will work well if East is void. We're unlikely to do that!

You might reflect that East, who has a broken spade suit, and not the AK of diamonds (do you see why: she would have led a diamond with ace-king), might need the K to justify her vulnerable overcall.

But there is a much stronger reason to go up with the A here, refusing all finesses. It is that the defence hasn't taken its 3 side-tricks, a diamond and two spades. Now if the clubs divide 3-3, you can play 4 rounds of clubs, discarding one of your losers, and still make the contract, even if the K is outstanding. In essence, there's another winning combination for you: KJ with East, and clubs dividing 3-3.

Kate Bechet was one declarer who went up with the A in this situation.

East followed with the singleton king. In real-life bridge, East would now look suspiciously at declarer, and shift their chair back a foot. But online, this was just a very good play by Kate.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Tuesday 26/5/20)

I've written several VHotDs regarding whether and how high to pre-empt. It's an important topic, and today's deal demonstrates why pre-empting is such a valuable tool.

As South you hold this splendid hand, but RHO annoys you with a 3♣ opening bid.

What do you do?

Many Souths faced this problem, and I believe they decided between a 3 overcall and a takeout double.

Those who chose 3 were probably aware that their hand was over-strength for this bid, but what else could they do? They ended up playing that contract, and making in comfort with some number of overtricks.

Those who doubled weren't prepared to bid only 3: they wanted more.  The problem was: what would be their followup plan if partner responded 3 or 3♠ (a likely progression).  In fact, partner bid 3♠ and they raised to 4♠ on a wing and a substantial prayer - after all, partner might only have four spades.  In fact, partner did have a 5-card suit, but the foul distribution wrecked their 4♠ contract.

When a pre-empt  is bid against you, it tends to spell bad breaks. Bidding to suit contracts (like 4♠ here) is prone to the slings and arrows of outrageous distribution. Often, notrumps serves as some sort of protection against those bad breaks.

The correct bid inolves a little bit of risk-taking: it is 3NT. You have a club stopper. You have a long minor which might just develop a lot of tricks. And if 3NT is the correct spot, as it surely is here, how else are you going to reach it?

Of course you could go screaming down ... LHO may have all the points, and partner nothing. But 3NT is the percentage bid, and in general I recommend innoculating yourself against preempts with a notrump bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Monday 25/5/20)

Scanning through the deals in search of a suitable hand I came across board 17. It immediately piqued my interest, as at all 12 tables, the auction was identical: 1♠ by East, passed out. That doesn't happen often.

So against this simplest of auctions, South has to lead. All four suits were chosen, in real life.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to rank the four suits, from worst to best as an opening lead.

Here's my opinions. Feel free to vehemently disagree.

Worst: a trump. This lead doesn't seem to achieve anything, except lead up into declarer's suit, probably destroying partner's trump holding in the process.

Two Souths led trumps, to give away 9 tricks, a poor score. (I do like problems where my opinion matches the outcome!)

Second Worst: a heart, ace or low. Leading from ace-suits, against suit contracts, where you don't have the king, is just a bad idea, period. If you lead the ace, you are just asking to let them win a king that they shouldn't have. And if you lead a low one, you are just asking to lose your ace. 

Two Souths led hearts, one ace, one low, to give away 9 tricks, the same poor score. 

Second Best: a club. Many top players would probably have this as the best lead, but I dislike leading away from broken honour holdings, if you can avoid it. It's just too likely to let declarer win a cheap trick, that he couldn't ordinarily win if he had to play this suit himself. 

Six Souths led a club, which works out nicely, as partner's ace fells declarer's singleton king. The results varied (the rest of the play was not obvious), but in general, the club leaders scored well.

Best: a diamond, the Hippocratic lead. First, do no harm. Leading from weak suits is safe: it usually doesn't give away anything that declarer could not do himself. 

The two diamond leaders, Susan Everist and Peter Hannemann, both held declarer to 8 tricks, for a good score. A shout-out to their judgment, which matches mine.

Postscript: All these comments pertain to suit contracts, not notrump contracts!

Virtual Hand of the Day (Saturday 23/5/20)

Try your hand at this declarer play problem.

West leads A, K and a third heart, East following all the way.

After winning the third round of hearts, what is your plan?

Jo-Anne Heywood aced the play on this deal.  She took four rounds of spades, then played A, then a diamond from dummy and a finesse of the jack.  Had she never heard of "8 ever, 9 never"?  

She took the crucial step of reviewing the bidding. West had bid hearts, then clubs. That sounded a lot like a 5-5 hand.  When West followed to two rounds of spades, Jo-Anne read her as having a singleton or void diamond: hence the winning play in diamonds.

Personally, I would have overcalled 2NT with that West hand, the Unusual Notrump, showing 5-5 in the two lowest unbid suits. That would have also given the show away, if N/S could navigate to 3NT, which is no easy matter. No one bid 2NT, but a few cue bid 2, a style of Michaels Cue-Bidding with which I am unfamiliar.

All the other Wests made a simple overcall of 1 and retired from the auction, which gave N/S little chance of guessing the diamonds correctly in 3NT.

But the point of the deal is to remember to review the bidding when planning the play (this includes the defenders).  The bidding has disappeared from the screen, but you can have it displayed by clicking on the contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (Friday 22/5/20)

Suppose you are North, declarer in 2♠.  The lead is  the 3. 1) How do you play it?

I have two followup questions:
2) how greedy are you?
3) how strong are your opponents?

Answer all three questions for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Only you can know the answer to 2) and the answer to 3) may be difficult on-line.

If you are not very greedy and/or you respect your opponents, you will answer 1) as follows:

- Overtake the Q with the A.
- Take the K discarding a club from dummy.
- Play trumps.

You will end up losing the two major suit aces, and two club tricks. Your third club is trumped, and your fourth club is discarded on the Q.

All the Norths in this position were greedy and failed to respect their opponents. And in many cases, the greed worked. As it turns out, greed can be good. But the problem with letting the Q win the first trick is that you have no quick entry to your hand to play more diamonds.  The defenders can win the next trick, then take three club tricks to go with their two aces, holding you to 8 tricks. 

One greedy declarer underestimated her East opponent, who was Glenda Edge. When she played a trump at trick 2, Glenda took the ♠A and switched unerringly to clubs, allowing her and partner Helen Schapper, to reel in 5 tricks to hold declarer to 110.

And the unnamed greedy declarer can take some solace in the fact that she still scored above average on the board, because many Norths over-extended themselves in the bidding, trying for, or even bidding, a game with their very moderate hand.

 

Virtual Hand of the Day (21/5/20)

Let's examine this very wild board from our stop-start session.

After West opens 1♣ ...
1) what should North bid?
2) what should East do over that bid?

Both these decisions seem instructive to me.

We'll start with North and his 9 diamonds. I have a feeling you should bid diamonds here, but how many?  It's fairly clearly an 8-trick hand ... you can budget for just one loser in diamonds, and there's nothing elsewhere.

So vulnerable, that would call for a 4 preempt.  Still, with a 9-card suit, you could go the full monty and bid 5.

Anything less is insufficient!

Switching to East ... you can see why anything less than 4 is not enough. Over 1 or 2 or 3, East can just bid hearts, and hope to have a dialogue of sorts with partner.

But over 4? Just bidding 4 can't be right. You could have a spade contract, or a club contract, or need to defend. A double here is best played as takeout, and is perfect for the hand.

And over a 5 preempt? I think you have to double, but this time, it's primarily for penalties.

Not all the E/W pairs coped over the 4 and 5  preempts, but they all did after the lower bids, reaching a comfortable 4

Honour Roll.

Jane Griffiths (North) bid 4 : her opponents didn't cope, doubling her there. It made, for the N/S top.

John Foreman (North) bid 5 : his opponents failed to double, which turned out to be 'wise', as they failed to defeat the contract.  Second top score N/S.

Deb Fogarty (East) doubled 4, her partner, Teck Chan, correctly read it as takeout, and bid 4 making 12 tricks for a shared E/W top.

Mike Pogson (East) got a 5 bid from Claire Baxter (North). He correctly doubled, defeated it one trick, for an average. At this table North and East played tough correct bridge, and honours were shared.

Virtual Hand of the Day (20/5/20)

A simple opening call decision for you today. RHO passes, and you're up.

1, 2 or pass?

The hand is all wrong for 2: in particular the presence of the strong 4-card spade suit. That will make it difficult to find a possible spade contract. I don't believe anyone did open 2.

So will you open or pass?  The Rule of 20 suggests you open. Take the length of your two longest suits, and add it to your HCP, and if it's at least 20, then open at the 1-level.  Well 6 + 4♠ + 10 HCP = 20.

If you're a fan of the losing trick count, then there's only 5 losers (1 spade, 2 hearts, 1 diamond, 1 club). You need at most 7 losers to open using LTC. My goodness, it seems it's a strong opening bid!  It's the combination of the shape and the two KQ combinations that make it such a powerful hand.

The BBO Robot opened 1 without hesitation: perhaps it was programmed with the Rule of 20. So did humans Sarah Walter, Helen McAdam and Shirley Bowman. This put them on the path to the correct contract of 3NT.  Those who passed instead had more difficulty, and in the main missed out on 3NT. South was never able to visualize the power of North's hand.

I admit I'm a fan of the Rule of 20, applied specifically to 10 and 11 HCP hands. It's simple, and surprisingly effective. A recommended device.

Virtual Hand of the Day (19/5/20)

How do you deal with this sticky bidding problem?  As South you open 1, 1NT on your left, then 2♠ by partner.  Why do partners always make the bid you don't want to see?

Anyway, your call.

This problem involves an important principle. When you open 1 of a suit, LHO overcalls 1NT and partner bids a new suit at the 2-level, that bid is non-forcing.

The reason? Well, if partner has a good hand (eg 10 or more points), she will double 1NT for penalties. After all, holding a majority of the points, she will be licking her chops at the prospect of penalizing the opponents. 

Therefore, all non-doubles are weaker, and definitely non-forcing. To bid 2♠ here, and considering that the 1NT overcaller has a strong hand, responder should have at least 6 of them. So holding a singleton jack is not the worst thing in the world. South should pass.

And indeed, 2♠ is the correct contract, and should make. Anything higher is in dire jeopardy.

A number of Souths faced this problem, and from a quick scan, only Helene Harkin found the correct pass. Well done!

Virtual Hand of the Day (18/5/20)

This deal saw some interesting tactical manouvreing from Monday evening. Put yourself in South's seat.

First ... what do you think of South's bidding?  Love it? Hate it? Can live with it?

Second ... partner leads the 6 to West's 4♠: you win A as declarer follows with 5.  What next?

The bidding

I love it. A 2 opening was possible in third seat, but I think staying quiet was a great idea. That way, you might be able to get hearts into the picture later.

And the double (takeout) was really well judged. With the opponents potentially about to play in 2♠ you want to get in (pre-balancing, it's called, mentioned in another VHotD). A takeout double was the way to go: if partner bids clubs, you will correct to 3 to force partner to choose between the red suits. This strategy wouldn't have been available if your minor suits were swapped.

The play

South in this story was Teck Chan. After winning the A, she went for a club ruff, by switching to her singleton.  Declarer won in dummy, played a spade to North's (Hana Kadera) ♠A, and Hana then returned a club for Teck to ruff.  An eventual diamond trick then scuttled 4♠. Not surprisingly this was  a stone-cold top for Hana and Teck, on their way to 68%.

One final twist

Gillian Farrell was another South who defended exactly the same way. But in her case, declarer, Robyn Sutton, cleverly won the club in the West hand and played a spade towards dummy's ♠K87.  North played second hand low (as would have I), and South's club ruff disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Virtual Hand of the Day (16/5/20)

I've been writing quite a bit about preempts lately. Preempts are good because they annoy all three other players, two of whom are your opponents. So the ratios are good, right?

Unfortunately, somethimes this happens. You are East, and West opens 4♣ . Well, thank you partner, but I'm annoyed.

What do you do?

Put anything but a club contract out of your mind. Classically, partner should have 6-10 HCP and about 8 clubs. You may or may not be on for 5♣, but how do you decide?

This is where the Rule of 2 and 3 (discussed elsewhere in these pages) is so valuable. I've described it in terms of working out how high to pre-empt. But it's a tool for partner, to help work out what the final contract should be.

So let's apply it. Your side is vulnerable, so partner should have 2 tricks fewer than his contract, i.e. 8 tricks. Good.

Your A is a 9th, and the ♠KQ is worth the 10th. That leaves the QJ and K. Could they between them constitute the 11th? 

It's hard to say, but at least it's a sound mathematical basis for deciding what to do.

Indeed, if you look at all four hands, it still doesn't help. 5♣  can be defeated on the lead of the ♠J, followed by a spade return. But that defence might not be found. It truly is a line-ball decision.

Congratulations to Kaylene Duncan - Sarah Walter and Mary King - Maggie Kelly, the two E/W pairs to have the educated auction 4♣ - 5♣, both of which made to provide E/W with the two best scores.

Virtual Hand of the Day (15/5/20)

Partner's 2NT shows 20-22, and in response to your Stayman bid, shows a 4-card heart suit.

There might be a slam. Or there might not. What's your bid?

I was checking on what some Souths did, as the board was being played. 

Some Blackwooded, and finding just one keycard missing, bid 6.  They thought there was a slam.

Others bid 4. They thought there wasn't a slam.

The thing is: you just don't know. You could be missing the ♠AK.  Or there might be a grand slam. It's really hard to say.

You need to consult partner.

You can do that by bidding 5 - a natural invitation to 6.  After all, there's a difference between 20 and 22 HCP.  I wonder if anyone did.

Looking at all 4 hands ... partner has 21 HCP, but they are very nice, and I would have accepted an invitation.  And it's an excellent slam, as it happens, very easy to make if trumps divide 3-2. In fact, trumps were 4-1, so things were a lot more difficult, but 12 tricks can, and should, still be made.  Well done to the Souths who did so.

Virtual Hand of the Day (14/5/20)

Here's a nasty little bidding problem for you.  After your partner's 15-17 HCP 1NT, the nuisance sitting on your right comes in with 3.

There could be a spade contract here, or a club contract, or even a notrump contract. Or maybe no contract at all! What do you do?

I think I've summarized it well. You don't have the foggiest idea what the right contract is (which may, for your side, be 3 by them), but there is a bid that caters for many possibilities.

It is to make a takeout double.

Think about it: if partner has spades, she will bid them (and you can decide whether to bid 4♠, but at least you've found your spade fit).

If partner doesn't have spades, and doesn't have hearts, she'll have to bid a minor, and you will wind up in 5♣, which may be too high, but could also be just right.

And if partner doesn't have spades, but does have a heart cover, she will choose between 3NT and passing 3 doubled, either of which might work well.

Great bid that double, and found by Fiona Trescowthick - very well done.

That left her partner, Gill Minson with a thorny problem of her own, whether to bid 3NT or pass the double for penalties. But either works. Gill decided to pass, and +500 (whilst not as good a score as making 3NT) was a decent reward, and earned them a 70% score on the board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (13/5/20)

Today's deal features a splendid all round performance from Shirley Stewart.  She sat West.

In the auction, she correctly doubled 1♠, bringing all three other suits into play. She was not the only one to do so, but several Wests either passed (chicken) or bid 2 (all eggs in one basket). Excuse the poultry references.

South wound up in 3♠, and Shirley knew to lead a club, the suit partner had volunteered. Note that those who didn't double 1♠ never got this assistance on the opening lead, as their partners never bid clubs.

She imaginatively led the ♣K, which won the trick, and played another club to partner's ♣A.  Partner, Joan Courtemanche, now played A, then 10, to declarer's J and Shirley's K.

That's four tricks in, one to go. What now?

That A is staring you in the face, but Shirley did the right thing and played a third round of hearts! Partner trumped it, and that was down one.

All other Wests in this position couldn't stop themselves playing the A and declarer trumped that!  Making 9 tricks.

But Shirley was right, both in practice and in theory. If the A is a trick now, it will be later also. It can't possibly disappear. There's no suit for declarer to discard a diamond on, and there's no way dummy will be able to discard four diamonds on some mythical side-suit of declarer's.

But a heart ruff is entirely possible, and needs to be taken right now. 

There's a real take-away from this deal, for defenders.  If you have a winner now, and the play tells you it must also be a winner later, then perhaps you should leave it until later, just in case it's not a winner after all.

Virtual Hand of the Day (12/5/20)

Here's a deal where bidding and cardplay both play a big role in a pair's result.  I'll give you the bidding problem to start.

Your partner's 1NT opening shows 16 to 18 HCP.  After your Stayman, the spade fit is revealed.

Should you try for a slam, and if so, how?

You have 14 HCP and 1 distribution point, so when you add that to partner's 16-18 HCP, slam is definitely in the picture. 

What's more, your points are pure: the aces and kings are golden, and the QJ is good too, because it is in your trump suit. Every single one of those high-card-points are pulling their weight.

Jan Downing was one player who faced this problem. She went for it, using Gerber to check on aces, then kings, finally arriving in 6♠.

If that's too much for you (and it might have been for me), can I suggest a simple alternative?  Bid 5♠.  A simple invitation to slam. Looking at all four hands, partner had a big maximum 18-count: he would have accepted.  The slam-invitational bid of 5-of-a-major is an often overlooked tool.  People love to ask for aces, but there's more to slams than just aces.

Look at all four hands. 6♠ looks easy (11 top tricks, and you can ruff a club for the twelfth).  Suppose you win the heart lead and start drawing trumps. When West shows out on the second round, you have to delay drawing the remainder of the trumps.  You should lose your heart trick now, get the lead back, and ruff a heart. Finally pull the rest of East's trumps and claim.

Several players missed this play and scored only 11 tricks.  What with a few accidents in 6NT, missing the spade slam but playing 4♠ correctly for two overtricks would have gotten you a 64% score.

The moral? No matter how bad your final contract, you may be able to salvage a lot of matchpoints in the play!

Virtual Hand of the Day (11/5/20)

Let's look at a declarer play problem from our first evening game. As West, you land in 4 and the lead is the ♣K. You win the ace and pause to consider.  (Unfortunately, no one faced this exact problem, due to one variation or another. Still, 4 is interesting, whatever the lead.)

How do you play the trumps? And how do you play the hand?

Have a good think about that, and then click [Show Answer].

How do you play the hearts?

With an 8-card fit, the correct play is to finesse North for the Q. (That's the "eight-ever" bit of "eight-ever-nine-never".)

But you don't have to do it immediately. In playing trumps, you would take the ace first, just in case South has a singleton queen. Assuming they follow with small cards, finesse on the second round of the suit.

How do you play the hand?

Forget about trumps for the moment: you have some finessing to do. You'd like to play a diamond towards your king, hoping South has the A. (If the king loses to the ace, later you'll lead a diamond towards the jack, hoping North has the Q.)

And you'd like to finesse South for the ♠Q, a finesse you may want to repeat. So a finesse, taken twice.

That's 3 finesses leading from dummy. And you have precisely 3 entries: the ♣A, A and K. In fact, you're in dummy right now for the third last time. Take a finesse!

It doesn't matter much which one you try, but let's say you play a diamond, and good news: your K wins.

Now back to the A (not finessing in trumps yet): more good news: North has singleton Q. Finally finesse in spades (this is probably for an overtrick): if the finesse works, you can repeat it later.

The spade finesse loses, but you have your 10 tricks.

My question is: are you prepared to spend a little while at trick 1 working out your line of play? That's what the best players do!

Virtual Hand of the Day (10/5/20)

Today, I have an opening lead problem for you, and some homework.

You are East, on lead to North's heart contract.  (You probably should have overcalled 1♠, but let's assume you didn't.)

What's your lead? Decide, and then click [Show Answer].

 

I am with a growing band of players who don't like to lead from king-suits. It just seems to donate a trick to declarer on too many occasions.

A trump is unattractive ... which leaves diamonds.  Leading top of a side-suit doubleton is a good lead in many cases: both relatively safe, and with the hope of gaining a ruff.

I hope you agree, and if you look at all four hands, you will find that it's the killing lead.  Partner takes two diamond tricks, the ace-queen sitting over the king, and continues with a third diamond. You can overuff declarer if necessary (or if declarer trumps high, that generates a trick for your Q).  That's three tricks in, and you can't be stopped from winning a club for the setting trick.

Well done to Jan James, Libby Thomson, Maggie Truscott and Sue Hollands, who all found the diamond lead to North's heart contract.

Homework.

The hand record makes a strange point.  It states that 4 played from North can be beaten (and we can see how), but if played by South it can't be.

Clearly that must be because West cannot lead diamonds effectively. But wait a minute. What if West leads the ♣4?  Then declarer will have to go up with the ♣A (otherwise East wins ♣K, switches to a diamond and gets three more tricks there.)

The problem with that is that it appears to leave declarer with two club losers, to go with the two diamond losers.  So the homework question is: looking at all four hands, how can South make 4 on the lead of a low club? That's not an easy question to answer.

There's no excuse for not having a go at this because let's face it: you're at home right now.

Virtual Hand of the Day (9/5/20)

Today's deal is a bit of a rerun of a previous VHotD, but it's worth it.

Dealer on your right passes, and you are next to speak. What say you?

It's a similar setup to the deal on 6th May, and a chance to practise the Rule of 2 & 3. So let's count our winners.

6 spades (we might lose to the queen), and the fourth heart should count as a winner. So 7 winners. We're not vulnerable, so we should bid 3 more tricks than we have. 4♠!!

What's that, you say? You've been told never to preempt when you have a side 4-card major?

Well that advice has much less value when the suit you are preempting in is the other major. And the strength of the suits is relevant as well.  The AKJ10xxx looks rather magnificent compared to the puny J9xx. It's long odds that your side belongs in hearts rather than spades.

4♠ skewers the opponents. South probably has to pass, given that North has already passed. And 4♠ goes down by a couple, with N/S making a game in either red suit. (Yes, 4 can be defeated, A, diamond ruff, low spade to West's queen, another diamond ruff. Yeah, right.)

So ... what happened at the 15 tables?  Well, no one opened 4♠, for which the various N/S's would be grateful.  Everyone opened some lower number of spades, except for the Robot, who passed!!!!  A rule (no side 4-card major) is a rule!

Virtual Hand of the Day (8/5/20)

Today I present two bidding problems for you. This is the first of them.

As South, East has stolen your bid: you were about to respond 1 yourself.  So how do you react to this development?

Well, hearts are out. So you are left with 13 HCP, a stopper in the opponent's suit, and a balanced hand.

That's enough information: don't overthink it. The 13 HCP means you want to bid game. The balanced hand and heart stopper means you want it to be in notrumps.  So 3NT it is.

Well done to Libby Persson and Deb Fogarty who were, I think, the only Souths to make the simpleton (and correct) bid.

The second bidding problem.

Having looked at all four hands, what do you think of East's 1 overcall?

T
h
i
n
k

M
u
s
i
c

Well, I like it.  The suit is moth-eaten, but the distribution is nice, and I think it's worth a bid. How wrong am I, and all those who did bid 1. If East stays shtum, she gets to enjoy defending a N/S 4 contract. Such is bridge.

Virtual Hand of the Day (7/5/20)

Try this bidding decision for size. RHO opens 1, you correctly pass (a few Wests doubled, which I officially frown upon, although such doubles rarely get what they probably deserve), and the auction proceeds as shown.

What do you do?

There's a great rule-of-thumb for these auctions where partner makes a bid after 1suit - Pass - Pass (a balancing bid). 

The thing is: East needs to make a bid with hands that wouldn't warrant a bid if they were sitting over the opening bidder. The reason is that East probably doesn't want to pass them out at the one-level: that shows a lack of competitiveness.

Take a look at all four hands.  Several Easts did pass out 1 and the outcome was poor. 1 went off a trick or two for 50 or 100 to E/W, which was inadequate compensation for the easy partscore available.

So, the rule-of-thumb. In balancing seat (East here), mentally add 3 HCP to your hand and bid accordingly. That makes East easily worth a 1♠ bid.

Now the problem with mentally adding 3 HCP is that those points don't actually exist. To keep the world in balance, partner of the balancer, West, has to mentally subtract 3 HCP from their hand, and bid accordingly. So West's 13-count has now become 10, and perhaps a competitive bid of 2♠ is sufficient. To be honest, I didn't expect anyone to find such a restrained and knowledgeable bid, but I was wrong. Both Leeron Branicki and Carole Foreman did indeed bid 2♠, and their partner played in that sound contract for a good score.  3♠ can be defeated, and was on a couple of occasions. That was really excellent bidding from those two Wests.

Virtual Hand of the Day (6/5/20)

Today's deal features an opening pre-empt decision. You are South, dealer at favourable vulnerability. What do you open?

There's two ways to look at this decision ... the basic way, and the right way.

The basic approach is this. You have between 6 and 10 HCP and a decent 7-card suit. Open 3.  That's what is taught to novices, and it's fine as far as it goes. Which is not far enough.

The right way is to examine the vulnerability and apply the Rule of 2 and 3. When you pre-empt, you are basically saying to your opponents: "I'm prepared to go down, to stop you making a higher scoring contract of your own".  Well, you will go down more if you are vulnerable, and that affects the equation. With the Rule of 2 and 3:
- if Vulnerable I will bid 2 more tricks than I have in my hand
- if Non-vulnerable I will bid 3 tricks more than I have in my hand

This hand contains 6 heart tricks (assuming you lose to the K, and 1 club trick ... you estimate that after the ace, king and queen are gone, your fourth club will be a winner. It's an estimate, but a fair one.

So it's a 7-trick hand, non-vulnerable, you bid for 3 tricks more: 10 tricks.  This is the perfect 4 opening. 

Player Wwest2 did, I believe, open 4.  His or her opponents didn't find their spade contract (in fact 6♠ by East will make, despite thetwo missing cashing aces).  But Wwest2 blocked out a spade contract and went a couple down in 4 non-vulnerable. And if you look at all four hands, you will see that both West and East were rather stymied.  But if South opens a lower heart bid, there's much more chance that West and East will get together and find their spades.

Who was the brilliant player Wwest2?  I don't know ... because he or she didn't insert their real name into their profile.  Please folks, put in your real name (into the "real name" field of your profile), so that you are known to your opponents, and have the chance of being lauded in this column.

Virtual Hand of the Day (5/5/20)

Our first Northern BC matchpointed on-line duplicate, and we had a very healthy 14 tables.  I hope the players had a great time.

Here's a little defensive problem for you, board 11. Sit yourself North.

Your partner leads the A to 4 by East, which seems nice. She continues with her remaining diamond and you win K, as declarer follows with J.  Both partner and declarer have no diamonds left.

Name your next card.

You should play a third diamond.  Perhaps partner can overruff declarer. And if declarer discards a losing black card on the diamond, partner will trump it. So it's all good.

But that's only part of the problem.

Suppose partner does win this trick with a ruff or an overruff. What is she going to do next?  You want to psychically project SPADES .... SPADES at her. But she may not be receptive to the mental vibes.

You can project SPADES with the nature of the diamond you play.  A high diamond projects a high suit (spades), a low diamond projects a low suit (clubs).  It is the classic McKenny signal. 

So you should play the 8.  Partner ruffs and leads a spade, you play yet another diamond, and declarer is down two. This is the classic McKenney (suit preference) signal.

BUT, if partner plays a club back instead (which may happen if you play back your low diamond), the contract can actually make!

Virtual Hand of the Day (4/5/20)

Today I'd like to present an important principle of the game that I have learned over many decades of playing.

It is encapsulated in Board 7, which is presented as a bidding problem.

After LHO has opened 1, partner overcalls 2.  What do you do?  (For extra credit, what do you do if North raises to 2?)

Partner's 2 doesn't fill you with joy. Still, if she has some spades, perhaps you can make a spade contract.  So what's the 'principle' that's meant to help with this decision? It is:

Partner never has what you want.

They really don't. Or at least mine never do. In the auction shown, I recommend you let sleeping dogs lie and pass.  Because whenever I bid 2♠ here, all I ever hear is a 3 repeat bid from partner. As would, and did, happen here, at oodles of tables. If you look at all four hands you will see that 2 will make, and 3 won't. 

If RHO bids 2, I'll admit that the situation is a little different. Now partner is marked with at most a singleton heart (N/S have an 8+ card fit), and the chances are improved that partner will have some spade length. On the other hand, your KQ54 look rather good for defending a heart contract.  It's a line-ball decision.  And as it turns out, it's irrelevant, because North's 2 has given the opportunity for West to repeat the diamonds, which every West did.

Virtual Hand of the Day (3/5/20)

From the complexities of defence, we move to a simple but important bidding problem.

Partner opens 1. Do you bid 1 or 2♣?

Let me give you two reasons why you should respond 1.

  1. You may well belong in a final contract of 1NT. And it's not easy to reach 1NT if you respond 2♣. If after you bid 1, partner bids 1NT, you would pass happily, confident that it is the right contract.
     
  2. If you bid 2♣, there may be quite some difficulty finding a heart fit. Partner's actual hand is a case in point. What should she rebid after your 2♣ response?  Bidding 2 here constitutes a reverse: it's not a good call. East should rebid 2NT, and now as West, are you prepared to continue into the stratosphere with 3? You have neither a known fit, nor a lot of points.

In deciding between responding in a 4 card major at the 1-level or a longer minor at the 2-level, choose the major unless you have enough strength to force to game.

This approach will smooth and simplify your bidding.  In the actual game, there was a mix of 1 and 2♣ responses (a couple of tables passed it out).  On the honour roll for their 1 response are: Shirley Stewart, Ros Davies, Bob Jacobs, Molly Butcher, Deb Fogarty, Christine Walker and Gary Hollands.

Virtual Hand of the Day (2/5/20)

Today, you are sitting West, on defence to 1NT.  You lead the ♣10 and partner wins ♣A as declarer plays low. 

Partner returns the ♣4, and declarer plays the ♣Q.  Should you win that?

That's a tough question. And it can't be answered right now, because you really need to know exactly what club declarer played to the first trick.

If it was the ♣3, then partner's ♣4 is his lowest club. That means he started with either 2 or 4 clubs.  If he started with 3 clubs, then he would return the higher of his two remaining cards. In either the 2 or 4 club scenario, you might as well win the ♣K and return the ♣9.  Remember, dummy's singleton ♣8 was played to the first round. At least, you think it was.

Dammit!  You really need to see that first trick. In 'real' bridge, that trick is gone forever, once you turned over your card. But on BBO, you get another chance. Prior to playing a card to a trick, you can always review the previous trick. Just click on any part of the trick-count blue bars, usually displayed on the left-hand side of the screen. There's a vertical bar (your tricks), and a horizontal bar (their tricks). That will replay the previous trick for you.

Phew!  It went ♣10, ♣8, ♣ A, ♣5. So, when partner returns ♣4, the ♣3 is still hiding somewhere, in either partner's or declarer's hand.

What do you do?

You cannot be 100% certain, but with a reliable partner you should assume he started with ♣A43, and declarer with ♣QJ65.  In which case you need to play low at trick 2, because if you win it, your entryless hand will never get to win further club tricks. Declarer is sure to make, quite possibly with an overtrick. However, if you duck the club, partner will get in soon, and fire back the ♣3 through declarer's remaining ♣Jx, and you win all the clubs to defeat the contract.

That was indeed the layout. I don't believe any player found the duck at trick 2. It's a sophisticated play.  But well done to the Easts who returned the ♣4 rather than the ♣3.  It can make a difference!

Speaking of sophistication, one final point. North should not pass 1NT, instead using a form of Garbage Stayman.  North should bid 2♣ and pass whatever partner bids, including 2.  Garbage Stayman is suitable when you have a weakish 3-suited hand with short clubs. Today's elephant stamp goes to Margaret Green who was the only North to make the 2♣ bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (1/5/20)

I'm in a rut. Here's a problem similar in concept to yesteray's VHotD.  Even the board number (11) is the same!

After your initial pass, LHO opens 1♣ (3+ clubs), and RHO gives a raise to 2♣.  

Do you or don't you bid?  And if you do, what?

Yesterday we talked about this guideline: Don't let your opponents play in a fit at the 2-level.  

It seems we're there again, although there is a slight difference. The opponents haven't yet decided to play at the 2-level: West might have a strong hand and be planning to bid again. But they might be planning to play at the 2-level. There's a term for South's position here: South is in the pre-balancing seat.  

Your hand, which is quite exciting with the club void, needs, in my humble opinion, to bid something here.  It's worth getting into this auction, and as we found out yesterday for board 11, you are not vulnerable.

Two bids are possible: 2 and a takeout double.  Whilst the hearts are very nice, if partner is short in hearts, you might be far better off in spades, or diamonds, or ...

Double is a flexible bid: it brings all three suits into play. It is the superior choice.

Now look at all four hands.  Apart from hearts, spades and diamonds, there's a fourth possibility. It might be best to play in clubs. In particular for your opponents to play in clubs, 2♣ doubled in fact.

If you do double, partner will gleefully pass it, converting to penalties.  And you should certainly be able to take 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 3 clubs, to defeat 2♣ a trick.  As for your side ... well N/S can't even make a 1-level contract, according to the hand-record. 

Well done to Teck Chan and Stan Angelidis who doubled 2♣ for good scores. And Robert Gault got to double a 3♣ response by East (not the worst bid ever by East): partner's eyes lit up as he passed this double for a top board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (30/4/20)

This deal piqued my interest from Thursday evening's game. You are West, and correctly passed over South's 1 opening: there is neither the strength, distribution nor suit quality to put in a bid.

But now 2 has been passed around to you.  Do you revise your opinion and make a bid, and if so, what?

There's a saying: Don't let your opponents play in a fit at the 2-level.

It has some solid theory behind it.  If the opponents have a fit, it usually means that your side has a fit, somewhere. And if the opponents have stopped at the 2-level, it usually means they don't have the world's fair of strength, therefore your side must have some strength. So compete for the auction.

It's often easier said than done. And the vulnerability is important ... competing when vulnerable and going -200 may result in your partner phoning around for other partners.

But on this deal, you are non-vulnerable, so you won't go -200 in anything (you hope!).  It's very much worth going down -50 or -100, when your opponents can make +110 or +140.

So what do you bid? 3 is putting your eggs in a leaky basket (maybe a mixed metaphor there).  What about a bid of 2NT, the very unusual notrump?

It makes perfect sense. You can't possibly want to bid 2NT as a natural strong bid: you passed over 1 after all  It must mean something else, and what else can it be here other than showing both minors.  This greatly improves the prospect of your side competing successfully.

Have a look at all four hands. 2 makes easily, 3 probably makes as well. And you have an excellent fit yourselves: 3 makes, and 4 is only one off.

The takeaway: when a notrump bid cannot possibly be natural, it should be used as an 'unusual notrump', showing length in the two lowest unbid suits.

Virtual Hand of the Day (28/4/20)

It didn't take long to pick a VHotD tonight. Board 1 presented itself and is displayed here in all its glory.

I neither know nor care how to bid it. I've never held 29 HCP in my life, and at my age, don't expect to.

The auction I've presented seems possible. I'm sure that there would have been more than one South that simply blasted to 6NT.

So South plays some notrump contract, from 3 to 6.  What should West lead?

West should not lead a black card.  South clearly has the world's fair ... leading a spade is just asking to run up to declarer's ♠AQ.  A club lead is similarly poor.  The Q is the standout lead, and well done to any Wests that did so.

So here's a question for you. Looking at all four hands, can South make 6NT on the lead of the Q?  (This question has no relevance to real-life, because South is not looking all four hands.) 

Who are you backing in 6NT - the declarer or the defence?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

6NT can be made as follows:

Declarer wins the diamond lead and takes 3 top hearts (discarding a club from dummy) and three lucky diamonds.  This is the position as the fourth diamond is played.

                North
                ♠ 874
                 -
                 10
                ♣ J76
West
♠ KJ10
-
-
♣ Q1092
                South
                ♠ AQ
                 4
                 -
                ♣ AK83

East, sadly, is irrelevant.

South discards his remaining heart, and West is caught in a strange version of a squeeze-endplay (also called 'strip-squeeze'), that I have not seen before.

If West discards a club, declarer plays ace-king and another club. West is in, and has to lead a spade away from his king, giving declarer the last three tricks.

If West discards a spade, declarer plays ace and another spade. West is in and has to lead a club away from his queen. Dummy wins with the ♣J and cashes the ♠8 (!!) before declarer wins the lasts two tricks with high clubs. Who would have ever thought that dummy's ♠8 could furnish the twelfth trick?

Is there a learning point from all this?  Absolutely not ... except that we learn what an absolutely gorgeous game it is.

Virtual Hand of the Day (27/4/20)

Here's an opening lead problem. (I imagine there's a disproportionate number of lead problems in this feature, as it's absolutely and totally my favourite bridge subject.)

You've seen the auction ... what do you lead?

It would be fairly crazy to lead anything other than a heart. If you don't, partner may accuse you of being deaf (didn't you hear my 1 bid partner?) ... or as it's on-line, blind. 

The question is, which heart?

This brings me to my anti-tip ... a common piece of advice that should be ignored. The anti-tip is: "lead top of partner's suit".  

Instead, you should lead a 'normal' card.  So top of partner's suit is fine if you have a doubleton, because you are leading top of a doubleton. And from honour sequences, lead top of the sequence. From longer suits, lead a lower card (4th best, MUD, etc).  Here you should lead the 2.

Now look at all four hands.  "Top of partner's suit" will materialize declarer's heart stopper.  You can take three top hearts and the ♠A, but declarer will have the rest.  Leading a low card however will keep your ace in reserve to kill an honour from declarer.

See what happens. Your 2 goes to partner's Q, dummy's 9 disappearing in the process.  Partner returns the 10 (which is now in sequence with the 8).  Declarer is kaput. If she covers with J, you'll run the suit, plus the ♠A for two down. If she ducks, the 10 wins, then your A, and now you play a spade (your only chance at this point) to partner's ♠A for partner to take two more hearts for two down, again.

I cannot think of a better illustration is why you shouldn't lead your top card in partner's suit when you have three or more.

Virtual Hand of the Day (26/4/20)

Sitting East, you open this cheese with 1, adhering faithfully to the Rule of 20 (add your HCP to the length of your two longest suits: if it comes to at least 20, then open the bidding)

Partner responds 1 and RHO comes in with 2♣. Do you like that development?

Whether you like it or hate it, what do you do now?

Half a dozen Easts faced this problem. There were a variety of bids made: 2, 2♠, 2NT. They were all unpleasant choices made by players who didn't like the way the auction had developed. 

Only one East, Helen McAdam did the right thing and passed, and happily at that. You don't have to bid any more, even though 1 is forcing. 

When partner forces, and RHO makes a bid (or double): that gives your partner another bid in the auction, and you are relieved of the obligation to make a bid yourself.

This kept Helen and her partner Moira Hecker comfortably low on a misfitting deal, for a decent score. (I have found that 11-opposite-11 is the most troublesome of all setups: everyone gets too high!)

Virtual Hand of the Day (25/4/20)

The ANZAC Day duplicate threw up a lot of wild hands.  This wasn't really one of them, but it did strike me as posing an interesting bidding decision.

I hope you agree with North's early bidding. Some Norths jumped to 2♠ after the 1 response, which has the effect of crowding the auction.

Anyway, partner stubbornly rebids the hearts, showing about 6 to 9 HCP and a 6-card suit.

What now, if anything?

A couple of Norths passed. More than a couple of Norths bid 3.

Just two Norths, Moira Righetti and Liz Byrnes, bid 2NT. I think they were spot on.

One might not be thinking of notrumps when first seeing this hand, but the situation evolves. Now your void heart is not really a problem, as partner has 6 of them.

And you can see 7 tricks right there, in notrumps. And partner will usually provide the eighth. Or even the eighth and ninth. So not only does a bid of 2NT get you to the highest scoring demonination, it also points the way towards the most likely game.

Partner passed 2NT, and indeed there were 8 top tricks. 10 tricks were taken when the spade finesse worked. Whilst a couple of pairs lucked into 3NT via inferior auctions, Moira and Liz scored 81% for their well-thought-through 2NT contract.

Virtual Hand of the Day (24/4/20)

Today you can test your defence.  You are North, defending East's 3 contract, on the auction as shown.

Partner leads the ♣10, covered by the ♣J from dummy, and you win ♣Q, declarer following with ♣2.

What now? Have a think about that, and click [Show Answer].

This is a situation where you can piece together a lot of information from the bidding and the opening lead.

The key question is: should you attempt to give partner a club ruff? The ♣10 lead is consistent with ♣10x, or even ♣10 singleton.  Unfortunately, it's also consistent with ♣109x and ♣109xx (in which case continuing with clubs throws tricks at declarer).

This is where the bidding comes in. Give partner ♣10x in clubs. He shouldn't have four spades on this auction (he would have either made a negative double of 1 or bid spades later).  And likely he has at most 6 diamonds: with more diamonds he would have kept bidding.  So 3 spades at most, 6 diamonds at most, a doubleton club ... that leaves him with two hearts. In that scenario, you don't have to give him a club ruff right now ... you can win the first round of trumps and play for the club ruff later.

In which case, it's best to switch to a spade right now, leaving the club ruff in reserve. After all, spades looks to have real potential for tricks, and you are leading up to weakness.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that the spade switch sets things up for you. Declarer can win ♠A, but now when you win the A, you can take your known spade trick before worrying about a possible club ruff.

Oodles of Norths must have got this defence wrong, as 3 making was a common outcome. Only Geoff Swanson (North) and Stan Angelidis (South) nailed the defence to 3, defeating it by a trick, for 100% of the matchpoints.

Virtual Hand of the Day (23/4/20)

Let's try some declarer play. Unfortunately, declarer is North, so you may have to stand on your head for this.

We'll assume you have reached 4♠ with the auction shown. East leads 7 and West wins K.  Next comes the ♣5 from West.

Plan the play. In particular, do you play low from your North hand on this, or go up with the ♣A?

The hand is a little messy to play, as are so many real-life hands, but there is one key point I want to make, which is about the ♣K.

East has it (sitting over your ♣A).

Why do you 'know' this? The answer is to put yourself into the West seat. Holding the ♣K, there is no way (in my humble opinion) that West would lead a club at trick 2. It couldn't possibly do the defence any good, to play dummy's suit like this, allowing you to take an easy finesse. (And from West's perspective, if partner has the ♣A, you will surely make your clubs in due course.)

If East does have the ♣K, the simplest way to play the hand is to win the ♣A at trick 2, bang out the ace and king of spades, hoping that the suit divides 2-2, and then exit with a club. Dummy's clubs are established, with an entry via dummy's third spade, and all you lose is a trick in each side-suit.

However if you finesse, East gleefully wins the ♣K and gives her partner a ruff for down one.

The takeaway is this: defenders don't usually lead a suit where declarer can take a winning finesse when there is a sensible alternative available: in this case a trump switch to try to limit the ruffs in dummy. Of course this argument does not apply to the opening lead, which is partially blind.

Virtual Hand of the Day (22/4/20)

Freak situations usually don't make good teaching hands, but this deal is an exception.

You are East, and have to speak after this auction. 

If you can't stomach the 1♣ opening (and about half the Easts couldn't), then it's the same situation. You pass, South opens 2, and that's passed around to you.

What is going on, and what's your call?

There's an almost certain 'read' for this situation. It's when your LHO bids a suit at a lowish level, it's passed around to you, and you are short in that suit, but without a particularly large number of points.

What it means is that partner has length in the suit bid, but can't double for penalties, because that would be a takeout (or negative) double. What partner is hoping for, itching for, is that you will re-open the auction with a takeout double, and he can pass for penalties.

Only one smart East, Lindy Anderson, did just that, doubling 2 for takeout. Take a look at all four hands, and what partner Ken Anderson held!  He passed gleefully, scored +800 for a stone-cold top, and ensured marital bliss, for at least a while. Great bridge. 

Spare a thought for South, who had a pretty normal 2 overcall. Still, at adverse vulnerability, 2 does have an element of danger. Deb Fogarty was one of a couple of Souths who overcalled just 1 which made it a whole lot harder for E/W to nail her. It's a point worth noting: if the vulnerability makes a weak-jump overcall a bit too risky for you, consider just making a simple overcall instead. It's much safer. There are hands, such as this South hand, that qualify as both a simple or jump overcall.

Finally, some comic relief. A handful of Souths, after East had passed, opened a multi 2, showing a weak two in one of the majors. Poor innocent West thought it was spades, and overcalled in hearts! They usually ended up in some god-awful heart contract, E-W. It was Christmas for South.

Confucius says: when both directions play in the same suit, then at least one of them is wrong!

Virtual Hand of the Day (21/4/20)

Two questions for you today, regarding the South hand here.

1) Do you agree with the 1 opening on that hand?

2) What should you rebid in the given auction

1) 1 gets a tick. I mention this because a few people opened 1NT, showing 15-17 HCP, balanced. You're not really meant to do this with 5422 shape, but there are times where it's a good choice.

For example, suppose you swap the majors, so you are 2-4-5-2 specifically. If you open 1 and partner responds 1♠, as partners do, then you are in a bit of a pickle. A 2 rebid is a reverse bid, and shows 16+ HCP, whereas 1NT shows 12-14 HCP. There's no comfortable choice and so a good compromise is to open 1NT instead, and avoid that problem.

But here you are 4-2-5-2, so if partner responds in your doubleton major, it's a 1 response. That gives you a comfortable 1♠ rebid.

This leads us to ...

2) Here, partner has responded 2♣ and our 'reversing' problem is back: having to reverse at the 2-level with only 15 HCP hand.

But here the situation is completely different. In the hypothetical auction above 1 - 1♠ (your doubleton), partner is only promising 6 HCP. Reversing there sends you to the stratosphere where you may barely have a majority of the points.

But in the actual auction 1 - 2♣ , responder is promising at least 10 HCP. Now with your 15-count , you have enough to have a shot at game, and you should not be afraid to reverse the hand. 

Several players rebid 2NT because they didn't want to reverse, but they should have. The 2NT rebid (the minimum NT rebid possible) again showed 12-14.

The honours today go to Souths Margaret Kyburz (playing with Val Carmody) and Max Williams (playing with Shirley Bowman). They both correctly reversed with 2♠.

Postscript: Some Wests jump-overcalled 2, which didn't as it turned out, give N/S much problem. But bidding 2 on that moth-eaten hand is a fine choice, trying to throw a spanner in the opponents' works, but only at this vulnerability (non-vul versus vul). Bridge is War.

Virtual Hand of the Day (20/4/20)

Try this bidding problem as East. In the auction as shown, what do you do?

Give it some thought, decide, and then click [Show Answer].

Partner is showing at least 5 hearts and at least 4 clubs. What about strength?

In the olden days, partner was limited in strength to about 16 HCP. 2♣ was not a forcing bid. In these more enlightened times, 2♣ is forcing, and partner could have any strength consistent with the original opening bid, i.e. about 11 to 20 HCP.

So pass should not be an option for you. The decision here is between 2 and 2♠.

Well, how many combined hearts do you have?  7 at least (partner has at least 5 hearts), 8 maybe.

How many combined spades do you have? That's harder. Partner won't have 4 spades. And she's unlikely to have 3, given she also has hearts and clubs. With 3-5-1-4 shape, she may well have raised 1♠ to 2♠, for example. No, partner has zero, one or two spades, meaning you have a combined 5, 6 or 7 spades. When I am East, partner is usually void in my suit: he hardly ever has support.

The bottom line is that 2 is a far superior choice. It's so superior that it has a name: false preference.  The preference is 'false' in the sense that you may have more of partner's second suit (clubs) than their first. But it's far better than passing (which leaves you stranded in a minor rather than a major), or bidding 2♠ which could be a non-fit. The bottom line is: with fitless hands, a known 7-card fit in a major is usually the best way to go.

Many Easts either passed or bid 2♠, leading to inferior results. The Honour Roll of those Easts who correctly made the false preference bid:
- Joan Courtemanche
- Liz Byrnes
- Susan Lipton
- Margaret Castles
- Lorraine Robinson

Virtual Hand of the Day (19/4/20)

Today you are West. Partner's 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand of around 12-14 HCP.

Two questions for you:
1) game or slam?
2) what do you bid next?

The simplest way to answer question 1) is with points. You have 18 HCP, partner has 12-14 HCP, for a combined total of 30-32 HCP. You need, as an estimate, 33 HCP for a notrump slam, so it would seem that 6NT is out.  

But, for a suit slam, you can add distribution points. If you find a spade or heart fit, then now you have 21 total points, giving a total point combined estimate of 33-35. Now you do have enough for slam. Your final contract should be 3NT, 6 or 6♠.

If there's one piece of advice I like to give to improving players it is this: take your points and add them to partner's point-range, and see where it lands you. You should be continually doing this through an auction, as partner's range becomes clarified.

So you need to find out about a major suit fit, and this guides the answer to question 2). Several Wests bid 2 here, but that is not a forcing bid, even though it's a new suit. 2 is the bid you would make with just 6 HCP and 5 spades / 4 hearts.

Jumping to 3 is a sensible option which a few players took, but the best solution is to make a checkback bid.  There are two forms of checkback on the market. In new minor forcing, a bid of an unbid minor (2 in this case) is an artificial forcing bid, asking partner to describe her hand further.

The Rolls Royce solution is Two-Way Checkback, a fantastic convention that deserves capitalization. Deb Fogarty (West) and Susan Douglas (East) were armed with this. Deb bid 2, the game-forcing option of two-way checkback, and when partner showed 3-card spade support, she zoomed effortlessly into 6♠ for an equal top.

To find out more about Two-Way-Checkback, you can do no better than BridgeVid, the organizer of today's game. Click here.

Virtual Hand of the Day (18/4/20)

This lead problem (from board 5) allows me to extol one of my favourite theories.

You are South, on lead to 3♠ after a rather uninformative auction. What's your choice?

My summary of the various suits:

♠ : achieves nothing, fairly safe

: splendid if partner can furnish the ace or queen, probably catastrophic otherwise

: very dangerous ... aces are meant to beat kings

♣A : could work well if we can get a club ruff, but might give away the store

No one led a diamond (thank the Lord), but all other suits were tried. The ♣A was most popular, but it's quite a gamble. Given that you have 12 HCP, partner won't have much, so the odds on him holding the ♣K are quite low.

The heart lead suffers from the same problem. Partner is weak, and whilst he may have a heart honour, he could equally be heartless.

That leaves the do-nothing spade lead, my choice, and the lead chosen by James Tulloch. Experience (and computer simulations) suggest that leading passively to suit contracts is often a good idea, making declarer take the running. In general, I recommend safety over aggression when leading to suit contracts. 

I was glad to have James with me, and he defeated 3♠, declarer losing two diamonds, two hearts and a club.  The heart lead worked also, as it happened. So could the club lead, as long as you switch to a heart at trick two, which no-one did.

Try playing safe with your opening lead to suit contracts, which means leading top of a sequence, or if you don't have one, lead a suit in which you have nothing (2, 3, 4 and 5 small are good suit contract leads).

Virtual Hand of the Day (17/4/20)

Here's a delicate little bidding decision for you to ponder.

You open 1NT (15-17) and partner gives you a 2 transfer bid, showing spades.

Normally you would simply bid 2♠, but there is also the possibility, if you love your hand and your spades, of jumping to 3♠, a super-accept of the transfer saying precisely that: you love your hand and your spades.  That way, you can get to 4♠ if partner has a hand of around 7-8 HCP, and was planning to pass 2♠.

The downside is that if partner has rubbish, she will pass 3♠ and it might go down.

So what's it to be?  2♠ or 3♠?

The lesson of the day is: be very cautious about super-accepting.

It's an overused concept. My experience is that the risk of getting too high far outweighs the gain of getting to a thin game.

This deal is a case in point. A number of Wests did bid 3♠ and partner felt obliged, with 7 HCP to go on to 4♠. That was doubtful also, but even 3♠ was too high, as North usually started with three rounds of hearts, South getting a ruff.

Two Wests, Pam Davey and Carole Foreman, showed good judgment in just bidding 2♠. They deservedly shared the top score on the board.

Virtual Hand of the Day (16/4/20)

Here's a dicey bidding decision from tonight's game (board 5).

In the auction shown, will you bid 2♠ as South, or pass? 

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

Two points you might have noticed: partner passed as dealer, and your side is vulnerable.

If you were not vulnerable, I would consider 2♠ here to be absolutely clear. Partner likely has four spades and one or two hearts. You have an 8-card fit, and the Law of Total Trumps tells you to compete to the level of your fit. An 8-card fit = an 8-trick contract.

But you are vulnerable: should you bid 2♠ and it goes two-down, that's -200, and you will feel it would have been better to just watch Netflix tonight. So should you take a conservative view here, and not risk -200?  On the upside, you might make 2♠, or go only one down (-100) when 2 was making for them (-110).

Of the four players who faced this, only Steve Baldwin had the gumption to go ahead and bid 2♠. And right he was: he achieved a plus score, rather than a minus score obtained by those who let 2 play.  Very well bid.

Virtual Hand of the Day (15/4/20)

Try this bidding decision for size.

As North, what do you bid after partner's 2♠ rebid? Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer]

Partner is showing around 11-14 HCP and 6 spades. Might there be a slam on the hand? You have 18 HCP, so the HCP total is 29-32, which may not sound like enough (although partner will have some distribution points as well).

Sometimes you need to look deeper than just the HCP, in particular the quality of those points. Honours that are not supported by other honours in a suit, low honours (jacks and queens) in side suits: these  need to be treated with caution. They may not help declarer's cause.

On this hand, every single high-card-point that you have is pure gold. The ♠Q (in what will be your trump suit) is of huge value. The aces, of course: I never saw an ace I didn't like.  The Q is suported by the K, the ♣K by the ♣A.  Not a dubious jack to be seen.

You should go for a spade slam (not notrumps, because in spades, declarer may be able to ruff the club suit good).  Wheel out 4NT, as did five of the 15 North players.

Two partnerships, Pip Liebelt (N) & Jane Griffiths (S) , and Lorraine Robinson (N) & Libby Thomson (S) play Roman Key-Card Blackwood. When Pip and Lorraine saw a 5 response, showing two of the five key-cards (the four aces and ♠K), they knew they were missing only the one key-card and bid the slam.

Some other Norths were playing regular Blackwood, and they got a one-ace reply of 5. They all chickened out in 5♠.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that 6♠ is a fine contract.  It would have been even better had South had, as was likely, a singleton or doubleton club. If West leads her singleton club, there will be quite some work to do: you can mull over what is the best line of play.

But in the meantime, kudos to the pairs who reached it.

Virtual Hand of the Day (14/4/20)

Let's play some defence. You are East, defending South's 3NT. (South's 2 showed 0-7 HCP, the rest was natural.)

Partner pleases you with the ♠3 lead, declarer plays the ♠J, you win ♠K, and play one back, partner following ♠7. It looks like partner started with ♠Qxxx.

Declarer wins, plays a low club from dummy to his ♣J, another club back to dummy, and a third club.

You have to discard: the fate of the contract is in your hands. What's it to be? 

This is a tough position to be in. Marion Taylor was unwilling to part with either red suit, just in case it gave the suit away, so she threw a spade, and another one on the fourth round of clubs.

That was very reasonable, but unsuccessful. If you look at all four hands, you will see that declarer next played on diamonds, losing a trick there. The defence was now able to play spade winners, but there were only three of them, and the contract was made.

Discarding diamonds would have been even worse, but the contract will go down if East discards two hearts on the clubs. Was there any way to know?

Perhaps there were a couple of possibilities, and I'll be the first to admit that this VHotD is rather advanced.

First, the bidding. Declarer has bid 3NT with a low doubleton spade. One thing he won't have is 5 hearts (would have bid 3 instead). That means partner has 4 hearts, and the odds are heavily in favour of him having the K or J.  Even the 8 might be enough!

Second, the play. When declarer plays a club to the ♣J, then West should follow with the ♣9, his highest card, indicating a suit preference for the highest outstanding suit - in this case hearts, rather than diamonds. All right, all right, few would think of this, but that's why bridge is such a great game!

Postscript.

This deal is a weird throwback to an earlier writeup (on 6 April), where I said that South must not support diamonds in this auction, as it takes you past 3NT. Two Souths heeded the advice. James Tulloch was the South who bid 3NT, and David Hollands took the other route, bidding 3, leading to 3NT by North. For their smart bidding, they received the top and second top N/S scores on the board - the other N/S pairs languished in diamond contracts.

Virtual Hand of the Day (13/4/20)

This deal from today's game piqued my interest. You are North with a 13-count, and see partner overcall their 1 opening bid with 1♠. What would you do?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

It's a nice enough hand, but before you get carried away, you might reflect that:
- partner's overcall could be on as few as 8 HCP
- your LHO did open the bidding, and so will be sitting 'over' some of your high cards
- your hand is dead-flat

What  I'm suggesting is that it would be desirable to stop in 2♠ if partner is minimum, because maybe that's all you can make.

Still, bidding just 2♠ here just doesn't do justice to the hand. The solution is to cue-bid 2, their suit. This should be played as a "cue-bid raise", showing support for partner's overcall and decent high-card points.

Jo-Anne Heywood did bid 2, and when partner, Bob Jacobs, went back to 2♠, she passed. And right she was: 8 tricks was the limit. Very well done indeed.

Having looked at all four hands, what do you think of Jacobs' 1♠ overcall. Of course, with a name like that, you know I am going to approve of it, and I do, even though he was vulnerable. It's a bidder's game, and there's no excuse for failing to come in with the boss suit if you possibly can. Of course we would all love to have a more robust suit than K7643, but that's what we were dealt. 

Finally, what should North do if the auction proceeds 1 - Pass - Pass to you, as it did at most tables?  Susan Douglas found the correct bid, 1NT, which in the passout seat shows around 13-15 HCP (the rule-of-thumb in balancing position is to mentally add 3 HCP and bid accordingly).  Her partner Christine Walker read it perfectly, and competed only to the 2♠ level. Another sound auction.

Virtual Hand of the Day (12/4/20)

Here's a bidding problem that looks, on the surface, to be rather simple.

As East, at favourable vulnerability, your RHO opens 1 and it's your bid. 

What do you think - do you do the simple thing?

 

1♠ is the simple bid that hits you in the face, and most players did it.

A couple passed (I like to think they were perhaps distracted by a phone call*), which allowed N/S an easy ride to a making 2 contract.

What I had in mind when  I saw this deal was a favourite tip of mine. It is:

When you have 4 of the top 5 honours in a suit, mentally add one to the suit's length, and bid accordingly.

That tip applies here. East has ♠KQJ10x: four of the top 5 honours. That 10 is very relevant, because it solidifies the suit. Those spades can acceptably be trumps even opposite a singleton. 

So you are advised to treat those spades as a six-card suit.  With 6-10 HCP and a 6-card suit, what can you do over an opponent's opening bid?

Hannah Green, from ERBA, made a weak jump overcall of 2♠, which I regard as a brilliant choice.  And she reaped the benefit, buying the contract there (neither South nor North had a comfortable bid available over the 2♠ jump overcall).  The Easts who overcalled the simple 1♠ were forced to the 3-level when N/S were able to compete.  Hannah scored well for being allowed to play in 2♠.

* This reminds me of a recent unfortunate incident ... I was playing on-line and the phone rang with the caller being my son. I wanted to answer it, but it was my bid. I "solved" the problem by supporting my partner's suit with a dubious hand, in order to make myself dummy. The result was catastrophic, and how could I explain my reasoning to partner?  Ah, the joys of on-line bridge!

Virtual Hand of the Day (11/4/20)

You pick up this rather pleasant North hand, and as dealer decide to open 1. (Personally, I would have been sorely tempted to open 2♣, as several players did, but let's run with the 1.)

The auction proceeds as described. The question is, what do you bid after RHO's 2♠?

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

Partner's 1NT shows 6-9 HCP and no major. As partner doesn't have a 4-card major, it is highly likely that she sufficient diamonds (2 or 3 typically) to make that diamond suit solid, given you have 8 of them. 

If diamonds are solid, you have 10 tricks in your hand, and 3NT would be a good thing, if partner can furnish a spade stopper.

John Foreman found this out by bidding 3♠ - a cue bid that could only be asking partner for a spade stopper. South, Carole, duly obliged with 3NT (that's what good partners do), and made an easy 13 tricks when West led a low spade, for an excellent 87.5% score.

But it wasn't a top. Anna Field approached matters differently: she took charge and bid 6!  What a great shot that was. She had hopes, supported by West's 2♠ bid, that partner would have the necessary bits and pieces in clubs and/or hearts to deliver a slam. And right she was. Partner's ♣K, coupled with the likely bit of support in diamonds, was all that was needed.

Anna is 80 years old (I have permission to say) and only took up the game a few years ago. That 6 is the sort of bid I'd expect from a smart 20-something. Very well done indeed. 

I like this hand because it illustrates two different successful approaches. The first is: "find a way to 3NT".  The second is: "let's live a little and bid a slam".  I love both these concepts.  It represents a common matchpoint approach: when you have a big hand with a minor, it's either 3NT or slam in the minor.  Game in the minor usually doesn't work.

Virtual Hand of the Day (10/4/20)

Let's look at some declarer play tonight.  You are South, declaring 3NT. The opening lead from West is the ♠2.

1) What can you deduce about the E/W hands?

2) How do you play it?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

1) The bidding and opening lead tell you a lot.  West's ♠2 must be a singleton (with a doubleton, she would have led the higher card, and she can't have more, in the light of East's overcall).

East has overcalled on a 10-high suit, vulnerable. Assuming she is sane (often a dangerous assumption), she'll have some high cards elsewhere to justify the bidding. The A surely, and at least one, if not both, of the missing kings. It would be a fair deduction to to give East something like ♠1097653 K(xx) A(xx) ♣K(xx) ... the number of x's being of course unclear.

2) In notrumps one almost always plays on one's longest combined suit. In this case, you want to set up the 5-card diamond suit in the South hand. Entries to South are  in short supply, so it is essential that you win the first trick in North's hand, preserving the ♠K as a later entry to South.

As for the play in diamonds, you should start by playing a low diamond from North, not the queen. For example East might have a singleton A, so you want that ace to be played on a low card from your side.  And if East started with Ax, then after she plays low and you win K in your hand, then you can play one back, ducking in dummy. East's A will again be played on low cards from your side.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that neither of these scenarios applied, but when West conveniently had J10, the diamond suit suddenly became good for four tricks. 

Well done to Gary Hollands, who played the hand correctly, reaping 11 tricks (which can't actually be stopped by the defence). Top board for him and Sue.

Takeaways:
1) The bidding and opening lead can tell you a lot. You should reflect on this before calling for a card from dummy at trick 1.
2) Unless you need to unblock, play low cards from the hand on lead towards high cards from the hand to play third to the trick. This can discomfit the opponent playing second to the trick.

 

Virtual Hand of the Day (9/4/20)

Another double banger today: bidding + play.

Q1: critique the bidding

Q2: how do you play 3♣ on the lead of Q.

Decide for yourself, then click [show answer].

Bidding

There are three passes to West ... should she open the bidding in 4th seat?  This is where the famous Pearson Count (or Rule of 15) comes into play. After three passes to you, add your number of HCP to your number of spades, and if it is at least 15, then open the bidding (with your normal bid).

The theory is that with something like 10-12 HCP, you know the points are fairly even distributed around the table, and so this is a partscore hand. And whichever side has the spades is likely to be at an advantage. That's the theory, anyway.

So West has 11 HCP and 4 spades = 15, and opens 1♣.  Several Wests passed the hand out, earning themselves poor scores, as it happened. It doesn't always work out like that.

1♣ - 1 - 1♠ is unremarkable. What do you make of East's 3♣? Don't bother complaining about it, because East was a robot. In fact I think he (or she? or it?) did well. There is a lot of complex theory in this auction, which I won't bore you with, but the bottom line is that West will typically have at least 4 clubs. In that case, it's worth inviting game (with a jump) and moving towards your 8+ card fit.

Play

Playing 3♣ on the Q lead, you win, and should always ask yourself the question: should I draw trumps?  Often the answer is Yes, but there are several situations where you shouldn't, and this is one of them.  First order of the day is to set up the diamonds, so that you can discard your heart loser on dummy's third diamond.

Dell Macneil made no mistake as West. She played a diamond to her queen at trick 2. She ended up losing just one spade, one diamond and one trump, for a score of +130: a top score, as many other E/W pairs played 2NT, making just 8 tricks.  The difference between 10 tricks in 3♣ (130) and 8 tricks in 2NT (120) was significant.

That was well done all round to Dell and the Robot.

Virtual Hand of the Day (8/4/20)

Here's an auction that occurred at one table on board 1 today. How would you critique it? Let's be charitable and assume E/W were playing a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening.

Whatever you think of the auction, 3NT is certainly the correct final contract.  South leads the ♠4, and North puts in the ♠8. How should you play it?

Think about those two questions, then click [Show Answer].

 

Let's start with the auction. That 1NT opening, with two doubletons, is not entirely kosher. Nevertheless, before you criticize it, consider what may well happen should you open 1♣.  It is quite likely that partner will respond 1♠.  If so, you are in a bit of a pickle. A 1NT rebid (showing 12-14) understates the strength of the hand. A 2 rebid (a reverse, showing 16+) overstates the strength of the hand. And rebidding 2♣ is unappetizing as well.

The 1NT avoids that rebidding dilemma at the expense of telling a very harmless white lie. It's particularly white because both doubletons include stoppers.

Claire Walker (East) and Nerida Eastoe (West) conducted this auction, and I think may have been the only ones to do so ... well done to them. Still, everyone got to 3NT one way or another.

Next, the play. Many declarers, perhaps worried about the heart situation, played on diamonds. This was a bit short-sighted. It was fortunate that the suit divided 3-3, but running the diamond suit just had the effect of squeezing East out of her club winners. She needed to keep the Kx to stop the suit. The result was a poor +400.

The correct play is to develop your club winners. Play a club to the ♣K and if it wins, keep going with the suit. Perhaps you will get into a bit of strife with the hearts, but it can't be avoided.  Indeed it's far better to deal with that problem whilst East retains all four of the hearts.

When South turned up with the ♣A, the hearts remained safe. Indeed, South has to take the A when in with the ♣A, otherwise she'll never get it! (Declarer is ready with 4 clubs, 3 spades and 5 diamonds.) The declarers who correctly played on clubs scored 490.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (7/4/20)

Here's a rare and amusing situation that cropped up in tonight's Support Your Club game.

Holding the East hand, you open 2♣ and over partner's 2 response, show your spades with 2♠.

Now partner surprises you by leaping to 4NT, which we will assume is Roman Key Card Blackwood, with spades as trumps.

This was the situation faced by Libby Thomson. Her problem was that she had all 5 key-cards (the four aces and the ♠K), plus the ♠Q to boot!  They don't tell you what to do when you have 5 keycards, when they teach you RKCB!

Do you know what to bid?  Click [Show Answer] to reveal all.

This is what they teach you. For the sake of argument, we will assume the "1430" version of RKCB.

  5♣ = 1 or 4 key-cards
  5  = 3 or 0 key-cards
  5  = 2 key-cards, no trump queen
  5♠  = 2 key-cards, with the trump queen

But that's not the complete formula.  The actual formula is this:

  5♣ = 1 or 4 key-cards
  5  = 3 or 0 key-cards
  5  = 2 or 5 key-cards, no trump queen
  5♠  = 2 or 5 key-cards, with the trump queen

The reason "they" don't teach you what to do with 5 key-cards is how likely is it that someone will Blackwood with 0 key-cards?  Not too likely, but as someone once said: "Never confuse the improbable with the impossible".

Libby actually responded 5NT, a good effort given the circumstances, and the partnership ended up in 6♠.  A grand-slam is lay-down, but it's not easy to bid, and merely getting to 6♠ gave them a good score.

Anyway, now you know what to do with all the key-cards. My work here is done. 

Hand of the week 26/11

What is your bidding plan with that Western monster, after partner passes and RHO opens 1♠?

 

I've been enjoying watching the strategy of Larry Allender and Brian Morrow, who after a series of mediocre evenings (and in their opinion, not enough high-card-points) sitting N/S have decided to switch to E/W.   In my opinion, this is akin to suddenly changing your Tattslotto numbers: very dangerous stuff.

Their tactic worked splendidly though on this deal.  Click "Show all hands" to see the entire deal.   Brian and Larry were the only pair to reach 3NT, despite the excellent heart fit, and they got a near top for making 12 tricks: outscoring the 12 tricks you can make in hearts by 10 precious points.  I don't know how they did it - perhaps West bid 3NT directly over 1♠? - but kudos to them.

I'm not sure how I would have bid the West cards, but the issue never arose: I held the North hand, a much more typical hand for me.  (Perhaps there IS something in this "sit E/W" thing!)

Virtual Hand of the Day (6/4/20)

Board saw interest in both the bidding and play. Let's start with the bidding.  As South, you bid 2 in response to partner's 2♣ and must react to partner's natural 3 rebid.

What would you do?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Several Souths bid 4, which is theoretically the right bid but pragmatically the wrong one. 

The problem with 4 is that it leaves 3NT behind. You are not allowed to do that without written permission from your mother.

The permitted bids are 3♠ and 3NT both of which have serious problems. 3♠ shows 5 spades, which you ain't got; 3NT has you playing the contract without the semblance of a heart (or club) stopper, trusting partner to supply them. Nevertheless, they are the bids that a winning duplicate player will choose between.

Tony Georgeson bid 3♠ giving his partner Susan Lipton an easy 3NT bid. 

-------------

Now display all 4 hands and examine the play in 3NT by North. 

East leads ♠5. Declarer (who has 9 top tricks), could go up with the ♠K and gain an overtrick if it wins. In my opinion, that would be too risky: suppose West took the ♠A, and the defence then ran five spade tricks? By playing low from dummy, the defence can't run the spades, and 3NT is safe. And not everyone will get to 3NT, so making the contract just about guarantees a good score. Indeed, several N/S pairs languished in 5 or partscores.

Now switch yourself to West, and you win with the ♠Q. What should you do now?

It seems clear that declarer, North, has a singleton spade: partner must have ♠AJxx for the opening lead. So don't return partner's suit: that will allow declarer to win a spade trick. And given the 2♣ opening, declarer is sure to have wall-to-wall tricks from there on.

If West switches to the ♣Q, and defends carefully thereafter, she will hold declarer to 9 tricks, and salvage a respectable score.  

Virtual Hand of the Day (5/4/20)

This bidding problem (board 11) cropped up at 7 of the 9 tables at today's game.

The 2 rebid is a reverse: a bid of a new suit at a level higher than 2 of opener's first bid suit.  The 7 Easts bid as follows:

  2NT (3 times)
  2♠ (3 times)
  probable misclick (once)

Well, which of those bids do you think is the correct one?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

It's a bit of a dirty trick, but neither of those calls is the correct one.

Opener's reverse shows at least 16 HCP.  (If you say you don't play reverses, then I beg to differ: you do, you must.)

You have 10 HCP. 16 + 10 = 26 = game.  Now you wonder, which game?  Well, partner has diamonds and hearts. You have spades and clubs. It's clear that 3NT is the right contract, and you should bid it forthwith. This one shouldn't be complicated.

I would have loved someone to have bid 3NT, and I could have put their name up in lights. Alas, it was not to be. Perhaps tomorrow.

Virtual Hand of the Day (4/4/20)

Let's try an opening lead problem.

You are East, on lead against North's heart contract.  In real life, N/S declared 2, 3 and 4.  But it doesn't really matter ... choose your poison, and then click [Show Answer].

This deal is an illustration of a rule that desperately needs unlearning.  It is: "4th highest of your longest and strongest".

Actually, it's a very fine rule when you are leading to notrump contracts. You are attacking a suit where you hope to eventually make tricks.

But against suit contracts, it's usually the worst possible lead. I far prefer the rule "Never lead 4th highest against suit contracts".

On this deal, a spade lead is just plain wrong. What can it gain? Nothing much. Maybe, just maybe, if partner can contribute a high spade, it will develop a spade trick before declarer's spade losers disappear on some other suit.  But think of what you need for that to be the case. Partner will need to have specifically the ♠Q, and there must be a setup in the side suits where a spade loser can disappear. Unlikely! Perhaps if partner had supported spades, the odds would be a bit different. (If partner has the ♠A, there's almost certainly no hurry.)

And what can it lose? Plenty. Take a look at all four hands to see a typical disaster. Don't tell me this hasn't happened to you, heaps of times. 

Hannah Green from the ERBA was one canny East who led a sensible Q, comfortably defeating 4 for an excellent score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (3/4/20)

How do you think these E/W hands should be bid?  West bids first.

Do some construction and then click [Show Answer]

6NT played by West is stone-cold.  Nothing can stop you taking 2 spades, 4 hearts, 1 diamond, and at least 5 clubs. Can it be sensibly reached?

East's response to 1♣ is a puzzle. Mostly, they bid 3NT, and I go along with that. No club bid is appropriate (2♣ or 3♣ are not forcing, and higher club bids take you past 3NT).  3NT, whilst imperfect, is what's left, showing about 12 - 14 HCP, and long clubs (with another suit, it could be bid at the 1-level).

That leaves West guessing a bit. The Wests all passed in practice, but I can see an argument for a quantitative 4NT, following my golden rule: after any natural notrump bid, 4NT is a natural invite to 6NT.  But even if West did bid 4NT, it's rather murky as to whether East should accept the invitation.

David Hollands (West) and Liz Byrnes (East) solved the problem using an inverted minor raise.  Inverted minors is a topic I need to cover in lesson form, if we ever go back to real bridge. The meanings of 2♣ and 3♣ are inverted: 3♣ now shows a weak raise (6-9 HCP and at least 5 clubs), and 2♣ is a stronger raise (10+ HCP, clubs, and forcing).  This allows for investigative auctions, which David and Liz conducted, par excellence:

1♣  - 2♣ 
2  - 5♣ 
6NT - pass

West fiddled around with 2 to see what partner would do. The 5♣ showed real long clubs and enough strength for game: West now knew what to do.  A well-deserved top to David and Liz.

Virtual Hand of the Day (2/4/20)

Here's a system issue from today's No Fear session (board 9).  As South you have a nice 19 HCP hand, but they open 1 in front of you.  You are too strong to overcall 1NT (which shows around 16-18 HCP). What are the alternatives?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

In real life, two Souths bid 2NT, whilst a third overcalled 1.

Both these options are flawed. 2NT is dangerous, when there has been an opening bid to your right, and even worse, partner might regard it as the Unusual 2NT, showing at least 5-5 in the two lowest unbid suits.  Indeed that's what happened at one table, and the final contract was one I cannot state here, as there is a risk that children could be reading this.

1 was no good either, misdescribing both the length of hearts (which should be 5+, for an overcall), and strength of the hand (which is limited to about 16 HCP).

The solution is a bid that people forget ... double.  The idea is to double, and then opposite some likely response from partner such as 1♠, to bid notrumps at the lowest level. This says: "partner I have a balanced hand with a stopper in their suit, but too strong to overcall 1NT in the first place".  Therefore it shows around 19 to 21 HCP. Perfect!

If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner responds 2♣ to your double. At that point you could stick to your plan, and bid 2NT, or perhaps give an encouraging club raise. Either way, you will be well placed.

The takeaway is: with a hand that is too strong for a notrump overcall, double first and then bid notrump.

Virtual Hand of the Day (1/4/2020)

This joke of a hand could only happen on the 1st of April.

As South on board 2, what do you bid after RHO opens 1♠?

In deciding how high to pre-empt, I recommend the Rule of 2 and 3, or its more sopisticated cousin, the Rule of 1, 2, 3 and 4.

First work out your losers (all the aces, kings and queens you are missing, limited to how many cards you have in a suit). Here there are 2 spade losers (♠AK), 1 diamond loser (A), and 2 club losers (♣AK). 5 losers, and therefore this is, approximately, an 8-trick hand.

With the rule of 2 and 3, you bid:
  2 tricks more than you have, if vulnerable, or
  3 tricks more than you have, if non-vulnerable.

The theory is that you are prepared to go down when you pre-empt, but want to limit the actual size of penalty.

Using the Rule of 2 and 3, you would bid 4 (vulnerable): the 10 trick contract being 2 more than your trick count.

The Rule of 1, 2, 3 and 4 takes into account your opponents' vulnerability. You bid:
  1 trick more than you have, if vulnerable versus non-vulnerable, or
  2 tricks more than you have, if both sides are vulnerable, or
  3 tricks more than you have, if neither side is vulnerable, or
  4 tricks more than you have, if non-vulnerable versus vulnerable.

On this deal you are vulnerable versus non-vulnerable, so would bid 3, the 9-trick contract being one more than your trick count.

Now show all 4 hands to see the April Fools Joke. West has all the remaining diamonds!  A 4 bid would likely lead to a huge penalty. One unfortunate South did get doubled in 4 for -1100 and a bottom.

The 3 bidders showed excellent judgment, and were rewarded with a 3NT bid from West. (West couldn't double for penalties, as double there would be negative.)  3NT didn't make.

As for East-West, Ros Davies was one East who insisted on spades rather than notrumps. She reached 4♠, a contract that can make, losing just a couple of spades and a club, although the play is not trivial.

Virtual Hand of the Day (31/3/2020)

Put yourself in the South seat here.  You take advantage of the vulnerability to open a super light 1♣ in third seat, and then find yourself defending 3NT.

Partner leads the ♣8 and declarer puts the ♣9 on it.

How do you defend?  Have a think about that and then click [Show Answer].

At this point, the information you've got at hand is partner's lead and the opponents' bidding. 

Declarer will have a club stopper, and partner has led your suit from shortage.  She has either a doubleton club or (shudder) a singleton. Rule out the singleton for two reasons: first of all, it's too horrible to think about, and secondly, partner may well have tried leading another suit with only a singleton in clubs.

So if partner has a doubleton club, declarer has ♣QJx ... just a single stopper in the suit. That means you can establish the suit for the defence, but where is your entry? Nowhere, that's where. Partner will need an entry, and she'll also need another club to play.

So you should play a low (but encouraging!) club to the first trick. This will beat the contract, as partner has the ♠A, and declarer has only 8 tricks without spades. Well done if you found it.

I can't laud any player, because this situation never arose at any of the 9 tables.  But Sue Douglas did open 1♣ in third seat, a nice bid. I was West and was too wimpish to get to 3NT after that, and maybe that was a good thing!

Virtual Hand of the Day (30/3/2020)

How do you think this hand should be bid?

West should bid either 1 or 3.  Is the hand a bit strong for 3, not-vulnerable versus vulnerable?  On the other hand, if you open 1, partner might be disappointed in your lack of high cards (or aces).

I could go either way on that West hand.

But East, that's a different matter.  If West opens 3, if you don't bid 3NT, go directly to jail, do not pass ... etc, etc.  You can expect to take 7 diamonds and 2 aces for a start, and your ♠K happily stops that suit. Your 3NT will outscore 5 any day of the week. (And if you bid 6 , I reckon it's because you peeked at West's hand.)

What about if West opens 1?  Then East responds 1 and when West rebids 2, then see above paragraph.  All roads should lead to 3NT.

Julie More (West) and Janice Meldrum (East) were one pair that had the effortless auction 3 - 3NT for an excellent score.

Virtual Hand of the Day (29/3/2020)

Here's a sticky problem from BridgeVID's first "Support Your Club" BBO tournament.

You are minding your own business as West, when a 3♠ opening pre-empt is passed around to you (board 9).

That's a little awkward - what's your poison?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

 

If you're going to bid, then I far prefer 4 to a takeout double.  4 is risky, particularly when you're vulnerable, exposing yourself to the risk of a nasty penalty.

But could you possibly pass out that very pleasant 16-count?  That seems timid, lame, wimpish and totally lacking in red blood-cells.

Gail Feller was one (maybe the only one!) who passed out 3♠.  I think that was a really excellent decision. To start with, that hand is not 16 HCP, it's 14 HCP. You can throw the ♠Q in the trash-can: there's no way it has any value. Now you're sitting with a semi-balanced 14 count, and a RHO who could have anything, including a strong hand with short spades.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that the 4 bid bought nice 4-card support from partner, and a 20% matchpoint score. It generally went two down, -200, the death-score.

3♠ on the other hand is down one on careful defence.  Gail, with her partner Pam Davey, were doing that careful defence, when a misclick accidentally allowed declarer to make. Even -140 scored them 60% however.  You can correct misclicks on BBO with an "undo" request.

Hand of the Week 6/11/2019

This week, I have both a good learning point and a good story for you.

Suppose you hold this hand and see this auction.

What do you think is going on, and what would you do? No peeking!

What should partner's 2NT mean? Is it a natural bid, or is it the "Unusual 2NT" (U2NT), showing at least 5 cards in each minor?

Normally, the U2NT only applies if it is a jump to 2NT: I religiously teach this point. In particular, after a weak 2 or 2♠ is opened, then 2NT is natural, not unusual. 

But on this auction, it makes absolutely no sense for 2NT to be a strong balanced hand. Here one opponent has opening strength, and the other has enough to support. Notwithstanding how unlikely it is for you to hold a hand worth a strong notrump overcall here, even if you do so, you wouldn't want to get involved, because partner will be busted.

But a hand with both minors: that is both plausible and one that wants to compete. 2NT should show both minors (as indeed East had), and you should bid 3 next.

The auctions 1 - 2, 1♠  - 2♠  and 1♠ - 2  are the exceptions: where an overcall of 2NT, whilst not a jump, should depict the minors.

That's the learning point ... now for the story.

Angela Griffin did bid 2NT, but she then suddenly realised that it was not a jump bid, and therefore perhaps not the U2NT. She couldn't help letting out an "oh dear", indicating that something might have gone dreadfully wrong with her bid.

Now Ramona Enconniere, her partner, was in a bind. She knew what had happened. Partner had made it clear with her comment that 2NT was intended as showing the minors and not natural.

That comment is Unauthorized Information, and cannot be used. If Ramona had bid 3 now, the opponents might suspect that she had used the UI to help her with her bid. So Ramona did the ethical thing: she passed 2NT, knowing full well that it would be a ridiculous contract, as indeed it was.

This earned her a poor score in 2NT, but the very highest score in ethical behaviour.

Hand of the Week 30/10/19

On this deal, East was presented with a difficult bidding problem holding a rock-crusher hand.  Let's have you wrestle with it.

You've opened 2♣ with your purest of 23 HCP, and partner has given a negative 2 response (0-7 HCP). You bid your spades, and now partner bids 3, showing a 5-card suit and denying spade support.

"What now?" is the question. Have a think about that, and then click [Show Answer].

Here's how I think your thought processes should go ...

  1. 5 is surely a decent contract. I just need partner to have the Q, or perhaps a winner in clubs, and there should be 11 tricks. But, playing in a matchpoint duplicate, 5 may not earn me a good score.
  2. 3NT might be great, if partner can deliver a club stopper.
  3. What about 4♠? If partner has two spades, preferably ♠Jx or ♠Qx, 4♠ has good chances of making, and +420 will beat out the pairs scoring +400 in 5.

The question is: are you able to finagle the auction to cater for all these possibilities?  None of the three obvious choices, 5, 3NT or 3♠, do so. They all send the auction hurtling in one direction only.

But there is a clever bid available that keeps all possibilities alive: 3.  This of course tells a clear lie about your hearts, showing 4 of them when you only have 3. If partner raises to 4 (indicating 4 hearts and 5 diamonds), you would retreat to 5, which if you think about it, will be the right spot in those circumstances.

But if partner doesn't raise to 4, she will:

  • bid 3♠ with a doubleton, which you raise to 4♠, getting you to your higher scoring matchpoint contract, or
  • bid 3NT with a club stopper, which you cheerfully pass, getting you to your highest scoring matchpoint contract, or
  • repeat the diamonds lacking hearts, spades or a club stopper, getting you to 5, which is probably the only making contract.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner takes the first option, 3♠, and this works out perfectly, with 4♠ rolling in 11 tricks. Those who bid to the perfectly normal 5 scored poorly.

Did anyone find this 3 bid? I don't know, but well done to the three pairs (Gideon Polya - Gordon Travers, Pam & Grant Scott, and Ismail Gulec - Dan Taggert) who did reach 4♠ on the 5-2 fit.

Hand of the Week 17/10/19

This week's HotW might not be the most thrilling ever, but it does include an instructive point.

As East, and with no-one vulnerable, your RHO opens 3 which is passed round to partner who comes in with 3♠.  The question is: should you raise to 4♠?  Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

You have spade support, 8 HCP plus 1 distribution point for the doubleton diamond, making 9 total points.

On that basis, and noting that partner was willing to come in at the 3-level, one might consider that this is sufficient to bid 4♠.

You shouldn't. This is a deal where three of your points are severely compromised. I'm talking about the two points for the Q, and the one point for the diamond doubleton. Given that your RHO presumably has 7 decent diamonds, that diamond queen is not worth much, if anything. And for the diamond shortage to be of any use, partner would have to have 3 diamonds (unlikely!), and even then, your LHO (with a singleton diamond) would threaten to overruff you.

This is a 6-point hand.  You should pass 3♠.

Looking at the 16 results from last Monday, I see that just one E/W pair managed to stop in 3♠.  It looks as though Barbara Birrell passed Anne Ponsford's 3♠ overcall - well done!  3♠ went down one, which earned them an 80% score on the board.

Take a look at West's hand. It was a very average 11 HCP, with a 5-card spade suit: hardly a clear 3♠ bid. But the problem with not bidding 3♠ is that you can't expect to score well defending against North's 3.  If it makes, then you probably have been able to do better by going down 50 or 100 in your own contract. And if it goes down, then you probably have been able to do better by making a contract of your own.  Wests that passed out 3 got poorer scores.

Hand of the Week 9/10/19

Here's a fun hand from last Friday. What's your opening lead to the 3NT contract?

Decide for yourself, and take a look at all 4 hands and the answer to see what might happen next.

Margaret Hughes led the Q. Hearts was her best suit, and holding an internal sequence, she led the top card from the sequence part.

Dummy was no particular surprise, and declarer ducked the lead. She was a strong player, and had no idea where the A was.

Next Margaret continued with the J.  Declarer played low again, hoping that West might have the bare ace remaining.

After winning with the J, and showing nerves of steel, Margaret persisted with the 10. Poor declarer was completely deceived. Sure that West must have the A, she ducked for the third and final time. So Margaret triumphantly played the A, and later partner took the setting trick with the ♣K.

Declarer was the only one to go down in 3NT, without making a play that was clearly wrong. It's fair to say that she was comprehensively snookered. (There might be a better word.)

Meanwhile, the takeaway point is, holding an internal sequence against a notrump contract, lead the top of the secquence part,  AJ10xx,  Q109xx, AQJxx, etc.

 

Hand of the Week 2/10/19

Last week's Friday lesson was about whether to open the bidding with borderline hands in various positions.

And lo and behold, along came board 27.

You are North, 3rd in hand with no-one vulnerable. It goes Pass - Pass to you. My lesson was: "It can be a good idea to open light in 3rd seat, to try to disrupt your LHO, who might have a good hand. You are protected to a degree by partner's passed-hand status."

Actually, 7 of the 18 Norths passed this hand, and the deal was passed out. That resulted, as it happened, in an approximately average score. So if you did open the hand, you need to somehow get a plus on the board. Plus = good score; minus = bad score.

Well let's say you do open 1♣, as would I. partner responds 1♠ and that comes back to you.

What now? Decide for yourself and click [Show Answer].

Here's why it can be a good idea to open light in third seat. Partner's responses are automatically non-forcing. You don't have to bid anything next.

You should pass 1♠, which is where you want to play.

I don't know if this happened at any table, because no-one declared a contract of 1♠. Perhaps someone did pass (or intended to pass) but E/W bid something.

Looking at all four hands, if you do pass, and East comes in, then your side can compete to the level of 2♠ but no higher.

So I would give full marks to the N/S pairs who reached 2♠ and made it. In particular, Christine Paine - Larry Allender and Wendy Simkovic - Hilary Brear. They share this week's prize for Hand of the Week.

Hand of the Week 18/8919

This deal, board 13 from last Tuesday, definitely qualifies for Hand of the Week.

The layout itself is not that fascinating. All the E/W pairs reached a major suit game, making between 10 and 12 tricks.

What makes the deal so interesting is the South hand.  It is a super-duper Yarborough. A Yarborough is a hand with no honour cards (10 and above), and the odds of being dealt one are 1,828 to 1 against.

But this hand, with no card higher than the 7, is easily the weakest bridge hand I have ever seen. I had to go diving into the internet to find the odds of a 7-high hand. And the internet delivered: the odds are 254,397 to 1. Against. (See http://www.rpbridge.net/7z77.htm.) 

This deal gives me an excuse to tell you how the hands are generated for Northern Bridge Club (and many other bridge clubs, as well).  

I use a dealing machine, called Dealer4, which is manufactured here in Melbourne - it is a world class product. The machine comes with software for creating the bridge hands, using what is called a pseudo-random-number generator.  The "pseudo" is necessary, because computers and software are not random devices, they are deterministic. In other words, when you run the same software, you always get the same result.  To create pseudo-randomness, the software uses data that varies, such as the clock time, or pauses between operator keystrokes, or some other varying factor.

Dealer4 avails itself of software called "Big Deal", written by a Dutch guy, Hans van Staveren. Big Deal has gone through extensive testing and peer review, over several decades, and has been declared 'clean': i.e. genuinely pseudo-random. It is used to generate the deals for major events, such as the World Championships that are currently in progress in China.

At Northern Bridge Club, we use the same mechanism to deal boards as that used in World Championships.

I regularly get complaints about the randomness of the hands. They are typically along the lines of: "What has your dealing program got against West?"  (Or North. Or South. Or East. Or North-South. Or East-West.)  This is fuelled by the web-site which reports how many points each player gets, each session. Occasionally I get variations, often: "why are the breaks always so bad?"

I usually answer flippantly: you should try sitting in another seat, or direction. The fact is that I press a button that says: "deal me 32 boards", and let nature take its course.

What I have observed, both with other players and myself is: we tend to notice our low-point-count hands more than our good hands.  Deal me two or three 5-point hands in a row, and I tend to feel victimized. But I hardly recognize when I am dealt two or three 15-point hands in a row. 

And if you Souths with the 7-high hand on Tuesday feel victimized, note that the web-site reports your average points-per-hand in that session as 10.37. You must have been dealt some good ones, too.

Hand of the Week 11/9/19

This deal from last Monday saw one of the most unusual results ever, so it certainly qualifies as HotW.

You are North, and partner deals and opens 3♣, no-one vulnerable. Next hand passes and it's your turn.  What are your options?

Partner is ostensibly showing 6-10 HCP and a decent 7-card suit. One could make an educated guess that the opponents were on for 4♠ here (indeed they were), and you might (or might not) have a paying sacrifice in 5♣.

Display all four hands, and decide how your decision might have worked, or not worked.

There are several options. One could pass. Whilst this is perhaps a 'head in the sand' option, two pairs that tried it got good scores, when their opponents failed to find 4♠. The theory is that perhaps the pre-empt has done already done its work, and there's no need to push it.

One could bid 4♣, extending the pre-empt, and you hope making it harder for your LHO. A decent option, but one that probably wouldn't have worked here (LHO bids 4♠.)

Or you could bid 5♣ immediately, putting on maximum pressure. In theory, this should fail, as you can be doubled and set 500, more than the value of the E/W game. In practice, the 5♣ 'ers mainly did well.

So pass, 4♣, 5♣. Any other possibilities?

Now click [Show Answer].

When your partner preempts, it assigns captaincy of the auction to you. You have licence to do all sorts of things. It may be foolish of me to plant this seed in your mind, but suppose you bid 3♠ here! A psychic bid ... do you think your opponents will now be able to find their 4♠ contract? They will think you have spades, after all. If you get doubled in a spade contract, then you will high-tail it out of there to clubs.

I know lots of battle-hardened players who would psyche 3♠ here.

But that's not what happened at our HotW table. This North bid 3NT!  That's a fantastic bid, although I fully admit it may not have been made for the right reason. You will get slaughtered in 3NT: suppose you take just 2 tricks, 7 down. That's -350, which is an excellent score, in theory, against your opponent's spade game. Once again, if you get doubled, you go back to clubs. Meanwhile you have added an element of total confusion into the auction.

Well, 3NT did get passed out, and East started by running her 7-card spade suit. Declarer panicked, and made the wrong  discards. Somehow E/W took all 13 tricks aginst 3NT. That was 9 down, a score of 450 to E/W, which is exactly what they could make in 4♠.  It should have been an average score.

So 9 down for a normal result. This is why we love the game.

Hand of the week 29/8/19

Here's a bidding decision that looks at first blush to be a non-decision.

What do you bid in 4th seat? 1♣ seems totally obvious, but can you think of an alternative?

Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

One possibility is to open 1NT. It looks sacrilegious, but the HCP are more-or-less correct and the shape is more-or-less correct.  OK, "less" correct rather than "more", but we notrumpophiles love to bid notrumps whenever possible. This hand could play very nicely in notrumps, making lots of club tricks. And there is another advantage to 1NT, as compared to 1♣, about which more later.

The other option is a seemingly bizarre 3♣ bid. Two months ago, I gave a Friday lesson on opening with strong pre-empts when partner is a passed hand.  Because partner is limited in strength, you can take liberties, and try to force the opponents out of the auction, by bidding immediately to what you think is your side's correct final contract.

Cliff Strahan attended that lesson and opened 3♣ here!!  He specifically told me later that this was because of my lesson. This put the acid on me - if it didn't work, I could lose my licence. Cliff certainly felt that 3♣ was probably his side's correct contract.

Take a look at all four hands. Partner's hand was a disaster, and 3♣ went one off (the play on a diamond lead is real interesting: what should South do?).  This was a good score for the Strahan's, thank the Lord, because most other tables were making partscore contracts E/W, with E/W able to enter the auction after the 1♣ opening.

Personally, I wouldn't open 3♣ because with the right 10 or 11 HCP with partner, we could be making a game. But kudos to Cliff for taking a concept and running with it, successfully. I found the whole episode immensely satisfying.

And what about that 1NT opening (which nobody tried)?  Well partner would transfer you to 2 and that contract probably goes down 1, again reaping a good score. A 1NT opening can be a useful preempt!

Hand of the Week 22/8/19

Here's a two-for-one declarer play problem for you.

You are South in 4♠ after the bidding shown.  The lead is the 10. How do you play it?

Or alternatively, the lead is the ♣Q, which wins the trick. West continues with a low club. How do you play it?

Decide your play in both scenarios and click [Show Answer].

Let's deal with the 'easy' situation first: the 10 lead.

That has all the hallmarks of a shortage - singleton or doubleton. Surely West won't also have the K: after all, diamonds was North's first bid suit. In that case, there's no point in finessing the diamonds: indeed you may suffer a ruff, losing to the K, a ruff, and two aces in hearts and clubs.

So play the A at trick 1, play a round of trumps and, assuming both follow, draw the rest of the trumps. You then play the Q to knock out East's K.  If necessary you can ruff the diamonds good.

OK, now what about the deceptively challenging defence of club, club, which was found at a number of tables?  This is much more difficult. You should start by ruffing the club, and playing ♠K, ♠A. If trumps divide 2-2, then you can take a diamond finesse, and hope to score an overtrick if it works.

However, West proves to have three trumps, to East's one. If you draw the last trump and take a diamond finesse, then a 4-1 diamond break will ruin you, because a third round of clubs will remove dummy's last trump before the diamonds have been established. You will end up two down, which is what happened to several unlucky North pairs.  Drawing the last trump and refusing the diamond finesse won't work either!

The safe way to play is to leave the outstanding trump undrawn, and play A then Q.  This is a bulletproof play. If diamonds are indeed 4-1, then you can ruff a third round with your ♠J, and then draw the last trump with the ♠Q to enjoy the established diamonds.

Should you forego the diamond finesse?  I think yes, because take another look at the hand.  What can E/W make?  A lot of hearts.  5 is a good sacrifice, and in fact, on the actual layout, it makes! So you should take extra care to make your 4♠.

This was a difficult hand, so lots of kudos to Lou Empson, who was the only declarer to make 4♠ after the club attack.

Hand of the week 7/8/2019

This week's HotW was from last Monday's game.  You are the dealer, and have to decide your opening salvo.

Decide your call and then click [Show Answer].

With 8 HCP and six decent hearts, no-one could criticize an opening bid of 2.

Except me.

The Rule of Two and Three has been around since Adam was a boy. And yet it's hardly ever mentioned these days, which is a shame.

It goes like this: when deciding whether and how high to preempt, count your winners (which is 13 minus your losers).  You should then pre-empt as follows:

  • If vulnerable, make a bid which is two tricks more than tricks in your hand
  • If non-vulnerable, make a bid which is three tricks more than tricks in your hand

The idea is that vulnerable, you should be a little cautious, non-vulnerable more aggressive.  The vulnerability determines how much of a negative score you get when going down.  Pre-empters expect to go down, but hope to get a good score by going down less than what the opponents can make if left to their own devices.

It's a great rule. Let's apply it here. To calculate losers, count a loser for each of the ace, king and queen you don't have in a suit, up to the limit of how many cards you do have in a suit.  

You have three spade losers (ace, king and queen), two heart losers (ace and queen), two diamond losers (king and queen) and no club losers.  Total: 7 losers. So 6 winners.

(To look at this the winners way, you see that you have 4 heart winners, having lost to the ace  and queen, and 2 diamond winners: the ace and the fourth diamond. In this calculation, the fourth and later cards in a suit are considered to be winners, i.e. expecting/hoping that they will be established.)  That's 6 winners.

You are non-vulnerable, so with 6 winners, you open a 9 trick contract, 3.  2 is simply not enough - you want to pre-empt to the max.  If you were vulnerable, then 2 would be the right opening, bidding to a contract two more than the tricks in your hand.

Now take a look at all four hands. 3 rides around to South who has a killer problem. It's a nightmare.  If South receives a 2 opening, it's less of a nightmare.

I see that two Wests, Zoltan Tari and Geoff Swanson, got to defend 3♠ (which would have pleased their partner's mightily), and like to think it was because of a well-judged 3 opening bid, applying the Rule of Two and Three.

Hand of the week 31/7/19

This challenging bidding problem arose last Friday.

After partner raises your 1♠ response to 2♠, thoughts of a possible slam come to mind. Should you go for a slam, settle for game, or investigate?  And if you want to investigate, then how?

Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

You have 16 HCP plus 3 points for the singleton = 19 total points.  Add that to the ~13-15 total points that partner is showing and you get 32 to 34 combined. Since 33 total points is the benchmark for a slam, you should certainly consider it! 

Slam is likely if partner is at the top of their range, so you would like to ask partner whether they are. But how? Bidding 4NT for aces doesn't ask: it will reveal the ace situation but nothing much else. A choice that is often overlooked but completely sensible is to bid 5♠. That clearly invites partner to bid 6♠ if they are maximum for their bid. Perhaps it's crude, but nevertheless, it is effective.

Another more subtle choice would be to bid 3.  Since you have clearly agreed spades as trumps, this is not an offer to play in hearts. Instead it is a long-suit game try (also called a help-suit game try). It says, essentially: "I think we may have a game in spades, if you can help me in the heart suit with some honours there, or perhaps a shortage so I can ruff my hearts."

In this scenario, you are actually looking for slam, not game, but it doesn't matter. If partner signs off with 3♠, you content yourself with 4♠.  If partner accepts the game invitation with 4♠, proceed to a slam (perhaps asking for aces along the way).  The advantage of this approach, as compared to the direct 5♠, is that you can play 4♠ rather than 5♠ when partner is minimum.

Take a look at all the hands. The auction I have suggested depends on partner having given you a 3-card raise. I think they should, with the side-suit shortage in diamonds, rather than rebidding 1NT or 2♣.

It's a difficult slam, but an excellent one. Notice that partner was maximum in high-cards, and had help in hearts. That K is golden, and is the key to partner accepting your invitation after the 3 bid.

Just two pairs reached the slam: Raji and Ian Muir, and Lenora Clarke and Rosemary Polya.  Very well done to them.

Hand of the week 24/7/19

Board 12 from Tuesday evening is one of the most interesting hands I have seen in a long time. It's worth two Hands-of-the-Week.

Let's talk about the bidding. You are East, and not vulnerable against vulnerable, partner deals and opens 4♠.   Partner should have 7 or 8 good spades and about 6-10 HCP.  At favourable vulnerability, there is a little bit of leeway on his overall strength.

What say you?

You have an excellent hand: 17 HCP and at least a 9-card spade fit. Could there be a slam in this?

The answer to that question is an emphatic NO!  The way to reach that conclusion is to look at what you don't have ... key-cards. You probably know about Roman Key-card Blackwood, a form of ace asking where not only the 4 aces are counted, but also the king and queen of trumps. 

Now take another look at your hand.  You have just one of those six key-cards. There are five missing: ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q, A, ♣A.  How many of those can you expect partner to have? If you are lucky, perhaps three of them, which leaves two missing. There is no way slam will be a good bet here.

The bottom line: your hands has lots of points, but a deficit of key-cards. You should play a contract of 4♠.  If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner had an excellent spades: solid spades, a side ace, the full 10 HCP.  But two aces are missing. And making even 4♠ will be a challenge in itself ... but more on that, next week.

Well done to Margaret Hughes and Helge Pedersen, who were able to screech to a halt in 4♠, for a good score.

Hand of the week 17/7/19

Try your hand at this board from last Friday. I will show you both the North and South cards, and ask how you think it should be bid. South to speak first.

Decide for yourself and then click 'Show Answer'.

South has 22 HCP and balanced distribution. He should open 2NT, showing 20-22 HCP.

(A couple of Souths opened 1 and played there, for a fairly good score, due to much of the field mucking up the deal. 1 strikes me as rather dangerous with such a fine hand. Several Souths opened 2♣, planning to rebid 2NT. That normally shows 23-24 HCP, but perhaps they fell in love with their 22-count. It's hard not to like the South hand.)

Now to North. A depressing set of cards, but what are you going to do? This is the rare situation where you can make a weakness transfer after 2NT. You transfer to spades via a 3 bid, and then pass, playing a final contract of 3♠. This is likely to get you a better (or less-worse) outcome than simply passing out 2NT. In a spade contract, your hand will take at least a couple of trump tricks, whereas in notrumps, it may be completely worthless. Indeed the hand record says you can make 10 (!) tricks in spades, despite partner having only a doubleton there, but only 7 tricks in notrumps.

Well done to: Larry Allender, Arthur Michie, Jill Tremonti, Helen Schapper and Krystena Casey who all transferred their partner into a final contract of 3♠.  Holding a 1-point hand does not always prevent you from having a major impact on your score. And well done to their partners for obediently taking the transfer bid. It would be a clear error for the strong hand to bid 3NT over the transfer on the basis that they don't like spades (I think some Souths did this).

Finally, I must tell you of the (anonymous) player who had a brain-fade and bid 2 over his partner's 2NT bid (he had mixed it up with a 2♣ opening and was making a negative response).  The director was called and ruled that he could replace it with any legal bid he liked, but his partner would be forced to pass for the remainder of the auction. After a little thought, he perked up and bid 3♠.  That was the final contract, and he raked in 10 tricks for an excellent score. Nice recovery!

Hand of the week 3/7/2019

Here's a bidding question for you - board 30, last Tuesday.

You open 1♣ and your left-hand-opponent overcalls 3 which rides back to you.

Your call ... decide and then click Show Answer.

There are three options: 3♠, Pass and Double.

3♠ is too much. It pitches you back into the auction, high up at the 3-level, with no certainty that you have anything resembling a fit.

Pass is too little. Your left-hand-opponent could be stealing you blind. Partner might have spades, or clubs, or diamonds, but not enough strength to make a bid over 3. You may well have a winning contract.

Double is the Goldilocks bid: just right. It brings you back into the auction, like 3♠, but leaves open the possibility of 3 doubled as a final contract, in case  partner has hearts. (Partner couldn't double 3 for penalties, as that would be a negative double). It also leaves open the possibility of a diamond contract, which is certainly possible.

The field apparently had a smattering of all three options. Take a look at the four hands.

3♠ yielded a minus score for a near bottom. Partner had nowhere to go (perhaps 3NT would have been a possibility?)

Pass got a plus score, but not a very big one, for an average result.

Double hit paydirt. Partner gleefully passed for penalties, and a +500 score (3 down) was the result.

Don't forget those takeout doubles! They are the best compromise choice in so many situations.

Well done to Lauraine and Jack Smit, and Geoff Pratt and Robert White, who extracted penalties from 3 doubled, to share the E/W top.

 

Hand of the week 26/6/19

Here's a nasty bidding problem (from last Monday, board 11) that has a wild and woolly "solution". Have a go at it.

The auction is simple enough ... RHO opens 1♠ and it's your call.

Nothing fits. You don't have the right shape for a takeout double - too much risk that partner will bid diamonds, leaving you up the creek. Overcalling 2♣ with five to 9 has an obvious drawback. You could meekly pass, but is that the way to win, with such a pleasant 14-count?

So what say you? When you're ready, click "Show Answer".

A year or so ago, I gave a Friday lesson which presented the tip:

A suit with four of the top five honours should be treated as one card longer.

The concept is that such strong suits become playable even if partner is relatively short in the suit.

On this hand, your 4-card heart suit does indeed contain four of the top five honours. In which case it should be treated as a quasi-five-card-suit.  Well if you have "5" hearts, you can overcall the suit!

I see from the records that a number of Wests did indeed overcall 2, which seems to be the only way West can declare a heart contract. To them I say: "well done!".  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that good ol' partner came down with 5-card heart support!  I will admit that not all adventures end so happily.

If you think about it, the seemingly ridiculous 2 overcall is not a bad way out of this bidding dilemma. And the tip of upgrading the length of very strong suits is certainly a valid one.

Hand of the Week 19/6/19

The following deal (board 9 from Tuesday 18/6) had some interesting pointers for the defence.

You are on lead to 4♠ and begin with a top heart. Partner follows with the 8 (low = like, high = hate), and declarer with the 4.

Now what? Decide your defence, and click "Show Answer".

Despite partner's 8 looking like a relatively high (hate) card, it is in fact low.  I mentioned this in a recent Friday lesson: the height of partner's card must be taken in context. With only the 9 and 10 outstanding after trick 1, it stands to reason that the 8 in context must be a low card. He likes the suit. (In fact he could even have a singleton heart). 

In which case, you might as well continue with your other top heart. Partner follows 9, declarer 10. Now what? Have a think about that.

---------------- spoiler alert ----------------

All the hearts are gone. Rather than speculate on a minor suit (which one?), consider playing a third heart. Partner will trump it and be overruffed, but this means that at least you will have exterminated a possible discard for declarer on dummy's hearts.

Now take a look at all four hands, and decide what partner, East should do, after partner leads a third round of the suit.

---------------- spoiler alert ----------------

East should ruff the third heart with the ♠9!  Incredibly, this promotes your ♠J. Declarer will have to overruff with ♠Q, and now your ♠AJ is worth two tricks. Add that to partner's A and you will defeat this contract by two tricks for a top score.

One final point. Declarer might have played the 10 at trick 1, concealing his 4, making East's 8 look 'higher', and discouraging the lead of a second heart, which declarer doesn't want. It shouldn't work. Now West sees that the 9 and 4 outstanding, at trick 2. He should conclude that partner doesn't have them both (which constitutes the losing case for continuing hearts at trick 2, declarer would ruff your honour) - because with 984, East should follow with the 9: he really doesn't like the suit at all, and should inform partner as clearly as possible.

There are several great learning points from this complex deal:

  1. "High" or "Low" must be considered in the context of what other spot-cards you can see.
  2. Signal as "loudly" as you can: SHOUT at partner with your card.
  3. It can be worthwhile leading a suit where you know partner will be overruffed by declarer, if it kills a possible discard for declarer.
  4. When ruffing in this situation with apparently worthless trump spot-cards, ruff with the highest one: you never know what good might come of it.

No E/W held declarer to 8 tricks on this deal, which is hardly surprising. But what a lovely defence it would have been. 

 

 

Hand of the week 12/6/19

Here's a deal that apparently stumped all 16 tables at last Monday's session. Try it yourself.

You open 1NT, partner bids 2♣, Stayman, you respond 2, no major, and now partner bids 2

What's going on, and what do you do now?

Decide for yourself, then click Show Answer.

So just what is partner doing? Take a look at all 4 hands.

You can see North's situation. With just 6 HCP, he wants to sign off in 2 of a major, but would like to get to the right one. He bids Stayman, hoping that you will respond in a major, and he can pass. That way, he can reach 2♠ on a 4-4 fit, if it's available (much superior to simply transferring to 2 and passing, which might miss a spade fit).

When you bid 2 instead, now he just wants to play in 2.

So partner expected you to pass 2. But not a single table played 2 by North. Indeed there was a variety of scores, ranging from bidding and making 4 to going down 5 in 3NT.  I know that several Norths took the Stayman route, but their partners, unsure of the status of 2, bid on, with mainly poor outcomes.

So now you know. Stayman, followed by 2 of a major over 2, is a weak sequence, expecting partner to pass.

Hand of the week 5/6/2019

This board from last Friday saw many different results from a difficult bidding hand.

Let me present the problem to you from East's perspective. With 22 HCP and only 3 losers, you open 2♣.  Partner responds 2♠ (8+ HCP and at least 5 spades), and you show your diamonds. Partner now retreats to 3NT.

3NT carries some negative inferences.  Partner won't have 6 spades (would have rebid 3♠), won't have 4 hearts (would have rebid 3), and won't have diamonds (would have bid 4).

What now?  Decide for yourself, then click Show Answer.

Well, I know a good hand when I see one. I think you might give 6 a try. Partner probably has the K for his 3NT bid, so then all you need is for him to cover one of your two black suit losers. Is that too much to ask when he has promised 8+ HCP?

One thing you should not do is bid 5.  If you're not going to go for slam, then stay in 3NT  ... it will deliver overtricks and a far better score than game in the minor.  Those in 3NT got good scores; those is 5 got bad scores.

And 6? If you look at all four hands, you will see that it is a good contract, despite partner not delivering the K, requiring just a bit of racing luck in the heart department. Only one pair, Joy Wauchope and Billie Mackenzie, got to the correct contract of 6 by East. On lead, South made the reasonable but unfortunate choice of a heart, and the contract now romped in. A well-deserved top for Joy and Billie.

Hand of the week 29/5/19

This deal from last night is a great example of a key learning point. Try testing yourself.

You are East and this is the auction. What do you do over RHO's 2♣?  (If you ask, you will get a non-commital response from LHO, who isn't really sure about it.)

Suppose you pass 2♣, and LHO's 2 comes back to you. What do you do now, if anything?

Decide for yourself then click [Show Answer].

Chris Walker held this hand and quite reasonably passed over 2♣.  But when 2 floated back to him, he bid 2♠ which became the final contract.

When dummy came down, Chris noted that he had "aces and spaces".  And here is the learning point: "aces and spaces" represents a good hand, not a bad hand. It's a derogatory term, but this is quite wrong. Aces are powerful cards, worth more than their nominal 4 points.  

Take a look at all four hands. You will see that Anne Walker as West held a cruddy hand, with just 4 spades to the jack. And yet ... despite the hand record saying 2♠ couldn't be made, she did make it.

I was on lead as North. I hate leading away from kings to suit contracts, so clearly the devil was having fun with me on this deal. I led a low heart from Kxx with unfortunate consequences. The Walker's +110 in 2 gave them a well deserved second top on the board.

"Aces and Spaces" are good hands!

Hand of the Week 15/5/19

This board from last Friday involves a classic learning point.

You are North, and hear your partner open 1NT as dealer. What say you, if anything?

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

There is a strict 'formula' for responding to partner's 1NT with a weak hand. We will call a weak hand any hand of about 0-7 HCP. In that range, combined with partner's 15-17 or 16-18 or whatever, you probably don't have sufficient high-card strength for a game contract.

  • With a 5-card or longer major, get yourself to 2 of that major, usually via a transfer bid.
  • With a 6-card or longer minor, get yourself to 3 of that minor, if you can, via a 2♠ transfer
  • Otherwise, shut up! Let partner play 1NT and hope for the best. Using Stayman with a 4-card major is a huge gamble, because if you don't uncover a 4-4 major suit fit, then you've made a poor situation worse - you'll end up in 2NT or even higher.

According to that formula, you should pass 1NT: you have neither a 5-card major nor a 6-card minor.

But there is one exception, and this is it. If you have a 3-suited hand with spades, hearts and diamonds (i.e. short clubs), then you can unleash Garbage Stayman.  You bid 2♣, Stayman, and then pass whatever partner responds, including 2.  If partner responds in a major, great! If partner responds 2 then you still pass, with a little less assurance. If partner doesn't have 4-cards in either major, there is a fair chance, she will have sufficient length in diamonds to make 2 a good contract. (If you have led a sinful life, partner will have 3=3=2=5 shape (3 in each major, 2 diamonds and 5 clubs), and 2 will be a horrible outcome. Unlucky!)

This hand is a perfect example. Bid 2♣ and pass partner's response. If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that partner obliges with 2♠, a vastly superior contract to 1NT.

I believe the following players go on the Honour Roll, having applied Garbage Stayman. Well done to them:
  Helen Schapper
  Nicky Donahoo
  Merren Ward
  Larry Allender
  Lou Empson
  Marie Warncken

Hand of the Week 8/5/19

Here's a tricky defensive problem for you, which carries an interesting learning point.

You lead the Q to 5♣. Declarer wins with the K in his hand and leads a low club.

What card do you play, and why?

You might want to play your ♣K.  After all, if you play low, then perhaps dummy's ♣Q will win, and declarer now plays a club back to his ♣A.  You won't make your certain trump trick, and will look pretty darned foolish into the bargain.

But what if you do play your ♣K, and then partner slams down his (singleton) ♣A on it?  You will have compressed your two certain trump tricks into one, and will look pretty darned foolish into the bargain.

So which one is it to be?  Which play will most likely not leave you looking pretty darned foolish?

The solution to this is to transport yourself into declarer's shoes.  Would declarer, holding ♣Axx or ♣Axxx lead low away from the ace? No, he would get to dummy and take a club finesse, hoping your partner has the ♣K.  So declarer does not have the ♣A - your partner has it, and you should calmly play low to the trick.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that you better do so!  This deal is a slightly doctored version of board 12 from last Friday. In that layout, declarer had three small clubs, your partner with ♣A - so it didn't actually matter which card you played. A pity.

At my table, Leif Michelsson correctly played a club from hand, and East incorrectly nervously played the king. No harm done.

Plenty of harm in fact for my side, because I had foolishly put Leif in 6♣, duly going one down.  Sorry partner!

Hand of the Week 1/5/19

This week, I will show you both the North and South hands and ask you how the auction should proceed.

East opens 1♣ and West will be passing. What about North and South?

Decide your auction, and then click Show Answer.

Let's start with South. Despite the hand's distributional flaws (i.e. no distribution), I think Double is best. 15-pointers are awkward overcallers. The hand is not strong enough for a 1NT overcall and it doesn't have a suit to bid, but it feels wrong to meekly pass. Normally when players make a takeout double on flat shape, I give a disapproving frown, but in this case, I'm prepared to make an exception.

What should North respond to the double? That's a toughie.

Passing is wrong. There are not enough clubs to go for penalties. You need to bid something.

When Leif Michelsson doubled, Sandra McCaughey chose 1, a perfectly reasonable choice. When you make a takeout double, you must recognize that when partner responds in a suit, they will occasionally only have 3 cards there. Takeout doublers do tend to occasionally put their partners on the rack.

When Sam Lovick doubled, Ismael Gulec chose 1NT, which is what I would do. 1NT responses to a takeout double are meant to show about 8-10 HCP, with a stopper in the opponent's suit. This North hand has only 7 HCP, so the 1NT response is a compromise, but I think it is the least-worst choice.

Sam and Ismael were the only pair to get to what I think is the correct contract of 1NT by North.

It never rains but it pours. Board 16 from the same session (30/4) saw another flat 15-pointer having to decide what to bid over an opening bid. 

 

Hand of the Week 24/4/19

This tricky bidding problem cropped up on last Tuesday. 

As East, you hear your partner open 1, which presents a difficult responding problem.

What are your thoughts, and what do you bid?

Have a think about that, and then click Show Answer. 

Here's what I think your thoughts should be ...

  1. I have 13 HCP, and as partner opened, there is (at least) a game on this hand.
  2. That game will be either 5 or 3NT.
  3. 3NT is preferable, as it may yield overtricks for a good score.
  4. Hearts might be a problem in 3NT.
  5. It would be better for partner to declare 3NT than me, because that means a heart lead will be up to his hearts, rather than through his hearts.
  6. I need to create an auction that will help us work out whether to go for diamonds or notrumps.

OK, that's a lot of thoughts, but the key point is: 3NT if possible, 5 otherwise.

Bids of 2 or 3 are not sufficient, because they are non-forcing.

Bids of 4 or 5 take you past 3NT.

Bids of Notrump will make you declarer in notrump - undesirable.

That leaves some sort of new suit bid, forcing, allowing partner to make a rebid. The correct response is 2♣.

If you look at all the hands, you will see that partner will rebid 2NT over your 2♣ showing a balanced hand of minimum opening strength.  (Some might have rebid 2 which is not correct, as it is a reverse bid ... nevertheless it works fine on this hand).  You can then bid 3NT, with reasonable confidence that this will be your highest scoring contract. Which indeed it is, as 3NT delivers at least 10 tricks - far superior to 5 which, although making, gets a lesser score.

There's a lot of material in this HotW. You can certainly get into hot water with it. But the concept is: if you have a strong responding hand with support for partner's minor, and no major, then 3NT is on the agenda. Consider making a response in the other minor, to allow the auction to develop.

Hand of the Week 17/4/19

This hand from last Friday piqued my interest.

Suppose you are South. What do you respond to partner's 1 opening? 

Whatever your answer, the auction proceeds as in the hand diagram. What now? Do you leave your partner to struggle in 4 or rescue (possibly from the frying pan into the fire) into 5♣?

Decide your strategy, then read on.

On the first question, a 2♣ response promises at least 10 HCP - you have 8 HCP.  Should you break your promise and bid 2♣ anyway? It is, after all, an 8-card suit.

I believe that 1NT (showing 6-9 HCP without heart support or a spade suit) is the winning choice in the long-run. The auction is hardly likely to die in 1NT, and when you next bid clubs, your partner will know you have 6-9 HCP and long clubs.  An initial 2♣ response tells a lie that you may not be able to recover from.

Having said all that, I can totally understand and empathize with those that did choose 2♣.

Anyway, what about your next decision? I think on balance you should skedaddle out of 4 - it could be the winning contract, but so could my St Kilda team winning the 2019 AFL premiership. Both are possible - neither is particularly likely. It's worth noting that partner bid 4 under some pressure: it was his minimum heart bid. Had LHO passed and partner and jumped to 4, that would be a different matter.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that 5♣ (a 10-card fit) is much preferable to 4 (a 7-card non-fit).

One final point: kudos to all the Easts that passed 4. They were very happy with that contract, and didn't want to rock the boat by doubling for penalties. Indeed, if they had doubled, South would surely have run.

Hand of the week 10/4/19

You pick up one of your better hands, and hear (or see) partner open 2♠.  You bid 4NT, and let's say you just play simple Blackwood: partner bids 5, showing one ace.

What now? Decide for yourself and then click Show Answer.

Since your side is vulnerable, partner should have a decent suit for his weak two opening. On that basis, I think it is worth going for a slam, even though you're missing one ace.

Dawn Thistlethwaite did even better. She bid 6NT. What a splendid decision that was. She had every reason to want to be declarer ... she didn't want to have partner play 6♠ and have a heart lead come through your KJx.

6NT was the perfect spot. The K was indeed protected, and 12 tricks were safe. What's more Dawn scored the extra 10 points for playing in notrumps rather than spades: the outcome was a complete top for her partnership. 

Hand of the week 27/3/2019

Here's a simple enough bidding problem for you.

RHO deals and opens 2, a weak two, 6-10 HCP and a 6-card diamond suit.

Would you (should you) scrape up a bid over this?  And if so, what?

Decide for yourslf and then click [Show Answer].

You should calmly pass.

Nothing else fits. A 2NT overcall shows about 16 to 18 HCP, which you ain't got. A takeout double is meant to be short in diamonds, which you also ain't got. QJx in their suit is the worst possible holding for a takeout double.

Pass is all you can do, but if I'm reading the results correctly, only one East faced with this situation did so: Henrica Cary. 2 was duly passed out and the contract made easily. Was that bad for Henrica?  Not at all. -90 scored her almost 80% on the hand, because so many Easts came charging in with a takeout double.  West was hardly delighted, and was left stranded in some awful heart contract going down several tricks.

I've used this hand as Hand-of -the-Week because there was a remarkable run of decisions last Tuesday evening involving what to do when your RHO opens a weak-2. Particularly remarkable because it occurred on consecutive boards: 6, 7, 8 and 9.  In all four cases, the next hand is tempted to bid, but in all four cases, should not, because either the distribution or strength is wrong.

I find this satisfying because in only one of the cases, board 8, would bidding work out. That seems right to me: about 75% of the time, it is best to chill out after an opposing preempt with an imperfect hand.

Hand of the week 20/3/2019

I got several queries from this deal last Monday morning.  Given the interesting South hand, how should you plan the auction after partner opens 1NT?

Decide for yourself, then click Show Answer.

With 13 HCP there's enough for game, but probably not enough for slam. You would like to play game in a major - what's the best way to go about this?

A very solid guideline that most know is "4-card suits up the line, 5-card suits down the line". What this means is that in many auctions, if you have two 4-card suits then bid the cheaper one first (up-the-line), whereas with two 5-card suits, you bid the higher one first, then the lower one.  This makes for more economical use of bidding space.

Here, that guideline operates, albeit in an unfamiliar guise. You should bid the higher suit (spades) first, then hearts. In a transfer scenario, this means transferring to spades (via a 2 bid), then bidding the hearts naturally. You might end up with an auction like:

1NT - 2 
2♠ - 4 
4♠ 

Partner can choose between the majors at the game-level. If you show all 4 hands, you will see that partner strongly prefers spades.

On this layout, 4♠ was worth one more trick than 4 played by North (which occurred at multiple tables where South transferred to hearts first). Judith Gregory and Elisabeth Neales were an East-West pair who exacted the full value from N/S's slight misbidding.

Judith led her ♠10, and Elisabeth ruffed it. A diamond was played back to Judith's A for a second spade ruff. Well defended!

Hand of the week 13/3/2019

Here's a tricky defence decision for you to test yourself on. Let's say you are playing with a new partner, and haven't discussed anything much.

You find yourself defending 6 and lead the ♣A.  Partner plays the ♣4 and declarer ♣3.

What next? Decide for yourself, and then click Show Answer.

It would be nice if partner's ♣4 meant something, but as you haven't discussed signals, it doesn't.

The temptation to play your ♣K and get the contract down immediately is great, but it's the wrong play, for an interesting reason. If the ♣K is winning at trick 2, then it will be winning later in the deal as well.  After all, declarer is not going to be discarding a club from South on anything, because dummy doesn't have a suit that could provide discards.  Conversely, dummy is not going to be able to discard its three remaining clubs either: the only suit on which that might be possible is diamonds, but your K10xx means that that will surely not be possible.

You should switch, to either a trump or a spade, at trick 2.

If you reveal all four hands, you will see that the second club will be trumped, and declarer will discard her spade loser on the established ♣Q.

(Actually, as it turns out, you can't technically defeat the contract after a high club lead, because declarer will be able to eventually set up the diamonds for a spade discard from dummy. Only an initial spade lead will defeat 6.)

Wendy Simkovic and  Hilary Brear were the only pair to reach this excellent slam, for the coldest of tops.

--------

(Advanced aside. Against slam contracts, you should lead the king from ace-king suits. Partner then follows with a count card (indicating how many cards they started with in that suit). If your methods are 'low = like, high = hate', then a count card is low (then higher) from an even number of cards, high (then lower) from an odd number. In this  case, the ♣4, the lowest outstanding club, would indicate an even number of cards, presumably 4, meaning that declarer indeed started with a singleton.

Conversely, against slams, the lead of an ace denies the king. Partner follows with an attitude card - in this way, you can reliably cash your ace and king in a suit, where opening leader has the ace, and partner has the king.)

 

Hand of the week 6/3/2019

This deal from our new Monday morning session at Mt Waverley Bowls Club piqued my interest.

As South, how do you rate this hand?  Would you open the bidding as dealer? If you pass, how do you respond if partner opens 1♣ ?  What about if partner opens 1NT?

Decide your bidding plan in these scenarios, then click "Show Answer".

Let's deal first with the decision whether to open the bidding.

The Rule of 20 provides a great guideline. You add the length of your two longest suits to your high-card-points: if the result is at least 20, then open at the 1-level. On this deal, 5 (hearts) + 5 (diamonds) + 10 (HCP) = 20, so go ahead and open.

With what?  Next is a guideline that is so solid, it should almost always be followed. With two 5-card suits, bid the higher one first. In this case, open 1. When deciding to open, ignore issues of suit quality: just open the longest suit, or in the case of a tie, the highest of two 5-card suits, the lowest of multiple 4-card suits.  5-card suits down the line, 4-card suits up the line. In your own auctions, suit quality should play second fiddle to suit length. What this means is that if you are to play in a suit contract, you will usually take the most tricks in the longest combined fit, irrespective of its quality.

Now, suppose you pass, and partner opens 1♣. Respond in the higher of two 5-card suits, in this case 1.  If partner instead opens 1NT, bid the hearts first, presumably with a transfer bid of 2.

In all these auctions, it is important to bid the hearts first, never mind that it is an eight-high suit.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that you belong in hearts, at the game level. Not everyone got there, and I think this was due to South players not paying due deference to the 5-card heart suit.

Hand of the Week 27/2/2019

Try your hand at an opening lead problem. You are West, having opened 1 in third seat, and find yourself on-lead to 3NT.

Choose your lead and then click Show Answer.

Grant Scott faced this problem; I was declarer as South. He chose a most unfortunate lead - for me, that is - the ♣2.

It was a killer. Pam Scott's ♣Q forced my ♣A, and when Pam got in with the ♠K, she fired back a club. The defence took 3 club tricks, a spade and the A, for down one.

This was a well-reasoned departure from "fourth highest of your longest and strongest". Grant listened to all my notrump bidding and decided that hearts were well stopped, as indeed they were. Hence the lead of the second-best suit.

Glenda Edge and Dan Taggert also found the club lead against a 3NT contract.

If you're interested in complexity, the web-site has an Analysis feature. On any hand, click "Play it Again". On the form that comes up, click on a denomination and declarer (in this case, notrumps by South), and you can follow the analysis of the play. On this deal, it shows that South has to play very carefully indeed to make the hand on a low heart lead. It's a feature that I personally enjoy a lot.

Hand of the week 20/2/2019

Put yourself in the North seat and make a decision.

You've been bidding your spades at all opportunities, but partner has been entirely unsupportive. Now the opponents have put themselves into 4♥.  

Choose your call and then click Show Answer.

I sat West, partnered by Ismail Gulec.  Hilary Brear was North, playing with Wendy Simkovic.

Hilary had no hesitation in bidding 4♠! And right she was - this proved to be an excellent sacrifice against the 4 contract that would have been easy to make.

A couple of years ago, I gave a Friday lesson with the punchline Always bid 4♠  over 4. This is a tip which resonates with players, partly because it's so easy to remember, and partly because it is so often right. Hilary must have had hopes that she could beat 4 with her ♠A and ♣AK: she only needs partner to provide one more trick. But her opponents had bid 4 with apparent confidence: was there any real reason to believe they couldn't make it?

4♠ went just one down, doubled, when Wendy provided the queen of clubs and a couple of spades - a big profit against the -620 that was coming to N/S against 4.  But even in a worst case scenario, losing your three red tricks, a club and say two spades, it's only 3 down.  Doubled, that's -500, still a profit against -620. That's why they call you being non-vulnerable against vulnerable opponents favourable vulnerability: it's favourable for a sacrifice.

Hand of the week 13/2/2019

Sit yourself South and make a decision on this deal. At favourable vulnerability and after two passes, partner opens 1♠  in third seat. Your RHO leaps to 4.  Do you make a bid?

Decide for yourself and click Show Answer.

A couple of years back, I gave a Friday lesson with the tip: Always bid 4over 4.  The theory is that this gives you two chances for a good score: if either 4 or 4♠ is a making contract, then your bid is probably a winner: it is either a make or a good sacrifice. It of course does depend on your side having some sort of spade fit!

This hand is an excellent example of the genre. It's not a very good hand, without an ace or king in sight, and partner did open in third seat, so could be light in high cards. But the vulnerability is favourable for a sacrifice, you do definitely have a spade fit, and your RHO (who is at unfavourable vulnerability) is probably quite serious.

But putting all those observations to one side, if you follow the mantra of bidding 4♠ over 4, then that is what you will do here.

And if you look at all four hands, the principle comes through, in spades. 4 has 10 top tricks, and 4♠ is only one or two off. It's amazing how often this principle works.

Marjorie Pertzel (North) and Sylvain Janiewski (South) were the only pair to play 4♠, for which they earned a well-deserved near top.

Hand of the week 7/2/2019

Here is a little bidding question for you.

Sitting East, there are 3 passes to you, and you have to decide what to do. This was the problem that Margaret Shewan faced.

What say you, if anything?

There is a guideline to help you with close decisions of whether to open a hand in 4th seat, after three passes. It's called the Pearson Count, or "Rule of 15".

You add your high-card-points to the number of spades held, and if it comes to 15 or more, then open the hand with your normal bid. Otherwise pass and throw the hand in. A pass-out results in a score of 0 for both sides.

On this deal, you have 11 HCP and 3 spades. 11+3 = 14, so the Rule of 15 tells you to pass it out.

But Margaret couldn't bear to pass such a nice-looking 11-count, so she opened 1♣. So, I have to admit, would I have done.

Regrettably, it didn't work. Simon Smith, sitting South (welcome back Simon, if only for a brief visit!) had passed a dead-flat 12-count, and now made a takeout double of 1♣. After a small amount of competitive bidding (West bid diamonds, North spades and East repeated her clubs), Liz Wilby, sitting North, declared 2♠ and had no difficulty making it, for a score of +110.

So Margaret (and I) would have done better to pass the deal out, getting 0 instead of -110. There you go. The Pearson Count is real, and pays respect to the owner of the spade suit. Because spades can outbid every other suit without raising the level, it's really valuable to have them in a low-level competitive auction.

Hand of the week 30/1/19

Today, you are West. Partner opens 1NT and you have to respond. Let's say 1NT shows 16-18 HCP - what do you bid?

Suppose instead that 1NT showed 15-17 HCP - would that change your decision?

Decide for yourself and then click Show Answer.

This is a matter of simple arithmetic. You have 18 HCP, partner has 16 to 18 HCP, so your combined range is 34 to 36 HCP.

You normally need at least 33 HCP for a 6NT contract, and at least 37 HCP for a 7NT contract. As you are between 34 and 36 HCP, there's no more thinking to be done - you should bid 6NT. Six of nine pairs got to 6NT, which had 12 top tricks, and they shared the maximum E/W score. Dan Taggert was one West who correctly bid 6NT over 1NT.

The other three pairs reached contracts of 3NT, 4NT and 5NT. I'm not sure what went wrong with their auctions, but I don't really want to know smiley.  I guess they complicated a simple hand.

What if the 1NT opener was showing 15-17 HCP? Now your combined range os 33 to 35 HCP, and you should still bid 6NT. In this scenario, it is possible you are missing both the A and K (the missing 7 points), but there's no way to find out, and you shouldn't worry about it. At an international teams event in 1981, my partner and I bid 2NT - 6NT, and in fact we were missing the A and K! But both cards were with the partner of the opening leader, a diamond was not led, and we romped home with 12 tricks. At the other table of the match, exactly the same thing happened.

The moral? When heading for a notrump contract with two balanced hands, just bid with the points.  37+ for 7NT, 33+ for 6NT, 26+ for 3NT, and with fewer HCP, as low as you can.

Hand of the week - 9/1/19

Suppose you are West, playing in clubs. In this example it is a 4♣ contract, but it could be 5♣.

North leads ♠K and you trump it. You can see that 11 tricks are easy, so if you stopped in 4♣, you might be feeling a little depressed at having missed a game. Nevertheless, there are still matchpoints to be won here, so I ask you this: how do you play it?

Decide for yourself and then press Show Answer.

It's all about the diamonds. With this sort of suit combination, where you have length and the king and queen in separate hands, but missing the ace, jack and ten, there is only one way you can avoid two losers in the suit. You must hope that whoever has the A has at most one other small card in the suit. 

Suppose North has Ax in diamonds. Then you must lead a small diamond from your (West's) hand. North plays low and dummy's K wins. Now you return the suit, playing low from both hands: North must win his now bare A, and voila, your Q is good,

Conversely, if South has Ax in diamonds. Then you must lead a small diamond from dummy (East). South plays low and your Q wins. Now you return the suit, playing low from both hands: South must win his now bare A, and your K is good.

This is the only way. If the defender with A has two (or more) supporting cards, you will have to lose two tricks in the suit, whatever you do.

Your decision is which of North or South to play for A.  Often the bidding clues you in. In this case, North made an overcall, South gave a weak raise ... N/S have just 15 HCP between them, and North is likely to have a majority of them. So you should play North for the A, leading low from your hand towards the K in dummy. 

If you look at all four hands, you will see that his is the winning move, and you can gather in 12 tricks.

Rosemary Polya was the only player to find the winning play. She and Cheryl Ogilvy were in a disappointing 4♣ contract, but by snaffling the extra trick, Rosemary earned her side a 60% score on the board. Not bad for playing a slam contract in a partscore!

Hand of the week - 9/1/19

Suppose you are West, playing in clubs. In this example it is a 4♣ contract, but it could be 5♣.

North leads ♠K and you trump it. You can see that 11 tricks are easy, so if you stopped in 4♣, you might be feeling a little depressed at having missed a game. Nevertheless, there are still matchpoints to be won here, so I ask you this: how do you play it?

Decide for yourself and then press Show Answer.

Hand of the week 2/1/19

Put yourself in South's seat on this deal. After two passes, RHO opens 1 - what's your bid?

Decide for yourself, then click Show Answer.

Did you notice that partner is a passed hand?  This deal must belong to the opponents, possibly for a very large score.  So you want to get in their way.

Don't be put off by the fact that you just have 5 lousy HCP, with not an ace or king in sight. Your 8-card spade suit represents a 6 trick hand - you might lose to the ♠A and ♠K, but your 6 remaining spades are winners. I suggest you boot this up to 3♠ right now. This could potentially go 3 down, doubled for -800, but in real life, the opponents are going to go after their own contract, as neither of them will have the stack of spades needed to penalise you. Meanwhile, you take all their bidding space away with your 3♠ bid.

2♠ is too low. It gives the opponents too much room. LHO has the space to introduce a minor suit, or perhaps support hearts. E/W are hardly discomfited at all.

4♠ is too high. That's a bid that might get doubled based on points, in preference to flirting with the 5-level. And 4♠ doubled may well go down more than the value of their game.

3♠ is the Goldilocks bid, neither too low or too high. If you look at all four hands you will see that West has no alternative to bidding 4 and East will not realise that West has such big support.

But if you bid only 2♠, then West will jump to 4 and East will bid on. And if you bid 4♠, West with the spade void will likely bid 5 and East will go on to slam.

Two E/W pairs Larry Allender - Ismail Gulec and Pam & Grant Scott bid the slam to share the E/W top. I wonder if their opponents gave them too easy a time.

Hand of the week 5/12/18

Try this hand for size. You don't think you can impact your score when holding a 3-point hand? Think again!

What you do in place of those question marks as East?  Would you bid your diamonds at any point. If you were East did you?

Decide, then click "Show Answer".

I can tell you what I did, as I sat East.

I passed 1♣, fearing that I wouldn't be able to control the auction if I responded. That part, I don't feel bad about.

And over 2, I passed again feeling that the auction was just too high to get involved.

North made an effortless overtrick in 4.

Pusillaminous, wimpish non-bidding by me. I didn't take enough note of the vulnerability, with their side vulnerable against my side not vulnerable.

Rune Dresjvo showed how it should be done. He fearlessly responded 1 and after 2 he bid the diamonds again! He's the man! If you look at all four hands, you will see that his partner Helge Pederson had little difficulty in bidding 5, a 300 point sacrifice against the N/S vulnerable game.  An absolute top score, and well deserved.

(One other pair, Gwyneth Anderton and Helen de Vanny, also bid 5.  But their opponents, Krystena Casey and Bob Leighton cleverly pushed on to 5 to get their average board back. An excellent bidding effort by both sides.)

Hand of the week 14/11/18

Here's a simple problem for you. You are the dealer, not vulnerable versus vulnerable.  What's your choice?

Let's start by considering it for an opening 1♠ bid.  There are various possible factors that determine whether a hand is suitable to open: this will be canvassed in the upcoming VBA bulletin.  

Rule of 20.  9 HCP, a 6-card suit, a 5-card suit. 9+11 = 20 so this hand satisfies the rule of 20.

Losing Trick Count. Very popular amongst a small band of players. You are meant to have at most 7 losers to open the bidding. A loser is each of the ace, king and queen you are missing in a suit, up to the limit of how many cards you have in the suit. So there are 2 spade losers, 1 heart loser, 1 diamond loser and 1 club loser. Only 6 losers, so this hand satisfies the Losing Trick Count rules.

Ease of rebidding. It's useful to decide what you will rebid if partner makes a typical if unhelpful response. If you have no easy rebid, it might be best to pass. In this example, if partner responds 1NT or 2♣, you can bid your diamonds. If she responds 2, you can repeat your spades. There is no rebidding problem.

Defensive tricks. If you open, and the opponents intervene, you want to have some measure of defensive strength, so that if partner opts to defend, she will not be too disappointed. The usual standard is 2 defensive tricks. Here the A is a trick, and the Q and ♠QJ  both contribute half a defensive trick. It's a bit of a stretch, but you have the makings of 2 defensive tricks.

This hand adds up to a 1opening bid!

Last Friday, most players passed it (or perhaps opened a weak 2♠). But not Margaret Shewan, East at my table. She opened 1♠ and Janne Scott did not take long to put her in 4♠ (after the auction 1♠ - 2 - 2♠ - 4♠).  This contract made effortlessly for an equal top. The only other pair to reach the fine 4♠ was Lenora Clarke and Sam Lovick.

That was excellent evaluation by Margaret. 

Hand of the week 7/11/18

Try this defensive problem. You are North, defending East's 4♠ contract.

Partner leads the ♣9, won by declarer's ♣A.  Declarer plays ♠K, partner wins ♠A, and switches to 9, which you win with your singleton ace.

Now what? Decide your next play and then click "Show Answer".

Both declarer and partner are out of clubs, although declarer doesn't know this. If you lead another club, declarer is likely to discard. Your partner will trump, and can then lead a heart for you to trump. That will defeat 4♠.

But wait a minute - how will partner know to lead a heart next? You can help her along the way, with the use of a suit preference signal.  Lead the club jack, an unnecessarily high card, suggesting that partner play a high suit. There are two suits in play: hearts and diamonds - you want the higher one.

Click "Show All Hands" to reveal everything.

At at least one table, North just led a low club. Declarer discarded and South trumped. But now South, who had no idea that partner started with a singleton heart, played a diamond reasonably hoping that North held the A. It was not to be.

Of the 7 tables that played in spade contracts, Merren Ward and Michael Ryan were the only ones to hold declarer to 9 tricks. No wonder they won their direction if they were going to defend like that.

The McKenney Suit Preference signal can come in handy!

Hand of the week 31/10/18

This deal from Friday had an outcome that I found rather humorous.

Let's start by considering a bidding problem. You are in the West seat, and it starts Pass, Pass to you.

Are you going to make a bid? Decide for yourself, and then click 'Show Answer'.

Kerri Jones decided to open it 2♥.

This broke several rules. The hearts were empty apart from the ace, and she was vulnerable to boot. And people are told not to open a weak two holding two aces.

Nevertheless I totally agree with her decision. It's a bidder's game, and making this opening bid might set N/S a difficult problem. And indeed it did, as you will see if you look at all four hands.

North made a takeout double, East (Maria Robson) passed, and South had only unpalatable options. She could gamble a pass (which works in theory, although it's not that easy to defeat 2), or bid 2NT (yuck!).

Instead, she tried a 2♠ bid, gambling on partner having 4 spades for her takeout double. Maria was delighted to defend 2♠ with her six trumps, and that contract duly went 4 down.

The humour? This was an equal top for E/W, the other 4-down result being in a N/S contract of 3 (two pairs reached this unedifying contract, perhaps facing similar difficulties after a 2♠ opening from East).  I found it funny because both West and East found their opponents playing in their 6-card suit. Happy days!

Hand of the week 4/10

This was an interesting declarer play problem from last Tuesday.  You reach a contract of 4♠, and North leads a low diamond, to South's K and your A.  

Now what?  The normal way to play the trumps is to play the ace and king, hoping that the suit divides 2-2.  Is that what you should do here?

Have a think about that and then click [Show Answer].

When play a suit contract, one of the first things you should ask yourself is: "Should I draw trumps?"

The default answer is "yes" - you want to get rid of the opponents' trumps so they cannot ruff your side-suit winners.  But sometimes you need to delay drawing trumps.  Possible reasons are:
- you need to take some discards first
- you need to set up a side suit first
- you need to ruff cards in dummy first

The last of these reasons applies here.  You have a diamond loser, a possible trump loser, and three club losers in your hand.  But dummy has only 2 clubs: you can trump two of your losing clubs in dummy.  But you need to make sure that you retain two low trumps in dummy, with which to ruff those clubs.  If you take the ace and king of trumps immediately, there is a risk that an opponent may get in and play a third round of the suit.

The correct line is to take just one top trump, and then a low club from both hands, losing your club trick early.

Then whatever the opponents do, play the second top trump in dummy, and go about your business of ruffing clubs, using the hearts in your hand as entries.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that this manouvre was necessary.  If you take the top trumps too early, then North will win a club trick and take his ♠Q, leaving you short a trick.

Hand of the week 30/8

Consider this bidding problem.  After partner's 1 opening bid, you are all set to respond 1♠ when lo and behold, RHO overcalls in that suit.

What do you do now?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

You might want to double this impertinence, but alas, a double here is negative, not for penalties.

Rosemary Polya faced this problem and she came up with the winning answer: 3NT.  No one can say you don't have spades stopped! 

If you look at all four hands, you will see that 3NT is easy, and in fact made 11 tricks when North led a diamond.  This was a near top, as much of the field (including your correspondent) went down in 4, losing 4 club tricks.  South's 1♠ overcall demonstrated "creativity" and had backfired in an unusual way.

Were you worried about the lack of a club stopper?  No doubt Rosemary was a little nervous about it, but so much of the time, partner (who has after all opened the bidding) delivers a stopper there.  Here's the tip:

For notrump purposes, don't overly worry about the lack of a stopper in a suit that the opponents have not bid.

Hand of the week 23/8

The play made on this deal was not a spectacular one, but did demonstrate that there's no end to the possibilities in this difficult game.

You are South, defending 4♠.  Partner leads a club.  Declarer takes your ♣10 with ♣A, and plays ♠A and another spade.  Partner follows with a low spade and then the jack, and you top dummy's ♠Q with your ♠K.

What now?  Decide for yourself and then click "Show Answer".

Leone Carberry held the South hand, and made a nice play.  Her partner had overcalled 2, and looking at her hand and the dummy, she could be quite certain that declarer held a void.

She was a little concerned that partner might get in later (presumably with a diamond) and play the A ... that would get trumped, which could not be good for the defence.  She found a neat solution:  she played a heart herself!  Whether declarer discarded or trumped, partner would now know the heart layout.

A nice line of reasoning and a well thought-out and unusual play.

Hand of the week 9/8

I'm looking for some sympathy with this week's hand.  I was East, and this was the situation that faced me.

Very nasty.  Would you come in with 5♣ or would you let the vulnerability dissuade you and just pass?  Decide for yourself, then read on.

The problem was that I didn't know what my RHO, Sylvain Janiszewski, was doing.  If he was bidding 4 with a strong hand, expecting his partner, Marjorie Pertzel, to make it, then it would be foolhardy to come in with 5♣ because that contract could go down thousands.

But he might also have a weakish hand with long hearts, and be bidding 4 as a sacrifice, in which case he was tricking me out of my making game, or even slam.

As I mentally crossed him off my Christmas Card list, I bid 5♣, and the sky fell in.  If you look at all four hands, Sylvain was bidding 4 to make, and he gleefully doubled 5♣: down 800 and the coldest of tops for him and Marjorie, and bottom for me and Ken Joseph.

Meanwhile, what a good bid was Marjorie's 2.  Her hearts were extremely mediocre, but she was at favourable vulnerability (not vul versus vul), and she knew that mixing things up is a winning approach. 

4 makes on normal play, and no other N/S pair reached it.  It was of small consolation that even if I had passed 4, it would still have been an absolute zero for me.

 

Hand of the week 2/8

This deal presented some interesting problems for all four players at the table.  I will give you East's hand, the weakest of the lot.

Partner opens a weak 2♠ and the next hand doubles for takeout.  Your bid?  Decide for yourself and then click "Show answer".

In this scenario, one should be thinking: "what can the opponents make, and how can I stop them doing so?" 

As to what the oppoonents can make, one would expect that they can make a lot of hearts.  Unfortunately, you can't be more specific than that.

And how to stop them doing so?  Mainly it is by bidding a lot of spades, removing their bidding room.  Did you note the vulnerability?  You are non-vulnerable, the opponents are vulnerable.  This is called "favourable vulnerability", and what that means is that it is favourable for a sacrifice.  If the opponents can make a game, that is 600+ points for them.  If you sacrifice and are doubled, you can afford to go 3 down (-500) and still show a profit against their game.

If the opponents can make a slam, 1400+ points for them, you can afford to go down 5 down (-1100) and show a profit.

On this deal, you should bid at least 3♠ at this point in the auction, and possibly even 4♠.  If you look at all four hands, you will see that N/S can indeed make a slam in hearts, although it requires a successful diamond finesse to do so.  The 12 times it was played last Friday, 11 N/S pairs played in hearts in contracts ranging from 3 to 7.  Well done to Margot Mentiplay - Tricia Cox and Elizabeth Lewis - Marjorie Pertzel to reach 6 and share the N/S top on the board.  In fact the 'par' result (the result that would be reached if all four players could see all four hands) is 6♠ doubled, down 1100. 

And one E/W pair got to play in spades: Bart Verdam (West) and Marion Nielsen (East) played 4♠ doubled down three, -500, for an excellent E/W score.  I'm not sure how that contract was reached, but I'm impressed.

Hand of the week 26/7

Here's a tricky bidding question for you ...

Partner opens 1NT, let's say 15-18 HCP.  What's your plan?  Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

It's hard to say, in fact I refuse to say what I would have done: I still haven't made up my mind.

You could belong in a partscore in clubs, or maybe a game in clubs, if partner's hand fits well.  To play a club partscore (using transfers), bid 2♠, a transfer to a minor, and then pass when partner bids 3♣.  To bid a game in clubs, simply respond 5♣ (or if you would prefer partner to play it, transfer, then raise partner's 3♣ to 5♣).

Then there's notrumps.  That's top-or-bottom stuff.  You could go many down in a notrump contract, but if partner has club cards, and all goes well, there could be many tricks available.  It's risky, but you could pass 1NT, or invite partner to a notrump game with a 2NT bid.

Finally, there's what Sandy Peterson did.  She bid 3NT - such positivity!  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that partner had a dead minimum, but he did have good clubs, and 3NT could not be defeated.  Indeed, on the normal heart lead, there was at least one overtrick available.  Quite a creative bid for the coldest of tops.

 

Hand of the week 12/7

Here's a bidding question for you.

What do you bid with this hand, after partner passes and your RHO opens 1?

Nothing fits perfectly: the 5-card spade suit is weak for an overcall; a takeout double is flawed (partner invariably responds in clubs) and it is a bit chicken to pass.

So choose your poison.

I thought Brian Morrow found an excellent compromise bid with this hand: he chose 2, a Michaels Cue-Bid, theoretically showing 5-5 in the majors.

His partner Larry Allender responded in hearts, and there they rested for an excellent score.

When he put his hand down as dummy, his oppoonents asked: "not 5-5 shape: are you allowed to do that?"   Well yes, you are allowed to do anything you like, and it struck me that this little lie was a good one.  Of course, lies don't always have such a happy ending, so it's best not to make a habit of telling them!

Hand of the week 5/7

In this week's deal, you just have to make a single bid.  You are West, and the auction has proceeded as shown:

2♣: big!
2: little (0-7)
3, 3NT: natural

Now partner bids 4♣: what does that mean, and what should you bid?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Some Wests interpreted 4♣ as the Gerber convention, and so responded 4, showing one ace.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that there is no happy ending in this scenario, as East had no choice but to go back to 5, which had no chance on this layout.  East had intended 4♣ as a natural bid, and this was the right idea, because the correct contract is 5♣ on the nice 4-4 fit.  West should simply raise 4♣ to 5♣, confirming that he has club support.

My (strong) advice:  play 4♣ as Gerber in only two explicit auctions:

1NT - 4♣  and

2NT - 4♣ 

Hand of the week 1/7

Please critique this auction ... do you like it?  hate it?  something inbetween?

Decide for yourself, and then click "Show Answer"

First point of critique is that it was successful.  Indeed Michael Ryan (West) and David Woodruff (East) were the only pair to reach this cold 6♠ contract.

Results are important - one could stop the critique right there.  However ...

The 2♣ opening bid was really the key decision.  Only 11 HCP partner!   But Michael didn't want to be stranded in 1♠ and more importantly, if he did open 1♠ would he ever be able to communicate the powerful playing strength of his hand?

I wouldn't have opened 2♣ myself, but I can certainly admire the logic applied.

The rest of the auction was perfect.  North (Inder Khullar) tried to help with a possible opening lead with his 2 overcall; David showed his hearts.  Now Michael leapt to 4♠ to get across that what he primarily had was playing strength with a long self-sufficient spade suit.  And David knew what to do ... applying Blackwood to get to the laydown slam.  Well done!

Hand of the week 7/6

Here's a defensive problem for you.  In the auction, your LHO employed a Michaels Cue Bid to show spades and a minor.  Partner gave you vigorous heart support, but this did not shut out the opponents' spades.

You lead the ♣A (or ♣K, if that's your preference) and it goes ♣3, ♣4, ♣5.  You have agreed to play 'reverse attitude' signals, which means:  Low = Like, High = Hate.  Well, partner's ♣4 is lowish, however the ♣2 is outstanding.  So does he like 'em or not?  Decide your next play, and click [Show Answer].

With a little sweat, you can work out what to do.

The ♣8, ♣6 and ♣2 are all missing.  If declarer has them all, partner started with a singleton, and you should certainly continue with clubs and give partner a ruff.

If partner has them all, or at least two of the remaining three, she should not play a wishy-washy ♣4 (ie from ♣642, ♣842 or ♣8642),  She should play her highest club, because she really hates the suit.  The lesson is: make your signals as loud as possible.  Shout out that there is no future in clubs by playing your highest card from each of those holdings.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner was simply liking your lead, playing her lowest card from a doubleton.  You should continue with another high club and give partner a ruff ... the A will be the setting trick.  Well done to Helen Schapper and Anne Rosengren, who found this defence.

Declarer did a clever thing on this deal.  He followed suit at trick one with a high club pip.  By concealing the ♣2, he made South's ♣4 look relatively high and discouraging.  Nice falsecarding!  But no luck against alert opponents.

Hand of the week 31/5

This week you pick up your usual 3-pointer, albeit with a very nice spade suit.

Partner, as partners are wont to do, opens in your short suit:  1.   What do you bid, if anything?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

If you had digested, and recalled, a Friday lesson from two weeks ago, you would know what to do.   Please note:  the scenarios from these lessons do happen!

This is the situation where you have a very weak hand with a long suit.  You would like to bid your suit, but are fearful that partner will play you for more strength than you have and carry the bidding too high.

The solution is the weak jump response:  in this auction, a bid of 2♠ to show about 3-5 HCP, and at least 6 spades.  Perfect!

If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner has great strength, but his enthusiasm will be dampened in the light of your weak hand, not to mention the misfit in spades.  So East should pass, and 2♠ is a perfect contract, in fact the only E/W contract that makes.  Despite North's spade holding, there are 8 tricks: 3 side suit winners and 5 winners in spades.

This deal is problematic for N/S as well, and the 2♠ bid may prompt them into an indiscretion.  No one played in 2♠ and 6 of 8 E/W pairs went minus.  A 2♠ weak jump response just about guarantees a plus score for E/W: with that contract either making, or N/S bidding something and going down.

Hand of the week 24/5

This deal from Tuesday night struck me as interesting at several levels.  There are 12 top tricks in a club or notrump contract ... but how to get to a slam?  I imagine the auction started like shown, and then West has a tough rebid problem.

The problem for West is that if you support clubs, you have gone past 3NT, which is the most profitable game contract available.  It's no use getting to 5♣, as one pair did, because you are going to lose out to all the pairs that reach 3NT.  If you as West go past 3NT at this point, you really have to commit to bidding a slam.

I must admit that as West, I would probably have just bid 3NT over 3♣, and missed my slam.  This is what happened at several tables.

The other area of interest is the play.  The hand record says you can make 13 tricks in clubs or notrumps.  What?  I count only 12 tricks: 6 clubs, and 3 pairs of ace-kings.  If you take the diamond finesse for your 13th trick, it loses.   As an exercise, see if you can work out how the computer makes 13 tricks (you can use the "Play it again" feature of the web site to solve the problem, as I did). 

I can give you the name of the play, if nothing else:  it's a Vienna Coup followed by Double Squeeze.

 

Hand of the week 17/5

This was a humorous hand from Tuesday night's red points.  Here you are as West, in second seat and vulnerable against not. RHO passes.  What's your poison?

I can think of 4 possible bids, all entirely reasonable:

3♠:  you have a decent 7-card suit, and between 6 and 10 points.  What's there to think about? 

2♠:  but the 7-card suit isn't that decent, and you are vulnerable.  How about pulling in a notch and opening 2♠?  That is a completely legitimate tactic.

Pass:  some textbooks say you shouldn't open a pre-empt with 2 aces.  I don't personally hold with that theory, but if you follow it, then perhaps you pass this hand, planning to bid spades later.

1♠:  good distribution, two aces, an easy spade rebid.  Why not live a little and show an opening hand?

I didn't hold this hand, and to be truthful, am not sure what I would have done. 

However, the hand was played 14 times, and no-one made a contract. Those who opened 3♠ fared worst. 3♠ was passed around to South, and two of the Souths (Marjorie Pertzel and Larry Allender) doubled for takeout ... an excellent bid particularly as South had already passed and therefore partner would know they lack opening bid values.  Their partners were of course delighted to pass for penalties, and +1100 was the upshot.

Those who compromised and opened 2♠ fared better, playing in that contract.

And one brilliant West (Ian Speed) passed the hand.  What happened to him is the stuff of dreams: he got to double North in 2♠ for penalties.  Here's a question for you: how did N/S get themselves to 2♠ doubled without doing anything silly?  I think I know the answer, but am too scared to ask them ...

Hand of the week 10/5

A simple question for you today.  You are dealer as East ... do you open the bidding or not?

I would open 1.  Here are some ideas behind this decision.

The Rule of 20.  This is a useful aide for deciding whether to open 10 and 11 pointers at the one-level.  Take the length of your two longest suits and add that to your HCP: if it comes to at least 20, then open the bidding.  Here you have a 5-card suit and a 4-card suit, that's 9; add it to 11 HCP, and it gives you 20. 

Aces are good.  Aces are under-valued by the the 4-3-2-1 point system.  Here you have twice your average quota of aces.  Change the hand to say:  ♠xxxx Q KQxxx ♣KJx and things are very different.  "Aceless" doesn't exactly equal "useless" but it's a starting point.

Comfortable rebid.  This is a factor that is worth thinking about.  If I open and partner makes a typical response, do I have an easy rebid?  On this hand, specifically, you think: what will I bid next if partner responds 1 (which he will clearly do much of the time).  In this case, you have an easy 1♠ rebid, so this hand gets a tick.  But, rearranging things, if instead you held:  ♠Axx A Kxxx ♣xxxxx ... what is your rebid if you open 1♣ and partner responds 1?   There isn't a choice that is remotely comfortable.  I would pass such a hand, despite it passing the Rule of 20 and having 2 aces.

So there you are.  When this hand was played on Tuesday, I suspect that 7 of the 9 players passed, because 7 times, only a partscore contract was reached.  Spade contracts delivered between 9 and 12(!) tricks.

Pam and Grant Scott were only pair to bid and make 4♠ (I suspect via the auction 1 - 1 - 1♠ - 4♠) for a well-deserved top-score.

Hand of the week 3/5

This deal is interesting in both bidding and play.

The East hand is eerily similar to the East hand from the last HotW.  There I recommended a jump to 3 based on the 5-card support.  This deal is a little different in that the opposition have already gotten into the auction and therefore a pre-emptive effect is reduced, however I still think that 3 is probably the right bid. 

West has a clear acceptance of the invitation, and 4 is duly reached, a contract without a shred of a chance.  The reason is the disastrous mirrored distributions of the West and East hands, something you couldn't possibly know in the bidding.  C'est la vie.

North leads the ♣A and ♣K, then switches to a low diamond. 

How should you play it?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

There are two inescapable losers in club and two in diamonds.  You are going down.  But let's not go 2 down.  There is also a problem in the spade suit, where you need to fish out the queen.

You can guarantee 9 tricks with the help of an end-play.  Win the A, draw trumps, and then make the key play: a low diamond.

The defenders will win this, and then take another diamond trick, but now they are stuck.  Whoever has the lead has to either lead a spade, which automatically finesses the queen for you, or a minor suit, on which you will ruff in one hand, and discard a spade in the other, thereby also avoiding the loss of a spade trick.

The moral:  when you have a tenuous suit, like spades here, the best outcome is to force the opponents to play it for you.  That's what end-plays are all about.

Meanwhile, well done to Marjorie Pertzel and Rune Dresjvo, who not only screeched to a halt in 3 but found the correct play to make it, for an outright top.

Hand of the week 26/4

Put yourself in East's shoes, and decide what to bid after partner has opened 1 in 4th position.

When you are ready, click [Show Answer].

Diane Rice was one of several players put in this position.  She chose a natural and invitational 3 response.

Everyone passed, and if you look at all 4 hands, you will see that Cheryl Ogilvy's (North) diamond lead put the contract two down (declarer lost two diamonds, two spade and two clubs).

At first glance this didn't look too flash for E/W, and Diane apologised to her partner Elisabeth Neales for her bidding.  Her remarks were relevant: "I know I had a terrible hand, but with 5 hearts I felt I should bid 3."

How right she was.  I was South, and if Diane had simply raised to 2, I was going to come in with 2♠.  As N/S was vulnerable, the actual 3 bid was too high for me.  If I had been able to compete, N/S would have reached a spade contract, making, for a better N/S score than the +100 we actually got.

Two points here:

  1. The fifth heart in East's hand was important.  It meant that one way or another, there was playing strength for E/W.  And more important, it meant that N/S would lose a maximum of one heart in a contract of their own (in fact, it would have been zero hearts).
  2. The vulnerability was even more important.  Pushy bids like 3 work best when non-vulnerable, so that any undertricks you pay out are only in units of 50.  -100 for two down was a good score; but a vulnerable -200 for two down would have been a very poor score.

 

Hand of the week 19/4

A problem of defence this week. 

You are North and partner has doubled 4♠. You lead the ♣K.  Unfortunately, that is ruffed by declarer, who plays a diamond towards the king. 

You let him win the K, and next he plays a heart and puts up his K,  You win with the A.

What now?  Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

The trick here is to recognize that declarer is embarking on a cross-ruff.  He is planning to ruff clubs in his hand, and red cards in dummy.  He may be able to take a lot of tricks this way.

As a defender, you can limit declarer's ability to cross-ruff by playing trumps yourself.  The correct play at this point is to switch to your singleton spade.  (You might decide to take your A first.)

If you look at all four hands, you will see that just one round of trumps is enough to prevent declarer from taking 10 tricks.  But if you don't play any rounds of trumps yourself, then declarer will actually take all 9 of his trumps!  Add that to the K and you have 10 tricks.  In fact, 3 declarers did make 10 tricks in spades, for excellent E/W scores.

Leone Carberry and Liz Wilby were one pair who found the trump play in time.  Add that to the fact that they doubled 4♠ (essentially based on the fact that they had 24 HCP between them), this generated a near top score for them.

Hand of the week 8/4

Talk about "on-topic"!  What would you bid in this situation?

You have opened 1♣ on your 12 HCP hand.  Next hand makes a takeout double, partner bids 1, and RHO 1.

Your hand is flat and not particularly appealing.  But the diamonds are nice.  One other thought: you have 4 little hearts, and both LHO and RHO have indicated hearts in their own way.  It would not shock you if partner has a singleton heart.

So, do you make a bid?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Friday's lesson was about Support Doubles.  You open, partner responds, and RHO intervenes with a suit bid.

Playing Support Doubles, a double here shows precisely 3-card support for partner's suit.  A direct raise would guarantee 4-card support.

Well, you have 3-card support for diamonds, and whilst your hand is a minimum opener, it is not without its good side,  You should make a support double here.  Take a look at all four hands, and you will see how well this works.

If you meekly pass, then LHO will support to 2 and that will presumably be the end of the auction.  2 will either make 7 or 8 tricks, so your best outcome would be +50.

Now see what happens if you make the support double.   This will result in partner competing to 3, and with careful play, that contract will make.  Alternatively, your opponents are pushed to 3 and that contract has at least 5 losers. 

Hand of the week 1/4

This deal resulted in a great deal of East-West misery (although there was one exception).

The auction shown is what happened at my table: I was South, partnering Liz Wilby, against Julie More (East) and Janice Meldrum (West).

What do you think of that auction? 

It gets a big tick from me.  The key decision was Julie's as East: should that hand be opened 2♣?   I admit I would be sorely tempted, and no doubt many Easts did so.

The inevitable result of a 2♣ opening was that the auction then spiralled out of control, and East-West suffered a big minus score.  There were two -1100s, and -500, -400, -300 and -200 also littered the scoresheet.

Back at my table, I doubled 1 for takeout, Janice passed as West and Liz bid an obedient 2♣ as North.  Now Julie could tell which way the wind was blowing, and so rebid a gentle 2.  Even that contract was too high, but down one gave Julie and Janice an 80% score on the board.  Ken Joseph and Barbara Warrington also were able to screech to a halt in 2.

The top East-West score was interesting.  It occurred when North decided to pass the takeout double of 1.  This is not usually recommended without excellent trumps, although such speculative bids can occasionally work spectacularly.  In this case it didn't, and how delighted must East have been to be doubled in 1!

Hand of the week 25/3

Suppose your partner opens 2 in third seat ... a weak two bid showing about 6-10 HCP and a decent 6-card suit.

The next hand doubles for takeout.  What should you bid?  And why?  Decide for yourself and then click "Show Answer".

I can think of four (count 'em!) Friday lessons that contribute to your bidding decision here.  This hand certainly hits a spot for me.

Lesson 1.  The Law of Total Trumps.  In a competitive auction, bid to the contract that requires the same number of tricks as the total number of trumps between you and your partner.  In this case, your four trumps combined with partner's six equals 10 trumps ... so that would suggest bidding to a 10-trick contract, 4.

Lesson 2.  The effect of vulnerability.  We are vulnerable, the opponents are not.  This is called "unfavourable" vulnerability, and it is particularly unfavourable for making sacrificial bids.  For example if you bid 4 here as a sacrifice (you surely don't expect to make it), then assuming you go down, then you have to go down by only 1 trick, and the opponents have to be able to bid and make a game, for your sacrifice to be profitable.  This assumes that your opponents will double you.  Unfavourable vulnerability sacrifices are rare, and this deal doesn't look to be one of them.

Lesson 3.  Points Schmoints.  Only this week, we walked about counting points, and in particular length and distribution points.  This 4-3-3-3 hand has neither a long suit nor any distribution.  Apart from the nice hearts, it is frankly a pretty awful hand.

Lesson 4.  Responding to Weak Twos.  In the lesson weak twos, I pointed out that a raise to the three level is not invitational but obstructive.  To invite, you need to respond with 2NT.  So a 3 bid here would not invite partner to bid 4 ... it is merely designed to make life a bit more difficult for the opponents.

At my table, Leif Michelsson as West did indeed bid 3 (and might have been the only one to do so).  If you look at all four hands, you will see that this stifled his opponents.  3 was passed out (neither North nor South could bid sensibly make a bid), and went down 1 for an excellent score.  Several E/W pairs got themselves to 4, doubled by South, and they did not enjoy the result.

Hand of the week 15/3

With a lot of recent Friday lessons on transfers and the like, this hand caught my eye.

You are North, and partner opens 1NT, let's say 16-18 HCP.  How should you bid it?  Decide for yourself (consulting handounts if necessary!) then click Show Answer.

Well, you want to play a heart contract, at least game, and possibly slam.  OK, so far?

If you decide it's only worth a game, then there are two ways to reach it.  You can transfer with 2, then bid 4 over partner's forced 2 rebid (partner will be declarer), or you can simply bid 4 yourself (you will be declarer).  Both these approaches are perfectly reasonable.

But the hand has slam potential, what with the 7-card suit and 2 side aces.  If you want to investigate a slam, then you should jump to 3 over 1NT.  This is a natural bid, setting hearts as trumps, and inviting slam.

If you look at all 4 hands, how do you think South should react to such a bid?  His hearts are very nice, but the rest of his hand is not particularly good ... no side aces, and a dangling Qx in spades.  It's hard to say for sure, but I think South should probably reject a slam try, and simply raise 3 to 4.

So my recommended old-fashioned auction would be 1NT - 3 - 4 - Pass.

Slam is not a very good proposition, but on the actual layout it is hard to defeat, particularly if played by North.  At the very worst, declarer can go all-in by finessing against East's Q.

With the board being played 14 times last Friday, there was a wide variety of outcomes.  Four pairs did reach 6, every one of them by South, so a transfer bid was used.  That means that North must have unilaterally bid a slam.  Two made, two went down.  

The moral?  To engage partner in a slam investigation after a 1NT opening bid, one of the best routes is to simply jump in your suit to the 3-level.  That gives partner the option to co-operate or not.

Hand of the week 8/3

I don't normally like to write up freak hands, as they usually involve a lot of guesswork, and not to have good learning points.  But this one I can't resist.

What would you bid with the freakish 7-6 hand in the minors?  Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

All 14 North-South pairs went plus on this deal from last Friday.  But surprisingly, only one of them won the auction, the other 13 pairs defeating various East-West contracts.

The pair that declared was Jill Bell (holding South's hand here) and Larry Allender.  Their final contract was 5 doubled by North, making for a top score on the board.

How did North get to play it?  Jill Bell bid 2NT over East's 1♠ - the Unusual 2NT, showing at least 5-5 in the minors.  Larry obediently bid diamonds as his preferred minor, and the bidding escalated from there, Jill continuing to compete until she won the auction.

It reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call a solid 8-card suit?"  Answer: "Trumps!".  You might only pick up a 7-6 shape once in your life (I have had one exactly once), but if you do, you really should end up as the declaring side!  Well done to Jill and Larry for doing so.

Hand of the week 1/3

How do you think the auction should proceed here?  N/S will pass throughout.

Construct your perfect auction, and then click [Show Answer]

After two passes, the 10 HCP West hand is hardly an automatic opening bid.  Two Wests, Joy Wauchope and Ronda Cross, did in fact pass, and the deal was passed out.  That was the easiest 75% score they ever earned, as most of the other East-West pairs got themselves into trouble.

Third seat openers can be very light, the better to disrupt fourth seat, so the other 13 Wests did open the bidding, presumably with 1♠.  (It cannot be right to open 1♣, because you won't be able to tell partner that you have a strong 5-card spade suit, which is the main feature of your hand.)  What should happen next?

East should respond 1NT, showing 6-9 HCP.  The East hand is not strong enough for a 2-over-1 2 call. 

Now West reveals the clubs with a 2♣ rebid, and East should pass it.  East clearly prefers clubs to spades, and to try 2 now would be a real shot in the dark.  So the final contract should be 2♣ by West, and with careful play, that contract makes (and is in fact the only making E/W contract to be had).

So kudos to Mary Buchanan and Norma Buntine, who were the only E/W pair to reach that contract, for an 85% score.  (The two best E/W scores occurred when N/S unwisely got into the auction and went down.)

Hand of the week 23/2

Suppose you hold the East hand here and open 1NT (16-18 HCP).  Armed with the recent Friday lessons on transfers, your partner bids 2 showing at least 5 spades.

Should you do as you're told, and bid 2♠, or is there an alternative?

In this situation, Pam Scott bid 3♠.   This is called a 'super-accept' (or 'transfer break' in some parts of the world).   It shows explicitly 4-card support in partner's suit.  There are other somewhat sophisticated things you can do in this situation, but the simple jump to 3♠ was an excellent choice.

Show all 4 hands to see what happened next.

Pam's partner, Diana Jacobs, got a little excited by this development, and bid 4NT, which they'd agreed would be Roman Keycard Blackwood.  Pam bid 5, two key cards but no trump queen.  The lack of the trump queen didn't perturb Diana, because she knew they had a 10-card spade fit, from the super-accept.  With only 3 spades out against them, the odds were strong that they wouldn't lose a trump trick.  So Diana bid 6♠.

The spotlight was now on South, who was on opening lead (note how the transfer bid meant that the stronger hand would be declarer).  She chose 4th highest of her longest and strongest, the 2.  This rode up to Pam's AQx, and she quickly gathered 12 tricks.  (The slam can be made, in theory on any of South's leads, but it's not easy to see how!)

Leading 4th highest of your longest and strongest is not a good idea when leading to a slam.  South would have been better off making a passive lead, in this case a club, which would have given declarer a very hard time indeed.

The top E/W score went however to Liz Wilby and Leone Carberry, who reached 6NT, once again by East.  (6NT is actually a very good contract, in theory.)  South doubled this impertinence, but also led a diamond, resulting in the rare score of 1230 for E/W.

Hand of the week 2/2

Here's a nasty little bidding problem for you.

You open 1♠, and when the bidding returns to you, the opponents are in 4.  What do you do?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

In the latest edition of the VBA Newsletter, I wrote an article with the tip:  "When in doubt, bid 4over the opponents' 4".  

Well, you're certainly in doubt here, and Michael Ryan was one who did follow the tip, bidding 4♠.  He was promptly doubled, and probably figured: "uh oh, how am I going to explain my way around this one?"

But, if you look at all four hands, you will find that Peter Newstead put down the best 2-point dummy ever.  Michael wrapped up 4♠ doubled with an overtrick, for the coldest of tops.  You have to feel for the hapless N/S pair, who had 27 HCP between them.  I would have doubled 4♠ as well.  After all, West was clearly guessing when he bid it.

It was a great bid by Michael - of course, it might have turned out differently on another layout, but I'm pleased that my tip came through on this particular deal.

Hand of the week 26/1

You are North, declarer in 4♠ after your RHO has opened 1.

The lead is ♣J, and your RHO takes ♣K and ♣A, then switches to Q.

How do you play it?  Decide for yourself, and then click "Show Answer".

We start by counting our losers: none in spades, maybe 1 in hearts, 1 in diamonds and the 2 we have already lost in clubs = 4.  Clearly we can eliminate the heart loser if we can successfully finesse for the Q.

Next: should we draw trumps?  Yes, absolutely, get the kids off the street. 

Now, who has the Q?  This is the classic "two-way finesse", we can finesse either West or East for that card.  It can often be just a blind guess, but not here.  Do you remember the bidding?  West opened 1, so we can play him for at least 12 HCP.  He has shown up with ♣AK, that's 7, then led the Q, that's 9.  Three more to go.  Now, who has the K?   The likelihood is that the Q is the top of a sequence, which means that East has the K.

If East does have K, then West would have to hold the Q in order to make up his opening bid.  So we should finesse West for that card ... play the K then the J, running it if West follows low.

If you look at all 4 hands, you will see the happy ending: 4♠ bid and made for an excellent score.

Making deductions like this based on the bidding and the play to date is an essential component of good declarer play.

Hand of the week 12/1

Here is a challenging defensive problem for you.  You are East, and are defending North's 4♠ contract.

Your lead is a club.  Declarer wins dummy's ♣A, then draws trumps in three rounds with the ace, king and queen.  Partner follows all the way, and you discard a club.

Now declarer plays A, on which you play the 5 and partner 2.  Next comes the Q from declarer, and you have to decide whether or not to take your king.

Have a think about that, then click "Show Answer".

What's the difference between a 2 and a 3?  Everything.

The one heart that you cannot see is the 3.  Who has it?  If partner has it, then you should take the K now (or lose it forever).  Dummy's hearts are good, but there is unlikely to be an entry.  But if declarer has it, then you must let him win the Q, and take the third round of the suit.  If you win with the king immediately, declarer has a third heart to lead to dummy.

How can you tell?  Well, if partner started with 32 doubleton, and you play standard signalling methods, then he should follow to the first round with the 3, starting a "high-low with a doubleton" count signal.  This is a great example where simple signalling methods can solve a guessing situation.

Well done by Zen Zebrowski, Ken Joseph and Ian Muir, who were the only East players to defeat the 4♠ contract.

Hand of the week 5/1

A simple question this week.  You hold this pleasant hand and are all set to open 1♠, when lo and behold, your RHO opponent opens 1♠ in front of you!

You check the back of your cards to ensure they aren't from a different board.  No it all seems correct.  So what do you do?  What is your plan?

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

In the words of Elmer Fudd, you should be vewy vewy quiet.

Your bidding plan is to pass throughout this auction.  Your partner passed as dealer, so lacks an opening hand, and your lovely 5-card spade suit is not so lovely now that your RHO has 5 of them.

I find it hard to imagine an auction where I would ever make a bid.

If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that N/S are in heap-big-trouble, and worse for them, they are vulnerable.  There's nowhere for them to go.  Three Easts, Helge Pederson, Maria Robson and Ian Muir applied the Fuddian logic, and got to defend N/S contracts, scoring 200, 300 and 400 for the best 3 E/W scores.  Silence was golden!

Hand of the week 22/12

Here's a bidding problem for you.  Partner opens 1♣, you respond 1, and partner jumps to 3♣.

The jump rebid shows about 16-18 HCP, and a good 6-card club suit.

What now?  Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

With 8 HCP opposite partner's 16-18 HCP, it is plausible to pass.  You might not have sufficient combined strength for a game contract.

Regarding game contracts, you should rule out 5♣ as a possibility.  The combined values are unsufficient to expect an 11 trick contract to make.

That leaves 3NT as the only viable game.  Partner has clubs, you have hearts, but you need to consider the stopper situation in the other two suits.  You have the diamonds covered, but spades is a concern.  You can probe for 3NT by bidding 3 now, which is a semi-natural bid.  By that I mean that it shows strength in diamonds, but is not seriously suggesting diamonds as a final destination, at least at this stage.  It is primarily a stopper-showing bid, saying to partner: we might have 3NT on, but you need to look after the spades.

If you show all the hands, you will see that partner can look after the spades, and will happily bid 3NT over your 3 probe.  Well done to the three pairs who reached it, sharing the N/S top.

What if partner didn't have a spade stopper?  Then he might bid 3 with some level of heart support (he has to have his 16-18 HCP somewhere!), which you would raise to 4.  Or he simply returns to 4♣, saying "I can't help anywhere", and you would pass.

Hand of the week 8/12

What opening lead would you make to 4♠ with this uninspiring hand?

Even with a 3-point hand, it is within your power to generate a top score for your side.

In a Friday lesson on opening leads, I gave an order of merit for leading to a suit contract.  Fourth on the list (after an AK-suit, a side suit singleton, and a KQ suit) was leading top of a side suit doubleton.

The ♣3 is the best percentage lead on this hand.  Nothing else inspires.  You are hoping that partner has some strength there, and can generate some tricks and/or give you a ruff.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that the club is the only lead to defeat 4♠.  Partner wins the first two clubs, noting that you play high-low (indicating a doubleton), then plays a top heart (to indicate where his re-entry is after you ruff the third club), and a third club.  Your ruff is the setting trick.  Simple!

Simple, but often not found.  Indeed only one E/W pair out of 9 managed to defeat 4♠.   That was Maria Robson (West) and Ken Joseph (East).  Well done to them, and a well-deserved top score on the board.

Hand of the week 1/12

I recently gave a seminar at Moonee Valley on declarer play, and this deal could have come straight out of it.

One of the questions I emphasised that declarer should ask himself is "Should I draw trumps?"   That question is apposite here.  You are in 4♠ by South and West leads the 5 to East's king and your ace.

Do you play on trumps now?  Decide for yourself, then click "Show Answer".

In the notes from the seminar, I gave several reasons for delaying the drawing of trumps.  One of them was to first "cash or develop winners on which you can discard losers". 

The diamond suit here is a threat: you might have two further losers in the suit if you play a trump, East wins with the ace, and then fires a diamond back through your remaining Jx. 

You can counter this by first playing 3 rounds of hearts (starting with the high honour from the short hand!), discarding a diamond.  That reduces your diamond losers to one, and now you can play trumps.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that this manouvre was absolutely required, as East did have the trump ace, and West was poised with Q10. 

Congratulations to Col O'Brien and Liz Wilby, who were the only two Souths to make 4♠.

Hand of the week 24/11

Today's hand features a simple but important principle. 

You are East, and have to respond to your partner's 1 opening bid.  What say you?

Decide for yourself and then click "Show Answer".

The correct response is 1♠, despite the pathetic spade holding of 8742.

If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that your side has an 8-card spade fit, and belongs in a spade contract (how high a spade contract is a more tricky question).  You can reliably get to a spade contract only if you are prepared to respond 1♠ as East.  If you do anything else, then partner will not expect you to have spades, and you are likely to wind up in a notrump contract.  3 of the 9 pairs did indeed end up in notrumps, for mostly inferior results.

The principle is: "quantity, not quality".  Or to put it another way "length before strength".  Most bridge bidding involves trying to find a fit of at least 8 cards between you and your partner.  It virtually never matters how strong that fit is.  For example, if you have a spade combination of ♠9876 opposite ♠5432, you probably belong in a spade contract.  It really doesn't matter that you are missing the ace, king, queen, jack and ten.  Sure, you will lose at least 3 spade tricks, but these are tricks you are going to lose in any contract.  But if the outstanding spades divide 3-2, then you will be able to draw trumps (well more accurately, lose trumps!), and once three rounds have been played, you will have trump winners. 

Hand of the week 10/11

Here is a very interesting 3NT contract to play, from the West seat.

North leads ♠5, and South plays ♠Q (ducked), ♠K (ducked) and another spade.  It looks like North has led from 5 spades: ♠Jxxxx.  So he has two more winners to take ... you have to hope he has no entry.

You win the third spade in dummy, and cash ♣AK, hoping to see the queen appear.  No luck: both opponents follow with small clubs, so the queen is outstanding.

What now?  Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

Well, you only have one quick entry back to West:  Q.  You could use that to knock out the ♣Q (which you hope South has), but even then you will have to pray that South also has the A, otherwise North's good spades will cash.

The correct (and by no means obvious) move is to play a heart yourself right now.  If North has the ace, then you will go down, but you could never have made the contract.   But if South has the ace, then the K will win, and you are off to the races.

If you have a look at all 4 hands, you will see that the K does win.  Now you don't need to play the clubs (and it would be a disaster to play a club now, as North has the queen, with two good spades to cash).  You re-count your tricks and see that you have 1 spade, 1 heart, 4 diamonds and 2 clubs.  Needing only one more trick, you should play Q, cash out all 4 diamonds, and lead second heart up.  The Q will be your 9th trick.

A very tricky deal indeed.  Well done to Ismail Gulec, who was the only West to bring in 3NT.

Hand of the week 6/11

You don't see this auction too often, but when it does come up, it's worth knowing what to do.

You sensibly pass partner's 1♠ opening bid, but then the auction turns nasty.  LHO doubles for takeout, and RHO passes!  Clearly RHO has a fistful of spades, and so has converted the takeout double into penalties.

The question is: is there anything you can do about it?  What do you think?

I recently gave a talk about redoubles, in particular, the Omnibus Redouble (after your RHO doubles your partner's opening bid).  Someone asked me about SOS redoubles, and I skirted the topic.

Now I wish I hadn't, because this hand is a perfect example.  Things are not looking good in 1♠ doubled, are they, with your RHO sitting over your partner with his spades.  Perhaps there's a better (or at least less disastrous) spot elsewhere.

To give yourself the best chance of finding a safe haven, redouble.  This is called the SOS (or 'please rescue me') double.  The logic is this: suppose you are happy in 1♠, thinking to make it.  There's no reason to redouble, because that gives the opponents the chance to change their mind.  Be happy that you are playing 1♠ doubled.

That frees up the redouble for some other meaning, in particular SOS.  It asks partner to bid into some other suit.  There's no guarantee of success, but surely anything is better than watching partner suffer in 1♠  doubled!

If you look at all the hands, you will see that a contract of 2♣ is perfectly satisfactory for N/S, and that is what South will bid if partner makes the SOS redouble.  What wouldn't work so well is North rescuing himself into 2, which would get doubled and murdered.  That's the beauty of the redouble: it allows for a collaborative rescue.

Meanwhile, well done to Bart Verdam and Joy Wauchope, who nailed their opponents in 1♠ doubled for a top board.

Hand of the week 30/10

There is a bidding tactic that is occasionally employed called "walking the dog".

Suppose you have a hand where you think you can make a high contract, typically a game, because of a wonderful suit-fit.  But you fear that if you immediately bid the game you think you can make, the opponents, who have a good fit of their own, will sacrifice against it.

Walking the dog means to bid the hand up, one level at a time ... this can happen if your opponents, with their big fit, are innocently competing for the contract.

You finally arrive at your destination, and your opponents, who saw you apparently willing to finish at a lower level, let you play it there, and maybe even double.  It's a good strategy, but requires nerves of steel.

In today's game, Helen Schapper pulled one of the best dog-walks I have seen.  She was South, and I sitting West was her innocent victim.  Helen kept on bidding just one more in clubs, and I kept bidding one more in diamonds.  When she finally bid 5♣, I thought: "well she only bid 3♣ the first time and they are both passed hands: they must be too high.  DOUBLE!

Gwyneth Anderton had no problem racking up 5♣ for a score of 750 and an outright top.  Well, done Helen!

Hand of the week 20//10

You hold the East hand here and pass in 2nd position.  Partner opens 1♣, you respond 1♠ and partner gives you a raise to 2♠.

What now?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

You have 11 HCP, which would suggest that you might have a game if partner is at the top of her range.

However, this is a bad 11-count.  Horribly bad.  Totally bad.  As bad as bad can be.   There is no distribution whatsoever, and you have a series of unconnected lower honours in the side suits.   Nor are there any intermediate cards ... not a 10 or 9 to be seen.

So you should pass 2♠.  At last Friday's session, just two players did pass: Liz Wilby and Pam Boyd.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that 2♠ was quite high enough ... indeed on a bad day, you will go down.  This was a good day: finesses worked in hearts and clubs, and trumps broke 3-2.  So 9 tricks were available.  Over half the field got too high.

There was another solution to this problem, which no-one found.  West might have taken the opportunity to pass 1♠.  Normally, this is a forcing bid, but East had passed originally, so West knows that East doesn't have opening values.  Game is not in the picture, so why not simply pass 1♠?

Back to the East hand:  there is a terrific web site, http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?, which allows you to enter a hand, and it will spit out how many points it is actually worth, according to a set of rules made up by the great American player Edgar Kaplan.  If you put this East hand into that hand-evaulator, it spits out 9.7 points.

Hand of the week 13/10

Suppose you are West here. With only your side vulnerable, partner passes as dealer and your RHO opens 1.  What action (if any) would you take?

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

7 of the 9 players who held this hand passed 1, no doubt thinking: "I quite like the idea of defending against hearts".

Two intrepid Wests, Heather Howes and Ken Joseph, boldly overcalled 2♣.

I much prefer the overcall to the pass, for two reasons.  First, it's unlikely that we are going to get to defend against hearts.  Probably, LHO will respond, and the opponents will find a fit in spades or diamonds, something that is not so attractive to our side.

And second, an overcall of 2♣ may find a fit for our side, and more importantly, make it difficult for the opponents to find their fit.  True, I'm not so keen on being vulnerable in this situation, but it's a bidder's game.  You do have to be prepared to stick your neck out (at least a little bit) in duplicate bridge.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that I was wrong about the first point.  The 7 times West passed, that was the end of the auction.  But there was no happy ending for E/W:  1 made either 7 or 8 tricks at these tables.

And the two players who overcalled?  Well, their partners supported them to 3♣, and they were subsequently able to genuinely enjoy defending 3, when South quite reasonably repeated her suit.  They deservedly got the the top two E/W scores on the board.

Hand of the week 29/9

Here's a pretty little hand that demonstrates not one but two of the principles given at recent Friday lessons.

You are South and pick up your typical hand.  Partner has surprisingly overcalled in hearts, of which you have 6.  RHO bids 1♠.

What should you bid now, and what is your general bidding plan?

Decide for yourself, and then click Show Answer.

Back in August, I ran a lesson on the Law of Total Trumps which says:  "in a competitive auction, bid to the level of the total number of trumps that your partnership holds".

Your partner's 1 overcall promises 5 hearts, you have 6 hearts for a total of 11.  You should therefore be prepared to compete to the 5-level (11 trick contract) if necessary.

I would start by bidding 4, removing as much room as possible from the opponents.  If they then compete to 4♠ you should be prepared to bid on to 5.  This is a bit scary, as you are vulnerable, but the Law is the Law.

If you show all the hands, you will see that the opponents will indeed bid 4♠, which is an easy contract to make.  5 is two down, a worthwhile sacrifice.    4 of the 8 N/S pairs did indeed go on to 5  - well done.

This brings us to the second lesson, which was given earlier in September.  When South goes on to 5, either West or East (both, really) should double it.   Both the E/W players know they have the majority of the points - they should not allow 5 to play undoubled.   2 down in 5 doubled would have yielded a decent score; 2 down undoubled was a poor score.   Unfortunately, 5 was allowed to play undoubled 3 times (at the 4th table where 5 was bid, E/W competed on to 5♠ - a legitimate view). 

 

Hand of the week 22/9

You've been pushed to a contract of 5 in a competitive auction.

South leads ♠A and then switches to the 10.  North plays low, you win with the Q and play the A.  South alas shows out, so North has a heart trick.

You will need to get the rest apart from that - how do you play it?  Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

Your only possible loser is in clubs.  There are two ways to deal with it:

  1. You could cross to the A and take a club finesse, hoping North has the club king.  Or
  2. You could finesse the Q, hoping South has the diamond king.  If the finesse works, you can discard your losing club on the A.

Option 1 is simple enough ... you will make or go down 1, depending on who has the ♣K.

Option 2 is more dangerous.  If the diamond finesse fails, you will go down 2, because the A is stranded in dummy, and you will have to lose a club trick as well.

Nevertheless, Jo Crockford went ahead and took the apparently dangerous diamond finesse.  If you look at all the hands, you will see that this is the winning decision.  How did she know to do that?

She thought back to the bidding.  South had overcalled 1♠ and after North had given a single raise to 2♠, had gone on to 4♠.  North's hand is weaker than South's, and North has already shown up with the K.  The odds favoured South having both minor suit kings, in order to justify both the overcall and the bid of 4♠.

Well worked out.  Also making 11 tricks were Michael Ryan and Marcia Giles.

 

Hand of the week 15/9

Never has a Friday lesson been more swiftly acted upon than this.  Board 19 was the first board played at Table 10 last Friday.

Would you double 6♠ here?  You do have 5 trumps to the jack, but nothing else.

The Friday lesson was about penalty doubles (as distinct from takeout doubles) and made the point:  "We don't make enough penalty doubles."

Helen Schapper, sitting North, was apparently listening, because she doubled 6♠.  Of course there was no guarantee that the contract would go down:  she almost surely had one trick in spades, but you need two tricks to defeat a slam.  Nevertheless, this double was very well judged on a risk-to-reward analysis.  Sure, occasionally the contract might make, but the bottom you score may be quite similar to the score you would have got if you had not doubled.

In fact, 6♠ was a fine contract, needing nothing more than spades dividing 3-2.  But the 5-0 break destroyed it: a well-dserved top score for Helen.

One other point:  E/W play Roman Key Card Blackwood, which was what the 4NT bid was.  West wasn't sure how to respond to it: she had 3 key cards and the trump (spade) queen.  The answer is that you can't show it all at once.  You show your 3 key cards with a 5♣ response, and then if partner wants to find out about the trump queen, she bids the next step: 5.  That is the 'queen ask'.  Now you would jump to 6♠, to say you do indeed have the trump queen.

West's heart void was a complicating factor.  Her actual jump to 6♠ was a good compromise bid, and was unlucky not to be rewarded with success.

Hand of the week 8/9

A simple question this week.  After two passes, do you open a pre-empt with this hand?

I was asked about this hand from last Friday's game.  The question was:  "I have read that you shouldn't pre-empt with a void ... is that right?"

Well, yes and no.  Yes, in that there are text books that advise against pre-empting with a void.

And no, in that I think that's bad advice.  The theory is that the void provides a level of playing strength that partner can't anticipate.  But there's a bigger picture involved.  Pre-empts are powerful bidding tools, and in real life, it's a bad idea to find too many reasons to avoid pre-empting.  Imperfection is the name of the game: better to sow the seeds of chaos than to make precise bids constrained by a set of "rules".

In this instance, a pre-emptive opening bid of 3♠ is mandatory, particularly in third seat.  Partner and RHO have passed ... the odds are that your LHO has strength, and is not going to be pleased to hear 3♠ on his right.  And if you look at all the hands, so it is: I wouldn't like to be in South's shoes having to cope with a 3♠ opening bid.  I'd much prefer to hear a pass, and I can open 1 in peace.

I don't know how many people opened 3♠ or what the effect might have been on this particular deal.  But I do know that it is winning strategy to make pre-emptive bids whenever you can.

Hand of the week 1/9

Do you or don't you?  Here you are South in fourth seat, and by the time the auction gets to you, it is at the level of 4.

Do you consider bidding 4♠?  And ifyou do consider it, do you actually bid it?

Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

Here's my personal answer.  I would definitely consider bidding 4♠.  But I rather doubt I would actually do it.

The vulnerability is highly relevant here.  You are not vulnerable, they are vulnerable.  Suppose they are making 4  (which you rather expect they are) ... that's a score of -620 or so for you.  If you can come to 7 tricks in spades, then 4♠ doubled goes down only -500.  It could be a very good sacrifice.

Two things could go wrong.  You could go down 4 tricks or more, for a score of at least -800.  Or maybe 4 is not making, so you are converting a plus score into a minus score. 

It's a close decision that was faced 6 times, and on just one occasion did South bid 4♠.  The intrepid bidder was Grant Scott, and if you click "Show all hands" you will see how right he was!  4 is an easy make, declarer losing just one spade, one diamond and one club.  Meanwhile 4♠ is only one down (partner has a very suitable hand for you!), and indeed the defence needs to be careful to attack diamonds, otherwise it will actually make.

At Grant's table, the opponents actually pushed on to 5, going down, not that it made any difference.  He had secured a top score as soon as he bid 4♠.  Fortune favours the brave!

 

Hand of the week 25/8

Last Friday's lesson was on the Law of Total Trumps.  The idea of the Law is that, in a competitive auction, you estimate the total number of trumps between you and your partner and compete to that level but no further. 

So with an 8-card fit, you compete to the 2 level (8 trick contract), with a 9-card fit, you compete to the 3 level, and so on.

On this deal, Helen Schapper (West) and Stephanie McQueen (East) used the Law to get a good result.  The opponents have competed to 3 after Stephanie and Helen had found their spade fit.  How should they react to that?

 

Both East and West knew of only an 8-card fit in spades.  So they wisely did not compete to 3♠ , instead letting the opponents go down in 3 .

And right they were ... at 7 of 9 tables, E/W played in a spade contract, and at 6 of those 7 tables, 8 tricks in spades was the limit.  So Stephanie and Helen were able to get a plus score (3 went two down) instead of a minus. 

It was as simple as that.  In the Friday lesson, I gave a similar hand, also with one of the players holding a singleton in the opponents' suit.  Everyone at the lesson wanted to proceed on to the 3-level, even though they only had an 8-card it.  I argued strongly against this, noting that having a singleton in the opponents' suit is a two-edged sword.  Sure it means you can trump their suit; however it also means that partner might have length and strength in that suit, indicating that it would be better to defend.  Nowhere is that principle more strongly indicated than on this deal, where partner had AQJx.

One N/S pair competed to 3♣ (I imagine that South overcalled 1♠ with 2♣).  The same principle applied.  This time East had the shortage and West had the length in clubs.  And again the right decision for E/W is to defend with their 8-card spade fit.  That's exactly what Dan Taggert and Henry Gesko did, and they were rewarded with the E/W top when 3♣ went four down on the terrible breaks.

 

Hand of the week 18/8

Sometimes there's simply no justice.

What would you bid with that South hand, after everyone has named a suit?

When I pick up hands like South's, my immediate thought is: "3NT":.  A long solid minor suit like that is just perfect for 3NT, a contract that is so often vastly superior to a minor suit game contract at the 5-level.  There are two reasons for this: 9 tricks are easier than 11 tricks, and the prospect of valuable overtricks in a 3NT contract.

So on this deal, and after this auction, I would have no hesitation in firmly bidding 3NT.  I appear to have 8 tricks (7 diamonds and a club), and if partner cannot provide one more, then off with her head. 

If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that the North hand is entirely suitable for 3NT, with it's spade stopper and a bit of help in clubs.  The opponents will be hardpressed to avoid presenting me with my 9th trick on opening lead, whether it be a heart lead (West's suit) or a club lead (East's suit). 

Alas, the diamonds divide 5-0, putting a wrecking ball through the lovely 3NT contract.  My sincere commiserations to Hilary Brear and Helen de Vanny, the only N/S pair to reach 3NT, which duly went 2 down for a poor N/S score.

Hand of the week 4/8

Today's Hand-of-the-week features both bidding and play.

First, what should West's response to East's 1 opening be?  Decide for yourself and then click [Show Answer].

We covered this question at a recent Friday lesson:

With two 5-card suits, always start by bidding the higher one.

So you should respond 1♠.  When you subsequently bid hearts, your partner will know that you started with at least 5 spades, because if you had 4 in both hearts and spades, you would have started with 1, bidding 4-card suits up the line.  This crucial principle of bidding will help you get to your best fit.  In this case, when West bids spades then hearts, East will know that his side has at least an 8-card spade fit, and will get the partnership to their correct contract in spades.

And how should West play 4♠ after the defence starts with two rounds of hearts?

West should trump the second club and then start drawing trumps, with the queen and then ace.  When the 4-1 spade break comes to light, you must abandon the trumps for the moment, and clear out the QJ from dummy, before playing a third round of trumps to your king.  There is a winning trump outstanding, and you just leave it there and play your good hearts.  South will eventually take his good trump, but you will have the rest, making 11 tricks.

Four of the eight E/W pairs got themselves to 4♠, ensuring an above-average score.  And well done to Annette Ruegg and Ed Koken, who made 11 tricks to share the E/W top.

 

Hand of the week 28/7

How do you think this hand should be bid, after North opens 1♠ and South responds 2♣?   In particular, what should be North's rebid?

Some weeks ago, I gave a Friday talk (due to popular demand smiley) on Splinter Bids.  These are unusual jump bids that show support for the suit partner has just bid, and shortage in the suit of the jump.  Splinter bids are wonderful bidding tools, but they do take some getting used to.

North's hand is perfect for a splinter raise in clubs.  It evaluates to 17 total points in support of clubs: the void, combined with 4-card club support, is an immensely valuable asset.  So North jumps to 3: a splinter bid showing club support, extra values and a shortage (singleton or void) in hearts.

Now look at South's hand: it is pretty strong, with 18 total points of its own.  South can see that he will be able to ruff his two little hearts, and with all the other assets, slam must be a good bet.  I would suggest some form of Blackwood at this point, to check we are not missing a couple of aces, then a bid of 6♣.  6♣ is an excellent contract, needing only to negotiate the minor suit queens.  Indeed on a good day (and this is a good day) you can make 7♣.

Just one pair, Irena and Peter Pysk, got to 6♣ for a well deserved top.  I don't know if they got there on the wings of a splinter, but you can see that it would ease the way.

Hand of the week 21/7

What would you do as North when your RHO, in third seat, opens 4?

Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

Surely, RHO is not going to make 4.  You have a probable heart trick, a couple of aces, and other values as well.  And RHO has pre-empted opposite a passed hand. 

Since you have no interest in a contract for your own side, you want to play 4 doubled.  And you can.  A useful agreement to have with your partner is: "all doubles of game contracts or higher are for penalties".  So you can double 4 here with no risk of partner misunderstanding it for a takeout double. 

Click [Show all hands] to see the full layout.

You should lead the K (top of a sequence).  Since dummy is entryless, it should not be too difficult to take the 5 tricks that are owing you, for a score of +300.

Two of the club's more experienced players, Larry Allender and Glenda Edge, found the penalty double and shared the N/S top on the board.  Most of the rest had to make do with +50 or +100.

There was one curious result: 2 by West making, for an E/W top.  That belonged to Jo Crockford.  I imagine she decided to open 1 rather than pre-empt.  There are several ways this might work, and there are several ways this might not work.  Here it worked a treat: I imagine North overcalled 1NT, and then Jo competed to 2.  Voila!

Hand of the week 14/7

An early one this week, as I will be in Fremantle.

Put yourself in David Stubbings' place, with his miserable 0-pointer.  And somehow finds himself in 4♠, vulnerable.  Has partner gone mad?

Click [Show All Hands] to see that partner, newly graduated master Joy Stubbings, has not gone mad at all.  A cool 24 points in support of spades.  She was well aware that she had forced partner to bid, and he could have nothing.  As indeed he did.  David then made the contract, with an overtrick to boot, for the coldest of top scores.

Hand of the week 7/7

Against your 4♠ contract, West leads a low heart.  After winning with the queen, it looks right to draw the trumps. 

What's the right way to play that trump suit?  Decide for yourself, then click [Show Answer].

You could play for East to have the ♠A by leading low from dummy, and putting up the king if East plays low.  That is roughly a 50-50 chance to hold your spade losers to 2. 

But there is a better play available, due to the fact that you have 10, 9 and 8 of spades as well.  It is to lead the ♠10 from dummy, and should East play low, you play low as well.  Even if this loses to the queen or jack, you can return to dummy later and play another spade, intending to put in the 8 should East play low again.  That way you hold your spade losers to 2 if East has either the jack or the queen of spades.  It's not hard to see that this is better odds than simply hoping that East has the ace. 

If you look at all four hands, you will see that leading the ♠10 from dummy, intending to run it should East play low, is the only way of picking up the spades.  This was a fairly tricky hand, with issues beyond just the spade suit.  7 pairs played in 3NT, with varying degrees of success, and only two in 4♠, one making, one going down.

Meanwhile, no-one got to 4♠ by South, which means that no-one had the auction that I have given here.  That will be the subject of the next Friday lesson.

Hand of the week 19/11

Getting to a slam after the opponents have opened the bidding at the 1 level is one of the harder assignments in the game.

Hilary Brear and Bart Verdam were the only pair to achieve it on this deal last night.  What should South bid after RHO has opened the bidding with 1♠ in third seat?

Decide for yourself then click [Show Answer].

No one would argue with an overcall of 2♣, but the hand is very strong, and it's better to show the strength with a 2-step auction.

First make a takeout double, then at your next turn, bid clubs.  This shows a hand that is too strong to make a simple overcall.

Looking at the full deal, North would bid hearts initially in response to the takeout double, but then when South shows clubs, the North cards are huge, considering the support, good side suit and spade void.

Despite vigorous opposition bidding, Hilary Brear recognised the power of the North cards and bid the club slam, which Bart Verdam had no difficulty in making with an overtrick.  Well done!

Hand of the week 30/6

Let's watch Glenda Edge and Zen Zebrowski in action.

West opens 1 and partner overcalls 1NT, showing about 16-18 HCP, balanced distribution, with cover in hearts.  What should South do?

Decide your strategy then click Show Answer.

With a weak and distributional hand, you want to play in a suit, in this case clubs, at the lowest possible level.

However, you cannot get to 2♣, because a 2♣ bid, just like a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening, would be the Stayman convention, asking partner to bid a 4-card major.

This is a deal where you want to be playing transfers ... South bids 2♠, which is a transfer bid to an undisclosed minor.  North obediently bids 3♣ and South either passes this (with clubs) or converts to 3 (with diamonds) which partner will pass.

Zen and Glenda do indeed play transfers, and smartly arrived in 3♣ by North, which made an effortless overtrick for a top board.  Looking at all 4 hands. you will see that E/W need to get into spades, and at next Friday's lesson, we'll see how that might have been achieved.

Transfers are great, but they also should come with a Government Health Warning, because a misunderstanding can seriously damage your score.  Zen and Glenda won on Tuesday, but if you take a look at their result on board 1 (and hypothesise how it came about), you will see that transfers can come unstuck if the two partners are not on a wavelength.

Hand of the week 23/6

Put yourself in South's seat, and decide what you would bid in this auction.  Partner has opened 2♠ showing about 6-10 HCP and a decent 6-card suit.  Because she is vulnerable, she would not do this on the lower scale of this range (it pays to be conservative when making a vulnerable pre-empt).

RHO overcalls 3 and you have to decide whether to bid 3♠ on your bare two-ace hand.  Do you or don't you?

I picked this deal as Hand of the Week because it was on-topic from my recent seminar at Moonee Valley Bridge Club on pre-empting strategy.

South should expect that partner has the makings of 6 tricks in her hand, according to the Rule of 2-and-3.  This rule says that when deciding whether, and how high, to pre-empt, choose a bid that's within two tricks of your contract when vulnerable, and within three tricks of your contract when not-vulnerbale

If partner has about 6 tricks, then you have two tricks to add, giving an expectation of 8 tricks, or down one in 3♠, a score of -100.  You would expect your opponents to make 3 for a score of -140 to you.  So if the maths all stands up, you make a profit by bidding 3♠, even though it's going to go down.

This sort of calculation doesn't always work (to say the least!), but over the long run, it does work.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that the probabilities do stand up in this case.

I was watching as Norma Buntine did indeed raise her partner Mary Buchanan to 3♠.  No one had anything further to say (correctly by E/W: 4 is not going to make their way), and 3♠ did indeed take 8 tricks for a good score for N/S, with most other tables playing an E/W heart partscore.

Hand of the week 16/6

Here you are as South.  Would you take any action with this hand, after West has overcalled your partner's 1NT opening bid with 2♠?

You should!  With 7 points, you hold the majority of the points, and you have the perfect distribution for a takeout double.  You will be happy whatever suit partner bids.

If you look at all four hands you will find that, alas, the takeout double does not necessarily work well, although in theory it should.  In theory, N/S can make either 3 or 3, whilst 2♠ is only one down.  Well done to Cliff and Karin Strahan for getting to 3, making, a top for them.

One intrepid North passed the takeout double, converting it to penalties, a decision for which I have a lot of admiration.  Down one for +100 would have been an excellent score, but unfortunately, the defence slipped, and the contract made: -670 was not an excellent score.

Irene and Peter Pysk were the only pair that got to what I think was the correct contract, 3 by North.  I'm assuming that South did make a takeout double, and North duly bid 3.  But 3 was a very tricky contract, and ended up down 1 when declarer did not divine the winning layout.  So virtue in the bidding had to be its own reward, this time.

Hand of the week 9/6

Supppose you are declarer in 4♠ and the opening lead is the ♣10, won by South's king.  How do you play it?

The defence can take 3 top tricks (2 clubs and 1 heart) but then you will have the rest.  You want to make it as difficult as possible for them to take those tricks, because if they fail to do so immediately, they won't get them.

You should follow with the ♣J at trick 1.  This is a tactic called: "playing the card you are known to hold".

Think about it ... both North and South know you have the jack.  From South's perspective, partner would not lead the 10 when he also holds the jack.  And from North's perspective, partner would not have played the king if he held KJ sitting over the queen.

The play of the jack gives South a legitimate guess at trick 2.  Did North start with ♣1098 or ♣109 (or even singleton ♣10)?   If North did start with ♣1098, it would be disastrous to continue with a top club now - declarer would ruff it and take the rest.  So South is likely to switch to hearts, and declarer can ruff the second round to snaffle an overtrick in 4♠, the losing club being discarded on diamonds.

But if declarer simply follows to trick 1 with the ♣8, then it's easy for South to cash a second round of clubs, because he knows it will hold up.  Then the defence can take the three tricks legitimately owing to them.

Often, playing an unnecessarily high card by declarer at trick 1 doesn't fool anyone - it's a well known strategy.  But occasionally, like here, it is essential.

Hand of the week 2/6

Here you are as dealer, vulnerable against not.  What's your bid?

Well, your options are to pass (?), or open with a spade bid, at anything from 1♠ up to 4♠.

I recommend that you open with a pre-emptive spade bid, which will have the dual effect of describing your hand to partner and also potentially making life difficult for the opponents.

How many you should open depends on two factors: the number of cards in your suit, and the number of losers in your hand.  With a 6-card suit, you usually open at the 2-level, a weak two.  With a 7-or-longer-card suit, you have the option of deciding to open at a higher level.

Whether you do so is determined by the number of losers in your hand.  The rule of 2-and-3 says that if vulnerable, you should open at a level of 2 more than your number of winners (which is 13 minus your number of losers).  If not-vulnerable, you open at a level of 3 more than your number of winners.  The idea is that you are prepared to go down, but you must be more cautious when vulnerable, as the vulnerable penalties are greater.

Let's try it here.  How many losers in this hand?  Two in spades (the ace and queen are missing), none in hearts, one in diamonds (the ace) and two in clubs.  That's 5 losers, so 8 winners.  Since you are vulnerable, you add 2 to get 10, and open 4♠  (the 10-trick contract).

To see how this works in practice, look at all 4 hands.  First North: he has a nice heart suit, but because of your manly preempt, he would have to bid 5 now: too high for comfort.  So North passes.  And East:  he has 3 tricks for you: the two aces provide 2 tricks, and the KQ combination another.  He adds his 3 tricks to the 8 you have promised and gets to 11 ... enough for game, but not enough for slam.  So East passes also.

So 4♠ is the final contract, and it indeed makes 11 tricks (unless you peak and finesse South's ♠Q).

There's a lot of good theory in this hand.  It is right on-topic for my next Moonee Valley seminar on pre-emptive strategy, which will be held on Thursday June 18).

Hand of the week 26/5

Consider the second half of the E/W auction here.  West makes a negative double of the 1♠ overcall, suggesting that she would have responded 1 had she had the chance.  East happily bids 2, and now South repeats the spade suit.

How should the bidding progress from there?

There are some players that have a speech impediment: they cannot bring themselves to say "Pass".  Such is the case here. It's not easy for E/W to pass out 2♠, but they should: West has described her hand already with the negative double and should leave further action to partner.  And when 2♠ rides around to East, she is happy to try to defeat it.

And defeat it she does.  Poor Brian Morrow as South was the only one to get to play that contract, as his opponents Julie Poyntz and Heather Howes passed it out.  Down one was a second bottom for him.  Practically everyone else played in higher heart contracts as E/W and none of them made.  In fact not a single contract was made on this board. 

Passing out 2♠ here when you have an 8-card heart fit requires great discipline.  It is a lesson in the "Law of Total Trumps" the concept that in competitive auctions, you should only bid as high as the total number of cards in your suit.  E/W have an 8-card heart fit and therefore should only compete to the 2-level (the 8-trick contract).

Hand of the week 19/5

Here's a deal that has points of interest for both the bidding and the play.

Let's start with the bidding.  North opens a 16-18 HCP 1NT, South bids Stayman, and then invitationally raises North's 2♠ bid to 3♠.   Should North accept or reject the game try?

And what should East lead to the eventual spade contract?

Decide for yourself, and then click "Show Answer".

North is bang in the middle of his 16 - 18 HCP range.  How to resolve this was a topic covered at my recent seminar on Hand Evaluation. 

In this case, the 4-3-3-3 shape is a very negative feature.  There are no side suits that can be developed, and no ruffing value.  North's hand is therefore essentially a minimum, and she should pass 3♠.   Only one North, Raie O'Brien, did so ... well done!  Unfortunately for Raie, in this case virtue had to be its own reward, because of defensive problems at so many other tables.

So what should East lead?  Against a blind notrump contract, a diamond would be easy; however this is a suit contract, and leading a diamond away from the queen, and up to a strong notrumper is extremely dangerous.  In this case, it's a disaster: declarer gets a free diamond trick, draws trumps and discards a losing heart on a diamond.  With trumps being 3-2 and the A onside, the poor game makes.

Against suit contracts, you are often looking for safe opening leads: a sequence of honours is particularly attractive.  On this deal I would lead Q  (second choice ♠J) ... a constructive and safe choice, giving nothing away.

There is one last hurdle for the defence.  After Q lead, West should not clatter up with A.  He knows from the bidding that partner's lead is from 2 or 3 hearts: declarer has the guarded king.  If West goes up with A, partner's J will drop under the king.  If West plays low on the first heart, then with careful defence thereafter, the defence will take two heart tricks and two club tricks.

Hand of the week 12/5

This deal presents two important truisms in duplicate bridge.

The first is reflected in West's rebid, after partner responds in hearts, and South overcalls in spades.  West should support the hearts, even with those magnificent diamonds.  Major suit fits are the name of the game. West has found a 4-4 heart fit, at least,  As for how high to bid the hearts, West has 12 HCP plus 5 distribution points for the void = 17 total points.  So a jump raise to 3 seems appropriate, which was the bid made by Julie Poyntz against me.

The second is shown by North's reaction to partner's overcall in spades.  The overcall shows at least 5 spades, so North should support partner's spades, even at the 3-level and with just three lousy spades.  They who own the boss suit (spades) own the deal.  In this case, even though E/W have the high-card strength to make 4, N/S have the boss suit and can take a successful sacrifice in 4♠.

For N/S, three pairs found their spade fit and bid on to 4♠:  Marie Warncken - Annette Ruegg,  Bart Verdam - Ken Joseph and Glenda Edge - Zen Zebrowski, and they shared the N/S top.

For E/W, the top went to visitors Juanita Monahan and Cheryle McBride, who got to 4 and were allowed to play it there, making an overtrick to boot!

Hand of the week 5/5

What would you bid, if anything, as North when your RHO opens 1♣?

This deal caused quite a bit of havoc for the E/W pairs.

As North, you might have noticed that partner has passed as dealer, something that is often overlooked.  This has two implications:

1) the opponents have at least the values for a game, and maybe a slam

2) if you make a bid here, your partner won't carry you out on a stretcher, because he doesn't have opening bid values

I like Graham Francis's choice of 3: although he was vulnerable, he knew this would discomfit his opponents.

And so it turned out: Liz Wilby as East could hardly take a bid over 3: sure she had club support, but partner might have only three.  And a negative double was fraught, because partner might get over-excited in spades.  After this start, it wasn't viable for E/W to get to their laydown slam, and they eventually settled in 5♣.

This turned out to be an average, because a couple of E/W pairs didn't even reach game: I can see how that can happen after the preempt.  And in the battle of the eventual winners, Marie Warncken and Annette Ruegg came out on top of Jo Crockford and Peter Karol when they were doubled in 4.  The 500 point penalty was less than the value of E/W's game.

Three pairs reached the slam - well done!  They were Cheryl Ogilvy - Rosemary Polya,  Rune Drevsjo - Richard Fitzherbert and Mary Adams - Pam Richardson.

And a final twist:  South led the A out of turn against Pam!  That was the right lead but alas from the wrong defender.  As declarer you have 5 options after a lead out of turn: you can be easily get befuddled by the plethora of possibilities.  But Pam made no mistake:  she returned the lead to North and prohibited a diamond play.  Her diamond loser was discarded on the hearts and she made an overtrick for a top.

Hand of the week 28/4

Today we wrestle with this difficult hand.  4-4-4-1 shape is the most difficult to describe in the bidding, because it doesn't neatly fall into either the 'balanced' or 'unbalanced' category.  It's not balanced because of the singleton, but it's also not really unbalanced, because there is no 5-card suit.

So what do you open, and rebid?  And after partner repeats his spades, what then?

Decide for yourself, then click 'Show Answer'.

You should open either 1♣ or 1 : I don't have a strong preference on which, although in this case your clubs are much stronger than your diamonds, so perhaps 1♣ is indicated.

It then gets stickier with your rebid.  A 1NT rebid is right on strength, but should include at least two spades.

Opening 1 then rebidding 2♣ avoids promising two spades, but now you are promising 5 diamonds (by opening a suit then rebidding a lower suit), which you emphatically do not have.

Opening 1♣ then rebidding say 2 constitutes a reverse bid, which shows more strength than you actually have.  Perhaps this is the smallest lie of them all.

I hate 4-4-4-1 shapes!

Whatever auction you choose, you should pass partner's 2♠ rebid.  Partner usually has 6 spades for this auction, and if he doesn't, he should have 5 very good spades.  In the face of a misfit, it is sound policy to stop bidding as soon as you possibly can.  And as it turns out, 2♠ by East is your last making contract.

So well done to Maria and Robert Robson, who got to 2♠ and made it, the only E/W pair to go plus on the deal.

Hand of the week 21/4

Sit yourself North and decide how you will defend 3♠: you can assume that East has a good 7-card spade suit, and 6 - 10 HCP. 

Partner leads a club and you win the ace, as declarer drops the jack.  It rather looks like that jack might be a singleton.  So what now?

Defending against pre-emptive opening bids, passed out, usually involves grabbing as many side-suit tricks as quickly as you can.  In this case, with the clubs threatening, you need to hunt out all your red suit tricks.  The trumps can look after themselves.

So you should next play A, and take a look at partner's signal, which shows attitude towards the hearts.  Playing standard methods, a high heart would be encouraging, a low heart discouraging.  Using the more modern "upside-down" signals, the reverse would be the case.

Partner plays J, saying "I like hearts".  So now you play another heart.  If you look at all four hands, you will see that partner can now cash A, your side winning the first 4 defensive tricks.  There is an inevitable spade loser for declarer, so 3♠ goes down by a trick.  

Simple?  Not necessarily: in fact, four E/W pairs were allowed to make 3♠.  There are several ways for N/S to go wrong on defence.

Two N/S pairs, Julie Poyntz - Heather Howes and Marie Warncken - Annette Ruegg, made no mistake and defeated the contract for excellent scores.

But the Gold Medal on this deal goes to Glenise and Graham Francis ... they defeated 3♠ by two tricks!   Glenise found the wonderful opening lead of a diamond.  Declarer, Krys Casey, won K and played a low club from table, but Graham made no mistake.  He hopped up with ♣A, and the defenders then took their four red suit winners and eventual trump trick.  Bravo!

What do you think of Glenise's diamond opening lead?  I doubt I would have found it, but on reflection it makes a lot of sense.  It is often right to lead from your strongest side suit against these preemptive openings, as part of the strategy, mentioned above, of developing side suit tricks ASAP.

Hand of the week 14/4

Sit yourself West and decide what you would bid when partner opens 1♠.

The 1NT response to a 1-suit opening is the most anti-intuitive bid in bridge.  It shows 6 - 9 HCP, no support for partner, and no 4-card suit that could have been bid at the 1-level.

The consequence of these rules is that 1NT is often bid on a highly distributional hand, just like this West hand.  A void in spades!  Hardly the makings of a notrump contract, but rules are rules.  Responding in a suit here (eg 2 or 2♣) would promise 10+ HCP which West simply doesn't have. 

Then when partner persists with 2♠, West must grit the teeth and pass.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that partner has plenty of spades and 2♠ is the perfect contract.

However if you bend the rules and respond at the 2-level, East would be justified in jumping to 3♠, a forcing bid, and you will get too high.

Well done to Elizabeth Neales - Dianne Rice and Pam & Grant Scott, who correctly ground to a halt in 2♠, sharing a top score on the board.

Hand of the week 7/4

The Friday lesson topics do come up in real life.  Suppose you hold this nice North hand, and the auction proceeds as displayed.

Partner's 3NT indicates that she thinks your side has enough for game, even if you have a minimum opening bid.  So South will probably have something in the range of 13 to 16 HCP.

You don't have a minimum opening bid: you have 18 powerful HCP.  So what do you bid now, if anything?

If partner has 13 to 16 HCP, then that gives you a combined total of 31 to 34 HCP.  Usually, you need about 33 HCP to make a slam where you don't have any fit, so slam prospects depend on whether partner is minimum or maximum for her 3NT bid.

The way to find out is to raise 3NT to 4NT ... a natural 'quantitative' invitation to slam.  In the lesson, I suggested that after any natural notrump bid, if the next bid is 4NT, then that is not asking for aces but a natural invitation to slam.  This happens most commonly after a 1NT (or 2NT) opening bid, but can also occur in other auction, like this one.

If you look at all the hands, you will see that South had just 13 HCP, so would reject the invitation.  Slam is a poor contract: with an ace to lose, you need to bring in the spade suit for 5 tricks, and this happens less than 30% of the time.  As luck would have it, this was one of those times, and 6NT can be made.  Nevertheless, well done to Hilary Brear and Gwyneth Anderton, who were the only pair to reach what I think is the correct contract of 4NT.

Hand of the week 31/3

It was P.G. Wodehouse's character Psmith, who made the following statement:  "Never confuse the unusual with the impossible".  That advice certainly applies to bridge.

On this deal, you find yourself defending 3♠ after a competitive auction.  You lead a diamond, and partner takes the queen, but then his ace is ruffed.  Declarer now plays a low spade from hand, and you ...?

It would be unusual for declarer to be lacking the ♠Q, given his bidding and rebidding of the spades.  But it would not be impossible.

There's no particular reason to go up with a spade honour here, as there's nothing particular that you want to do.  You should play low and lo and behold, partner wins his singleton queen.  If you instead clatter up with a spade winner, there is a spectacular crash of honours, and 3♠ will then make on careful declarer play, as it did at two tables.

The result at table 5, where Raie and Col O'Brien were N/S against Leone Carberry and Lou Empson, was impressive.  Raie and Col did really well to compete to 3♠ and then Leone and Lou did really well to not crash their honours and so defeat this contract.  The matchpoints were rightfully shared between the two pairs.

Hand of the week 24/3

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a seminar on Advanced Hand Evaluation which was attended by quite a few Northern members.  The seminar presented a number of criteria for evaluating the strength of one's hand, over and above high card points and distribution points.

This hand is a good example of some of these criteria.  What do you think this hand is worth, in response to partner's 1♠  opening?

On the surface, there are 12 HCP and 1 distribution point = 13, which should be enough for game.

BUT:

  • the single honours in the three side suits (king, queen, queen) are not working together: if for example one of those queens was in the same suit as the king, it would be a much stronger combination
  • side suit queens are not necessarily useful cards
  • Qx  represents a duplicated value:  the point for the doubleton and the queen both provide 3rd round control in the suit.  This is not worth a full 3 total points

This is a poor hand, in context, and is worth only an invitational raise to game.

If you look at all four hands, you will see that 4♠ is a very poor contract, and North would reject any game invitation.  Indeed on the lie of the cards, 8 tricks is technically the limit.  The South players who forced this hand to game were showing a touching faith in their partner's prowess as declarer.

At my table, Heather Howes as West sensibly opened 1.  My partner Bob Leighton overcalled 1♠.  I thought so little of the South hand that I simply raised to 2♠ (remembering that a 1♠ bid might be made on as few as 8 HCP).  There we rested, with Heather and Julie Poyntz defending accurately to hold us to 8 tricks.

Hand of the week 17/3

This deal presents several challenges for the E/W defence, and is worth examining in some detail.

Almost everyone played in spades by North, making either 9 or 10 tricks.  How do you think the defence should proceed?

Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

West has bid hearts, but irrespective of this, East should lead his singleton Q.   Singleton side suit leads are usually the best choice against suit contracts, because they so often lead to ruffs.

West wins A, and when declarer plays the 4, he knows that partner has either led from singleton queen, or doubleton queen-jack. The singleton is a lively possibility, so West should return a heart.

Which heart?  This is a situation covered by one of our Friday lessons on signals.  In this scenario, West can show a suit-preference:  a high heart return would suggest a liking for a 'high' suit, and a low heart prefers a 'low' suit.  Trumps are not a suit of relevance in this signalling, so the two suits in play are diamonds and clubs.  A high heart return indicates a diamond preference; a low heart indicates a club preference.

In this case, West has the queen of both minors, so doesn't really have a preference either way.  So he should return the middle card of his remaining hearts, in this case the 6 to indicate no preference.

East trumps the heart, and with only minor cards remaining, will have to lead a club or a diamond, with partner's suit preference signal not providing any clue.

There is an old adage: "aces are meant to beat kings, kings are meant to beat queens".  The idea is that you should avoid taking aces willy-nilly, preferring to wait until those aces can top opponents' kings.  This applies here.  There doesn't seem to be any hurry to take that A - it can keep, specifically until it can chop off the head of declarer's K.  East should calmly return the ♣J, letting declarer do all the work.  In the fullness of time, declarer will lose two diamond tricks for 9 tricks, rather than 10.

Well done to Ed Koken - Barbara Smith and Kevin Bradley - Helen Schapper, who defended the spade contracts accurately to share the top result on the deal.

Hand of the week 10/3

How do you think North and South should bid these hands?  South opens 1♣ and the opponents don't bid. 

Take it from there and then click "Show Answer".

I was asked about this hand at supper by Hilary Brear (North) and Helen de Vanny (South), because they were discomfited by their unusual auction.

Hilary only had 5 HCP, but she didn't want to pass 1♣ with only a single club, so she responded 1♠.

Helen then bid 2: this is a reverse (a topic we covered in a Friday lesson), because it is a rebid of a new suit that takes the partnership above the level of 2 of opener's first suit (2♣ in this case).

Reverses show significant extra strength (at least 16 HCP) and are 100% forcing bids.

Nevertheless, Hilary decided to pass and 2 became the final contract.  No wonder they were discomfited.

But I think this was a fine auction.  This is a case where Two Wrongs Make a Right.  As North, Hilary's 'book' bid was to pass 1♣, as she didn't have sufficient high-card strength to respond.  But having bid, she showed excellent judgment to counteract the first overbid by making a second underbid (the pass of 2).  The way to look at this is to think, when partner reverses with 2:  'well, 2 is probably a better contract for our side than 1♣, so I have improved the situation'.

Justice was served when Helen made an overtrick in 2 for a 70% score on the board.

Hand of the week 3/3

Try this opening lead problem ...

One my first Friday afternoon lessons was about opening leads to suit contracts.  Part of its (somewhat controversial) advice was to avoid leading away from disconnected honours or internal sequences. 

In this case, the diamonds (KJxx) represents disconnected honours and hearts (KJ10xx) is an internal sequence.  I would stay well clear of those suits, contrary to mainstream thinking.

The singleton trump is also a bad idea: it could seriously damage partner's spade holding, and in the case of some partners, it might eventually seriously damage your health.

That leads clubs ... a nothing suit but one in which you will not hurt yourself.  I recommend the ♣3 lead.

Looking at all four hands ... I filled in as North for this deal, playing with Peter Karol, whilst waiting for his partner Jo Crockford to arrive.  I like Peter's bid of 4♠: he figured that his high cards would go well with my trumps.  Everyone else played in notrumps on this deal, usually without much success.  The problem with a notrump contract is that North's spades are going to wither on the vine.

Anyway, as soon as the auction finished, I asked Peter to come around to the North seat and play the hand, as I had the bridgemates to set up.  So I don't know what exactly happened, but he did bring 4♠ home.  I imagine he got a heart lead (East's strongest suit) giving him a cheap trick with the Q.   That would have been just the assist needed, and with some judicious finessing, Peter made the contract, despite the bad trump break.

Score one for "leading from nothing".

Hand of the week 24/2

Put yourself in the North seat here.  You open 1♣, partner responds 1 and you rebid 2♣.  (A rebid of 2 would constitute a reverse, discussed at a recent Friday lesson.  Reverses promise more in the way of HCP than this hand.)

Now partner bids 3NT.  Well, notrumps was not what you were thinking of when you picked up this hand!  Should you pass 3NT or remove it?  Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer].

Glenda Edge passed 3NT!  I think this was a brilliant choice.  She'd described her weird hand as best she could, and partner had made a definitive bid with 3NT.  She hoped her club suit would be good for lots of tricks.

If you look at all 4 hands you will see that 3NT is easy: you have 7 club tricks and 2 aces.  Zen Zebrowski took his 9 tricks for an excellent score.  (It would have been even better if not for the unfortunate fact that the ace and king of spades was only good for one trick!)

Of course there are other possibilities on this deal.  6 of either minor has reasonable chances, although on this layout, only 6♣ is a make.  6 will suffer from a club ruff.  Raie and Col O'Brien earned an outright N/S top by simply bidding to 5♣  and making a precious overtrick. 

Meanwhile, E/W has some options, lying mainly with their 11 card spade fit.   Several E/W pairs got their spades into the action, and indeed Kerri Jones and Victor Hansom got the top E/W score for playing in 5♠.  In fact the "par" score on the deal (the contract you would play if all four players can see the full deal) is 6♠ doubled going two down, bid as a sacrifice against 6♣.

Hand of the week 17/2

Put yourself in the South seat, defending 4♠.   Partner leads the K; declarer wins with the ace, and plays the J from dummy.

Do you cover this with the king?   Have a think about that. and click "Show Answer".

A useful rule-of-thumb is to "cover an honour with an honour".  This has the benefit of potentially promoting a lower card in your partner's hand.  For example, suppose partner has 10xxx.  If you cover the jack with the king, declarer can win the ace and the queen, but then partner's 10 is good: declarer is limited to 2 tricks.  But if you play low on the jack, it will win, and declarer repeats the finesse, taking 3 tricks in hearts.

There's a counter argument though.  Suppose declarer started with AQ109.  Now if you cover the heart jack, declarer wins four heart tricks. Alternatively if you duck, declarer can repeat the finnese, but lacks another heart in dummy to take the finesse the third time.  So he will be restricted to three heart tricks.

So which is it to be? 

Sometimes you have to look at the whole hand to determine your strategy.  In this case, giving away three heart tricks would be bad news, because on the third heart declarer can discard dummy's losing diamond.  But conceding four heart tricks is harmless, because a second discard from dummy is of no use (it would just be a little club, which would be eventually a winner anyway).

So you should cover the heart jack with the king.  If you look at all four hands, you will see that this makes the difference between 11 tricks and 12, and that results in a substantial difference in your matchpoint score - half a top in fact.

Hand of the week 10/2

I was asked by a player last night about the "Law of Total Trumps".  This will be the subject of a future Friday lesson. 

The Law of Total Trumps says this:  if you find that you have an "n"-card fit in a competitive auction, you should compete to the level of "n" in your fit.  For example, if you have an 8-card fit, compete to the 2-level (8-trick contract); if you have a 9-card fit, compete to the 3-level (9-trick contract), and so on.

The idea is that the bigger your fit, the higher you should compete.  Even if you don't have the necessary strength to make your contract, it will still on balance be a good sacrifice against what your opponents can make.  If you have a very big fit, then the opponents in their contract will be able to ruff your suit quickly, making a lot of tricks themselves.

The Law of Total Trumps was put to the test on this explosive deal.  South opens 2♠, showing a 6-card suit.  North has 5 spades, so an 11-card fit, and the Law says, compete to the 5-level (11-trick contract).

Well, that's exactly what Graham Francis did: his partner Glenise went 2 down in 5♠ doubled for an absolute top on the board, because his opponents could make a vast number of tricks in their heart fit. 

But beware!  At another table, an extremely unfortunate accident occurred.  N/S did bid up to the 5-level, dutifully obeying the Law of Total Trumps.  But E/W, Marian Uren and Marcia Giles, bid on to 6!   Can you blame South, holding 2 aces, including AQx, from doubling that contract?  I would have doubled.  But the contract makes, thumbing its nose at the Law.

Hand of the week 3/2

Let's try an opening lead problem.  What's your choice with the West cards, against 4?

The second Friday lesson, back in October, was on the subject of opening leads to suit contracts.  If you attended, do you recall the essential message?

It was to avoid leading from suits that contain single or disconnected multiple honours.  Two prime examples are in this hand: the spades and the diamonds.   If you choose one of these suits, you are banking on partner providing one of the remaining honours: the ace or the queen.  If he lacks one of them, it's going to work out very badly.  I dislike a spade or diamond lead.

That leaves clubs and hearts.  The singleton trump lead is dangerous: if partner should have something like Qxx, a trump lead will probably exterminate it.

A club is the way to go: the 10 (top of a doubleton).  This passive lead likely gives nothing away, which is one of the primary objectives of opening leads to suit contracts.

If you look at all four hands, you will find that the club lead works just fine.  So does a trump, and as it happens, a spade finds partner with the ace.  But the diamond lead will give away the contract, because dummy's Q will score for free.

E/W winners were Marie Joyce and Gwyneth Anderton.  Gwyneth was on lead to 4: they beat the contract (I'm hoping with a club lead!).  Should she have led a diamond, her equal top would have converted to an equal bottom, costing them victory.

Hand of the week 27/1

How do you think this pair of hands should be bid?    West starts things off.  Decide for yourself, and then click [Show Answer]

West opens 1♠.  Despite the good 7-card suit, this hand is too strong for an opening pre-emptive bid (2♠, 3♠ or 4♠).

East responds 2♣.  This shows 10 or more points and 4 or more clubs.

So far, so good.  West's rebid is not quite so easy to decide.  First, with 7 magnificent spades and 4 average diamonds, it would be a mistake to introduce the diamonds now.  West should rebid in spades.   But how high?   The fact is that this hand is not as good as it looks.  There are 13 HCP, but three of them are wrapped up in that singleton king of hearts. Singleton kings are degraded values.  Despite the strong spades, this is a minimum opening bid: West should simply rebid 2♠.

Now comes another key decision.  East has a minimum for his 2-over-1 response, and no fit for spades.  It is tempting to try to seek greener pastures, perhaps with a bid of 2NT, but this is unlikely to lead to anything good.  East should quit while the quitting is good.  Partner probably won't have 4 hearts (he would have bid 2 over 2♣).  Certainly the spade fit is poor, but partner should have a 6-card or longer suit for this rebid, so at least you will have 7 trumps between you.  An important bidding principle is: in the face of a misfit, stop bidding as soon as humanly possible!

Heather (West) and Trevor (East) Howes had the recommended auction, and made a comfortable overtrick in 2♠.  Well done, as every other E-W pair ended up overboard in higher spade contracts (all but one of them going down).

Hand of the week 13/1

Your partner's 1NT opening bid shows 16-18 HCP.  You have a very good hand: a slam might be possible here.  How do you go about it?

Transfer responses to 1NT are played by practically everyone these days.  This hand is a timely reminder that it's not always right to use them.   If you make a transfer here, 2 transferring to 2♠, what are you going to do after partner obediently accepts your transfer?  There's no easy way of showing partner that you're interested in slam.

Instead, try another more basic approach.  Jump to 3♠ directly over 1NT.  A 3-level response to 1NT is a simple natural bid, showing a 6-card suit, enough for game, and interest in slam.  So simple!  The advantage of making the 1NT opener declarer doesn't really apply when responder is strong.  And this is the way to consult partner about slam possibilities.

If you look at South's hand, you will see that he has really excellent cards for spades, and should co-operate enthusiastically in a slam hunt.  If I were South, I would launch into ace-asking after hearing my partner's 3♠ bid.

Simple jumps to the 3-level are particularly useful in a minor.  It is the way to show interest in a minor suit slam, whilst still retaining the possibility of 3NT should partner's hand be unsuitable.

Well done to Cheryl Ogilvy - Marion Nielsen and Joy & David Stubbings who were the only two pairs to reach slam.

There was one point of interest in the play.  Suppose North plays in spades and leads a low club off the dummy.  If West doesn't jump up with the ace, the singleton queen will win and all 13 tricks are taken.  Sitting West when this play is made, you should think: "Why is declarer leading low from the king?  He must have the queen."   So it's sometimes right to grab the ace while the grabbing is good!

 

Hand of the week 6/1

This deal from Friday saw an unusual phenomenon.

First, put yourself in the East seat, having to speak after your partner has make a takeout double of 1?   What's your choice?

It's important to remember than when responding to a takeout double, partner is forcing you to bid, even if you have a chronically weak hand.  Even with 0 points, you have to bid.

If you simply respond 2♣ here, your long suit, partner cannot count on your having any points at all.  With this fine hand, you should jump to 3♣ in response to the takeout double, to show some decent values.

Responses to takeout doubles should be along the following lines:
- 0-7 HCP: bid your longest suit at the minimum level
- 8-11 HCP: make a jump bid in your longest suit
- 12+ HCP: make a cue-bid: i.e. bid the opponent's opened suit

Take a look at all four hands.  The unusual phenomenon is that E/W has a slam available, a grand slam in fact, even though N/S have opened the bidding at the one level.  That is rare!

I am not entirely surprised that not a single pair reached slam.  It's not easy to bid a slam when your opponent has opened.  However, if East did jump to 3♣, it would at least clue West in to the possibilities.  West holds ♣Kxx in clubs, so the hand seems to fit very well.  (It would be a different matter if partner had jump responded in West's void suit.)   Moreover, West's AQx is sitting over the opening bidder.  It's hard for me to say, knowing all 4 hands, but I would have at least thought about simply bidding 6♠ after partner's 3♣ response. 

Hand of the week 23/12

The exotic science of squeezes is an extraordinarily unimportant part of the game of bridge.  Despite this, connoisseurs of the subject take particular delight in their operation, which can occasionally be highly delicate and complex.

However, many squeezes are simple beasts: declarer cashes all his high cards and discovers to his surprise that the 3 of diamonds (or whatever) is a winner at the end.  Squeezes can even sometimes operate without declarer's knowledge.

Take this deal.  It doesn't matter whether you are in spades or notrumps, in game, small slam or grand slam - and there were all combinations of these played.   You have 12 tricks (5 spades, 4 hearts, 1 diamond, 2 clubs), and if you take them all in the correct order, 12 turns into 13.   The squeeze operates if one opponent has the king and queen of diamonds, and sole control of the club suit (i.e. has the queen and the jack, or 5+ cards in clubs).

Correct technique can help.  You should cash A early.   Now take all your major suit winners coming down to a 3-card ending.  West has J and ♣K2.   East has ♣A107.   If the J is not high. play ♣K then over to the ♣A.  Magically you discover that dummy's third club is a winner.   North has been squeezed.  (The squeeze would operate identically if the North and South hands are switched).

There was a wide variety of outcomes on the board.   Pam & Grant Scott and Liz Wilby - Simon Smith shared a top board by getting to slam ... well bid.  Marcia Giles and Marian Uren missed the slam, but Marcia was the only player to snaffle 13 tricks, and this gave her a 70% score on the board, helping them on the way to their E/W win.

Hand of the week 16/12

Today's problem is an irritating dilemma that comes up once in a while.  Partner opens 1♣,  and you have a weak hand with short clubs.  The question is:  should you make a disciplined pass, leaving partner to struggle in what could be a horrendous 3-1 fit, or do you respond 1♠ on your 4 points, and risk getting too high?

What's your poison?

5 of the 6 Wests who faced this problem decided to respond 1♠.   Except in one instance there was no happy ending.  Partner now made a bid you didn't want to hear ... 2NT.  4 of the 5 Wests then helplessly rebid their spades, and partner put them in 4♠, going two down.

The other West, Hilary Brear, decided she'd had enough of this nightmare, and passed 2NT.  That worked spectacularly well, when partner Helen de Vanny easily made this contract, with an overtrick to boot, the spades being worth 6 tricks.  A top score for Helen and Hilary.

The final West, Canadian visitor Kevin Bradley, decided to pass 1♣!   That was not a contract of one's dreams, but it was good for 6 tricks, outscoring the pairs that reached 4♠.  A strange way to earn an excellent score.

Believe it or not, there is a way to solve this problem.  Some pairs play a responding method that includes weak jump responses.   A response of 2 of a major, over partner's 1 of a minor opening, is weak, showing about 3-5 HCP and a 6-card suit.   The method is specifically designed to cope with this sort of problem, allowing responder to show the suit, but deny strength.  On this deal, East needs to understand that there's probably not enough for game, and pass 2♠. 

You might think this is a strange way to play, but weak jump responses are used by a lot of top-class partnerships.  It is an approach worthy of consideration.

Hand of the week 9/12

This board provided an unusual problem for at least one West player last night.  Partner's 4NT bid is asking for aces, but then RHO comes in with a bid of 5♣.

The question is, how should you respond to an ace-ask when the next player intervenes?  What would you do with your favourite partner?

West, who was actually playing Roman Keycard Blackwood, bid 5, hoping that partner would read this as showing 2 key-cards.  Unfortunately, East was unsure of the arrangement and passed, and the slam went down the gurgler.  Kudos to Raie (North) and Col (South) O'Brien, for successfully disrupting their opponents' auction.

The solution is a rare convention called DOPI.   This is an acronym for "Double Zero Pass One".   It is a scheme of responses when the opponents bid over your Blackwood, as follows:

Double:  0 aces
Pass:  1 ace
Next step: 2 aces
and so on

This keeps the auction as low as possible (remember that depending on the suits involved, the intervention could well be higher than 5 of your agreed suit), allowing your side to optionally double the opponents rather than bidding on.  On this hand West would have bid 5, showing 2 key-cards, and East could bid the fine slam.

DOPI is a rare convention (for me it has come up twice in my entire career), but invaluable should the situation arise.

Hand of the week 2/12

You are South, defending a contract of 4.  Partner leads the ♣6, declarer calls low from dummy, and you?

Have a think about that, and then click [Show Answer].

The idea here is to work out partner's holding in clubs, using all the inferences of standard lead methods.

Partner should not have the ♣A: we don't lead low from ace suits against suit contracts.

Partner should not have an honour sequence, like QJ6 or J106:  we lead the top card of such sequences.

If you put those two factoids together, plus the knowledge that we lead our 4th highest card if we are leading from length, then there is only a sincle setup in which partner could have a club honour: if he led the 6 from precisely Q106 of clubs.  And frankly, that is a mighty strange suit combination to lead from!

The conclusion one draws from these inferences is that partner has led a club from shortage:  he has either the singleton 6 of clubs, or doubleton 64.   In that case, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by putting up the ♣K at trick 1 ... it will be swallowed up by declarer's ♣AQJ10.   If we play low instead, our king remains at large and declarer will need to do more work to counter its value.

If you show all 4 hands, you will see that withholding your club king at trick 1 will eventually result in it taking a trick.  Declarer can draw trumps and discard his spade loser on the diamonds.  But he will eventually have to lose a trick to your club king.  But if you play the king at trick 1, declarer will easily take all 13 tricks, as all his clubs are now good, except for the 4, which can be eventually ruffed in dummy.

The difference between -680 and -710 was considerable.  -680 earned you 70% on the board; -710 was worth just 30%.  There was a real reward for stopping to think about what partner's club holding must be! 

Hand of the week 25/11

2♣ openings seemed to be the order of the day last night.  That's appropriate, since my upcoming seminar at Moonee Valley Bridge Club on Thursday 4/12, "Bidding Ginormous Hands", deals precisely with this topic.

West's hand is truly ginormous, 25 HCP.  And partner's response is a real surprise: 2 shows 8+ HCP and a 5-card heart suit!

Now what?

It's time to wheel out Blackwood: 4NT asking for aces ... or you might play the fancier Roman Keycard Blackwood, in which case hearts is the designated trump suit (the last suit shown).

Whichever, partner shows you one ace, and if you now ask for kings with a bid of 5NT, partner shows one king.

What next?  

Well, partner has the ♣A and K ... you have all the aces and kings.  And even if partner lacks the Q, you have a 10-card fit in hearts, so would expect to have no losers there.

The only possible loser is in the diamond suit, and how likely is that?   Even if partner has some matching distribution like 3-5-3-2, then you can finesse South for the Q as a last resort.  So I think the percentage bid is 7.

Finally, if you are a conservative type and are not prepared to try for a grand slam without an absolute certainty of making it, you should bid 6NT.  The extra 10 points available in notrumps may be valuable, as Liz Wilby and Simon Smith discovered when they reached that contract.  A top score for missing a laydown grand slam!

Hand of the week 11/11

Here's a problem in the play for you, solved brilliantly at the table last Friday.

You are East, playing 4, which has been doubled by South.  The lead is the ♠8, clearly a singleton after North's opening 1♠ bid.   So you go up with the ♠A and finesse in hearts.  South wins the K, and now the defence plays two rounds of diamonds, you ruffing the second round.  You play a second trump (South following with the one remaining trump).  Now what?

Consider that, and then click [Show Answer]. 

You apparently have two more spade losers, which would mean 1 down: you can discard one of your spades on a club, but that doesn't help.

Hilary Brear faced this problem (I was the foolish doubler sitting South), and she solved it in 5 seconds flat.    She took the top 3 clubs, discarding a spade, as North showed out on the third round.  Then came a 4th club, and Hilary discarded another spade!   I won with the ♣J, but was staring at only minor cards remaining.  I led one, Hilary ruffed in dummy, whilst discarding her final spade from her hand.  Beautifully played.

 

Hand of the week 4/11

Here's a double-barrelled bidding problem. 

After East opens 1,  how high should West raise the hearts, and what should be North's reaction to that raise?  Have a think about that and then click [Show Answer].

First West.  The Law of Total Trumps is a valuable guide to bidding.  It advises that your side's combined length in your fit can be a more important indicator of how high you bid than your side's HCP.  It tells you to bid to the level of your trump fit: with an 8 card fit, you bid to the two-level (8-trick contract), with a 9-card fit you bid to the three-level (9-trick contract), and so on. 

If you have sufficient HCP, you are likely to make the resulting contract.  If you have insufficient points, then you will go down, BUT if you've bid to a high level based on your long combined length, then it is likely that your opponents can make a contract in their fit, and so your contract turns into a worthwhile sacrifice.

On this deal, the Law of Total Trumps tells West to bid 4.  East has 5 hearts (at least): you have a guaranteed 10-card fit.  So bid to the 10-trick contract, and damn the torpedoes.

Now North.  Nice hand, plenty of points, short in hearts, at least 3 cards in each other suit.  In other words, the perfect hand for a takeout double of a heart bid ... a topic we have been covering recently in the Friday lessons.  If you hear a 2 raise on your right, you should certainly make a takeout double.  After a 3 raise, it's a possible takeout double, although it is risky, as you are committing to quite a high level, and vulnerable to boot.  But if it goes 4 on your right, you really have to pass: it would be foolhardy to enter the auction at this stratospheric level.

Now look at all 4 hands.  4  goes 2 down at least (it can go 3 down if the defenders find a club ruff).  Vulnerable, a score of 200 for N/S.  Not bad, but then again, look what N/S can make.  5♠!  A takeout double from North will result in South getting very active with his 6-card spade suit. 

The learning points?  The Law of Total Trumps: bid ASAP to the level of your trump fit in competitive (or potentially competitive) auctions.  And the takeout-double: a really essential tool of bodding.

Handof the week 28/10

At the supper break I was approached by a mock-disgruntled player, who said: "where do I go to lodge a complaint?"   "Right here," I replied.  "It was board 6," she continued.  "How can you let such a board occur?"

"Board 6?  I've already played that one," I said.  "What happened?"

The player had opened 1, the correct Standard American opening with 4-4-3-2 shape, and had been left to play in that ridiculous contract, with 3 little trumps opposite a singleton.

I tried to be sympathetic, but it was difficult, because exactly the same thing had happened to me.  In fact, there were three of us, out of 8, who had to struggle in a 1 contract, and unsurprisingly, we got the three worst results on the board.  Nevertheless, as East, you should do your best in the play, because there are still matchpoints to be earned.  What is the best way to play a contract where you have three small trumps opposite a small singleton?

You should draw trumps!!  After the first round, you will be drawing two of their trumps for just one of yours, which must be a good idea.  I played a trump at every opportunity, and this put a bit of pressure on the defence, who have to do everything right in order to get me down 3.  I eventually escaped for down 2 - a triumph!   A very small triumph

As for the auction, it was possible for West to scrape up a response of 1 , hoping to improve matters.  Whenever I try something like that, partner simply rebids 2  and all I've done is made a bad situation worse.  Passing 1  is the system bid - but those who used their judgment by not passing did well on the board. 

Finally, good work by the three North players -  Helen Schapper, Larry Allender and Glenda Edge - who, when 1 was passed around to them, left East to stew in that contract.  That was very well judged.

Hand of the week 14/10

This week's hand comes from the Friday session, for a change.   You are sitting South and hear (well see, actually) partner open 3, which shows 6-10 HCP and a good 7-card suit.  Since your side is vulnerable versus not vulnerable, you can expect partner's hand to be on the high side of this range.

What do you bid?  Have a think about that and click "Show Answer".

Maria Robson was one of several who faced this decision.  She gave the problem plenty of thought and passed!   I just wish she wouldn't find these good bids against me.

It is oh-so-tempting to seek out a better contract than 3, bidding a forcing 3♠  or perhaps 3NT.  But is this likely to work?   The odds are that partner is short in spades (in which case you will probably be facing a 4 rebid - oh joy!), and as for 3NT, where on earth are you going to find 9 tricks from?

If you show all 4 hands you will see that miraculously partner does have 3-card spade support - that's a once-in-a-blue-moon situation, I would think.  But the hand analysis states that even so, and every suit dividing in friendly fashion, you still cannot make 4♠.  Meanwhile, 3 was the perfect spot: Helen Schapper took her 9 tricks for a 2nd top on the board.

The moral is: if partner opens with a preempt, and you have a medium strength hand but no support, it is usually correct to pass.

Hand of the week 7/10

This week's deal is about your thinking process.  You are East and South opens 1♠.   I can't predict how the auction will proceed from there, but you will bid your clubs, and the opponents will bid up to 4♠, your partner having nothing to contribute.  What are you thinking?

The first thing to do in these competitive auctions is to check the vulnerability.  We are at "favourable", i.e. we are non-vulnerable, but the opponents are.  This means that if N/S can make 4♠, we might have a paying sacrifice in 5♣.

Let's do the maths.  4♠ making is worth at least 620 to the vulnerable opponents.  As we are non-vulnerable, if we can make at least 8 tricks in 5♣, even if doubled, that will be a score of at most 500 to the opponents.  Well, we have 8 tricks in our own hand: 7 clubs and A.  This means that we should be bidding 5♣, if we think the opponents can make 4.

Do we think the opponents can make 4♠?   Well, one needs to listen to the auction: if it has been bid confidently (for example:  1♠ - 2 - (3♣) - 3♠ - 4♠), then one would suspect 4♠ is making, and so we should bid 5♣.  But there are other auctions N/S might conduct which would be much more tentative, and make us think we can maybe defeat 4♠.  There is no point going down in 5♣ if we could have defeated 4♠ all along: that would be a phantom sacrifice.

So it doesn't altogether surprise me that there was a mix of sacrifices and non-sacrifices on this deal.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that the sacrifice worked beautifully for 2 of the 3 E/W pairs who took it.  Against one of them, however, N/S carried on to 5♠ so the sacrifice was to no avail.

The key point of this hand is to do the maths.  When not-vulnerable against vulnerable, we can afford to go 3 down as a sacrifice against their game.  At equal vulnerability (all vul or no-one vul), we can afford to go 2 down as a sacrifice against their game.  (So on this deal, it would have paid to bid 5♣ at equal vul).  And at unfavourable vulnerability (we are, they aren't), sacrifices are much more rare, because you have to limit your losses to down 1.

Hand of the week 30/9

Here you are as North, defending 4 .

Partner leads ♣2, and declarer calls for a small club from dummy. 

What do you do, and why?

Defence is all about counting.  Here you can see 9 clubs between you and dummy.  There are 4 outstanding, and partner has led the ♣2.  This means partner won't have a doubleton club, because she would have led the higher one.

So partner has a singleton club, or three of them, or maybe all four of the outstanding clubs.

If it's a singleton, then you play ♣A, and give partner a club ruff (leading back your lowest club to signal that your point of re-entry is in the lowest other suit, in this case diamonds).

If partner's club is 3 small, you should also play ♣A, as declarer has the singleton king.

And if partner has 3 to the king in clubs, playing the ♣A will win the trick, then playing back a club will require declarer to ruff.  (If declarer does have a singleton, he might be able to discard on your club return - a loser on loser play, but this is not likely to do much good.)

So if you go through the machinations of working out all the possibilities, you will come to the conclusion that you should play the ace at trick 1, and return a club.

Showing all 4 hands, this proves to be the winning move, with the defence taking the first 4 tricks via ♣A, club ruff, A, club ruff.

Well done to Larry Allender, Graham Francis and Jo Crockford, the three Norths who found the winning defence.

Hand of the week 23/9

You're North and partner opens 1♣.  You take things slowly and respond 1 with your powerful hand.  Now partner bids 1♠ .

What next?

I am after your thinking here.   Your best bid is unclear, but the direction of your thinking should be towards a contract of 3NT.  Partner has clubs and spades, you have hearts and good diamonds.  You have a few choices: you could for example bid 2.  But I personally would do more than think about 3NT - I would bid it.    It's those extra 10 points (over and above an equivalent major suit game) that makes it so attractive when playing for matchpoints.

If you look at all 4 hands, and imagine a spade lead, how would you go about playing 3NT.

Step 1: count your tricks:  6 clubs probably, 3 spades, 1 diamond: you are up to 10 aleady, so should be planning for an extra overtrick or two.  A winning diamond finesse would provide you with that, but the best move, after winning your ♠K, is to play K.  Even though hearts is not the suit that is going to get you lots of tricks, it will develop at least one more trick, once you have knocked out the A.    That gets you your 11th trick, and you can even try for a 12th later, probably, via the diamond finesse.

Well done to the 4 N/S pairs who reached 3NT, for an excellent score.  And a gold star to Grant Scott, who was the only declarer to take 11 tricks.

Hand of the week 16/9

Take a look at the East hand here.  After a couple of passes, your RHO opens 1.  What do you do?

Click "Show answer" when you have decided.

One way to look at this problem is to notice that you are vulnerable, and don't have a very good hand.  You could pass with a clear conscience.

Another way to look at this hand is that it has fine distribution, with spades.  Spades is a very special suit, for the obvious reason that for the opponents to outbid it, they have to raise the level.  One should never need much excuse for bidding spades.

So I think it's best to bid here: either with a Michaels cue-bid of 2  (showing spades and an unidentified minor), or simply bidding 1♠ .  I don't recommend an overcall of 2, despite it being your longest suit, because that makes it too easy to miss out on a spade fit.

If you show all the hands, you will see how important it is for E/W to get together in spades.  Once you show 5 spades, partner should not let go until the 4-level: this is the Law of Total Trumps: bidding to the level of your combined fit: a 10-card fit indicates a 10-card contract.

The opponents can make 5, but they might be reluctant to bid to the 5-level.

Good work by Kerri Jones - Victor Hansom, and Brian Morrow - Larry Allender, who were two E/W pairs to find the spade fit, getting the two best E/W scores on the deal.

Hand of the week 9/9

This deal proved instructive in the bidding in the play.

First the bidding.  This is how I think it should go.  After East opens with a light 1 , South should overcall 1NT, showing 16-18 HCP, balanced and a diamond stopper.

Let's assume you have agreed to play transfers over 1NT, as most players at the club do.  Transfers should also apply when 1NT has been overcalled.   So North transfers to 2♠  and then bids 2NT: this shows a 5-card spade suit and invitational values.

South has 17 HCP, right in the middle of the 16-18 range.  Should he accept or refuse the invitation?  I think accept, because that Q, sitting over the opening 1, is as good as the king.  It should be promoted in value.  So with maximum values but only 2 spades, South accepts by bidding 3NT.

Now the play.  West leads ♣7 and East puts up ♣K.  You should play low, executing a hold-up play.  East now plays ♣9.  What do you do?  Have a think about that and then click "Show Answer".

East is marked on the bidding with both ♠A and K.  West won't have any entries.  If clubs divide 4-3, you should hold-up again, so that East will definitely be exhausted of clubs when he gets in with ♠A.  If clubs divide 5-2, you can take this trick, knock out East's ♠K, and take it from there. 

As it turns out this is the winning play.  East has no more clubs to play when in with ♠A, and what's more the run of the spades squeezes East into mashed potato.  East cannot hold on to both red suits, and if you pick the position, you will make 11 tricks.

Pam & Grant Scott and Marie-Claire Staub & Helen Schapper were the only two pairs to get to the excellent 3NT.  So it is just that they ran 1st and 2nd on the night.  And Marie-Claire found the winning declarer play to snaffle 11 tricks and a complete top on the board.

 

Hand of the week 2/9

The book "Bridge at the Enigma Club" is one of the most fascinating bridge books ever written.   Along with all the interesting technical material, there is quite some whimsy.  An example is the following strange fact:

6  always makes

This concept has no basis in reason but seems to hold true so often.  Last night Kerri Jones and Victor Hansom used the rule to good advantage on two consecutive deals: 16 and 17.  Their unfortunate oppnents were Karin and Cliff Strahan. 

6  on board 17 required a bit of racing luck, in particular the club finesse.  But since 6  always makes, that was a shoo-in to work.

On board 16, no such good fortune was required: 6 is an absolutely splendid contract, and Kerri and Victor, along with Marie Warncken and Annette Ruegg, were the only pairs to bid it.  Most others languished in 3NT, making lots.  The deal looks like a misfit, West with hearts anad clubs, East with spades and diamonds, but there was a diamond fit there, and well done to the two pairs to work this out and get to slam.

 

Hand of the week 26/8

There were slams a-plenty in last night's session ... here was one of the more subtle ones.

Partner's 3NT rebid should show around 18-19 HCP, and a balanced distribution, although of course he is promising 5 spades.

What should you do?

You have 13 HCP.  If partner has 18-19 HCP, then gives you a total of 31-32 HCP, which is not quite enough for a slam with balanced hands.

However, and this is my "point", your 13 points are "pure" ... all aces and kings.  In the 4-3-2-1 point count scale, experience says that aces and kings are just a little bit undervalued, and queens and jacks are just a little bit overvalued.  When you hold a hand like North's here, it is really worth more than 13 HCP.  I think this hand is too strong to pass, or quietly to convert to 4♠ .

I don't know what you should bid ... perhaps a quantitative 4NT fits the bill.  If you look at all 4 hands, you will see that partner is also full of aces and kings: his 18 HCP are perfect.  And East-West?  Well they have 3 queens and 3 jacks between them, and they are all essentially worthless.

So this 31 HCP combo, with no singletons or voids to be found, is a laydown 6♠  (you can trump a heart in dummy for your twelfth trick), and an excellent 6NT (which needs diamonds to break 3-2 to set up the twelfth trick there).

Congratulations to Liz Wilby and Simon Smith, who got to 6♠ , and visitor Freda Almond and Larry Allender, who snared a complete top by bidding to 6NT.

Hand of the week 19/8

Here's another deal that would be suitable to cover at my upcoming slam seminar at Moonee Valley (Thursday 21/8, 1:30 - last chance!).  Let's look at it from East's perspective.

With 19 HCP you are too strong to open 1NT, so start with 1♣ .  Your basic plan is to jump in notrumps after partner's response, to show around 19 HCP.  Sure enough, partner bids 1♠  and you jump to 2NT.  You cannot worry about the lack of a diamond stopper: you just have to show the general nature of your hand.

With 19 opposite at least 6 HCP, both you and your partner should be aware that you are committed to at least game.  So partner's 3♠  is forcing, showing length in spades, and could be bid on quite a strong hand.  What do you bid?

You have magnificent support for spades.  Bidding 4♠  now is a possibility, but it doesn't really do justice to your hand, which along with the spade support includes a lot of top tricks.

The best bid is 4♣ : a cue-bid that agrees spades as trumps and shows control (at least the ace or the king) in clubs.  Even though 4♣ repeats the suit that you opened, it cannot logically be a natural bid.  If you had 5 clubs say, and no spade support, you would rebid 3NT.  It would not make sense to go past this contract. 

If you show all 4 hands, you will see that partner is only too happy to co-operate in a slam hunt.  He can return with a 4 cue bid, which solves the last remaining problem for you ... the danger of being off the ace and king of diamonds.  You should not be able to proceed to slam, do not pass GO but do collect a whole heap of matchpoints!

Two pairs shared the top by getting to superb 6♠ : Marie Claire Staub - Helen Schapper and Hilary Brear - Cheryl Ogilvy.  Great work!

Hand of the week 12/8

The East players this session would have got a shock on this deal.  Picking up a 23 point hand is unusual enough, but for partner to then open the bidding!

How should they respond?  A simple response of 1♠  is best: this shows 6+ points.  The "+" here is apposite ... East has 17 more points than promised, but the point is that you will get to hear partner's rebid.

Partner rebids 2♣ .  Now what?

I am giving a seminar on Slam Bidding at Moonee Valley Bridge Club on Thursday 21/8, starting at 1:30 pm.  This deal is an excellent example.

There might be a grand slam available here.  Partner's 12-14 points gives you a total of 35-37 HCP ... not necessarily enough for a grand slam, which the textbooks say requires 37 points between you.

But if you visualise what partner might hold, then there probably is a grand slam.  Give partner king-to-five clubs and the spade ace, and you have 5 club tricks, 5 spade tricks, AK and A: that adds up to 13.  Visualisation is an important tool for slam bidding.

To find out whether partner has these cards, some form of ace-asking can be used.  4NT as simple Blackwood will establish that partner has ♠A.  And he is almost certain to have ♣K for his 2♣  rebid.  Or better, Roman Key Card Blackwood (with clubs as trumps as the last bid suit) will also find out definitively about the ♣K.

Zen Zebrowski was the only player to get this deal fully right ... he bid 4NT as simple Blackwood and then 7NT.  Top score.

Mary Adams gets the silver medal ... she bid 4NT as Roman Key Card Blackwood, got a two-keycard response and bid 7♣ .  That was a second-top, although she was the first to point out that she could have bid 7NT with confidence.

Hand of the week 5/8

One of the great joys of bridge is making partnership agreements about system and conventions.  In my 40+ years in the game, I have observed phases where there was a great deal of invention and variation in Victorian bridge.  A wide variety of systems were used: Acol, Standard, Precision and some off-the-wall methods as well.

Nowadays, the state (and the world to be fair) is in something of a rut, with Standard American being the overwhelmingly popular approach to bidding.

At Northern, things are no different ... as far as I know, only Jo Crockford and Peter Karol buck the trend: they play an Acol/Standard hybrid, using a weak 1NT opening (12-14 points) when non-vulnerable.  I am quite sure this is an excellent approach in theory and practice, but it can occasionally require nerves of steel.

Partner opens 1NT, 12-14 HCP, and you have East's pile of garbage: it's a worry.  What should you do?

The fact that both opponents have passed is comforting.  Peter Karol made a splendid choice: he muddied the waters by bidding 2, a transfer to 2♠, and passed partner there.

Looking at all the hands, you will see how well this worked.  Partner had a maximum with 4 spades ... well that's what partners are for!   Whilst Brian Morrow and I could have theoretically defeated this contract, the defence was very difficult and not being able to see all four hands was a big drawback.   Embarrassingly for us, Jo wrapped up 2♠ opposite that 4-point dummy for an equal top.  (Pam and Grant Scott also managed to end up in 2♠  making.)

Hand of the week 22/7

Most players would agree that defence is the most challenging part of the game.  On this deal, the defence was put to the test.  As East, how do you play after partner leads ♠ 10?

As a defender, it's important to keep the bidding in mind: you can deduce a lot about declarer's shape and points.

On this deal, for example, declarer's 2♠ bid tells you partner has led a singleton spade, so you can give him a ruff. 

What then?  Looking at your singleton A, you see that you can get some diamond ruffs of your own.  So you should case that ace, before returning a spade for partner to ruff.  This should clue partner in to play a diamond next for you to ruff.  You can add icing on the cake by returning your highest spade, the 7, as a suit preference signal for the highest remaining suit (diamonds over clubs).

When partner gives you a diamond ruff, you can play another spade, the 6, hoping that partner can ruff higher than dummy.  That part works, although declarer should discard dummy's last diamond, then ruff partner's next diamond with the J, to stop the carnage.

Nevertheless, best defence will give the defence the first 5 tricks for two down.  Two East pairs, Victor Hansom & Kerri Jones and Hilary Brear & Cheryl Ogilvy,  found the winning defence for a shared top on the board.

Hand of the week 15/7

What would/did you bid as North, after partner opened 1♠?

The Law of Total Trumps (a simplification of the Law of Total Tricks) says that it's often best to bid to the level equal to the total number of trumps in your combined hands (in a competitive or potentially competitive auction).

For example, with an 8 card trump fit, compete to the 2-level (an 8 trick contract); with a 9 card trump fit, compete to the 3-level, and so on.

On this deal, partner is showing at least 5 spades, so the Law would suggest a bid of 4♠, with your known 10 card trump fit.

It seems that 4 of the 6 North's did so, mainly to their regret.  This auction isn't yet competitive, and that North hand, despite its 5 trumps, is nothing to write home about.  The rest of the pattern is balanced, so if partner has minimum values, it's unlikely to deliver a game.  I think an invitational raise to 3♠ is sufficient.

If you display all the hands, you will see that 9 tricks should be the limit, with declarer losing 3 diamonds and a heart.

One South, Col O'Brien, bid and made 4♠ for an outright top.  How did he do it?  I cannot be certain, but I imagine that West, with a difficult opening lead, tried a club.  If Col then put in the 8, this forces East's jack.  A later finesse of a ♣10 will work, and the ♣A then provides a discard for a losing diamond.

Hand of the week 8.7

Suppose you are playing 4 by North.  East leads a club, and you win with the ace.  What now?

This deal represents a common theme when declaring suit contracts.  It is that sometimes you need to delay drawing trumps in order to set up a side suit.

On this deal, you want to set up your side suit of spades.  But if you play two top trumps first, you will discover that you run out of entries to your (North) hand to both establish and run the spades.

The correct line is to play a spade at trick 2.  The opponents can win a spade and play a club, forcing you to ruff.  But if you now ruff a spade (the suit divides delightfully 3-3), all your spades are good.  Now is the time to play two top trumps, and then you can play your winning spades.  The opponents are welcome to ruff in with their master trump whenever they like, but you still have a trump in your hand to deal with any further club plays.

Surprisingly, only two pairs got to the nice 4 contract: everyone else languished in a notrump contract.  And Graham Francis played the deal correctly to make his contract for a complete top.

Hand of the week 1/7

What do you bid on this auction: partner passes and your RHO opens 1?  (To save you fingers, that's an 8-card spade suit).

Here's a recipe for deciding on whether, and how high, to preempt the bidding when you have a long suit (at least 6 cards) in a weakish hand. 

1.  Count your winners (or if you like, count your losers, then subtract from 13).

2.  If you are vulnerable, make a bid which is two tricks more than the number of winners.

3.  If you are non-vulnerable, make a bid which is three tricks more than the number of winners.

This is the rule of two-and-three, and it's one of the more reliable ones around.

Let's apply it to this hand.  With 8 spades missing AKQ, you must assume that you might lose to ace, king and queen, so that's 5 winners.  And your ♣K counts as a winner (although of course that's not a guarantee).  So you have 6 winners in your hand.  (If you conversely count losers, there are 3 in spades, 1 in hearts, 2 in diamonds and 1 in clubs = 7 losers, subtracting from 13 gives you 6 winners).

You are not vulnerable, so 3 tricks more than a 6-trick contract is a 9-trick contract.

You should bid 3♠.

Click [Show all hands] to see how 3♠ works.

A 3♠ bid gives South, who has 11 HCP and 4-card heart support for partner, little option other than to bid 4.  And that contract has no chance at all.  It matters little that 3♠ doesn't make: the point is that the bid forces the opponents into a difficult, and often losing, decision.

On the night, only Althea Bernet and Kerri Jones as E/W achieved the result of defeating N/S's 4, which I consider to be the optimal E/W result on the deal.  Well done to them.

Hand of the week 24/6

Suppose you are North, with this minor suit monster.  With everyone vulnerable, your RHO opens 1.  Whatever bid you choose, your LHO will support hearts, partner passes and RHO bids 4.

What now?

There are a couple of possibilities over 1.  You could make a simple overcall of 2♣, or you could make an Unusual Nortrump call of 2NT, showing both minors (in this case, LHO raises to 3 and RHO bids 4).

I can see pros and cons for both choices, but whichever you choose, I think you should keep bidding over 4.  For example if you bid 2NT in the first place, you can now call 5♣, showing a hand that's not willing to give up, with extra length in clubs.

Click "Show all hands" to see the full layout.

Your poor partner will not warm to your bidding, but it is the winning move.  4 is a making contract, and you can actually make 5♣ by crossing to dummy's Q, and playing a club.  West's ♣A will beat thin air, and you only lose two tricks.

Congratulations to Dianne Rice and Victor Hansom, who both found that 5♣ contract to record excellent scores on the board, with most of the field bidding and making 4 E/W.

Hand of the week 17/6

The Red point duplicate started off with a bang on board 1. 

Sometimes I'm asked: "how should I have bid this hand?"  When it comes to wild distributional deals like this one, there is no right answer.  Modern bidding theory relates to deals and distributions that are relatively normal, not this one.  When it comes to 8-3-2-0 distributions (and both West and South had this), you make your own arrangements, and good luck to you.  North's 7-4-1-1 was pretty wild too, but poor old East was left out of the fun.

The results reflect this.  For example, Heather and Trevor Howes played 5♣ as West ... who can blame them for bidding it?  The wild opposing distribution wrecks this contract: North gets a spade ruff,  and 3 rounds of hearts stand up.  Down 3, doubled, would be -500 for a complete bottom, BUT, North-South didn't double them!  So instead of a bottom, the Howes got a second top for their -150.

On the flip side, Helen Schapper and Jan Merkel-Stol bid to 6 as North-South: an excellent contract which is likely to make at 80% of the time.  But not tonight: the trumps broke 4-0, and their likely top turned into a complete bottom.

Hand of the week 10/6

How do you think North and South should handle this deal?   North opens 1♣ and a pesky East interjects 3♠.  What now?

This is undoubtedly a tough situation.  South with 9 HCP has been well and truly pre-empted, and probably has to pass.

What about North?  That's a good hand, and it seems wrong to sell out to 3♠.  I recommend a double, which is in principle for takeout, although at this level, it is often converted into penalties by South.  North has basically the right attributes for a takeout double: short in spades, and with some level of support for every other suit.  It is by no means a risk-free bid (West, for example, could be waiting to apply the axe), but it seems a bit timid to sell out to 3♠.

This leaves South with a choice of winning actions.  South can indeed pass for penalties, as happened at Brian Morrow and Larry Allender's table.  The contract went two down for 300 to N/S: a second-top score on the board.

The top score went to Jo Crockford and Peter Karol, who found 3NT: a contract that made easily, in fact with overtricks.

Excellent judgment by these two N/S pairs ... and they both achieved huge scores on the night, of over 66%. 

Hand of the week 3/6

Sitting North, you are facing this auction.  What do you bid after partner opens 1 and rebids 2♣?

The most profitable contract in bridge is 3NT.  It is the game contract that requires you to take the fewest tricks (9), and what's more, a making notrump contract scores 10 precious points more than the equivalent major suit contract taking the same number of tricks.

This hand is a case in point.  You have a 5-3 heart fit, at least (partner's opening bid showed 5 hearts), but your flat distribution suggests that you may well be taking the same number of tricks in notrumps as you can get in hearts.

Larry Allender was the only North player to find the 3NT bid here.  He could not be stopped from taking 10 tricks - East was pretty much stymied on opening lead: either a spade or a diamond delivers a free trick to declarer - and this was an absolute top score for him.  Most of the field was in 4, and it made only once.

So don't forget that 3NT contract!  (And particularly so when you hold 4-3-3-3 distribution)

Hand of the week 27/5

This deal had lots of points of interest, for all players at the table.   How do you think the bidding should go?

After North passes, East has a choice of whether to open 1♣ or 1.  I'll admit that I'm never sure what to do in these situations.  Normally you open the longer suit, clubs in this case, but that might make it difficult to bid diamonds later (diamonds being a higher suit than clubs).  If you open in diamonds, however, you can bid clubs later, and partner can choose between the minors without raising the level.  (This is why with two five card suits, always bid the higher one first).

So on the whole, and given that the diamond suit is stronger than the longer club suit, I like the opening bid of 1.  I'm guessing that only one player, Simon Smith, did so, because he and Liz Wilby were the only pair to reach the excellent contract of 6, which made easily, despite the foul split in clubs.  Practically every other E/W pair fetched up in 3NT after a 1♣ opening, the fit in diamonds not easily coming to light.

Meanwhile, whatever East opens, South should take the opportunity to stick in a spade bid: a weak jump overcall of 2♠ would be my recommendation.  If N/S were not vulnerable, then you might jump to 3♠.  Not only will this disrupt the E/W auction, it will also help partner on the opening lead.  If West declares 3NT, which happened at most tables, North will know to lead a spade, keeping away from losing leads in hearts or clubs.

One pair, Rune Drevsjo and Mark Mudge, playing in their farewell appearance, did get to 6NT, and were favoured by the club lead ... 6NT making, for a top score.  Actually, 6NT is a fine contract, which makes easily on any kind division in clubs.

Hand of the week 20/5

How do you think East and West should bid this deal?

First East.  East should double 1♣ for takeout.  This shows about opening points, short in clubs and at least 3-card support for the other three suits.  This is a better choice than a 1 overcall, because it gets the major suits into play.

Then West.  With just 2 HCP, you might want to pass, but you do have good distribution, and partner has shown you support for the majors.  Spades is the "boss" suit, and when you have a spade fit, you have a good chance of successfully outbidding the opponents.   West should take the opportunity to bid 1♠.

After this start, E/W will be able to control the auction.  N/S can make 4, but E/W have a paying sacrifice in 4♠.  This contract could take a lot of tricks, depending on the defence.

4 of the 9 E/W pairs managed to compete in spades, and they got the 4 best E/W scores, in each case preventing N/S from playing in 4.  They were: Maria Robson & Hilary Brear,  Sue Bridges & Robert White, Rosemary Polya & Cheryl Ogilvy and Glenda Edge & Zen Zebrowski.

Hand of the week 13/5

What would you do as East, after your partner opens 1♠ in fourth seat?

Whilst your hand has only 5 HCP, there is excellent distribution in support of spades.   It is tailor-made for a pre-emptive raise to 4♠.

Click [Show All Hands] to see the full layout.

It is highly unusual that your opponents, who have passed 3 times so far, should have a successful sacrifice in 5♣ but that is the case here.    If you bid only 2♠, then South might venture 3♣, which is what happened at at least one table, and now N/S will sacrifice successfully against your game.

Incidentally, if you are playing 4♠ on a, say, black suit lead, the correct line is to play on the heart suit, forgetting all your lovely diamonds.  You will lose two heart tricks, and a top club, but dummy's hearts will be eastablished and you make 10 tricks.    Elisabeth Neales, Kerri Jones and Victor Hansom all played correctly to bring home their contract.  Victor even made 11 tricks!  I imagine that North innocently led a diamond to the king and ace.  Then declarer has 5 diamond tricks, on which he can discard all the losing clubs in dummy.

Hand of the week 6/5

What do you open this West hand, as dealer?

I think that 5 of the 6 players who had this hand opened 1

Good idea?  Well West has 21 HCP, and balanced distribution.  A hand with 5-3-3-2 where the 5-card suit is a minor is classed as balanced. 

21 HCP balanced hands should be opened 2NT.  Rune Drevsjo was one West who did so.

Click [Show all hands] to see how he fared.

Mark Mudge found the skinny raise to 3NT, and with a little racing luck, that contract made for an outright top.  All 5 players who opened 1 ended, unsurprisingly, in diamond contracts, ranging from 1 to 5.  None of them scored as well as 3NT. 

Lesson of the day is this:  if you have a balanced hand (any 4333 or 4432 distribution, or 5332 with a 5-card minor) and the right HCP for a notrump opening, then open in notrump.   Don't worry about where your points are, or having  unstopped suits, Just Do It.

Hand of the week 29/4

Suppose you are North, defending a contract of 4♠ doubled.   You lead the ace and king of hearts, and everyone follows, declarer playing the queen on the second round.

What do you do next?

There are no more hearts to be won, but it looks like this contract should go down by at least one trick, as you have two more aces.  Could anything go wrong?

Well yes, the danger is that declarer is void in a minor.  If that is the case, then the setting trick would have to come from either partner's diamond king, or via giving partner a ruff in a minor. 

Partner won't be short in clubs, but he could be short in diamonds.  You should play the diamond ace at trick 3, and continue with another diamond.  (The club ace can wait - any losers declarer has in clubs aren't going anywhere.)

Click [Show all hands] to see the full layout.

Only playing on diamonds will defeat the contract, as partner can ruff the second round.  This is an interesting defensive problem, where pure logic can be brought to bear to find the right play. 

Of the four times a spade contract was played, Olinda da Silva was the only North player to find the winning defence.  Well done!

Hand of the week 22/4

You are East and partner (as usual) makes just the bid you don't want to hear.  A pre-emptive opening bid of 3♣.  What do you bid?

Most Easts in this difficult position hummed and hawed and bid 3NT.  In theory, this is a bad bid - how are you going to make 3NT?  You are not going to be able to use partner's clubs - you don't have the entries to partner's hand - and your other three suits are not strong enough to develop 9 tricks on their own. 

So when I gave this problem to my wife, and she hummed and hawed and bid 3NT, I tut-tutted at her.   She gave as good as she got and said: "well they don't always defend 3NT correctly".   How right she was.  If you look at the full hand, you will find that 3NT should not make, but of the 4 times it was played, it made on 3 occasions.   Indeed, the defence was not at all easy.

Kudos (but very few matchpoints) to Zen Zebrowski, who made the disciplined pass to 3♣.  And kudos also to Leone Carberry and Liz Wilby, who were the only pair to defeat 3NT. 

Hand of the week 15/4

Here is an interesting problem in declarer play.  Suppose you are North playing 6  (three pairs did very well to reach this fine contract:  Maria and Robert Robson, Liz Wilby and Simon Smith and Robyn Hewson and Del Macneil), and the opening lead is ♣K.

How should you play it?

A very useful principle when playing a trump contract where you have a long strong suit on the side is this:  develop the side suit as a priority.

Take this deal for example:  if you draw the trumps (East has three of them), then now there are no entries to the dummy (South) for the spades.  You will need to get a very lucky lie in the spade suit to bring in 12 or 13 tricks.

Instead, win the club and play the ace and king of spades.  If everyone follows low, trump a spade (with the A if necessary).  Now K and a heart to dummy's J.   If the spade queen is still outstanding, you can ruff another spade with a high trump, and draw the final outstanding trump with a heart to dummy's 10.  All the spades are now good, and you can discard your losing diamonds on them.

If you display all the hands, you will find that the spade queen drops on the second round.  Now you can draw all the trumps and make 13 tricks.

Hand of the week 8/4

Today you are South.  After partner passes and RHO opens 1, what do you do, if anything?

Bidding is extremely dangerous.  You are vulnerable and they are not vulnerable, so a club overcall could get severely punished. 

But not bidding is also dangerous.  At one table, South passed, no doubt the technically correct bid, and E/W had the auction to themselves.  Elizabeth Neales (West) responded 2NT, probably showing diamond support, and eventually declared in 3NT after Diane Rice rebid her diamonds.  Click "Show all hands" to see how this fared.

E/W were missing the entire club suit, but poor North had no inkling of this.  She led a spade (a heart would work no better) and declarer quickly wrapped up 9 tricks (6 diamonds, 2 hearts, 1 spade) for an equal top.

Now suppose South had risked a 2♣ overcall.  Then E/W could not possibly end up in NT without a club stopper, and of course they would have gone down had they done so.  The best they can do is 10 tricks in a diamond part-score.

Overcalling specifically 1 opening bid with 2♣ is a good bidding tactic.  It has the effect of making it difficult for opponents to find a fit in a major suit.   The German star, Sabine Auken, describes it in her book as her "favourite bid".  And it would have worked well on this deal, risky or not.

Hand of the week 1/4

The question today is all about thought processes, not bidding.

Sitting South, you open your fine hand 1.  Partner responds 2, showing at least 10 HCP and a suit of diamonds.  As East, who's looking interested, gets ready to make a bid, what are you thinking?

Decide for yourself, and then read on.

I would be thinking: "whatever happens, we are going to be the declaring side on this hand"

Partner showing diamonds means that this hand represents a fitting deal for your side.  Your club void rockets in value - you can count 5 points for the void - and suddenly your hand is worth 19 total-points, and partner has shown 10 HCP.   There is at least a game here, and possibly a slam.

If instead partner had responded 2♣, it would be a quite different matter.  Partner showing strength in my void is not so encouraging, and one would want to tread very carefully in the bidding.

The great Russian-American, Ely Culbertson, called this "plastic valuation" - essentially flexibly modifying your opinion of the hand as the auction proceeds.

Click "Show all hands" to see all the hands.

Indeed, East is about to get busy, but N/S can make a slam in either hearts or diamonds.  Even if you don't reach slam (and no-one did), you do need to win the auction.

Four E/W pairs bid up to 5♣.  Three of the opposing N/S pairs let them play that contract, and whether doubled or not, this resulted in the three poorest N/S scores.

One N/S pair, Jo Crockford and Peter Karol, correctly pushed on to 5, where they were doubled.  Making with an overtrick was a second top for them (the top score went to Hilary Brear and Olinda da Silva who were doubled in 4!)

 

Hand of the week 25/3

Preemptive opening bids can play havoc with the other 3 players, and there was no better example than board 29.

After North deals and opens 3♠, what should East do with his nice 17-point hand (apart from swear under his breath?)

 

Four Easts doubled for takeout.  Click [Show all hands] to see how they fared.

The Wests could do nothing more than bid 4, and three of the Souths took a deep breath to deal with that contract.  The first 3 results on the traveller were 4 doubled by West, down 1100.  That drew my eye.

Rosemary Polya as East instead made my choice: an overcall of 3NT.   You have to do something, and your flat hand and two spade stoppers suggest a contract of 3NT.  3NT (doubled by Glenda Edge) was hardly a triumph, down 2 for -500, but it at least gave Rosemary and Cheryl Ogilvy an average score on the board.  And against preempts, just surviving can be a triumph.

3♠ was a well-judged opening bid.  Everyone was vulnerable, so it was a little risky, but the payoff, at least for those that scored 1100, was significant.  Several Norths opened 2♠, which was also reasonable if a little conservative: in each case E/W were able to stay a bit lower and avoid playing in a doubled contract.

 

Hand of the week 11/3

After partner opens 1♠, what is your bidding plan on this magnificent South hand?

 

Point 1:  that heart suit is so strong, it can play for no losers opposite anything in partner's hand, even a void!  So hearts should be trumps.

Point 2:  the overall strength of the hand indicates that we probably have a slam ... after all partner has opened the bidding.

I think I would wheel out Old Trusty: a 4NT response, Blackwood.  When partner shows 1 ace (this means that we are not missing 2 aces), I bid 6.

Only one pair, Liz Wilby playing with Glenda Edge who has just moved to Melbourne, reached this contract.    Click "Show All Hands" to see the full layout.

With a certain diamond loser, this slam seems to depend on finding the spade king onside, which it isn't.  However Glenda played it beautifully to make the contract for a top score.

West quite reasonably led A and followed up with a second diamond.  Glenda won this with the king and drew trumps.  Now she played a spade to the ace, discarded her second spade on Q, and played ♠Q, a successful ruffing finesse against East's king.  When East put the king up, Glenda trumped, went back to ♣K and discarded her losing club on the now good ♠J.  Impressive!

Hand of the week 4/3

Try this opening lead problem - it was faced by 3 players.

What's your poison?

There is a theory that you should try to make attacking leads against slams: quickly taking or developing tricks before declarer can take discards.

The most attacking lead on this deal is the A.  A safer or more passive choice would be to lead a black jack.  I'd be rather nervous about leading the A here, for fear that it would set up declarer's K, when I am sitting over that king with my ace-queen.

Nevertheless, Olinda da Silva did choose the A, and right she was, as you will see if you show the full deal.

Two other Souths went with a more passive choice, as I admit I probably would: declarer was able to discard one of dummy's diamonds on a spade, and therefore wrapped up the slam.

So I suppose the moral of this story is: when on lead to a slam with an ace, you should always strongly consider leading it.

Hand of the week 25/2

How do you think the auction should go on this deal?

 

At the table where Larry Allender - Brian Morrow (N/S) met Jo Crockford - Peter Karol (E/W) there was quite an "interesting" auction. 

The deal was passed out!  At every other table, the hand was opened by someone, with varying results: in fact 5 N/S plusses, and 2 E/W plusses.

You might think only a lunatic could find such an auction interesting, but to me, it involved 3 "do I pass or do I open?" decisions that were all of interest in their own way.

West, Jo Crockford, had 11 points, some distribution, but one of those points was not worh its high-card value: the singleton J. 

East, Peter Karol, was in 3rd seat, a common position in which to open light.  But with totally flat distribution and being vulnerable, I think it was a sound decision to pass.

South, Brian Morrow was in the pass-out seat.  In these situations, where there have been 3 passes to you, a common strategy for deciding whether to open is to calculate your "Pearson count".  This is the number of high-card-points plus the number of spades.  If the total is 15 or more, open the bidding, otherwise pass the hand out.  The idea is that when the points are evenly distributed around the table, the side that owns the spade suit, the highest suit, is the one most likely to be able to go plus.  To outbid the spade side, the other side has to go a level higher, and is therefore more likely to go down.

Brian's Pearson count was 11+2 = 13, and so he passed the hand out.  Unfortunately, on this deal, virtue had to be its own reward, because this resulted in a score well below average for N/S.  I prefer to think of it as good judgment by Jo and Peter, not to open either of their marginal hands.

Well, it was a bit interesting!

Hand of the week 18/2

This deal struck me as having many points of interest, in the bidding, opening lead and play.  All four players can make a contribution.

The bidding shown is my idea of how it should go.  At favourable vulnerability, North opens 3.  East is annoyed at this, but what can he do but make a takeout double? 

Now South should extend the preemptive tactics by bidding an obstructive 4.  This rides round to East who is in a similar position to before, and must make anothertakeout double.   West is forced to reveal the heart "suit", and in my opinion, East should now dispense with science and take a shot at 6: this contract will have a good play opposite any West hand that has at least 4 hearts.

The three E/W pairs who reached 6 were the three place-getters in their direction: Jo Crockford - Peter Karol, Mark Mudge - Rune Drevsjo and Marie-Claire Staub - Victor Hansom.  Well done to them!

Now the focus is on North's opening lead.  Next month, I am giving a seminar on opening leads at Waverley Bridge Club, and this hand is an excellent example of what I will be discussing.  Should North lead the singleton club, or the nice diamond sequence?  In most situations, one should look no further that a side-suit singleton when on lead to a suit contract. 

On this deal, a diamond lead will ride around to West's ace, and declarer can now safely finesse North for the heart queen: the correct play of the suit.  As it happens, this results in an overtrick.  But on a club lead, won by the jack, it is much too dangerous to finesse the heart.  If the finesse loses, then a club return will sink the contract.  Declarer should instead bang out the ace and king of hearts, securing the contract, but failing to make the overtrick.

Two of the three slam bidders made an overtrick: presumably North led the diamond queen.  But I believe that Trevor Howes, sitting North, did lead his singleton club, as at his table, only 12 tricks were scored.  This had the effect of getting the Howes an average score on a deal where their opponents had reached a difficult slam. 

Hand of the week 11/2

They say that confession is good for the soul, so ...

Take a look at your modest hand.  You decided to pass partner's opening bid of 1, and the bidding comes back to you on the second round.

What do you do now?  Decide and then click [Show Answer].

I held this hand and competed to 3, which ended the auction.

Click [Show all hands] to see the full layout.

As my partner Rune Drevsjo was wrapping up a slam in this partscore contract, I began to realise what a dreadful bid I had made.

Passing 1 was a highly doubtful choice, but I can live with that.  However my 3 bid should win the award for the Caspar T. Milquetoaste wimp bid of the night.  There were so many reasons for me to bid 4:

  • Partner has come back into the auction, despite my original pass: he must have a good hand
  • My 4 trumps, diamond ace and club shortage are golden
  • Most important of all: I have 4 little spades, and the opponents have bid and raised spades.  They will have at least 8 spades between them, giving partner at most a singleton spade.  Our two hands are going to fit like a glove.

All in all, our embarrassing score of +230 scored more matchpoints than it deserved.  Sorry pard!

Hand of the week 4/2

You hold that nice East hand, as partner bids 3♣ (a weak jump overcall) over LHO's 1♠ opening.

What do you bid?

 

Can we make 3NT?  5♣?  Or what about a diamond contract?

The problem with 3NT is that your singleton ♣A represents a blockage.  Even if the club suit is running (eg, partner has ♣KQJxxx), partner will also need an entry to her hand, and this might be a bit too much to ask for, for a weak jump overcall.  As for a high club contract: you can provide 2 or 3 tricks for partner, and it's also a bit too much to ask that partner provides the other 8 or 9.  And the diamond suit is much too moth-eaten to introduce.

You should pass 3♣.  Three players did: Althea Bernet, Hilary Brear and Pam Scott.   Click [Show all hands] to see how they did.

As you can see, 3♣ is the limit of the hand, and the three pairs involved all got excellent scores.  The Scotts got an outright top when their opponents took a shot at playing 3♣ doubled.  (Probably South re-opened with a takeout double, and North passed for penalties: very reasonable but unfortunate.)

Hand of the week 28/1

Put yourself in the North seat, and decide what you would bid on this auction ...

In duplicate bridge, small things count for a lot, because you get one matchpoint for every pair you do better than, no matter what the margin.

So for example, a score of 3NT making 10 tricks (+430) wins against a score of 5♣ making 11 tricks (+400).  This means that 3NT is a far more desirable contract, usually, than 5 of a minor.  Not only does 5 of a minor need 11 tricks to make, compared to 9 in 3NT, but an overtrick in 3NT will be invaluable.  It even beats out 5 of a minor making 6, which scores only 420.

This deal is a case in point.  Rather than rebid the excellent club suit, I reckon North should try 3NT, as she holds a heart stopper.  This is a bit of a "death or glory" bid, because 3NT could go horribly wrong if you cannot bring in the club suit, but bridge can be a bit like that: it often favours the risk-takers.

Click [Show All Hands] to see the full deal.

This time, it's glory.  With the club suit running, you will make at least an overtrick in 3NT.  Meanwhile, 5♣ can make only 400 or 420.

Newcomer Helen Schapper, playing with Hilary Brear, was the only pair to reach the fine 3NT contract,  which got them a deserved top score on the board.

Hand of the week 7/1

Aggressive bidding has led you to a thin 3NT contract.  Plan the play after West leads ♣Q.

New member Barbara Smith (North) playing with Eleanor Underwood (South) got a deserved top board in 3NT.

Counting your tricks, you see you have 2 clubs, 2 spades and 1 heart on top.  The remaining 4 tricks will have to come from diamonds (where you can develop 3 winners) and you must also hope that the spade queen is onside and can be finessed.

You will have to lose 2 diamond tricks in order to establish the suit, and there is quite some danger that the defenders will have time to establish their club suit.  The bidding makes it very likely that West has a 6 card suit, so you can potentially nullify the clubs by ducking the first round of clubs.  If the diamond honours are split between East and West, then when East gets her entry, she will have no club to play, having an original doubleton in clubs.  This is a holdup play when you have two stoppers in the suit ... a position that is not infrequent.

Give yourself a gold star if you found the play of letting the opponents win trick 1.  Click "Show all hands" to see the full layout.

As you can see, the holdup play wasn't actually necessary, as West is forced to win the first diamond trick, and that's her only entry.  But the holdup would have been essential had the diamonds divided 2-2.  Eleanor made no mistake in the play, finessing for the spade queen late in the play: the only pair to bid and make 3NT.

Hand of the week 17/12

What would you bid as North after RHO opens 1♠?

This auction would have occurred all 7 times the hand was played.  Most Norths probably bid 4, which would be my choice.  Whilst you cannot underwrite a game contract, it would be a little timid not to try for it.  The fact that you are vulnerable does make you a little nervous, but it's a bidder's game.

Click "Show all hands" to see the full layout.

Partner comes through with the bits and pieces needed to make 4, in fact with overtricks.  A couple of pairs did miss game, when North took the cautious view.  Four pairs reached game.

And then there was Table 1, where sat Maria and Robert Robson.  Be very careful when you reach their table: Robert in particular is rather fond of doubling his opponents, and it often works.

I don't know how the Robsons reached the fine slam contract of 6, but hats off to them for it.  West, insulted that his opening bid had been so summarily dealt with, doubled, perhaps trying to give Robert a taste of his own medicine.  But it made no difference: Robert finessed the opening bidder for the club queen, and duly made 6doubled, losing just a spade trick, for the coldest of top scores.

Hand of the week 10/12

Recently I gave a series of seminars at Waverley Bridge Club on Splinter Bids.  Splinters are jump bids that show support for partner's suit and shortage (singleton or void) in the suit bid.  Several members from Northern attended the seminars and have since been focusing on splinter bid opportunities.

This deal represents are really challenging bidding problem which may or may not be solved with splinter bids.  It is not easy to bid a slam (let alone a grand slam!) missing two aces - however here, both missing aces are not a problem due to the two voids.  If South opens 1♠, North could feasibly make a splinter bid of 3.  South's holding of KJx is not great opposite a singleton, however there is enough strength to go straight to game.  This might embolden  North to bid further to slam. 

I was approached after the game and asked whether a splinter bid should be used.  Whilst the answer is Yes, I'm not convinced that I would get to a slam here, even playing with my favourite partner.  It was a difficult hand: the dealing computer was clearly in a bad mood at the time.

Two pairs reached the slam.  Glenise and Graham Francis, who are not backward in bidding forward, scored a top by getting to 6♠.  Marie Warncken and Annette Ruegg reached 6♣: perhaps South, quite reasonably, opened 1♣.  That's great work by both those pairs. 

Hand of the week 12/11

I got into a philosophical discussion about bidding last night at the table.  At matchpoint scoring (which is the basis of most duplicate bridge) it is very important to protect a plus score, particularly in competitive auctions.  What this means is that you should strive to go positive on the board, even a small positive: this usually reaps a reasonable number of matchpoints.

Take board 20 for example.  Suppose your RHO opens 2, a weak two, you decide to make a takeout double, and partner responds 2.  What should you do now?

It's a very nice 17 point hand, but remember, you forced partner to bid: she could have as few as 0 points.  Partner's range is about 0 - 9 HCP.  I think I'd pass 2, or at the very most, raise to 3.

If you click, "Show all hands", you will see that even though partner has 8 points, 8 more than she promised, her heart suit is emaciated, and in fact the hand record tells us that you cannot even make 2 on the deal.

No one stayed that low, and a number of pairs reached 3, or even 4, going down, down, down.

The best N/S results were achieved by those pairs that allowed their opposition to play a diamond partscore (3 or 4), which of course went down, down, down.  They got their plus score and a bundle of matchpoints.  I don't know what the auctions might have been, but kudos to those North players who didn't get too excited by their hand and were content to defend a diamond contract.

Hand of the week 5/11

It is a truism of duplicate bridge that sometimes it is best to go down.  This deal from the Cup Day duplicate is a case in point.

E/W can make 4 and at all tables but one, that's what they did, with scores of 620 or better.  But at the last table, Glenise and Graham Francis were N/S: they are not known to hold back in the bidding, and here they bid 4, two down but a top score for them. 

They were not to know the layout: on a good day, 4 would make, losing only to 3 aces.  This was a bad day, but the bad breaks of course meant that 4 was making, so their contract turned into a good sacrifice.

It would not have helped E/W to double 4: two down doubled for 500 gets them the same zero matchpoints as two down undoubled for 200.  If North had declared 4, E/W can beat the contract 3 tricks, but of course South was declarer.

Hand of the week 29/10

Suppose you are East, defending 4.  (You cleverly passed North's 1NT, hoping they would play in notrumps, but to no avail.)  You lead two top clubs, everyone following, and decide to play A, everyone following.

That's 3 tricks, one to go.  What now?

This is a deal where defensive signalling comes into play.

If partner played high then low in clubs, then that would suggest an even number of cards.  (Some people reverse the meaning of this, the so called "upside-down" signals).  So you know partner has no more clubs, and declarer has one more club: the question is, could partner overtrump the dummy if you play a third round of clubs?

When you played A, then partner might give you an attitude signal.  A high card encourages the diamonds (suggesting partner likes diamonds): in this case, partner played the 2.  (Once again, some players reverse this meaning).

So you should play a third club now, and wonder of wonders, partner will be able to overruff dummy.  Two E/W pairs Annette Rose - Janet Hill and Hilary Brear - Marie-Claire Staub, found the killing defence on this deal to share the E/W top on this board.

P.S. Even if you don't play these signals, partner cannot have the K.  Do you see why?

Hand of the week 22/10

The round that contained boards 4, 5 and 6 was quite the most amazing I have seen in a long time.   E/W can make slam on each of the boards, on a limited number of points, aided by a strategically placed void. 

On board 4 here, I can predict the start of the auction.  West opens 1 and North has a good hand for an "unusual" 2NT overcall, showing both minors.  The bidding will then escalate from there, East and South having astonishing support for their partner's suit.  Where it stops, nobody knows.

Sometimes, great bidding is not rewarded.  Two E/W pairs Althea Bernet & Kerri Jones and Marcia Giles & Marian Uren managed to get to the winning 6 contract.

Their N/S opponents, respectively Jo Crockford & Peter Karol and Brian Morrow & Larry Allender then accurately sacrificed in 7 which goes down more than the E/W game but less than the E/W slam.  Their reward was a second bottom and bottom score for doing the right thing.  There's no justice, but full marks to the two E/W pairs for getting to slam.

Marcia and Marian then poured salt on Brian and Larry's wounds by being the only pair to reach and make slam on board 6.  It's not surprising they won their direction handily!

Hand of the Week 15/10

Suppose you are West on this deal and are playing 4.  North has an awkward opening lead problem, and let's say he leads a trump, the 10.  How should West go about playing the hand? 

Counting your tricks, there are 5 hearts, 3 spades (the queen, then the ace and king) and the diamond ace: that's 9.  Where to go for the 10th?  The simplest would be to trump a club in dummy, but the defence's trump lead might make that impossible, if they keep playing trumps when you play on clubs.

The alternative is to set up dummy's spades, but entries are a problem.  Suppose you win the heart lead in your hand, take the spade queen and play a club.  When the defence lead a second trump, another entry to dummy materialises, if you are watching closely.  You can win the 2nd trump with Q, noticing that the 8 is now good.  Trump a spade with a high heart, and draw the last round of trumps winning dummy's 8.  Now all of dummy's spades will win.

The 6 times this board was played, everyone was in hearts and 3 players made 10 tricks - well done.  Top score on the board went to Pam and Grant Scott, who got to 4 and made it.

Hand of the week 8/10

How do you respond to your partner's opening bid of 2  (6-10 HCP, decent 6-card suit) with that East hand?

Click "Show Answer" when you have decided.

Sometimes the hardest bid to make is "pass".  This deal is an example.  East hates partner's 2 opening bid, sitting there with a void in hearts and some other decent suits.  But if you start bidding your suits (for example a forcing 2 response), it is quite likely that you will be moving from the frying pan into the fire.

It's possible that you will get to a better fit by bidding, but not particularly likely.  For example, on many occasions, partner is simply going to repeat her hearts and all you have achieved is to go up a level.

It's not easy to make a disciplined pass with that East hand, but it is the correct choice.  Three East-West pairs found it:  Marcia Giles & Marian Uren, Marie Warncken & Annette Ruegg, and Sue Bridges & Robert White, and they all achieved excellent scores on the board.

Hand of the week 1/10

This board is a great test of bidding, and I was impressed with some of the results obtained by the various N/S pairs.

The North hand is strong enough to open 1 and rebid 2 over the 1 response.  This is a reverse bid showing extra strength.  A reverse bid is one where, if partner wants to go back to your first suit, it has to be at the 3-level.  It shows at least 16 HCP. 

If the North hand were weaker (for example, replace K with a small diamond), it would be better to open 1 planning to rebid 2: this is not a reverse bid, as partner can go back to your first suit (hearts) at the 2-level.

Even after this start to the auction, it's not easy for South to navigate to the best contract: 6, however 2  N/S pairs did reach that contract:  Glenise and Graham Francis, and Robyn Hewson and Brian Morrow.  Very well done indeed - and they shared the N/S top on this board.

No-one fell into the trap of bidding 6, which I might have done with that magnificent spade suit.  That contract goes down when West leads A and gives partner a diamond ruff. 

Hand of the week 24/9

This deal was very interesting from the defence point of view.  At all but one table, West played 3NT.  Presumably the various Norths led their 4th best club.  What should happen in the play, do you think?

Declarer wins the first or second club, and with the club suit exposed, tries to win as many quick tricks as he can.  If diamonds are no worse than 3-2, and hearts are 3-3, then there are 9 tricks: 4 diamonds, 4 hearts and 1 club.

As we can see, hearts do not divide 3-3, but there is a twist in the tail.  If declarer takes 4 diamond tricks, what is North to discard on the last diamond?  She cannot play a heart, as that will mean declarer can take all the hearts.  And if she discards a club, that is the setting trick, and declarer could switch plans and play on spades.

The only safe discard is the singleton spade.  Then if declarer plays on hearts, he will be limited to 8 tricks.  And if declarer plays a spade, South can win with the ace, whilst North discards a now-useless heart.

A very tricky hand indeed.  The various declarers took between 8 and 12(!) tricks in notrumps.  Liz Wilby and Julie Hall were the only N/S defenders who managed to defeat 3NT - well done to them, and they won their direction on the night.

But the unluckiest pair were E/W Marie Warncken and Annette Ruegg. They managed to get to 4, a superb contract on a 4-3 fit that would make 90% of the time.  But the 5-1 spade break wrecked that contract.  There's no justice!

Hand of the Week 17/9

Suppose you are in 3NT as West, and North leads 10.  How would you plan the play?

Once you have decided, click "Show All Hands".

----------------------------------

The first 4 times this hand was played, 3NT made 9, 10, 11 and 12 tricks - quite a spread!  I'm not surprised, as it's a tricky one. 

When you win the first trick with the spade ace, you must note that entries to your hand are in short supply.  The correct play is to play out clubs from the top.  Ace, then king, then jack.  North will win Q, and unless she can find the miraculous switch to diamonds, you will take the rest.  The A will be the entry to hand for the clubs, and the K will be the entry to dummy for the spades.  You will take 5 clubs, 5 spades and 2 hearts. 

Leading clubs from the top also gives you the chance of winning 6 clubs tricks, should the queen drop doubleton.

There are several traps to avoid.  Playing a low club from your hand towards the 10 is not a bad play, but if the 10 is allowed to win, you are short of entries back to your hand.  You will have to play on diamonds, conceding all possibility of multiple overtricks.

Crossing to dummy at trick 2 in hearts, in order to finesse in clubs, is also wrong, because now you are short of entries to dummy! 

Hand of the week 10/9

Imagine you are South on this deal.  West deals and opens 1, partner overcalls in spades, and E/W eventually bid 5 - would you consider doubling this contract?

I certainly would.  I would put an X on the bidding pad so hard that it imprints down to the bottom of the pad.  This shows how much I know ... the winning lead to defeat 5 is a trump, but North on lead has difficulty finding one.  In fact North is endplayed on lead: all three suits give away a trick, and the contract will make on careful play, losing just two trump tricks.

Hilary Brear and Marie-Claire Staub were the East-West pair who made 5 doubled (+550) in this way.  This was not quite a top for them.  At another table, Sue Bridges bid 4 (presumably in an auction where she had shown a long strong suit), and Robert White made the excellent and disciplined decision to let her play it there, even when doubled by North.  4 made quite comfortably for a top score of +590.

Hand of the week 3/9

With everyone vulnerable, what do you bid as North after RHO opens 1?

On the worst of all possible days, you may take as few as 8 tricks in spades: losing a spade, heart, diamond and two clubs.  However Graham Francis, fresh from 6 weeks in the Sunshine State, made what I think is the percentage bid by blasting to 4.

Click "Show All Hands" to see how he fared.

Partner Glenise didn't have much, but what she had was gold.  The two black queens filled in the holes nicely and 4 could not be beaten.

One can only sympathise with East who doubled Graham, holding two aces opposite partner's opening bid.   Furthermore Graham snaffled an overtrick to score up +990, top score, and a very nice way to finish the evening (it was the Francis's last hand for the night).

Hand of the week 27/8

On this deal, you open 1NT, and partner responds 2, a transfer bid showing hearts.

What do you bid?  (Click Show Answer to continue)

You have a maximum hand in points, and also 4-card heart support.  This hand is tailor-made for a "super-accept", a bid higher than simply accepting the transfer with a 2 bid.  Super-accepts invariably show 4-card support for partner's major.

Holding this hand, Liz Wilby tried a "super-super-accept" ... she bid 4!   That might have been too much of a good thing, but it worked like a treat.

(Click Show All Hands)

The super-accept was enough for South, Julie Hall, to take over, and use Blackwood to reach 6.  This is an excellent contract, requiring just one successful finesse in a black suit.  And the card gods played their role, so the 75% slam made for an outright top for Liz and Julie.

3 other tables played played in 4 making 6.  And at the 5th table, Cliff Strahan took an interesting view with the South cards ... he ignored his hearts and simply raised to 3NT.  This is quite a good bid playing matchpoints, and was rewarded when Karin made 12 tricks, beating out all the 4 contracts for a 2nd top.

Hand of the week 20/8

This exciting board saw a wide variety of results, with all 4 players having a role to play.

When I was dealt that beautiful West hand, I was displeased to hear Victor Hansom on my right open 2.  What would you bid over that?

I couldn't think of anything clever other than to overcall 3NT, a contract I was likely to make unless the opponents could run off the club suit.  12 tricks got me slightly above average, because a few pairs languished in 5 of a minor, often a bad resting place when compared to 3NT. 

I don't know how many E/W pairs had to contend with that weak two opening.  Former members Pam Richardson and Mary Adams did wonderfully well to reach 6NT for a top score.  6NT is definitely where I want to be on that hand! 

North has to be very careful when defending notrumps on this deal.  Assuming an original heart lead, he must cling on to his spades, throwing away all his clubs apart from the king.  Fortunately, partner's Q holds that suit.  One pair made 13 tricks in notrumps, but perhaps there was no heart bid from South, and North led a disastrous spade.  That's another advantage to the 2 opening: it helps partner with the opening lead.

One E/W got all the way to 7NT ... a contract that has some chance.  Mary and Robert Robson made no mistake against that, taking declarer down one for an E/W top.

Hand of the week 13/8

Board 16 featured an interesting suit combination.  Take a look at the club suit here:  how it should be played (without consideration of the actual layout!)?

The answer is: "it depends". Suppose you are in 5, and there is no opposition bidding to clue you in to the layout. If a heart is led, you should win with the ace, and cash the A. If both opponents follow low, you now take all your spades, discarding heart losers. If three rounds of spades stand up, then you are home - even if the 4th spade is ruffed with the club king, you will have your 11 tricks, losing just 1 club and 1 diamond.

But what if you are in 6. Now you really need to avoid losing any club trick. The correct play is to win the heart ace, and play the J, planning to finesse. Not low towards the queen! This way, you can pick up North's clubs if she started with all 3 clubs. If the jack is covered with the king and ace (South showing out), you can use the spade queen as an entry to finesse North's club 10.

This is a neat hand. Newcomers Maria and Robert Robson got an E/W top when they reached 5, got doubled, and made no mistake in the play, picking up an overtrick. Well done indeed.

Hand of the week 6/8

Suppose you are South, defending 4 doubled.  You lead K, and partner follows with the 3, declarer the 6.  What now?

Click "Show All Hands" to see the full deal.

On this hand, defensive signals can play an important role.  Who has that missing 9?  If partner would have played the 9 from 93 (high low to show a doubleton), then that 3 must be a singleton and perhaps you should play a LOW club next, allowing partner to ruff it.  That way, your A remains intact, and declarer cannot establish the club suit without losing another club trick.  If partner ruffs and plays back a trump, you can clear the trumps from dummy, leaving declarer in deep trouble.

Not surprisingly, there was a wide range of results on this deal, ranging from +800 NS to +790 EW.  Marian Uren and Marcia Giles made 4 doubled for the E/W top, and Robyn Hewson and Larry Allender defeated it three tricks, doubled, for the N/S top. 

Hand of the week 23/7

Karin and Cliff Strahan won the N/S direction tonight with a massive 65.7% score.  Among their many tops was this board.

Karin pulled out all stops in the bidding: 4 was a Gerber ace-ask, and when Cliff revealed two aces, Karin took a shot at the slam. 

On the lead of the singleton heart, the slam is very tricky to make, but Cliff made no mistake.  You have to draw trumps (you can't play a club for example before trumps are drawn, otherwise West will give East a heart ruff).  When trumps are 3-1, there are only 11 tricks in view (5 trumps, 2 hearts, 2 clubs, 1 diamond and one ruff in dummy).

The solution is to set up dummy's diamonds.  Win the diamond ace and trump a diamond. Play over to dummy's spade queen and trump another diamond.  With the king falling,  the diamond suit is established.  You can draw the trumps and play the club king: West has no counter.

Cliff was the only player to take 12 tricks, and the only one in slam.  Here's the funny thing: even if they had stayed in game, the 12 tricks taken would have given them a top score on the board.  On this deal, the play was more important than the bidding!

Hand of the week 16/7

This explosive deal saw a wide variety of results the 6 times it was played.

First of all, what would you bid, if anything, on those East cards, after RHO opens 1?

Marcia Giles made the winning decision to overcall 1, despite the skimpy points and moderate suit.  The hand had nice distribution and she was not vulnerable, so I think this was a very good decision.

Click "Show all hands" to see why.

Despite East-West's combined 17 HCP, they own the deal, with 11 or even 12 tricks available in either black suit.  Meanwhile, a diamond ruff can hold North-South to 10 tricks. 

Marcia and Marian Uren were the only pair to declare the E/W hands, in 4, and this was a top board for them.

Everyone else played in hearts.  Some went to the 5-level (either pushed there, or on a slam hunt) where a diamond ruff could defeat them.   Bart Verdam and Helge Pedersen were one such N/S.  They were doubled in 5, but the opponents neglected to take the diamond ruff, so the contract made for the N/S top.

Hand of the week 9/7

Small children please look away.

N/S on this deal bid with great optimism which sadly was not warranted this time.  North's 2NT was "unusual" showing the minors: something of an overbid when vulnerable.  Then South took a shot at 3NT with his major-suit stoppers. 

Rosemary Polya (West) and Cheryl Ogilvy (East) were having none of this, and racked up the first 11 tricks in defence.  The result was a rare postcode score - that of Sydney.

The beauty of matchpoint duplicate bridge is that this is just one bad board, and an equally good score might be achieved on the next board simply by making an overtrick.  If N/S had this result playing rubber bridge, it might have been followed by a difficult conversation with their bank manager.

Hand of the week 2/7

One of the favourites for the Roger Bond Trophy, Jo Crockford and Peter Karol, demonstrated why the bookies have them at short odds with a very nice auction to this excellent 6, the only pair to reach slam on this deal.

After the transfer response to 1NT, Peter unleashed one of the partnership's patented gadgets: Roman Key Card Gerber.  4 is like Roman Key Card Blackwood, but with a bid of 4 rather than 4NT.  Jo showed 0 or 3 keycards (the K is a key-card), and then Peter asked for kings before settling in the laydown 6 contract.

There was no problem in the play when North quite reasonably led a spade up to the KJxx. 

On a neutral lead (eg a diamond), declarer should play carefully.  There are 11 top tricks and a 12th trick can be obtained by ruffing the fourth round of clubs.  Declarer should play 3 rounds of clubs before drawing trumps.  If clubs divide 4-2, the 4th club can be ruffed in the short trump hand (high if necessary), and only then are trumps drawn.

On the actual layout, none of this care is needed, because trumps are 2-2 and clubs are 3-3.

Hand of the week 25/6

This deal had points of interest in all aspects of the game: bidding, defence and play.  I was East, partnering Zenon Zebrowski, Liz Wilby sat North and Julie Hall South.

After my takeout double of 1, Julie made the "man's" bid (sorry about that) of 3, honouring the 4-card support.  Liz of course had no problem going on to game.

After winning a top club, what should I do next?   A count signal from West might help, but we hadn't discussed signals.  Whatever the signalling, it is unlikely to be correct to continue with another top club, because even if it wins, it sets up dummy's queen.   A heart shift is much safer, and it might develop a heart trick for the defence before declarer can establish dummy's Q. 

Liz won the heart, drew trumps, and unerringly finessed my hand for the Q: making 11 tricks.  She had not forgotten the bidding:  I had made a takeout double of 1, and so was very likely to have diamond length and the diamond queen.    Well played indeed.

Liz needed to do this, because in the N/S direction Liz and Julie won by the skinniest of margins, half a matchpoint, from Robyn Hewson and Larry Allender.

Hand of the week 18/6

As director, I occasionally have to fill in whilst we wait for latecomers.  That was the case last night, when I played one board before the latecomer arrived, at which time I moved to another table to play the whole session with a player who needed a partner. 

The result was that there was a board I played twice, and it just so happened to be quite an interesting one: board 13, unlucky for some.

The auction given is the one I think should happen.  In responding to 1, West lacks the 10 HCP required to make the 2-over-1 bid of 2.  West should respond 1NT, showing 6-9 points (and no major suit), and not in any way promising a balanced hand.   My partner Victor Hansom did correctly bid 1NT. Opposite 6-9 points, I knew there were not enough combined points for game and therefore passed.

In the play, the spotlight falls on South.  At some point, declarer is going to play a club, and South can see the singleton K in dummy.  The key is to NOT chop off its head with the A, but allow the king to win.  Now declarer, with only one entry back to the West hand, cannot establish and run the club suit, and will win at most 8 tricks, maybe less.  I imagine Peter Karol, South at table 8, did allow the club king to hold, as his declarer was held to 6 tricks in notrumps, for a top score for N/S.

Hand of the week 4/6

When searching for candidates for "Hand of the Week", I scan the travellers to check for interesting scores.  So when I saw an entry of 960 to E/W, a score I didn't even know existed, it was clearly time to check out the deal. 

At this stage, the auction is shrouded in mystery, but I imagine that South opened with a light 1, West (Karin Strahan) and North passed, and East (Cliff Strahan) got active with his strong hand.  What would you bid in the East chair, after 1 is passed around to you?

I think I would start with a takeout double, planning to bid some number of spades later.  This auction depicts a strong high card hand with a long suit.  An alternative is to immediately bid some number of spades, presumably 3 or 4 - not really a preemptive bid given that the opponents have passed out 1.

Whatever Cliff decided, it worked like a charm, because when a bid of 3 came around to North, he reasonably decided that it wasn't going to make (he had Q973 and partner had opened the bidding).  Voila - a score of 960 and the coldest of tops to the Strahans.

Hand of the week 28/5

On this board, E/W have a powerful set of hands and the question is how high to bid them, and in what denomination.

After West opens 1, East can certainly visualize a likely slam but how best to investigate is by no means clear. The effective auction shown here was by Grant Scott (West) and Pam Scott (East).

6 of the 7 pairs who held these hands did get to a slam, but only the Scotts and Larry Allender and Zenon Zebrowski made the winning decision to bid it in notrumps. Assuming the same number of tricks are taken, notrumps will score 10 more points than the major, which can make quite a difference to your matchpoint score. East's very balanced shape does suggest finishing in notrumps. East won't be able to ruff anything in a spade contract, so it is quite likely that notrumps and spades will indeed score the same number of tricks.

Larry and Zenon managed to snaffle an outright top on the board by taking 13 tricks.

Hand of the week 21/5

What would you do on this East hand (board 19 from the duplicate on 21st May) after three passes to you?

Decide for yourself and then click "Show answer".

It is tempting to pass the hand out, rather than opening Pandora's Box and allowing the opponents to bid to a major suit partscore.  Zareena Polya did in fact pass the hand out, and this earned her a 70% score on the board.

Sister-in-law Rosemary Polya decided not to pass the hand out, and found what I think was the best bid: a weak two opening of 2.  Whilst the hand is technically too strong for a weak two (which shows about 6-10 points), in fourth position it's a different kettle of fish.  Here you want to stop your opponents from easily competing for the partscore, and a bid of 2 is the best way to do that.

Click "Show All Hands" to see the effect this opening bid had.

Neither Julie Hall (South) or Bill Jacobs (North) were able to comfortably make a bid, and 2 became the final contract.  The defence could do no better than take 5 tricks.  This scored 85% for Rosemary and Cheryl Ogilvy.  If Rosemary had opened 1, then South could make a takeout double, and N/S would find their way to the making 2contract (a contract reached by Pam and Grant Scott for an excellent score).

Top score for E/W on the board went to Larry Allender and Col O'Brien who were one trick too high in 3 but made 11 tricks when the defence slipped. 

Top for N/S were Heather and Trevor Howes, who defended 5 (E/W got a little excited!) and made no mistake in the defence.

Hand of the week 14/5

On this deal from the Tuesday Red Point duplicate on 14/5, Rune Drevsjo sat West and Mark Mudge East.  They were the only pair to bid the excellent slam.

After 1 was overcalled with 1, Mark bid what he knew he could make: 3NT.  3NT is often the best game contract at matchpoints, because the odd tricks score more.  For example, in comparing 3NT to 4 on this deal, both will make the same number of tricks, but notrumps gets you 10 more points, which can make a big difference.

Anyway, back to the auction.  When Rune revealed his big two suiter via 4 and Mark raised to 5, Rune speculated a little and bid the slam.  He was right to do so: just like 3NT outscores 4 of a major,  5 of a minor is sometimes the worst of all options at matchpoints.  If Rune had passed 5, it would have been a near-bottom for him.

6 made easily for a cold top on the board.  They needed this score to tie for first place, E/W.  Well bid!